Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago#107,601
Thoughts?
Can't say that I'm convinced she was guilty. A lot of the psycho-analysis seems like BS, as usual. And also, as usual, the prosecutors lied and misrepresented evidence even failing to correct known errors in what they told the jury.
Everyone loves shit like this (crimes where the physical evidence leaves no obvious motive) because everyone thinks they're world experts in reading a person when studies show differently, even for people trained in doing so.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,208,904
@previous (B)
Not caring about her child and being spun out of her mind doesn't mean she killed her kid. It's just as plausible, from the limited physical evidence, that there was an accident that she attempted to cover up, like the child falling in and drowning in the pool.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 8 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,208,908
@1,208,905 (B) > Neglect of a child is still a pretty serious crime.
I never claimed otherwise.
> What makes you so sure she isn't responsible?
I never gave any theory about what happened. I'm only doubting the theory put forth by the DA that she killed her child because it was interfering with her party lifestyle.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,208,913
@1,208,908 (A)
Whom cares? She's a garbage person who allowed her own child to die by means only she knows, but hasn't shared any detail on. If it was an accident, you'd think one would try to put forth that argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,208,914
@1,208,909 (boof)
It's a shame there's almost never any consequence for lying about evidence (as a prosecutor) and failing to inform the jury about problems with an analysis that is later discovered before deliberations even begin, as was the case with the analysis they butchered about her computer searches.
Also, separately, being interviewed for hours by the police is bullshit. I'm both angry at and for Casey for not requesting a lawyer be present.
> Whom cares? She's a garbage person who allowed her own child to die by means only she knows, but hasn't shared any detail on.
Child negligence is not the same as murder. The distinction is important.
> If it was an accident, you'd think one would try to put forth that argument.
That was the argument the defense put forth. And the jury agreed that it at least put some doubt in the DA's theory. No one outside of Casey's family knows what happened and we probably never will.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,208,916
For real, you have to be a dumbass, guilty or innocent, doesn't matter, to sit for hours and be interrogated by the police on camera. And for what? So the media can comb it and take the best 3 second clip they can find out of context? So some dumbass on youtube can go over point by point and pause the video every 30 seconds to restate what you "actually meant"? This is why I can never get into true crime.