Quote:
Originally Posted by Ease
Totally disagree with you guys, they had no concrete evidence, barely any motive. Some pix of a hot body contest at a club? cmon. Thats what makes this country so great, folks died to protect our right to a fair trial; a person must be proven guilty, not just assumed guilty. I think the $ from her book/movie/tv deals will be more than enough to support her...
|
Her daughter goes missing (or drowned, depending on what story you want to believe) and she doesn't report it for over a month?
Instead of reporting the disappearance (or drowning) to the authorities, she's out partying and enters a "hard body contest" 4 days after Caylee was last seen alive. Whichever story you want to believe, is that a typical grieving mother's reaction?
When she is finally questioned by the authorities, she lies to mislead them. Why lie if you have nothing to hide?
If her daughter really drowned as she suggested, why put duct tape over a dead body?
No, there wasn't a video tape proof of her killing her daughter, but there was enough circumstantial evidence that any reasonable person can connect the dots and she should have been convicted.
Edited to add: There have been plenty of convictions in high profile murder cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. Look at the Scott Peterson case. Where was the "concrete evidence" there? There was none. What was the cause of death? The medical examiner could not determine one based on decomposition. What was the motive? We can only speculate. All this sound familar? Yet he was convicted and sentenced to death. So your "they had no concrete evidence, barely any motive" doesn't mean anything.