(Casey) Be mad at prosecution not jury

[FL BRONCO]

This is my opinion and my lil rant. Here in Central Fl area and elsewhere from what I've seen of interviews on National Television, People are pissed at the jury. They are even scared for themselves and family.

This to me is ridiculous. They had to follow the letter of the law and they did. They are honest citizens put in a bad situation by the prosecution trying this case.


Now look at the Prosecutor. He brings a weak circumstantial case to court with more questions (When, How, Why) then answers. He is a veteran prosecutor and Assistant DA. No one can convince me he didn't know how weak his case was when he brought it to Grand Jury.

It may have been enough circumstantial to get it through the grand jury and get an endictment but not enough hard evidence to warrant a charge of premeditated murder conviction.

He brings in a weak case and thrusts himself and his people into the national spotlight then retires when its done. Do you think there will be a book or interviews or both coming from him soon.

With all the pressure on Casey and the family here in Fl. If he had justnot charged her for a while and tried to keep up the pressure I think it would've gotten to the family and casey and she would've opened her mouth to someone down the line and they could've gotten a conviction. Maybe more info would've come out in the mean time.



Instead he rushes a bad case into court without the evidence and the lack of evidence gets her a not guilty plea so now because of Double Jeopardy she can never be tried again for it no matter what comes out later.

IMO all these people that are mad at the jury are directing there anger at the jurors are doing it in the wrong place. Were they suppose to convict her for murder when they had reasonable doubt. That is not what the law asked them to do.

IMO this falls solely in the prosecutors lap and people should get off of the jury's case.

I know this probably won't be a popular opinion but its mine and I just wanted to rant.

[SBboundBRONCOS]

this stuff should not be put on TV in any shape or form . . . its ridiculous the following this lady has and now if jurors feel they are in danger i think that completely crosses the line

do i think shes guilty, yes . . . but i didnt hear/see all the evidence and i doubt 99% of people that are angry at this trial did either. therefor if there was some sort of reasonable doubt in their minds they had every right and obligation to find her innocent.

so yes blame the prosecution for not proving it beyond that reasonable doubt

[Bronco51]

You can't manufacture evidence. They used what they had. The girl lies about her daughters whereabouts and waits 31 damn days to report her missing. That is all the evidence I need. The girl was 2......not 22. If she drowned in the pool, why try to make it look like murder? If she drowned in the pool, why not report it immediately? The girl is guilty as sin and she will get hers in the end. The jury did as they were instructed, so be it. Hopefully a civil suit will be filed where she has to testify. And thank the Lord Florida has a law where whatever profits she makes off the trial, she has to pay back the state for the cost of the trial. Casey is a repugnant pig and I hope she is haunted by her daughters memory for the rest of her life.

[SBboundBRONCOS]

You can't manufacture evidence. They used what they had. The girl lies about her daughters whereabouts and waits 31 damn days to report her missing. That is all the evidence I need. The girl was 2......not 22. If she drowned in the pool, why try to make it look like murder? If she drowned in the pool, why not report it immediately? The girl is guilty as sin and she will get hers in the end. The jury did as they were instructed, so be it. Hopefully a civil suit will be filed where she has to testify. And thank the Lord Florida has a law where whatever profits she makes off the trial, she has to pay back the state for the cost of the trial. Casey is a repugnant pig and I hope she is haunted by her daughters memory for the rest of her life.

im not sure how that is evidence more like stupidity, it makes her look guilty but it certainly doesnt prove anything either. again i know i didnt watch the whole trial . . . did you?

[canadiansbronco]

This is my opinion and my lil rant. Here in Central Fl area and elsewhere from what I've seen of interviews on National Television, People are pissed at the jury. They are even scared for themselves and family.

This to me is ridiculous. They had to follow the letter of the law and they did. They are honest citizens put in a bad situation by the prosecution trying this case.


Now look at the Prosecutor. He brings a weak circumstantial case to court with more questions (When, How, Why) then answers. He is a veteran prosecutor and Assistant DA. No one can convince me he didn't know how weak his case was when he brought it to Grand Jury.

It may have been enough circumstantial to get it through the grand jury and get an endictment but not enough hard evidence to warrant a charge of premeditated murder conviction.

He brings in a weak case and thrusts himself and his people into the national spotlight then retires when its done. Do you think there will be a book or interviews or both coming from him soon.

With all the pressure on Casey and the family here in Fl. If he had justnot charged her for a while and tried to keep up the pressure I think it would've gotten to the family and casey and she would've opened her mouth to someone down the line and they could've gotten a conviction. Maybe more info would've come out in the mean time.



Instead he rushes a bad case into court without the evidence and the lack of evidence gets her a not guilty plea so now because of Double Jeopardy she can never be tried again for it no matter what comes out later.

