enigmaax;823887 wrote:Are you really that ****ing stupid? You keep saying the same thing over and over again without paying any attention to any detail other than what you decided before the trial even started. There was DNA on the tape - at the scene - that did NOT match Casey Anthony. Do you get that? When your little bit of physical evidence doesn't lead to the person you want, you can't just toss it aside and try on her mouth as a punishment or out of annoyance...and then it stayed there too long. miss the part about the testimony, even by prosecution witnesses that Casey was never anything but a loving mother?
apparently, not half as fucking stupid as you are. It not hard to REASONABLY explain the DNA,she wore gloves and someone else handled the tape at some point didn't. But where you show a complete lack of logic is if you want to go another murderer, she never reported the child missing or kidnapped. So rule out foul play, the only options are a drowning or CA murdered her. And, oh by the way, the defense argued she covered up a drowning, so again there are only two options to consider - she killed her or it was a drowning. You can believe little green men did it, th DA didn't prove they didn't, but that's not reasonable doubt.
And, oh, what a loving mother who, at best, ditched her child's body in the woods.
It's increasingly obvious in this thread that 1) peopledont realize beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt and 2) the prosecution doesnthave to disprove a baseless defense, the defensedoesnt have to prove it but they do have to establish some merit and credibility.
