Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
So just because its interesting, do you blame the prosecution for this loss? To me they got knocked off of their game plan early in the proceedings (opening statement, our client is a liar, and immature, but you can't prove that she killed her kid)
Was this case rushed to trial without a proper investigation?
|
I don't know that I blame the prosecution, they had a tough task without more concrete evidence, but I do agree that it seems they let the defense team take this case in directions that favored them. I can't say I followed the case closely enough to have an opinion on specific moves, but it sure seems like a lot of very shaky defenses were allowed to be placed in front of the jury without being vigorously challenged. I would've expected those claims to have been attacked and exposed as weak excuses made up after the fact and that didn't appear to happen.
As for a rush to trial, I don't know that more time would have changed anything. It seems like the biggest problem is the lack of real tangible evidence, and at this point that's not something that's going to change with time.
Overall it looks like a case with enough small holes in key places to allow a jury to find reasonable doubt. I'm not sure any prosecutor could have patched that up. There's obviously a lot of unanswered questions, which I think explains a lot of the outrage. This was supposed to be a verdict that confirmed what everyone believed to be true, now it's all that much more confusing.