To: discostu
Remember theres a large gap between belief and a jury vote. Please explain any other rational explanation for what took place, other than Casey premeditatedly killing her daughter. Just come up with one. When you do, I'll come up with the reasons why it's not possible.
I believe Casey did it, and deliberately, but I know there isnt proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that. Like I said, give me one other rational explanation who killed Caylee.
When you're unable to do this, you'll have to admit that there was no reasonable doubt about this at all. Casey planned it. She was the only one who could have done it. Her actions afterwards confirmed it.
There is no rational explanation for Casey's behavior after the death, other than her having committed the crime.
196 posted on
07/10/2011 10:19:55 PM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(F me, you, everybody, the new Dem/Pubie compromise. No debt reduction, + wild spending forever...)
To: DoughtyOne
Lack of another reasonable explanation is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt almost always manages to include method and time. The prosecuting attorney admits they don’t have either of those. The big problem is that with the evidence we have available the sentence boils down to this:
it seems likely that Casey at some decided to do something to her child which proved fatal, we’re not sure what she did, where she did it, or when she did it, and in fact we can’t even put her as the person who did it we just can’t find anybody that had the opportunity.
That’s just not a sentence that gets convictions. There’s way too much doubt.
238 posted on
07/11/2011 11:39:26 AM PDT by
discostu
(Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson