But they are making public statements about KC Anthony's character, trustworthiness, and even strongly implying her guilt in a murder, night after night for weeks, on prime time TV.
People can definitely have opinions, I was talking about a mental health professional appearing on a prime time TV show repeatedly and saying that KC Anthony is a psychopath and implying heavily that she is lying about her daughter's death and her involvement in it.
What evidence is there that Caylee is deceased, or that KC harmed her in any way? We'll have to see what the evidence actually turns out to be if/when it's presented in court. What information is actually known by the public or media in this case? Not enough to say yet who is lying or how much or about what. Much less to know anything about the personalities of those people, their motivations, or their feelings. How can you say there is no evidence of kidnappers? What evidence would there be? What evidence does a kidnapper leave behind? Also, what evidence would prove KC's fear?
We still don't know what type of work she may have been doing currently, whether it took place at Universal or wherever else. She did not work for Universal theme park itself. We don't know yet why she took police there. The nature of her current work could even be why she's not been forthcoming, there could even be an element of blackmail. Not known yet. It appears that she did (presumably unpaid) work for two friends in their party/club events promotion.
Whena child is missing and the mother can't say where her child is that is obviously very alarming evidence that something serious could have happened to the child, I agree with you there. We don't yet know what happened, or who was responsible. The child could be alive (hopefully so). (We don't know the details of the "evidence" yet that supposedly proves the child is deceased. We'll see what it actually turns out to be if/when it's brought to court.)
Well, if someone were prescribing Casey medication or sentencing her to prison I sure would hope they would have all the pertinent information! But I also think before someone (especially an "expert" on a primetime TV show) calls someone a psychopath or suggests they have the capability of murdering, that they would want to wait until they had a whole lot more facts. Personally I would never make such a public statement in the media about anyone until they had been convicted of a crime. Statements that have been made repeatedly that I've seen are, that the person in question is a psychopath, is "coldblooded", is "vicious", that her whole life has been a lie, that she's maliciously used everyone she ever knew, that she is lying about her child's death (as if that is a given) and her involvement, etc. I have even heard the word "evil" used. Who could make statements like that about a person on prime time national TV without first waiting to hear the evidence in court? General statements about psychopathic behavior or lying or stealing, sure, but not specific comments about a person by name, with so few facts known. Surely.