Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence. I’m not even close to being an expert, but it seems like they should have held off on charging her, tapped her phones and her family’s phones and wait until she slipped up and did something incriminating.
Its what they always do... just this time the defendant had a good legal team. If everyone charged with a crime in this country was afforded the level of defense she was, you'd see more and more of the evidence in criminal cases being discredited and tossed as we saw here.
The vast majority of criminal cases are won not because of great police work or good prosecutors. They are won because the defendant cannot afford a legal team.
Many cases are only circumstantial. Like Scott Peterson’s.
“Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence.”
Are you serious? Lacking an eyewitness all cases are circumstantial. Considering that eyewitnesses are often mistaken a good circumstantial case is usually a better indicator of guilt.
Before he went insane, Vincent Bugliosi (the Charlie Manson prosecutor) could be relied on for some pretty insightful analysis. In his book, "Outrage" about the Simpson trial he wrote an excellent summation of how a prosecutorial team needs to present circumstantial evidence and a pretty strong analysis on the meaning of, 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Bugliosi contends that most citizens, and by extension, most jurors, view the evidence of a case as a chain, such that if one link is broken or discredited, the case falls apart. To the contrary, he argues that a better analogy is a rope in which the individual pieces of evidence should be regarded as strands, so that if one is broken, or undone, the strength of the remaining, unimpeached evidence may yet carry the weight of the case.
Now, in full disclosure, I did not follow this case closely enough to give an informed opinion as to how the prosecution failed to adequately present what they had, or if they simply didn't have enough...perhaps they just didn't have enough remaining strands to hold things together.
but I totally understand the jury....I totally agree that despite some damning personal behaviour, there was little else .....
believe me, Casey knows what happened..I think...she might have been on a huge drunk....but she at least has to know where she last saw her baby...
I think the DA gambled on going for the death penalty...I'll bet he thought she would crack and want a plea bargin...jokes on him....sociopaths don't admit to anything....
its been a joy though, seeing Nancy Grace's head explode...
I paid little attention to this case, but I have come to the same conclusion. When a case becomes so popular and the media frenzy is self feeding, I wonder whether prosecutors bring cases too soon because of undue political and public pressure. That public sentiment weighs heavily on the side that she deserved a guilty verdict, perhaps driven by the “experts” repeating this mantra ad nauseam, I find akin to the MSM “experts” telling Americans what a wonderful and intelligent man Obama is and how is administration is infallible. The MSM has a powerful effect on public opinion.
A few years back Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Lacey Peterson. There existed less evidence in that trial than in the Anthony case.
He is now on death row in California.