So whats the consensus?
The problem I see is that not only does the state have to prove she killed her girl but now they have to disaprove the kid didn't drown.
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY.
And she should have to pay back the government from the local to the federal level for every bit of money spent and used for the search, investigation, and trial.
The defense is doing and going to do everything possible to drag this trial out as they have done during the investigation and pre-trial hearings and continue to abuse our judicial system.
At this rate, this trial might last a year. The judge need to get on the ball, but it doesn't appear he is one of the sharpest tools in the shed. This trial is making a mockery of our system.
The problem I see is that not only does the state have to prove she killed her girl but now they have to disaprove the kid didn't drown.
Too late, there's no way to prove what DID kill her, much less prove the hundred different ways she didn't die.
All they need is 1 "expert" to get up there and say it's possible that the kid drowned and 1 juror to have a "reasonable doubt" and she walks...
I think she'll be found "not guilty" of murder, and maybe charged with some lesser crime and do a few years in prison, maybe a few in a psych ward after the stories of her childhood abuse, etc. come out, real or not. As Ironcat said, only takes one juror to not be 100% convinced of her murdering the little girl for her to get off for murder.
