Quote:
Originally Posted by chachi  Okay about the duct tape. If it were accidental casey could put it on there to look like someone murdered her, Roy Kronk couldve put it there or there was bunches of trash around the area and the duct tape could have came from there and attached it self to the skull. They even said only one tiny piece was even attached to the skull. The duct tape wasnt the smoking gun that would lead me to believe she did it. That was the problem with the evidence it was all circumstantial and there was no smoking gun that lead you to believe Casey did it. The prosecution put forth evidence and the defense would come right back and put holes in their evidence |
Okay, why would Casey want it to look like a murder? Not arguing with you, but I would really like to understand why people think this. To me it's not logical. You don’t get into that much trouble if you child accidently drowns in a pool. It happens all the time here, and they usually don’t even take it to court. Also, how could Kronk get the very same duct tape that her dad has. It was special tape made in very limited quantities and George bought some and kept it in his garage, and they found he used it to hang up flyers and it was on gas can. He would have never used it to hang up flyers if he had used it on the body, as a police officer he knows that duct tape can be traced. So the tape can be connected to Dad and the garage, but not to Kronk. Casey as we know had access to dad's garage, and neighbor told of her backing her care into garage one day when she wanted to borrow the shovel.
Who said there was only one tiny piece of tape left on the skull, I hadn't heard this. If that's true I could more easily understand your point, but from everything I heard there were three pieces on the skull. The reason they had the animated drawing that we weren't allowed to see is so that jurors could see exactly where the tape was placed when Casey still had skin, just seeing it on the skull didn't give them as much information. Prosecutor said mouth, nose and jaw.
Anyway, I think you have done a great job explaining how the jurors might have thought, and I'm just surprised that there wasn't someone on the jury who would argue these points with them. They just didn't deliberate long enough. I mean, there doesn't have to be a "smoking gun" to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There doesn't even have to be a body found, most cases are circumstantial, and through logic and reasoning we can deduct the most likely case. So in my opinion, missing child + mom lied = mom’s guilty. Maybe it's too simplistic, but the story the defense gave wasn't at all believable. I’ve known lots of women who were abused as children and it doesn’t make them liars. In fact, she’s also done a great disservice to all those women who were molested as children.