<p>Not to be petty (okay, I’m petty), but Casey let her hair down for the first time in court today–I guess the postulant look is no longer necessary. She’s a phony right down to her roots.</p>
<p>I haven’t been following this case closely but watched some of the coverage on Fox news today.</p>
<p>I found it really really really creepy the way Casey was repeatedly stroking her hair in the clips I saw. It was like she was preening for the camera. </p>
<p>Was it nervousness only? It looked like intentional posing for her cameo…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say “crazy” but I would say it is “unreasonable” and “illogical” to look at the evidence and say she was not directly involved. </p>
<p>The jury demonstrated the concept of not seeing the forest for the trees.</p>
<p>The hair thing…i’m a teenager and all of my friends do that and i do too. It drives our teachers and parents crazy but it’s not even a conscious thing anymore. She did smile a lot today though although it’s kind of understandable since she avoided the death penalty and a substantial amount of time in prison.</p>
<p>wow–let’s see. A person still in their early 20s has been locked up in a very small cell alone for nearly 3 years the majority of which the person has not been out of the cell but one hour a day. AND, during that time the person was potentially facing a death sentence.</p>
<p>I imagine that anyone who has been alone for nearly three years who was no longer under the threat of a death sentence and was going to be released in the near future would be looking up and with excitement. I read she has be a “party of one” for 997 days. I imagine that a lot of people under that circumstance would be “preening.”</p>
<p>Don’t forget, she has been found not guilty. I’m sure she is very happy with that finding.</p>
<p>Since the prosecution had based a lot of the emotional weight of their case on Casey the Tramp, I am sure that her attorneys had told her during the trial to come in as very demure. That was good advice. But the guilt phase was over and “the worst case senario” for sentencing was apparently only a few days. I can see that the camera was now her “friend.”</p>
<p>I have to agree with cartera45. It is a case of taking “beyond reasonable doubts” too literally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The jury judged as they should have…</p>
<p>I heard a great quote today…</p>
<p>" A legally correct result can and often is morally repugnant."</p>
<p>You morals and beliefs don’t belong in this argument or the court room. Legally they decided correctly. Everything else is irrelevant.</p>
<p>We have to take “beyond reasonable doubt” literally, but so many overlook the “reasonable” part. I believe the jury did that and I believe they got it wrong. I assume there was no one in the room who either had the capability and wanted to take the time to evaluate all the evidence that pointed to no one but Casey.</p>
<p>There’s a reason for “reasonable”. I take it to allow circumstancial evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is designed in this vague way purposefully. While you may be foaming at the mouth at the defendant I think the defense offered reasonable alternatives.</p>
<p>Which one of us is right??? The system is setup that we ALL have to agree. </p>
<p>The ENTIRE jury agreed. I’m sorry but 12 very different and unrelated human beings with different feelings and beliefs agreeing on the verdict carries more weight than the individual thoughts here. Shrug…</p>
<p>I’d say the jury got it right and you are missing the forest for the trees…</p>
<p>The shorthand for the proof of a crime is means, motive and opportunity BUT over and over again the courts have held that there must also be evidence that the defendant took advantage of the opportunity and did the crime.</p>
<p>All of the evidence in the world of m,m & o to engage in murder, manslaughter etc. cannot support a conviction where there is no evidence that Casey took advantage of the opportunity to commit the offense. The fact that the child is dead is no evidence that Casey commited the offense.</p>
<p>Is it reasonable to sit in jail for three years waiting for a trial, at the end of which you might get the death penalty, when all along your child died in a terrible accident? And all during that time, you don’t reveal that the child died in an accident and in a panic you hid the body? How reasonable is that? Then, just to top it off, when it comes time to tell the world your story of what really happened, you don’t even testify. Yes, she has that right. But, the jury showed no common sense in analyzing the facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of that is reasonable… She most likely followed her lawyer’s instructions…</p>
<p>Lying is NOT proof. Being shady is NOT proof. Not testifying is NOT proof…</p>
<p>What’s with this continuing “common sense” bit??? The justice system runs on facts. Not your dubious common sense…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there must be evidence that the defendant did the crime. There was plenty of evidence presented here that Casey committed the crime. The jury chose to either disregard it or discount it. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. </p>
<p>There is no requirement of motive, but the jury usually wants to hear it. There was evidence of motive here and it was some of the same evidence that she committed the crime.</p>
<p>The Lynch Mob mentality in this thread is truly appalling IMHO. I completely expect this sort of thing from other internet sites (You should see some of them. They practically want to shoot her with an Uzi) . But from CC? I’m pretty shocked tbh I would have fully expected the educated populace of this site to be able to separate their feelings from this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Backseat juror much??? </p>
<p>Your view on the evidence is arguable. None of it was conclusive. If it was as conclusive as you say then we would agree. Ipso facto…</p>
<p>Unless your claim is that the jury is mistaken and so is everyone else that disagrees with you… Interesting…</p>
