^ @ GameRager

I didn't comment on the justice system being innocent until proven guilty. However I still see, acknowledge, and agree w/the point you made there. I should add that it's also sad that those who disagree w/the jurors are labelled as members of a mob mentality, instead of being recognized as people who saw the case facts for themselves, and reached a different conclusion (though I readily admit that there's always gonna be stupid people, on both sides of the coin, who'll inevitably become part of a mob mentality).

And read what I wrote again in the post of mine you're addressing: I'm not one to fall prey into a mob mentality. I was pointing out that those who've studied the facts of the case & disagreed w/the jurors are labelled as folk in a mob mentality, instead of people who thought for themselves.

I hate the mob mentality no matter where it's coming from. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. You're implying & answering (like putting words in my mouth) to a wrong thing about me.

Harsh much? People can be innocent of major crimes and still lie to police for various reasons good and bad(they don't know what they did or know they're innocent yet forget due to being in the spotlight and freeze mentally & make up something on the spot, etc). People can also be happy even if people close to them are dead(they didn't like that person and/or are mentally unsound, etc).

And no you don't need physical direct evidence for a conviction, but you DO NEED to prove the prosecution's theories to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also the car smelling like death thing was heresay.....they tested the car and found no direct evidence that a body had been inside it. Same for the chloroform evidence being no direct proof....I look up shit like that all the time out of utter curiosity from watching crime shows and the like.
Sorry then but IMO anyone who "thinks for themselves" by watching news reports only and/or maybe listening to other's who've done the same amount of "research" hasn't thought for themselves and their opinion holds no real weight over those who HAVE DONE their research.....poured over available evidence allowed for public consumption, talked to witnesses, etc.

What? Whether she is responsible or not has nothing to do with my comment. Regardless of who is responsible, her daughter is dead, therefore she is not what I would consider "fortunate."

I took the comment wrongly and for the mistake I made I apologize.

No need, GR. It's 'aight.

Well, "fortunate" was my choice of word, so I should explain it.

You are right; her situation is hardly what anyone would think of as "fortunate"; it is very sad, and nothing that happened in court will ever bring her daughter back.

But there remains an enormous difference between being released for time served or on parole or probation for some mere misdemeanor counts of lying, and dying in one of the hellholes that pass for prison in the US (whether by life sentence or execution).

If she were innocent and escaped a miscarriage of justice, I would not think it unfair to call it good fortune, even if there is much else for her to grieve over. At least she will not be grieving in prison, and that counts for a lot.

Soooooo, now are they going to try and find out who the real killer is?

Prosecution is an acutely practical endeavor, and they would not waste their time, personnel, and budget on what would end up being a weaker case than the one they already lost. So, not likely.

IIRC, it was either she killed the kid herself or the kid drowned in a pool on accident. There was no murder with the final defense.

I doubt it, at least not without some new information coming to light that gives a clear indication to look somewhere else.

It does happen occasionally, last week a man around here was arrested on suspicion of committing a murder in 1957 and from time to time we've still got folks being arrested for murders in the '60s.

Cold cases are a real crap shoot, sometimes time loosens lips and other times no new evidence is ever found. At this point, this is more or less a cold case, they've chased all the leads they've got and ended up with an acquittal.

as cjrgreen said if they had a stronger case against somebody else they would have gone with that.

There's a nifty cold-case murder in Los Angeles that was recently cracked (when the alleged perp was picked up many years later in Massachusetts, for kidnapping his daugher, whom he claimed had telepathically called on him from London to "rescue" her). See news accounts of con man and bat-shit crazy nutjob Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, who went by the name "Clark Rockefeller" for many years (and was the subject of the made-for-TV movie "Who is Clark Rockefeller?" [Lifetime, 2010])