got away with it ,jury

[jeff of pa]

Good for her

Innocent until proven Guilty.

Nothing wrong with someone "Not Guilty" Walking free

they said that about OJ & Jackson

Come on Jeff if you believe the latest on the Web....OJ just finished a jail house interview with Oprah and confessed to everything. It's all there...if you believe it, personally I don't think she got the interview. Yet.

I wouldn't believe anything from her.

Didn't she get away with running Child sweat Shops
or Something ? plus what else ?

I know Kathy Lee Gifford did....I don't know about Miss O. http://www.democracynow.org/1999/9/27/kathie_lee_gifford_accused_of_running

I Can't say for Sure, I Realy don't pay attention
to these So called Celebrities, But think I Heard
bits & Pieces that said she was Shocked & Denied it

So everyone was supposed to Believe her

 

[jeff of pa]

tee,
You have to understand why “beyond a reasonable doubt” is included in the law. It was put into law as a means of protecting each and every one of us from wrongful prosecution from the state. The minute we allow speculation and circumstantial evidence to reign supreme in out courts then we all become subject to wrongful accusation and prosecution from the state. The 12 jurors in the Casey trial never lost sight of that, and we should be extremely thankful of that, regardless of our personal beliefs as to her guilt. The decision in the Casey trial was the correct decison based on the evidence provided, and that decision ultimately safeguarded all of us, just as it was designed to do. It's not a perfect system, but it is a required system that helps to insure that our basic freedoms and rights are respected and protected.

I do understand...I also understand mom didn't say a word for 31 days...a baby didn't kill herself and crawl into 3 trash bags and put 3 pieces of duct tape around her little face, and launch herself out into the swamp...She didn't send mom out to dance the night away having sex, drinking, and getting a tatoo called the "beautiful life" What mom does this?

a Mentally unstable one Yes.

But when did she go off the deep end ?

after a terrible accident ?

or ?

Apparently there was no proof She did anything
but React wrong after

 

[bigscoop]

I do understand...I also understand mom didn't say a word for 31 days...a baby didn't kill herself and crawl into 3 trash bags and put 3 pieces of duct tape around her little face, and launch herself out into the swamp...She didn't send mom out to dance the night away having sex, drinking, and getting a tatoo called the "beautiful life" What mom does this?

There is no statute of limitations on capital crimes so I don't understand why the prosecution didn't wait until they had enough evidence to get a conviction. But they did press forward and they lost the case. I don't like that she's going to walk away from this, but she is and I understand why. Case over, and as farmer chick said, time to move on.

 

[jeff of pa]

tee,
You have to understand why “beyond a reasonable doubt” is included in the law. It was put into law as a means of protecting each and every one of us from wrongful prosecution from the state. The minute we allow speculation and circumstantial evidence to reign supreme in out courts then we all become subject to wrongful accusation and prosecution from the state. The 12 jurors in the Casey trial never lost sight of that, and we should be extremely thankful of that, regardless of our personal beliefs as to her guilt. The decision in the Casey trial was the correct decison based on the evidence provided, and that decision ultimately safeguarded all of us, just as it was designed to do. It's not a perfect system, but it is a required system that helps to insure that our basic freedoms and rights are respected and protected.

I do understand...I also understand mom didn't say a word for 31 days...a baby didn't kill herself and crawl into 3 trash bags and put 3 pieces of duct tape around her little face, and launch herself out into the swamp...She didn't send mom out to dance the night away having sex, drinking, and getting a tatoo called the "beautiful life" What mom does this?

a Mentally unstable one Yes.

But when did she go off the deep end ?

after a terrible accident ?

or ?

Apparently there was no proof She did anything
but React wrong after

A terrible accident.....911 simple. Not a garbage bag.

Could it at all be possable There was an accident.

& her parents Convinced her she was a Terrible mother,
& would go to jail for it.

Maybe even an accident the one Parent caused,
& drove their daughter to commit this after the fact
Crime, by convincing her she was at fault ?

Just because they were her parents, Dosn't mean they
are stable

 

[spartacus53]

Yea, and hat's off to bigscoop and farmerchick..

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that she was guilty of murder.. So end of case

What most failed to realize is that unless you were there for the whole trial, you didn't hear evidence, or the testimonies given. The 12 jurors did, and they reached an unanimous decision.

