<p>In the article linked in post 1400, Dershowitz states what many here on this thread have stated but others have refuted:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i would agree that not proven would seem more appropriate but then i understand what others have posted… if it is “innocent until proven guilty” doesnt that then mean she wasnt proven guilty so therefore remains innocent? semantics?</p>
<p>I haven’t followed this thread much…sort of makes me sick to think much about how the little girl may have died. BUT, I will say that I don’t think any mother ever “gets away” with murdering her child…or even “gets away” with an accident to which her negligence contributed. Parents are torn up over the accidental death of their child, even if it was an accident in which neither parent was involved.</p>
<p>Casey may feel joyous now about getting out of jail, not facing death row or a long prison term. But she will have to live with herself. I predict heavy self-medication with drugs or alcohol.</p>
<p>You’re not getting the context.</p>
<p>In the US there is a presumption of innocence. It is the foundation of our Justice System.</p>
<p>She was innocent going in. She was charged with a crime(s) and was found not guilty of those crime(s).</p>
<p>That makes her…still innocent.</p>
<p>Hi Parent 56 (waving)</p>
<p>Semantics … innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt … it’s the “reasonable doubt” addendum that turned into the stickler for this jury …</p>
<p>If you can’t get that^^^^, then we will have to agree to disagree because I can’t really say it any simpler.</p>
<p>jsanche, it is not a matter of what I get or don’t get. I agree with the statement by Alan Dershowitz, who is one of the best known criminal lawyers. Perhaps you think he doesn’t “get it” too?</p>
<p>jsanche32 - so you MUST say OJ is innocent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the better term is “innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.” Casey Anthony is innocent in the eyes of the law of the murder of her daughter.</p>
<p>Whether she is innocent in reality–at this point, that’s something we may never find out for sure unless she confesses.</p>
<p>Dershowitz assumes you understand what presumption of innocence is all about.</p>
<p>Which you seem to gloss over time and time again.</p>
<p>xSlacker and I have pointed this out to you numerous times.</p>
<p>Yes, OJ is innocent (well, was, as he is incarcerated now)) legally speaking.</p>
<p>But that case was very different. Drawing parallels between OJ and Casey Anthony is not the best idea.</p>
<p>Semantics again but …</p>
<p>Casey Anthony was found Not Guilty in a court of law of the charges brought against her. The jurors did not find her Innocent. Listen to Judge Perry read the verdict. Semantics are there for a reason.</p>
<p>Yes jsanche32, OJ and Casey are both actually innocent, in the same way that every wrongfully convicted innocent person is actually guilty.</p>
<p>although i strongly believe casey was involved and the more i think about it i wish the language was not proven instead…i think what jsanche is saying, in answer to ignatius… the judge doesnt have to say she was innocent…she is presumed innocent all along… and the jury doesnt have to say she is innocent (even though in interviews it seems they think she is ‘guilty" of something) …that is already established unless proven otherwise. Do i think she is innocent…NO!! but that is just based on a gut feeling (didnt watch trial only closing arguments) but strongly defend the jury’ s right to find her not guilty</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. She is innocent in the eyes of the law. She may or may not be innocent of wrongdoing in the death of her daughter in reality and factually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me, but please do not speak for me. I FULLY UNDERSTAND the presumption of innocence under the law in our country. That said, I AGREE with Dershowitz’s statement that Casey was not found innocent by the jury but was found not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that doubts exist doesn’t mean that Casey was not involved in her child’s death. We don’t know if she was or wasn’t. She may have been! That possibility strongly exists. She is presumed innocent unless found guilty in a court of law. That doesn’t mean she didn’t have something to do with her child’s death in reality. The fact that it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t then follow that Casey didn’t do anything. Those who have committed crimes do go free, just like innocent people are found guilty. What a finding in a court of law establishes doesn’t mean it matches what factually occurred.</p>
<p>By the way, even some jurors are stating that they don’t think she is innocent but they were unable to prove her guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>I wasn’t drawing parallels at all. I just wanted you to say OJ was innocent. </p>
<p>Listen, You are saying what the jury says goes. </p>
<p>Then for every case ever - you MUST conclude regardless of the facts / evidence in the case.</p>
<p>Not Guilty = Innocent</p>
<p>Guilty = Guilty</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree with that.</p>
<p>jsanche, do you realize that there are some innocent people who are sitting in jail who were convicted wrongfully? Ever hear of the Innocence Project? </p>
<p>Innocent people do get convicted. Guilty people do get found non guilty. These things happen. What a court of law determines by jury is not ALWAYS what is true in reality. We don’t know what is true in Casey Anthony’s case. A jury has found her non-guilty of the charges that were brought beyond a reasonable doubt. Even as Dershowitz says, perhaps if the charges were different ones by the prosecution, it may have turned out differently, as opposed to having gone after capital murder.</p>
<p>Aren’t we a little too clever with words? Not proven guilty is different from innocent therefore she is guilty?</p>
<p>Again I think she is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt just not without any doubt.</p>
<p>Iglooo, I don’t think people are saying she is necessarily guilty as we don’t know. She wasn’t found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean she had nothing to do with her child’s death. Nothing could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that’s all.</p>
<p>soozievt…they did have some other options…i thought they would go for the manslaughter charges… </p>
<p>capital murder was pushing it…but they could have found for a lesser one and they didnt…but perhaps that option on the table was what made them say reasonable doubt, and then of course that would have applied to the lesser ones too (accident vs intentional)… If it had been only manslaughter or not DP…would they have done the same, i’m not sure.</p>