The30YardSlant;3985948 said:
1: Intentionally framing someone correctly and convincingly is in no way "easy" and wouldnt be regardless of whether or not DNA was required. This is another product of TV crime dramas.
2: It has nothing to do with the amount of evidence. The evidence in this case was overwhelming. The issue is what kind of evidence is required these days by the legal system and by juries that are essentially impossible to satisfy.
You want to convict for murder.. you have to prove murder. They did nothing to PROVE that Casey killed her. Duct tape being on her face doesn't mean Casey put it there. You can't let emotion get involved in court cases, which is what alot of you are doing. Its black and white.
Again.. im sure almost all the jurors there feel like she did it, but the verdict is based on the evidence given.. which wasn't enough to prove she killed her clearly.
Also, im embarassed at the prosecution in this case. They were horrid.
"One piece for the nose, one for the mouth.. and then uhhh.. you need a third one, ya know.. just in case, or uhh.. to cover up loose ends or something. Need that third one, its vital.
So one, two, three.. she's dead."
I thought i was watching a school play for a second there.. good grief.