It's a wonder this hasn't been posted yet

There is no way anyone can possibly take you seriously when your opinion with reagard to anyone who chooses to disagree with you = you're stupid.

The difference is, what you stated was in fact directly contradictory to the scenario. It's like talking about how rain isn't hard to deal with when it's sunny outside.

If you disagree with me fine, but allow me to show you why, you're in fact, ignorant.

Can't speak for america, or this case, (were all the court proceedings televised there?) since this is the first i've heard of it.

Should have stopped there. Like seriously, lmfao.

All I know is last time something hugely publicised went wrong in the UK involving a person and their offspring with tragic consequences, the media decided the parents were guilty and gave them hell, and convinced a very vocal amount of the country they did it, without any solid proof. Yeah, turned out they didn't have anything to do with it.

They admitted she did kill her, it wasn't even in question. To quote her father "An accident that caused a snowball effect". Though he denies it now.

If the people whose job it was to convince the jury that she did it were not able to do so, they can therefore chose to vote not guilty as they did.

The issue was that she wasn't convicted on any child charges. She admitted to killing the child through an accident, or her killing herself. It was clear there was some form of child neglect or abuse if the child was gone for 30 days with no engagement of the mother attempting to find her at all. In fact lieing to even the police that she was abducted.

I also think its extremely dubious that some of you think the judge should just go on and say at the end of the trial,"nope you're all wrong, heres the right verdict : guilty". Really?

If the judge believes the jury does not understand the charges, then yes he should and does have full authority to overrule them. A jury is civilians, not law/court experts.

That is the implication, yes. Of course the police should keep investigating until more evidence turns up that eithers is enough to convince jurors that Casey did do it, or infact, someone else did.

They wouldn't waste the money at this point because she couldn't be charged, also like to mention that once again, she did admit the death of the child was known by her, and that it was an accident.

I'm sure everyone on southperry knows better than to try arguing with you over anything though, that'd be like trying to cut grass by staring at it, nothings going to happen to change your mind no matter what because once you make up your mind, you insist you're right no matter what (I know I'm pretty much the same about it.) but you're not in the jury for the trial. it was not up to you to decide if she was guilty of murder or not.

..Yeah especially someone who doesn't even know the case and is just speaking out his irrelevant opinion.