<p>This part of the juctice’s instructions were ignored:
The problem was that Casey had SUCH disregard for her responsibilities, she didn’t even know who was watching Caylee when she drowned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can’t because there is no way to prove she was negligent…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She doesn’t know or she isn’t saying… There is a huge difference.</p>
<p>The fact is that the prosecution didn’t know what exactly happened and can’t possibly point to a specific crime.</p>
<p>Plus you can’t pinpoint exactly when Caylee died. Was she negligent and Caylee died because of it? Did she kill her and just appears negligent?</p>
<p>Shooting in the dark isn’t enough…</p>
<p>A lot of people here are putting in their own version of what actually might have happened.</p>
<p>The truth is: We don’t know what happened. Not us, not the jury, and not the judge.</p>
<p>That is reflected in the juries decision. You can’t convict someone when you have no clue as to what might have actually transpired.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the evidence of this bolded element?</p>
<p>Perfect quote from one of the jurors:</p>
<p>**“I just swear to God …,” he said, his voice falling silent, overcome by tears. "I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do …</p>
<p>“But it wasn’t there.”**</p>
<p>“We didn’t know how she died, we didn’t know when she died,” said Juror No. 2, who was one of the 10. "Technically, we didn’t even know where she died.</p>
<p>Pretty much what I have been repeating on here over and over again.</p>
<p>Even if someone thinks Casey “got away with murder,” can it seriously be agrued that the jury did not enter the proper verdict based on the jury instructions? </p>
<p>I think that the jurors should be prasied for following the instructions regardless of one’s gut belief that Casey “did it.”</p>
<p>I defer to my comment from yesterday. I don’t blame the jury - </p>
<p>The reason people are so emotional and upset is because this was a defenseless two year old child who probably adored her mother and that child somehow ended up in a garbage bag on the side of the road. There was no connect the dots evidence here - the time factor from when it happened to when Caylee was found was too long. But I think in the hearts of millions of people, they think Casey was responsible for Caylee’s death.</p>
<p>So really for me - I physically hurt for Caylee - no two year old child should end up like garbage. But the jury did what they were asked to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Totally agree. And may karma take care of the rest. PS-- I also think that there should be perjury charges brought against Cindy.</p>
<p>Someone described earlier in this thread Casey’s “postulant” appearance the way she looked sitting throughout her trial. Actually joining a cloistered community of nuns wouldn’t be a bad option for Casey if she wants to be shielded from the public which is going to be hounding her for decades. She could hide out for say 20 years in a nunnery, leave the order, and then she might be accepted by the general public as a tolerable human being–after she 'fesses up!</p>
<p>It ain’t gonna happen though, and Casey is likely destined to have a miserable future, even if she gets some money in her pockets soon.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think mass murderers have gotten more sympathy that Casey. And she was found innocent.</p>
<p>And it is good to see an innocent person walk free.</p>
<p>Here we go again. You really thrive on this don’t you jsanche32 :)</p>
<p>The jury found her “Not Guilty”</p>
<p>The jury did not stand up there and find her “Innocent”</p>
<p>And you won’t get any sympathy out of me for a mass murderer.</p>
<p>I just think that things like this should be discussed sans emotional attachments.</p>
<p>Everything I stated about the merits of the case in the last 15+ pages has just been re-iterated by the jury.</p>
<p>The whole “She’s not innocent” debate is an emotional/semantic argument IMHO which to be perfectly honest doesn’t really interest me much anymore.</p>
<p>It’s not entirely an emotional/semantic argument. It’s a high-probability argument. You’d be crazy to look at the evidence and not think she was involved directly. Unfortunately (and sometimes fortunately) the courts don’t work that way.</p>
<p>High-probability = speculation.</p>
<p>And you can’t convict on speculation.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s speculation. But all cases involving “proof” are speculative to some extent – even if that extent is very, very, very high.</p>
<p>I disagree that the speculative threshold is so low in this case that it’s unclear if Casey was at fault. She clearly was.</p>
<p>I can’t believe she’s getting out next Wednesday… where is the justice for Caylee and every other abused child?!?</p>
<p>As others have pointed out, juries don’t find you innocent when they acquit you, they find you not guilty based on the case as presented in court. We live by a system where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and this kind of emotional powderkeg is why. The state has a lot of power, including access to media and the press, and the reason the accused is given the benefit of the doubt is because otherwise, as has happened far too often, the trial system becomes a system that could convict, to paraphrase something someone said about grand juries, a ham sandwich for murder. </p>
<p>I think the jury acted the way they had to, they didn’t sit there and say “of course she was guilty, like at what a crappy mother she was, look at the way she hid what happened, etc”…that attests to the mom’s character, but that doesn’t mean she killed her daughter, either. In a system where you are guilty until proven innocent, she would have been put away for murder, because the prosecution raised doubts by things like her behavior and so forth, but it doesn’t work like that, and their ‘doubts’ are not proof. Why they couldnt determine cause of death or time of death I don’t know, the papers didn’t really say, but the only factual evidence the coroner had was that the girl was dead, the mom lied about what happened, and that was it. The Chloroform smell? If they could have shown the girl had chloroform in her body, that would have been hard proof that would have blown the defense allegation the girl drowned. The duck tape on the mouth was proof of nothing, since the defense said they did that to try and cover up what happened.</p>
<p>It is so hard in a case like this, when we all have kids of our own, but all you have to do is look at the cases where people have been railroaded and yes, executed, for crimes they didn’t do, where unpopular people have been convicted of crimes simply because they were unpopular, and this happens even with the safeguards in our system and it is why the burden is on the prosecution, to try and stop that.</p>