OK, I hope this will be my last rant about the Casey Anthony verdict. She will be freed next week. I heard an interesting thing on Dr. Drew's show today: Jane Velez-Mitchell said Casey spent 1043 days in jail, while Caylee lived 1042 days. And that after the sentence was read, lightning struck in the area where Caylee's body was found. Even God was displeased.

But I digress. This is about the jurors starting to give interviews. "Not guilty doesn't mean innocent"? WTF? That they are sick to their stomachs over their decision? Then why make that decision? That they didn't know how Caylee died so they couldn't convict? Marcia Clark said something to the effect that circumstantial evidence cases are actually easier to convict than direct eyewitness ones because people make mistakes in their testimonies. How could those 12 jurors look at the photos of the child's skull with duct tape over the mouth and nose, the internet chloroform searches, Zanny the nanny, the smell of decomposition in the car, borrowing the neighbor's shovel, the lack of a 911 call the day she went missing, and not overcome their reasonable doubt? What reasonable group of people would come up with the verdict that they did?

0 comments:


 

Copyright 2006| Blogger Templates by GeckoandFly modified and converted to Blogger Beta by Blogcrowds.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.