He didn’t muddy the waters with anything but his testimony, in my opinion. I don’t think he helped cover this up, or even handled the body. But with a cop for a Dad, she likely knew what it would take, to keep any forensic evidence from being usable.
Her Dad likely knew if there was enough lies, conflicting testimony and a shitty lawyer, in case of an appeal, they wouldn’t convict.
I’m just saying, knowledge of the judicial system, how to confuse it, and nature of forensic evidence, and how to destroy it, was the most important factor in her getting off, in my opinion.
Not as important as the failure to properly investigate the body the first time it was reported. There was almost certainly identifying evidence destroyed in the four months it took for the coroner to examine the body.
There’s no evidence that George Anthony helped Casey in any way. The entire timeline indicates someone who’s really unclear on how investigations work and who does stupid things based on that lack of understanding.
Casey’s lies, which prevented any sort of timely location of the body, made establishing a cause of death impossible. That, I think, was the most important factor. None some non-existent collusion with her father, about whom people seem bound and determined to continue the unsubstantiated smear job that was begun by the defense attorney.
You don’t suppose the missing child’s mother saying for months that her child was still alive and had been kidnapped by a non-existent babysitter had anything to do with that?
Sure. But depending on the prime suspect’s cooperation in an investigation is surely not always a winning strategy. Properly responding to repeated reports of human remains not a mile away from the prime suspect’s house would probably help. Properly preserving evidence found in the prime suspect’s car would help, as well. As would thoroughly investigating the phone records and whereabouts of those closely tied to the case. As would insuring that the autopsy of what little remains there are left is complete. Unfortunately, there were some serious deficiencies in all of those areas.
The remains were fully skeletonized before they were put in the bag, so finding them when they were first reported probably wouldn’t have helped because they showed no evidence of trauma. With no cause of death you can’t prove murder, and the jury was forced to acquit.
And even if that’s true, (though I highly doubt it) you still have no reasonable basis for saying that finding the body four months earlier wouldn’t have helped.
Take off your conclusion jumping boots there Carl Lewis. Life in prison (which she won’t get because there wasn’t one holdout) would be fine with me. I’ll not fantasize about some heartless jug eared wretch on any level. However a jury that could understand the difference between reasonable doubt and a tiny speck of it would be great.
I don’t know about you but but I don’t think it at all unreasonable to conclude that someone who hides a body in her trunk (as forensics showed) until it begins to decompose while she parties (as pictures showed) then dumps it and continues to lie and obstruct investigation (as she is convicted of) is the one responsible for the death. Kids drown in pools all the time but the reaction of an innocent is to do the exact opposite of what she did in every way. Granted we all grieve differently, some cry and some muff dive.
I don’t fault the justice system at all. The blame is on a US society incapable of producing one out of twelve people with a brain. All lawyers need to do these days is to find twelve with no sense at all of what is reasonable. Bravo defense team, you have cut the new template for getting away with murder in an idiocracy-lie, misdirect, and claim abuse thus making the perp the victim. All anyone has to do is find twelve gullible people which is no longer a difficult thing to do. Just make sure the victim has rotted enough to cover up the method of death by the time they are found because the how trumps all else, even being the one to cover it up.
You really just said that in reply to a post that jumped to NO conclusions, then proceeded to jump to THAT many conclusions? Did you forget a few smileys, or something?
You really just said that in reply to a post that jumped to NO conclusions, then proceeded to jump to THAT many conclusions? Did you forget a few smileys, or something?
The circumstances are as suspicious as hell, but without hard evidence that a murder was committed the jury had to acquit.
