Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(Casey) Be mad at prosecution not jury

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EddieMac
    replied
    Further to what Can said. That is the same point I made. The jury needed to be educated more by the prosecution. In their summation and through the Judge in giving the jury direction. That was overlooked and thus, a not guilty verdict was found.

    Very sad.

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
    hey.....just stating what I heard/saw/observed......as for the parent thing, what do you conclude from what she did?
    I think that something happened and I don't know what but she knows and this is DISCUSTING what is happening. She is getting off on a bunch of lies and no one may ever know what really happend and the childs life isn't replacable

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by FL BRONCO View Post
    A professional jury? No a jury of the piers. They got that. I'm sure they wanted to connect the dots but that wasn't up to them that was up to prosecution who left a big void between something happened to first degree murder and charged it anyway knowing the facts. That is prosecutions fault not jurys. Are 12 men and women, honest citizens supposed to go against the law when they are told reasonable doubt. I dont think so. They did what they had to and i'm sure they haited it but they were put in the position, they didn't ask for it.

    Professional Jury, are you paying them, then I guess you'll get your verdict and a honest jury should go home.

    One thing everybody should realize also is that the jury was sequesterred they werent seeing shows like nancy grace or the scenes of courtroom when they weren't there, that was the public. They were strictly on the facts. Facts and the decision of charging are the prosecutions responsibility


    By the way I'm a parent.
    hey.....just stating what I heard/saw/observed......as for the parent thing, what do you conclude from what she did?

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
    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.
    A professional jury? No a jury of the piers. They got that. I'm sure they wanted to connect the dots but that wasn't up to them that was up to prosecution who left a big void between something happened to first degree murder and charged it anyway knowing the facts. That is prosecutions fault not jurys. Are 12 men and women, honest citizens supposed to go against the law when they are told reasonable doubt. I dont think so. They did what they had to and i'm sure they haited it but they were put in the position, they didn't ask for it.

    Professional Jury, are you paying them, then I guess you'll get your verdict and a honest jury should go home.

    One thing everybody should realize also is that the jury was sequesterred they werent seeing shows like nancy grace or the scenes of courtroom when they weren't there, that was the public. They were strictly on the facts. Facts and the decision of charging are the prosecutions responsibility


    By the way I'm a parent.
    Last edited by FL BRONCO; 07-08-2011, 10:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
    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.


    No that is the point the evidence was not their to convict and the 12 man/woman jury had no joice. The jump from something happened and she covered it up to she cold bloodly murdered her kid was too much. If it wasn't ,12 of us would've . do you honestly think they wanted to let her off. IMo they had no choice , beyond reasonable doubt means you pretty much know who, where, why, when , and how. None of these were realisticly proven let alone one. How do you blame the jury, The prosecutor knew the evidence or lack ther of going in . Many of us can talk and try and convince each other of a lot of things but that don't make those things fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
    Maybe, but that is why there is differing opinions. I, for one, think she is guilty as sin.
    That maybe right there is why they couldn't convict her on any of the murder charges. Someone in the family did it, that much is certain but I don't think we as the general public can be sure of who it is. Everyone tends to believe it was Casey because she was a terrible mother and she was the one the media focused all the negative attention towards. Had this case been brought against her father, you might feel the same way against him

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EddieMac
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EddieMac
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by EddieMac; 07-08-2011, 03:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • FL BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
    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
    Last edited by FL BRONCO; 07-08-2011, 06:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • EddieMac
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by Bronco51 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bronco51
    replied
    Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X