Like bigscoop said, the prosecution may have rushed the case and possible blown it, then again, there may have not been a strong enough case to present from the beginning..

Even the jurors saw that she had plenty of emotion during the trail when talking about her child's death. Anyone, on trail for anything, you believe to be innocent of... Well I guess you are a sociopath, and who in their right mind wouldn't be, when you may never again have freedom.

So stop crying in your beer

 

[The Beep Goes On]

Human justice is a crapshoot.

 

[dirt doctor]

Who is paying Mr.Baez for all his work ?

 

[ivan salis]

not guilty DOES NOT MEAN SHES INNOCENT * --IT SIMPLY MEANS THE STATE COULD NOT "PROVE" SHE KILLED CAYLEE == the jury was bound by the law * which demands that the state prove the 5 W's ( a 6th is nice but not neededWhy aka as "motive")==== #1 Who (*did) #2 What to #3 Whom , #4 When and #5 Where , these are the bedrock of a murder charge prove the 5 W's they are guilty if not --they will walk in most cases.

the state could only prove 1 W (whom)--that there was a death -caylee died-- (only because they had a body * of bones ) --they could not "legally prove" from the bones What was the cause of death ---was it a accident or was it murder ?-- only casey knew for sure what happened (as the last known person to see her child alive- she should have know where her child was at & what occured to her) and casey wasn't saying anything but lie after lie , misleading folks as to where to look and buying time for any damaging "flesh and body" evidence to rot away so it could not be used against her -- she is a stone cold snake that one-- to let her babys body rot and be eaten by maggots and animals to cover her sins & crimes -- . ( now that her "snot nosed brat" as she called her is dead --she isfree to party and slut around as shepleases. )===(what mother knowing her child has just died goes out partying and drinking and getting a tattoo "the beautiful life" ==only one that hates being a mother and resents her childs relationship with her grandmother --hatred and spite are both excellent reasons for murder.

abc news reportly paid a good sum to the defence team as did a lawyer that wanted to be part of the "team"

 

[dirt doctor]

Thanks Ivan for answering my question and your other part of that post is spot on .Think of all the people who would love to be the parents and can't .

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

At least she is not going to live in Orlando, the anger felt towards her in Orlando is very high, no way will she live here....I am willing to bet she moves out of state quickly after her release, she has already received threats.......

The jury may have found her innocent, (If I had been on the jury I would have voted guilty, there would have been a guilty verdict or they would have had a hung jury....), she is guilty as h3ll, she knows it and the public knows it, she will never have a day of peace here in Orlando, or in Florida.................Casey deserves all that she will reap.........

 

[bigscoop]

At least she is not going to live in Orlando, the anger felt towards her in Orlando is very high, no way will she live here....I am willing to bet she moves out of state quickly after her release, she has already received threats.......

The jury may have found her innocent, (If I had been on the jury I would have voted guilty, there would have been a guilty verdict or they would have had a hung jury....), she is guilty as h3ll, she knows it and the public knows it, she will never have a day of peace here in Orlando, or in Florida.................Casey deserves all that she will reap.........

It's far from over for her, lots of court battles to still be fought.

 

[aa battery]

glad its over cause i wuz sick of it. If it was my daughter i would of ended this ugly Bi.... life. Dont worry cause she will be paid back this i know. 8)

 

[jeff of pa]

she walks on July 13, 2011

I saw the one Jurer said , no way
on a Guilty Verdict because of the prosecution
asked for the death Penalty.
Which I have to respect.

(sort of like Jurer Nulification)

You don't give a death Penalty especially to
someone nobody Saw commit a crime.

too many chances of an error

 

[jeff of pa]

she walks on July 13, 2011

I saw the one Jurer said , no way
on a Guilty Verdict because of the prosecution
asked for the death Penalty.
Which I have to respect.

(sort of like Jurer Nulification)

You don't give a death Penalty especially to
someone nobody Saw commit a crime.

too many chances of an error

Scott Peterson was not seen either...but he sits on death row.

no idea who he is,
but if thats true,
if he denied the crime that put him there,
how very sad

 

[jeff of pa]

she walks on July 13, 2011

I saw the one Jurer said , no way
on a Guilty Verdict because of the prosecution
asked for the death Penalty.
Which I have to respect.

