
Originally Posted by
Andrew Maxwell
I'm not shocked at all. The prosecution did a terrible job. They tried to paint the picture that she killed her daughter so that she could party and drink, and they built a a case of circumstantial evidence around that ridiculous premise. They were so desperate to prove that she premeditated the murder and that it was murder in the first degree, that they passed up on the murder in the second degree or manslaughter charge, which she probably would have been convicted of. The prosecution was more interested in making a name for themselves in a big, high profile case on national TV then they were in seeing that actual justice was served.
I watched the entire trial. The jury had the option to convict her with a lesser charge like second degree murder, manslaughter, or third degree felony murder as well as child abuse rather than aggravated child abuse. They found her not guilty. Doesn't mean they thought she was innocent, just means there was a reasonable doubt with most of the charges (besides the four counts of false information). Common sense says she had something to do with the death, cover up, and everything else in the case but unfortunately that's not how the law works; there was no solid evidence proving she hurt her child. It sucks but that's the system. If it wasn't receiving so much national attention, I think they would have convicted her; people get convicted with less evidence all the time but with so many eyes watching I think it was a fair verdict.