Casey Anthony Trial

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

The whole case was basically "that seems like she's guilty" or "that doesn't mae any sense." They didn't really have anything. They couldn't even really piece together a feasible timeline.