johndoe said:
It's far more likely he was a hustler.
I had a guy come up to me while playing a blackjack slot machine in planet hollywood a couple of years ago claiming to have knowledge of how to beat the machine. He was a personable Asian fellow and I let him, first, instruct me what to do, then later actually let him play the game directly. He lost my money, lol, a few dollars. I can only imagine that he may have figured if he won I would give him part of those winnings, although he did not seem the least bit needy.
People can be strange. I really don't have a clue what his angle was, if he even had one, but the human mind is also groping for an understanding of human behavior.
Today, I guess the Casey Anthony jury did not buy the prosecution's interpretation of her behavior during the time of her child's disappearance or murder. I didn't either. I am not one of those who say it is obvious she was guilty. Too many people charged with murder have been released due to DNA evidence for me to put much faith in a jury's ability to reason to the guilt of someone. Maybe this jury, devoid of DNA evidence, did not want to be guilty of one more wrongful condemnation based on purely circumstantial evidence. I don't know what it is, but the evidence in this trial just does not add up. Something is wrong.
It is also amusing that all the pundits are totally embarrassed that they called it so wrong. Judge Jeanine was saying, now we'll never know what happened, as if convicting the girl would have told us what happened. There seems to be a bias toward conviction-- it gives closure and people seem to want closure. If she did it, she'll have to live with that knowledge all the rest of her life. I've never been much for the death penalty anyway. Please excuse my ramblings.