swgohome.com

Before I say anything else, yes I know this is a big deal and people are extremely angry at the verdict. PLEASE, do not start a flame war in this thread.

OK, onto my opinion...

I think that she should be guilty of not only lieing to the police, but child neglect/abuse. If you don't report your child missing after a month, something is wrong with you. If you search chloroform on your computer and your child dies of chloroform, you did something. Casey is just a complete nutcase and should be in prison for murdering her child. No physical evidence? No physical evidence my ass, she should've been convicted of at least another charge.

Post your opinions here, but don't start a flame war.

The Jurors were all relatives of the O.J. Trial Jurors. She got lucky.

"IF DA GLOVE DON'T FIT ... ACQUIT !!!"

If I see her walking down the street, someone's getting some chloroform to the face.

She meant to look up Colorforms

I read over the case for that crazy [female dog]. She is guilty of something but there is little too no evidence supporting any claim of any wrongdoing. The jury did the right thing by acquitting the [female dog]. Some of the "evidence" the prosecutor tried to bring in is scary. What was searched on the Internet, a letter to a jail house rat, a pointless diary entry, and the whole dead body in the trunk theory. If you want to hang someone, grab the prosecutor. They couldn't even explain how the child died. With that said I am with Narg on this one. If she gets bumped off walking down the street I don't think I would read past the headline.

I'm afraid the jurors misunderstood "reasonable doubt" and by the standards they were going by, there would never be a conviction on a homicide with an unrecovered body. Just by their own comments of "it made us sick to say not guilty" tells me they f'd up and didn't understand reasonable doubt. Enough circumstantial evidence does make a case, and the prosecution had enough. I believe the prosecution was so focused on the case, they forget to press the point of "reasonable doubt".
Oh well, here's to some crazy ass popping her in the street one day.

I think you misunderstand reasonable doubt. If the jury felt there is enough reasonable doubt that the defendant did not commit the [url]charged crime[/url] they should vote not guilty. Generally, post closing arguments the jury are given instructions as to the statutory requirements needed for a guilty conviction for the charged crime(s). A prosecutor would never bring up reasonable doubt, the defense attorney would. In this case the prosecutor charged the [female dog] with intentional murder which has a very high bar of statutory defined requirements of proof that need to be meet. Each state is different but generally you have to prove through clear and convincing evidence that the victim was murdered, the defendant caused the murder, and the defendant intended to murder the victim. The only thing the prosecutor was able to prove was the victim might have been murdered and the defendant might have caused the murder. Even if the prosecutor won a conviction I doubt it would withstood an appeal. If you want to blame someone pin it on the prosecutors. There are a plethora of laws they do not require the burden of proof murder does. That [female dog] would have never seen the light of day if they had been creative with the charges. If they wanted murder they could have waited for the civil trial or more evidence.

It sucks but a conviction should never be based solely on circumstantial evidence. To many innocent people have been sent to jail because of a shoddy conviction. It is one of the reasons crimes have preset burdens of proof requirements.

toad wrote:I read over the case for that crazy [female dog]. She is guilty of something but there is little too no evidence supporting any claim of any wrongdoing.

Correct. The 'only' witness that would talk, is dead. As far as the reasonable doubt thinking of the Jury, one juror was interviewed, and pointedly said "We never said that we thought she was 'innocent', but there just wasn't enough factual evidence to convict her on any of the counts involving murder or child endangement, ..." And I agree with Toad about the charges they used. But the prosecution also over-reached going for Capital Punishment based on the circumstantial evidence they presented or had. Short of a witness or irrefutable evidence, that's a tough one to crack.

I guess on Fox news, the jury foreman thought the father seemed more guilty than the mother for the childs death based on his testimony. Hmmmm.....