reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I think it amounts to how much an individual (a juror) is willing to accept circumstantial evidence. I think this case is ripe with it. Ripe, and
falling off the tree. lol.
If cases couldn't be proven with circumstantial evidence, then Ted Bundy would have walked. OJ Simpson's acquittal would have been justified.
There were no witnesses to the murders, other than the deceased themselves, so the pieces of the puzzle fit together to show a picture of a homicide,
and in this case, by the one who possessed the child, and by the only one who had access to ALL the evidence.
And BH, I really don't think anybody is stupid enough to carry on such a charade for the long period of time she did. And certainly not in the
cabaret way she did. She had law enforcement and her parents running around in circles, like her puppets. I honestly think this amused her to see
them do her bidding.
Even if it was accidental. Her child was dead, no matter the cause. People grieve. People break down. People get drunk. People tell someone, who
then has the good sense to report it.
She has been found competent, therefore capable of reason. A reasonable person would not do the things she did. As I said, and as I believe, nobody
is that stupid. Even now, she would call this off, break down, and tell about the accident, but she's not. She's taking this as far as she can to
see if she can get away it.
If the verdict comes back guilty, watch how quickly she goes to "Plan B". Then, we might hear a new story about how a little "one-time only"
chloroform dose, went terribly wrong, and she panicked. But first, she's testing the waters to see if she can get off scott free.