Posted on 07/06/2011 12:09:07 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
But what is "what she did to her"? That's what wasn't proven. Did Caylee die in an accident and Casey try to cover it up? Did Casey intentionally kill her daughter? Did Casey flip-out and kill Caylee in a fit of anger? Did Caylee drown and Casey agree to cover it up to protect someone else? The prosecution didn't prove *what* happened, so she can't be found guilty of even manslaughter.
Thank you for putting into words the way the jury was cleary thinking in this case. I’m sure they were sitting in the jury booth dreaming of their time on Dr. Phil’s couch.
The case was lost when the 7 women jurors heard the mother lie about searching for choloroform on the computer. That told them she wanted Casey to get off.
There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Casey killed the girl.
It seems they were afraid to make a judgment call
"Afraid" is the operative word. They were cowards who didn't want to feel responsible on the unreasonable chance they were wrong.
The prosecution overestimated the intelligence of the jury. People are no longer taught logic or deductive reasoning in schools. The State needed to work in a Logic 101 course and spoon feed "connect the dots" for the jurors.
Never assume people have common sense
as an elderly lady said to me yesterday, Casey will have a life long sentence now....no matter the jury....
The prosecution overestimated the intelligence of the jury. People are no longer taught logic or deductive reasoning in schools. The State needed to work in a Logic 101 course and spoon feed "connect the dots" for the jurors.
Never assume people have common sense
Too much common sense in that remark.
Virtually every single criminal case is circumstantial.
I paid little attention to this case, but I have come to the same conclusion. When a case becomes so popular and the media frenzy is self feeding, I wonder whether prosecutors bring cases too soon because of undue political and public pressure. That public sentiment weighs heavily on the side that she deserved a guilty verdict, perhaps driven by the “experts” repeating this mantra ad nauseam, I find akin to the MSM “experts” telling Americans what a wonderful and intelligent man Obama is and how is administration is infallible. The MSM has a powerful effect on public opinion.
Hundreds or perhaps thousands of parents have small children go missing without calling the cops????
We DO have problems!
Every mother who murders her children in this country will now use the “my father sexually abused” me defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2G0OszXEk
We know what these people are.
It's just a question of the price.
You left out the part of the comment about reporting it to the police!
You would make an ideal juror.
We have a SERIOUS problem with dumbed down jurist not understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. Here is what Marcia Clark said about this today:
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.
>>Justice was not served in this case - Casey got off on slimy, unethical legal tactics.<<
And the irony is, there are those who say they think Casey was guilty (as I do), yet the fact that she got off is proof that “the system worked.”
HUH?????
Excellent post.
The Buckley quote is a true gem.
The man was not only a towering intellect, but prescient as well.
Seems to me that knowing your kid is in a plastic bag half submerged in a swamp, while spending over a month partying and telling people she is with a runaway baby sitter, is at least child neglect.
Or maybe you can't abuse a child if they are already dead?
Further, lots of people have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Often far less than was introduced here.
I think the ground rules are motive (check), access (check), and means (check); Prosecution's closing was that ONLY Casey had all three.
Finally:
I can accept a verdict while still believing that the jury, for some reason, simply wanted to set her free going into the case.
However, if momma Anthony does not serve serious jail time for blatant perjury I'll have to revisit that acceptance.
As to emotion..."daddy and little brother raped me", "daddy hid the body", and "don't you understand my f&*%!ng involvement here?" are all pretty emotion laden statements.
And, there's much being made about imaginary friends, jobs, and fantasies in general, how come no one thought of that before the trial and determined Casey was too nuts to be held responsible?
I was a prosecutor for 18 years. I learned early on that if a detective brought me a case and tried to sell it by telling me what a bad person the suspect was, I knew right away their actual evidence sucked and the officer knew it. That assessment was never wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.