|
LafayetteLady -> RE: Casey Anthony Alert....Turn on those TVs (7/5/2011 2:33:02 PM)
|
As others have said, with programs like CSI, Criminal Minds, etc. people expect there to be some magical definitive DNA evidence that proves without any doubt the person is guilty or innocent. Even though I enjoy those shows myself, such proof is not always available.
There was NO DNA evidence on the duct tape connecting Casey to it. Not that hers didn't match, but none was found at all. There was no discussion (that I am aware of) as to why that might be (i.e. someone wore gloves). Logically, if evidence is circumstancial, the prosecution should give reasons why it couldn't be someone else.
The defense never proved their claim that George Anthony was Caylee's father. I thought that was a ridiculous "Plan B" approach any way that only served to cause more damage to the family as a whole. I don't remember anything from either side that would have proven Caylee drowned, which would have provided something concrete to go on. Was the decomposition so great, they couldn't tell? Does anyone recall exactly what is listed as the cause of death?
What boggles my mind is the 31 days between Caylee disappearing and it being reported. I have not read the charges or the jury instructions, but it would seem that some "lesser included" offenses might not have been included, leaving the jury no choice but to aquit.
We will all continue to question "Why did she lie, and hide her daughter's disappearance for a month?" Casey Anthony could leave the court room after sentencing, laugh and tell everyone she did it, and still walk away, due to double jeopardy (remember OJ's book?). I am curious as to whether she will now start pleading with law enforcement to find out who did kill her daughter, since if she didn't, poor Caylee is still dead from un-natural causes.
I don't know how this family will heal from all the tragedy that has occured. It isn't simply the loss of their beloved grandchild, but George and Lee being accused of molesting Casey as part of the defense. I reallly don't think that was part of the jury's deliberations.
Sadly, as LT and a couple of others have said, the prosecution didn't have anything concrete, just circumstancial evidence. Could they have presented that evidence in a way that was more convincing? Maybe.
But what message does this verdict send out?
|
|
|
|
