Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
Women in particular are all fired up about this, and while I understand I think the right decision was made. There was just no evidence that directly tied her to the death of her daughter, it was all circumstantial at best. There's no doubt to me she had some sort of involvement, to what extent we'll probably never know.
|
In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.
I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.