When your on a jury you have to base your verdict not on what you think happened, but on what you think the prosecution proved. There was just a lot of circumstantial things and lack of evidence in this case. I don't necessarily disagree with the jury. The district attorney of the area even called it a bare bones case. (Which makes you wonder why they went to trial in the first place if that was the case.)
It's hard to say what my verdict would have been without me paying more attention to the case. I can only hope she really isn't guilty. Not only because the crimes she was accused of were pretty horrible and I would like to think people wouldn't do them, especially to their own children, but because she is now found not guilty in a court of law. If she is guilty I will have to settle for justice being done in the next life, and if she isn't guilty it's a good thing she's not going to prison.
I wouldn't classify it like that. The OJ trial had much better evidence against OJ in my view and finding OJ not guilty was more unjustifiable in my opinion.
It's hard to say what my verdict would have been without me paying more attention to the case. I can only hope she really isn't guilty. Not only because the crimes she was accused of were pretty horrible and I would like to think people wouldn't do them, especially to their own children, but because she is now found not guilty in a court of law. If she is guilty I will have to settle for justice being done in the next life, and if she isn't guilty it's a good thing she's not going to prison.
This is just like the OJ trial. Guilty defendant but the prosecutors didn't go all the way to prove it.
Casey will be ostracized just like OJ.
I wouldn't classify it like that. The OJ trial had much better evidence against OJ in my view and finding OJ not guilty was more unjustifiable in my opinion.