The Lying Prosecution in the Casey Anthony Trialby Anthony Gregory, LRC Blog
Jul. 20, 2011
Polish MP Schools BBC Host On Refugees: 'How Many Terror Attacks Have You Had In London?'
Protesters Blow Whistles As Trump Sends 'Thoughts And Prayers' to Rep Steve Scalise
Gohmert: FBI's Refusal to Label Scalise Shooting Terrorism Suggests DOJ Compromised by Obama Holdovers
DEMS LOSE AGAIN: Ossoff Loses Second Round EVEN HARDER Despite Spending $22 Million
Europol: Leftists Carried Out 27 Times More Terror Attacks Than Right-Wingers
It stressed more than once that Casey Anthony had repeatedly searched for chloroform on the internet, proving her intention to commit murder. An expert, one of the prosecution's very own witnesses, came forward and told the prosecution their assertion was based on faulty data. The state, of course, withheld this fact and refused to correct the record. Despite this the jury realized that the prosecution had failed to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Surely, had the jury found the other way, it would be an illegitimate trial. Since the jurors followed the law and voted not guilty, the prosecution will likely not be held accountable for its misconduct the way it should be.