Prosecutor
take down the mob = become Mayor
Defense attorney
Get some one perceived to be guilty off = Become a millionaire
Why would any one believe any of these two types of people with out any actual evidence not the nicely named made up type REAL evidence?
what in ur opinion is REAL evidence? like ive stated b4 most evidence in criminal prosecutions is simply a culmination of circumstances that points to one person.
its not like were talking about an adult that went missing here who could have been killed by any number of people after a night on the town.
were talking about a two yr. old who was being taken care of by her mother who was the last person to see her alive and then lied about how she disappeared by making up some cockamamy story about some fictitious nanny that never even existed.
there is not even another plausible suspect to entertain.
so im not getting ur point as to why anyone would not believe what the prosecution has stated. the prosecution simply presented a chronological course of events that "The she devil" engaged in.
the jury obviously didnt convict but two of the jurors have already spoken stating they do not believe she was innocent.
the one juror interviewed stated "How can you punish someone if you dont know what they did". she goes on say that she did not believe the defense and does not believe she drowned in the pool.
it really just goes to show a juries ignorance cause she goes on to say that you need to know how someone killed someone and where, when, and why. that is just unbelievable! the prosecution has no idea what is in some psychopathic killers head. for a juror to make those statement makes it obvious as to why they chose not to convict.
the guy interviewing this juror brought up the fact that she had duct tape on her mouth and most would say that indicates murder. the juror goes on to say maybe it does maybe it doesn't.....
that was pretty much all I had to hear because if a human being can not come to a logical conclusion that a murder in fact took place then its obvious that these jurors are just not very bright people and there was little the prosecution could have done to get a conviction from this group of jurors absent a confession.
and the sad part is she goes on to say "Not guilt does not mean innocent". well then if she was not guilty then that only leaves one other logical conclusion.
I get what she is saying that she feels the case was not proven but that is really not true. because if it was she would not be making statements about her not being innocent. really pathetic is what it is.
bottom line is when you have a death penalty case jurors want absolute proof with the smoking gun so they can sleep better at night knowing they convicted someone who will now get the death penalty.