Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Wow, so you'd impose a burden on the defense that not only would they have to prove innocence rather than keep the other side from proving guilt, but further, you'd require them to prove someone else did it?
And with what defendant's crime lab and investigative force would they do this magic you speak of?
|
Um, what magic are you rambling about? I never said anything about "the defense" unless police and detectives are part of "the defense." I'm not referring to defense attorneys if that's what you mean. If there isn't conclusive evidence that Casey did it than I would hope the investigation would continue to find who did. If the work thus far has been to tie Casey to the murder, then perhaps there are other avenues/suspects previously unexplored that could be now if that's possible. Of course, that's if they can even prove how Caylee died which is a long shot, I know. There's no need to be an sarcastic, know-it-all arse, Kevin. I already said I don't know a lot about this and am only stating what I'd like to see happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
Christiangirl already said she doesn't know much about the law.
Christiangirl, being found not guilty does not mean you were found innocent and it does not require proof that someone else did it. The point is whether or not the evidence can convict YOU of doing it. If there's evidence that someone else and someone in particular did it, okay I guess, but generally speaking a separate trial would have to delve much further into that.
|
I know already knew the first bit (not happy about it but I understand now). Thank you for clarifying the bolded. I was pretty angry at hearing the verdict the first time, but I see why it had to happen. And iDied at those pix posted. GC never lets me down on that front.