IMO all these people that are mad at the jury are directing there anger at the jurors are doing it in the wrong place. Were they suppose to convict her for murder when they had reasonable doubt. That is not what the law asked them to do.

IMO this falls solely in the prosecutors lap and people should get off of the jury's case.

I know this probably won't be a popular opinion but its mine and I just wanted to rant.

I have to agree, i still think she is guilty but i really think this verdict is the prosecutor fault

I am not a law expert but i do know that you cant charge somebody with some weak ``well if she didnt call it in it means she is guilty`` evidence

You need motive and hard evidence wich they didn't have

The worst part in this case is that we will never know what happened to the little girl

[beastlyskronk]

You can't manufacture evidence. They used what they had. The girl lies about her daughters whereabouts and waits 31 damn days to report her missing. That is all the evidence I need. The girl was 2......not 22. If she drowned in the pool, why try to make it look like murder? If she drowned in the pool, why not report it immediately? The girl is guilty as sin and she will get hers in the end. The jury did as they were instructed, so be it. Hopefully a civil suit will be filed where she has to testify. And thank the Lord Florida has a law where whatever profits she makes off the trial, she has to pay back the state for the cost of the trial. Casey is a repugnant pig and I hope she is haunted by her daughters memory for the rest of her life.

A pathological liar lying about her daughter's whereabouts means nothing. Her waiting 31 days to report her missing does not mean she murdered her. All that means is that she's a terrible mother.

The prosecutor based his whole case on a photograph and he admitted such in an interview (not his exact words but that's what was implied). He needed some concrete evidence, the picture of the body wasn't going to answer any of the questions the jurors had.

[Bronco51]

A pathological liar lying about her daughter's whereabouts means nothing. Her waiting 31 days to report her missing does not mean she murdered her. All that means is that she's a terrible mother.

The prosecutor based his whole case on a photograph and he admitted such in an interview (not his exact words but that's what was implied). He needed some concrete evidence, the picture of the body wasn't going to answer any of the questions the jurors had.

Where there's smoke there is fire. I don't know if you are a parent or not, but any reasonable parent would not have behaved this way......unless they had something to hide. Of course that's hard to prove, but common sense isn't a law unfortunately. Either she killed her or knows how she died. Period. the prosecutor had no evidence to prove she did, but as any defense lawyer would advise, she did not take the stand to tell her side, or more to the point, she did not take the stand to have the prosecution punch holes all over her lies. This is just like O.J all over again. We all know she is involved somehow, but she will walk away scot free because the evidence was not air tight. Again, I hope she lives the life she deserves.

[beastlyskronk]

Where there's smoke there is fire. I don't know if you are a parent or not, but any reasonable parent would not have behaved this way......unless they had something to hide. Of course that's hard to prove, but common sense isn't a law unfortunately. Either she killed her or knows how she died. Period. the prosecutor had no evidence to prove she did, but as any defense lawyer would advise, she did not take the stand to tell her side, or more to the point, she did not take the stand to have the prosecution punch holes all over her lies. This is just like O.J all over again. We all know she is involved somehow, but she will walk away scot free because the evidence was not air tight. Again, I hope she lives the life she deserves.

A sociopathic person/pathological liar would act this way. She feels the urge to make up stories about stuff she doesn't need to do it for and since she's sociopathic things that would affect normal people don't affect her. I do think that she had a part in this, but I don't think she did it. I think her parents need to be looked into more thoroughly

[EddieMac]

The case was circumstantial, yes. Each piece of that circumstantial evidence builds a case.

There was enough evidence in that case to convict her.

What happened, I believe, is that the jury was not taught enough to understand what reasonable doubt is.

It is not beyond any doubt as some believe just beyond where any reasonable doubt is gone.

We should look at the pieces together that way.

Never report her child missing,
Lying about it.
Smell of death in her trunk.
Body buried in the manner the family pets were.
etc

What would a REASONABLE person believe in this case?

Guilty. But it takes a prosecutor to teach the jury when they have a chance about reasonable doubt.

[FL BRONCO]

The case was circumstantial, yes. Each piece of that circumstantial evidence builds a case.

There was enough evidence in that case to convict her.

What happened, I believe, is that the jury was not taught enough to understand what reasonable doubt is.

It is not beyond any doubt as some believe just beyond where any reasonable doubt is gone.

We should look at the pieces together that way.

Never report her child missing,
Lying about it.
Smell of death in her trunk.
Body buried in the manner the family pets were.
etc

What would a REASONABLE person believe in this case?

Guilty. But it takes a prosecutor to teach the jury when they have a chance about reasonable doubt.

