While I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, even a cursory knowledge of the facts causes one to be unable to dismiss guilt on that statement alone.
Casey tried to blame the loss of her child on a baby-sitter, her ex, her father... and last but not least an accident.
The parents didn’t know where the kid was. They kept asking Casey and got nowhere.
She was finally forced to call in the police, but not before a considerable amount of partying and getting a tattoo that said, “The good life”
Acquit this woman? No.
Look you can call me obsessed over the word simpleton if you like, that’s what the folks who think Casey was guilty and criticize the jury are being cast as, and I’m going to push back on that for the B.S. propaganda that it is. You don’t have to like it.
Actually Casey never did call police, in fact when her mother made the second 911 call she tried to get Casey to talk to them on the phone and Casey said she had nothing to talk to them about.
But none of that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed the kid. It proves quite well that she’s no good and did something wrong, but what’s something. When being a jury member for a murder 1 trial you’re called upon to decide whether or not there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately and premeditately killed the deceased. When the prosecutor then stands up and says “we don’t know how she died, we don’t know when she died, but we do know somebody in the house killed her” (and pay extra not to the word “somebody” he didn’t say Casey) that’s a far cry from saying Casey deliberately and with pre-meditation killed the kid.
Really the problem here is the prosecutor overreached. If you can’t manage to pin down a cause of death you’ll never get a 1st degree murder conviction. Had the prosecutor gone for negligent homicide he would have gotten a conviction. That’s the gap between being able to clearly show somebody did “something” wrong and being able to show that they deliberately killed someone. All of what you point out is evidence of the first, none of it is evidence of the second.
That’s NOT how people are being cast. That’s my point. Nobody is calling them that, nobody is implying it, you’re the only one saying it. If the media were doing that they’d be calling THEMSELVES simpletons since they’re the ones that have spent the last few years telling everybody Casey is guilty, it’s a slamdunk case, and her lawyer is an idiot.