(sort of like Jurer Nulification)

You don't give a death Penalty especially to
someone nobody Saw commit a crime.

too many chances of an error

Scott Peterson was not seen either...but he sits on death row.

no idea who he is,
but if thats true,
if he denied the crime that put him there,
how very sad

Jeff you would be a much better juror then me....my hat is off to you. I could not have set on either one of these cases and let them walk. Perhaps you are right time will tell. Scott was guilty...time will now have to tell if Casey also was....my own personal belief...yes she is...we will see cause she will slip up sooner or later. But her day in this court is over. Sadly the baby had no day in court...she had no chance...all her chances were taken from her for anything in this life.

I'd refuse to sit on a death penelty case
because I don't believe in it.
& If forced to anyway, I'd nulify
with a Not Guilty at the end,
Even if there was unimpeachable footage from
all the news stations.

However IF somone has to be Murderd for a Murder,
I still would hope there is not even
.00000000000000001 % of a chance
of an Error.

 

[spartacus53]

There is nothing like beating a dead horse

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.

The law has only one shot at you period.... It's been like that even in Greece since before 300 BC

This is also to prevent state and federal entities from abusing power, and your bank account, other than that, they would prosecute until they had a verdict in their favor

 

[jeff of pa]

old news

Didn't this all happen a week ago ?

 

[spartacus53]

jeff of pa, some people just can't let go



hmmm, no pulse, horse is still dead

"The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the right against double jeopardy precludes only subsequent criminal proceedings"

If I'm not mistaken, the buck stops there

She cannot be tried criminally, but she can be tried civilly. End of story.

Elmer Fudd, has spoken

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The only current chance of any justice is that Casey faces a civil lawsuit by the nanny she claimed took Caylee, she has already been served papers on this.

Casey will have no right to plea the 5th admendment if she is called to testify on this since she was found not guilty, (not innocent) in her murder trial and can not be retired. If there is any justice, the lawsuit will go forward and Casey will be forced to testify in the civil suit, since it is impossible for her to tell the truth, lying like she does she might get nailed for perjury which offers a longer max jail sentence than lying to a law enforcement officer.....

 

[Sky Pilot]

There is nothing like beating a dead horse

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.

The law has only one shot at you period.... It's been like that even in Greece since before 300 BC

This is also to prevent state and federal entities from abusing power, and your bank account, other than that, they would prosecute until they had a verdict in their favor

Spartacus, you're correct literally and in theory, but in "real life" that's all B.S.

One example (and I really hate to use this as one) is the case of Byron De La Beckwith, the klansman who was convicted of killing Medgar Evers in Mississippi in 1963.
He was arrested, accused and tried for murder TWICE in 1964, both trials ending in a mistrail because, according to the prosecution, the jury was all white.
So when it became politically correct to implent "retrojustice" (a term I coined, incidentally) in the 1990's, he was tried for a THIRD time in 1994 and finally convicted.
The jury ratio was 8 black and 4 white jurors, by the way.

Now anyway you look at it, even if De La Beckwith WAS guilty (and for the record, I believe he WAS guilty), the man was railroaded and tried over and over until the court got the result that it was looking for. It was definitely double jeopardy the second time in 1964, because no new evidence was introduced, and in 1994 the new "evidence" was more or less based on a hearsay comment, so I reckon that would make trail number three "double" double jeopardy, wouldn't it?

So you might want to rethink the Double Jeopardy Clause. It disturbs me to know that a killer like De La Beckwith or this Casey woman can walk away scott free, for sure.
Even more disturbing is how the government can go after someone time and again, until they get what they want from a court.
De La Beckwith would have been convicted in my opinion, even if he was in a hospital in California with two broken legs and one busted arm at the time of Evers' murder.
Most of the folks that convicted him weren't even born when the crime took place, so they couldn't be his true peers in any sense of the word.
Then too, no matter what you think about it, they stacked the deck against him by having an 8 to 4 ratio of black folks. Now I know as much as the klan and their activities disgust me, it's gotta be more to a black person, and with De La Beckwith being tried twice before, the jury most likely assumed that he was guilty and to them, he was THE face of the 1960's klansman.
Screwed, wasn't he? Since that happened to him, it could happen to anyone else that the gov. decided to single out. That should disturb any American.

If the prosecution loses the case for whatever reason, they ought to let it go. It's the only way to keep it fair. Racists and babykillers included, sick as it makes me to say it.



Sky Pilot