[dsc]

It’s odd.

When the LA police officers were aquitted of brutality in the Rodney King case, many—including myself—were satisfied, despite the tape showing them beating him.

We said, truly, that the tape seen on TV had been edited to make the police look worse and King look better. The part that showed batons falling was actually looped by the lamestream misleadia to make it look like it went on much longer than it did.

We said, truly, that the jury saw the *whole* tape, and heard evidence we did not hear.

As we all remember, this verdict resulted in a race riot, during which Korean store owners protected their businesses with firearms, and atrocities were committed by the rioters.

Mark Levin and other experienced lawyers have said that the state simply failed to prove its case against Casey Anthony. They didn’t say that moronic jurors returned the wrong verdict, as in the OJ Simpson case; they said that the state*failed*to*prove*its*case.

If it’s so bleedin’ obvious that she killed the poor child, how is it that they failed to prove their case?

If I understand correctly, she was not on trial for being a horrible mother, for failing to report her child missing, or any of the other stuff that has led many to reason, “A mother that lousy *must* be guilty.”

She was on trial for murder, and for lying to officials (charges I never trust). The jury, who heard *all* the evidence, decided that the state had not proved its case on the murder charge, but they went along with the lying charges.

The system did work. The state is required to prove its case. Period. They didn’t. Period.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

Let me guess. You didn't even read the article. You saw the headline and immediately started typing. Because if you had read the article, you would have seen what the author wrote: Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward. Seriously, please read the article first.

[Las Vegas Ron]

If it’s so bleedin’ obvious that she killed the poor child, how is it that they failed to prove their case?

When the coroner cannot identify the type of the homicide as in this case, there is no case.

The prosecutor screwed this up, they are to blame for this travesty of justice.

[outpostinmass2]

The system did work. The state is required to prove its case. Period. They didn’t. Period.

---

The state had to prove its case to dummies, a daunting task but I guess they were a member of your peers.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I agree with your post btw, I was just commenting on the one part.

[central_va]

If it’s so bleedin’ obvious that she killed the poor child, how is it that they failed to prove their case?

Clearly you didn't follow this case closely. If you had you wouldn't be saying this. The jury wanted to be spoon fed. If this is the new standard then our society is finished.

I wonder if Scott Peterson watched the trial. By this new standard he got railroaded. No one new how Laci died yet he ended up on death row. Wow.