[AppyPappy]

“This was an outrageously bad verdict. “

Not really. The jury was never shown Casey’s “bloody hands”. You must have that in a 1st degree trial.

I served on a 1st degree jury. They are very explicit about the “bloody hands” rule. The evidence must show the perp did it. There wasn’t that much evidence linking Casey to the crime that the jury could see/

[Jeff Winston]

I served on a 1st degree jury. They are very explicit about the “bloody hands” rule. The evidence must show the perp did it. There wasn’t that much evidence linking Casey to the crime that the jury could see/

I guess that's why.

Except... I can't believe she didn't do it. I can't believe any mom would've acted the way she did, and be innocent.

[Williams]

Yes 1st degree murder is hard but she was acquitted of killing, period.

The jurors knew she knew what happened, that she buried the body and went out partying. And they decided they had no evidence that the mother killed her child.

I’d say if any of us disappear and a family member buried us at a dump, lied to police about it, and went out partying, they would be convicted of killing in most cases.

[Cinnamontea]

Not really. The jury was never shown Casey’s “bloody hands”. You must have that in a 1st degree trial.

You're wrong about that. You don't need "bloody hands." MOST criminal cases are circumstantial--and there was a busload of circumstantial evidence in this case. The problem is that jurors don't want to use common sense and draw a conclusion--hell, our whole educational system today teaches people that common sense and conclusions are bad.

[Jeff Winston]

So, we have an OJ situation.

The jury finds her “not guilty,” but the vast majority of people will never believe it.

[mockingbyrd]

I see what you are saying, and it makes sense to the first degree charge. Although the chloroform searches and the neck breaking searches look really bad.

But it’s the aggravated child abuse charge I don’t get. 31 freakin’ days. Baby thrown away as trash. I don’t understand that verdict. That one stunned me.

[Talisker]

The jury was never shown Casey’s “bloody hands”. You must have that in a 1st degree trial. I served on a 1st degree jury. They are very explicit about the “bloody hands” rule. The evidence must show the perp did it. There wasn’t that much evidence linking Casey to the crime that the jury could see.

Excellent point. That's why filing the proper charges is so crucial. The prosecutor is supposed to balance what he thinks happened with what he believes he can prove. If you've got a 1st degree murderer, but you only have manslaughter evidence, you have to choose between your political image and actually getting the perp behind bars.

It's clear what the prosecutor chose here.

[La Enchiladita]

Okay then. I don’t know about the “bloody hands” rule, but expected at least manslaughter.