<p>The key point to the jurors who have talked, including an alternate juror who was on the case, was that there was key evidence missing from the prosecutions case. From what I can tell, the prosecutions claim that she killed her child was based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture, basically, their case seemed to be “She was a rotten mother, she lied to policy, she acted like a tramp, she didn’t seem so concerned with her child missing, she partied, she got a tatoo”, which implies that of course she killed the child. They had evidence the child was in the car, but that fit what the defense claimed, that they moved the body, the mouth had duct tape on it, but they couldn’t show whether that was put on when the child was alive or if as the defense claimed, when she was already dead from an accident, and so forth. The ME couldn’t pin down a cause of death, they could not prove that it was asphyxiation rather then drowning as the defense claimed, they had no evidence (unless the papers didn’t mention it) that showed the girl had chloroform in her body. </p>
<p>The prosecution’s case seemed to come down to the following: 1)They had proof that the child’s body had been in the trunk of the car, which the defense didn’t contend. They didn’t have any proof that the child was alive when put in the trunk, though, and the defense explained that 2)They found Chloroform in the trunk of the car and they found evidence of a net search for how to make chloroform on the home pc. That is probably the strongest evidence they had, it is the only direct evidence they had indicating that the girl was chloroformed and asphyxiated but they couldn’t tie the chloroform to the girls body, the ME wasn’t able to find any signs of it (again, this is based on reading reporrts of the case). </p>
<p>As far as I know, that is all they found, and they had little or no evidence that would disprove what the prosecutor claimed. From what I read, it seems like their whole case was based in the fact that 'of course she was guilty, she didn’t report her child missing for a month", “She lied”, “She was a tramp”, "She was out partying when her daughter was dead and so forth…while assuming those are facts doesn’t exactly make her a fit mother, it doesn’t make her a murderer either. A lot of kids have parents who abandon them, who frankly don’t know where they are, are guilty of abandonment and all kind of things, but that doesn’t make them a murderer or the equivalent of Mehitabel the Cat with her kittens, either. It is quite obvious to convict if you believe the suppositions of the prosecution, if you think “she was a piece of crap as a mother, so therefore she did it”, but that isn’t a logical basis for a case, either, it is more like the guy in the Camus story “The other” who gets convicted of a murder because basically they introduce evidence that he didnt cry at his mother’s funeral and didn’t otherwise seem to grieve.</p>
<p>The first thing they tell you on a jury is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that in weighing the evidence, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case and as part of that, disprove what the defense claims. The version of events given by the defense fit the evidence and facts the prosecution gave, and the prosecution from everything I could tell could introduce no evidence to refute the story of the defense that the girl drowned accidentally and they panicked and covered it up. There have been plenty of cases outside of TV and Movies where someone is deemed a suspect because they seem to be hiding something, acting in a way we wouldn’t expect, and it is later to be found out they panicked, fearing what would happen. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case and it is supposed to be based on direct evidence of guilt, and if a jury believes there is doubt the prosecution didn’t prove its case and if they cannot put doubt upon the defense’s claims, that they have to side with the accused. </p>
<p>The other thing to keep in mind is that juries are well aware that prosecutors and such on sensational cases like this have a tendency to grandstand and they are smart enough to realize that on high profile cases like this, where emotions are running high, that it isn’t exactly unheard of for there to be a rush to judgement, I suspect that made them a bit more skeptical.</p>
<p>Based on the evidence, do I think there is a strong chance the mother did it? Probably, yes. Do I believe the prosecution had an airtight case or didn’t have major doubts? No, very different standard. If this were a civil case, the evidence would probably be enough but in a criminal case? The Jury, not unreasonably to me, saw that the prosecution didn’t have direct evidence of what happened.</p>
<p>Something similar just happened here in NYC, two cops were accused of taking advantage of a very drunk woman in her apartment. They went back to the apartment several times, the girl had caught one of them on tape supposedly admitting to having had sex with her, but the Jury did not convict them of rape. Why? There was absolutely no physical evidence that the cop had sex with her, the evidence they did introduce about the state of her genitals was inconclusive (experts argued both ways, that it could indicate she had recently had sex, others said no), and so forth. Many people are following the same chain of reasoning people are using with this case, that ‘the cops went back to the apartment several times, of course they were having sex with her’ when the only thing that was proven was they went back. All the prosecutors in this case seemed to prove was that the girl died, and they lied about her whereabouts, disposed of the body illegally and so forth, and while that is not exactly great behavior, it doesn’t prove the girl was murdered, either.</p>
<p>I think that’s where parsing words come in. There may not be direct/scientific evidence to link Casey to the death but there’s plenty circumstancial evidence to link her to the child’s death.</p>
<p>Great synopsis Musicprnt. You hit on all the key points.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidence in a trial is usually arguable. If there is no arguable evidence, the case is settled or there is a plea bargain. Why would anyone bother to try a case when there is no evidence upon which reasonable minds would disagree? </p>
<p>Again, evidence does not have to be conclusive. You are applying the incorrect standard. That is one way in which the jury may have also gotten it wrong.</p>