I would say that a reasonable person based on what you just said would conclude she was definitley involved and covered up something but the jump from something to first degree murder that she was charged with imo was the problem with all of this. If I was on the jury I would've been sick about that decision but it wasn't the juries job to close that gap it was the prosecutions and until he did he should not have brought it to trial he should've waited to see what happened, more evidence may have come out later such as confession to friend or maybe charged differently. The problem here is that now she can't be tried again so in essence that let her get away with it. And as another poster previously said we may never know what happened to the lil girl although I wouldn't be surprised if she sold her story.

One way or the other my point was that I see signs of people protesting all over the place that say things like, charge the jury (i think that in itself tells me they aint real bright) and I even saw another prosecuting attorney on tv blame it on them(course maybe that tells you why Clark lost).

It was in no way the jury's fault hear. They did their jobs and when they do talk which i'm sure they will I think we will here how sick they felt letting her off. This imo was the prosecutors fault he had the knowledge of the case before he brought it before them and he could have waited or amended the charge instead of shuffling it into the spotlight like he did. And the lil girls justice is the one that suffered in the end

[beastlyskronk]

The case was circumstantial, yes. Each piece of that circumstantial evidence builds a case.

There was enough evidence in that case to convict her.

What happened, I believe, is that the jury was not taught enough to understand what reasonable doubt is.

It is not beyond any doubt as some believe just beyond where any reasonable doubt is gone.

We should look at the pieces together that way.

Never report her child missing,
Lying about it.
Smell of death in her trunk.
Body buried in the manner the family pets were.
etc

What would a REASONABLE person believe in this case?

Guilty. But it takes a prosecutor to teach the jury when they have a chance about reasonable doubt.

You can't convict on a smell because it would have to be proven that she put the body in the trunk of her car. Also how the body was buried still doesn't establish that she killed her daughter, it only establishes that the body was buried

[EddieMac]

Yes but you have to put the totality of all these little pieces together. That is why it is circumstantial. You have to put it all together and let it tell you the story.

No you cannot convict on a smell. But in persepective, the smell, in her car, pieced with the death of her daughter and no explanation as to what could have caused the smell by her. Then you look at the body found, and it was buried in a manner that her family used to bury old family pets, where she was present and saw. You see, it is putting it together and seeing the whole picture, and no analysing each little bit alone. A rose by any other smell....is still a rose.

The evidence was there to convict, it appears. It just had to to be put together and a picture painted by the prosecution. It wasn't. That is why she was found not guilty.

[beastlyskronk]

Yes but you have to put the totality of all these little pieces together. That is why it is circumstantial. You have to put it all together and let it tell you the story.

No you cannot convict on a smell. But in persepective, the smell, in her car, pieced with the death of her daughter and no explanation as to what could have caused the smell by her. Then you look at the body found, and it was buried in a manner that her family used to bury old family pets, where she was present and saw. You see, it is putting it together and seeing the whole picture, and no analysing each little bit alone. A rose by any other smell....is still a rose.

The evidence was there to convict, it appears. It just had to to be put together and a picture painted by the prosecution. It wasn't. That is why she was found not guilty.

That doesn't mean it was her though, she obviously wasn't the only one that had access to her car as it was her dad that originally smelled the smell and went in the trunk to bury the body. Also he was probably the one burying those old family pets. Casey's parents had something to do with this, if they didn't do it themselves.

[EddieMac]

Maybe, but that is why there is differing opinions. I, for one, think she is guilty as sin.

My thoery is that she killer her baby and her parents tried to help cover it up so they don't lose their daughter as well (to jail).

I am just saying that I think the evidence is there to convict her but the prosecution dropped the ball in presenting it and educating the jury.

This is why these cases stay in our memories. People have opinions and have discussions about them. There are so many point of views and opinions thta it makes it all that more interesting.

The bottom line of the whole fiaso os that a little girl is dead and buried in the woods while her mother was out partying and no one reported it nor is being held accountable for it.

[CanDB]

Yes but you have to put the totality of all these little pieces together. That is why it is circumstantial. You have to put it all together and let it tell you the story.

No you cannot convict on a smell. But in persepective, the smell, in her car, pieced with the death of her daughter and no explanation as to what could have caused the smell by her. Then you look at the body found, and it was buried in a manner that her family used to bury old family pets, where she was present and saw. You see, it is putting it together and seeing the whole picture, and no analysing each little bit alone. A rose by any other smell....is still a rose.

The evidence was there to convict, it appears. It just had to to be put together and a picture painted by the prosecution. It wasn't. That is why she was found not guilty.

One of the legal assessments of this case was that it needed a professional jury, one that could connect the dots......this jury, for whatever reason, apparently was expecting someone to connect the dots for them.

As an aside, if any of them are parents, I am not sure how they could explain the behaviour of a mother who is out partying given the situation with her child. Haven't heard the jury's opinions on that, but if a child's life is in jeopardy, the parents' lives would immediately freeze. There is not a more difficult situation one could face as a parent, in my opinion.