kiki the parrot
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,481
- Reaction score
- 11
I'm not following your reasoning here. LE 'allowed' lesser charges? What does that mean? They filed murder charges. If they filed murder charges, but really believed it was (or even could of been) an accident, then that would be horribly unethical. They (at least in this case) don't strike me as the unethical types. But maybe that's just me.
What do drowning statistics have to do with this case or the facts of this case? I see no legit connection (I do see some leaps of logic based on scanty evidence). If she accidently drowned in the pool, LE would not have charged KC with murder. Period. End of story. Again, what evidence do you have that they (LE) do not? Should they take a look at the drowning stats?
Merry Christmas to you too (smile). No need to be rude. The fact remains that LE included the lesser child neglect, and manslaughter charges, for the jury. And I am quite sure they did so because they have indeed considered this possibility so wish to give jurors that option. The facts are also that: their backyard is still believed to be Caylee's place of death; that cadaver dogs hit on the backyard; that the timeline's been narrowed down, and there are only so many scenarios which could have occurred there during that short span of approx 60 minutes while KC and Caylee were at the home; that the gate was later found mysteriously open; their ladder reportedly discovered inexplicably reattached; and her swimsuit was disposed of w little Caylee's remains. And it will not be "Period. End of story." until KC has been tried by a jury of peers, rational people capable of reasoning and weighing the totality of evidence, and not prone to making the sort of "leaps" to which you refer... As always, JMHO
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE AND EVERY BLESSING IN THE NEW YEAR
:blowkiss: