Casey's Attorney To Jury: Caylee Drowned

[Tender Foot]

not guilty of murder one, not guilty and innocent are not the same thing.

innocent until proven guilty, not proven guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law and the court, it's a fact regardless of public opinion.

[DootDootMan]

innocent until proven guilty, not proven guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law and the court, it's a fact regardless of public opinion.

TY. All of these legal want to be lawyers are just speculating. FOUND INNOCENT IS INNOCENT. Plain and simple.

[episode]

innocent until proven guilty, not proven guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law and the court, it's a fact regardless of public opinion.

No, it isn't.

Try taking a civics course.

[mudslag]

innocent until proven guilty, not proven guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law and the court, it's a fact regardless of public opinion.

In terms of the law, sure but that doesnt mean she is "actually" innocent. Again this really came down to how it was prosecuted. Had they tried for something other then murder one it would have been much easier for them to prosecute. After all even what the defense claimed what happened would have fallen under manslaughter. But because they tried for something much harder to prove, intent to kill, they hung themselves in the end.

TY. All of these legal want to be lawyers are just speculating. FOUND INNOCENT IS INNOCENT. Plain and simple.

you are the last person to talk about wanna be lawyer, you dont even understand the basic concepts of whats being talked about. She was not found innocent, the burden of proof was not ENOUGH.

[Scorbing]

I think the jury got fed up with the drama and the BS and the fact that they have been practically "incarcerated" in a hotel room without phone, radio, TV or contact with anything or anyone for 30+ days and gave a verdict to just get it done and over with so they could go home.

[DootDootMan]

In terms of the law, sure but that doesnt mean she is "actually" innocent. Again this really came down to how it was prosecuted. Had they tried for something other then murder one it would have been much easier for them to prosecute. After all even what the defense claimed what happened would have fallen under manslaughter. But because they tried for something much harder to prove, intent to kill, they hung themselves in the end.

you are the last person to talk about wanna be lawyer, you dont even understand the basic concepts of whats being talked about.

Innocent is innocent. Were you there? I didn't thinks so. She is innocent in my book and unless you have some compelling evidence my opinion will remain that way.

[Tender Foot]

@

No, it isn't.

Try taking a civics course.

lol, what, you can't be serious? and No I don't need to take a civics course!

@mudslag

they did charge her with murder 2, child abuse and came back not guilty

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Innocent is innocent. Were you there? I didn't thinks so. She is innocent in my book and unless you have some compelling evidence my opinion will remain that way.

You can have any opinion you want, it doesn't mean it's the only opinion possible.

You get upset at other people saying their opinion, and post yours in response, while telling them to stop saying their opinion. They have the same right as you do to speculate on the case, and why the jury returned the verdict they did.

[Windows7even]

Common sense tells us that caylee was killed and didn't drown..everyone was blinded by their search for how/who/why..take the clear cut evidence that has been presented...u know..the stuff that came from the parties involved and not the stuff that comes out of twisted media outlets, and now tell me how the evidence could point to possibly any other outcome for young caylee. The sheer amount of lies that were told in this case was enough to confuse and smokescreen the truth from anyone that was sitting on the jury. And don't get me started on the subject of an "impartial" jury. the flow of information in the world today through media and news is twisted and manipulated beyond any possible truth. Because of this the term "impartial" does not apply to todays justice system. We are living in a world completely different than the one when our justice system was conceived. To put it imply, we are all puppets in the

grand circus of lies and mis-truths whether we want to be or not.

[mudslag]

Innocent is innocent. Were you there? I didn't thinks so. She is innocent in my book and unless you have some compelling evidence my opinion will remain that way.

Again I'll use Capone as an example. It could never be "proven" he was guilty of the crimes he was said to have committed, that in no way means he was innocent of said crimes. The prosecutors failed to provide the burden of proof, that in no way means she is 100% innocent of wrong doing. Your opinion is yours but dont play stupid pretending your opinion is the only one that counts.

[DootDootMan]

You can have any opinion you want, it doesn't mean it's the only opinion possible.

You get upset at other people saying their opinion, and post yours in response, while telling them to stop saying their opinion. They have the same right as you do to speculate on the case, and why the jury returned the verdict they did.

Nope. I don't get upset. Opinions are just that as well as facts. Quit skewing my posts please.

[mudslag]

Nope. I don't get upset. Opinions are just that as well as facts. Quit skewing my posts please.

It's not skewing your post when others see the same thing he sees. :rolleyes:

[Amarok]

Common sense tells us that caylee was killed and didn't drown..everyone was blinded by their search for how/who/why..take the clear cut evidence that has been presented...u know..the stuff that came from the parties involved and not the stuff that comes out of twisted media outlets, and now tell me how the evidence could point to possibly any other outcome for young caylee. The sheer amount of lies that were told in this case was enough to confuse and smokescreen the truth from anyone that was sitting on the jury. And don't get me started on the subject of an "impartial" jury. the flow of information in the world today through media and news is twisted and manipulated beyond any possible truth. Because of this the term "impartial" does not apply to todays justice system. We are living in a world completely different than the one when our justice system was conceived. To put it imply, we are all puppets in the

grand circus of lies and mis-truths whether we want to be or not.

The jury members aren't supposed to have any access to any of the media circus information, just what's presented in court.

[DootDootMan]

It's not skewing your post when others see the same thing he sees. :rolleyes:

It is just an opinion. Go away troll. You always seem to do this on every post.

Again I'll use Capone as an example. It could never be "proven" he was guilty of the crimes he was said to have committed, that in no way means he was innocent of said crimes. The prosecutors failed to provide the burden of proof, that in no way means she is 100% innocent of wrong doing. Your opinion is yours but dont play stupid pretending your opinion is the only one that counts.

BS post. Quit trying to compare two different situations. Troll is a troll. Go away.

[mudslag]

It is just an opinion. Go away troll. You always seem to do this on every post.

point out your retarded post?

[snipped]

FTFY

Edited July 6, 2011 by John S.
I don't think so

[Windows7even]

The jury members aren't supposed to have any access to any of the media circus information, just what's presented in court.

this i know..i am talking about the bigger picture...like a lifetime exposure to the twists and turns of the media...doesn't matter that they are sheltered during the trial. They have been manipulated their whole lives as to what to expect from a "idea trial"..ie... too many csi/cop shows...that makes it impossible to be unbiased.

[primexx]

Well, the jury voted unanimously. She didn't take a plea deal because she was obviously innocent as the jury instructed. Seems to me that you are just trolling.

The case was proven to the fullest. The evidence wasn't there hence the not guilty verdict. The prosecution had plenty of time to provide compelling and damning evidence- they didn't because it wasn't there.

And that is what she was tried on. She's innocent IMHO. All of the jurors gave the same result. Why beat a dead horse? Yes the evidence was there to prove her innocence beyond a shadow of doubt. The jury found her to be INNOCENT. Let it go.

A unanimous jury vote isn't exactly uncommon. All convictions are unanimous, for example (they have to be to result in a conviction).

It seems like you have confused the burden of proof here. It is the crown's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Anything else results in an acquittal. The defence did not, nor was required to, prove beyond any standard that she was in fact innocent.

All that you can say about the verdict is that they found at least a reasonable doubt in the crown's case, considering that nobody but the jurors know their own reasoning, or how much of whose evidence they believed.

No. No. No. And no.

The jury found her NOT GUILTY. There is a marked difference between innocent and not guilty. You are never found 'innocent' of a crime, just 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Thats not the same thing as innocent.

Did she kill her daughter? Most likely, yes.

Should she have been found guilty? No, because they had zero evidence and no confession.

Slight correction, that should be "just not 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'." (notice the placement of your quote).

innocent until proven guilty, not proven guilty = innocent in the eyes of the law and the court, it's a fact regardless of public opinion.

TY. All of these legal want to be lawyers are just speculating. FOUND INNOCENT IS INNOCENT. Plain and simple.

legally, "innocent" and "not guilty" is essentially synonymous, yes.

however, that doesn't preclude drawing a finer distinction when commenting on cases. it doesn't detract at all from the legal judgment, but you have to realize too that there is a huge difference between someone who actually did not commit a crime, and someone who simply can't be proved to have committed a crime due to the lack of evidence. we give the latter the benefit of the presumption of innocence in order to (at least try to) make absolutely sure that the former is not falsely convicted.

I think the jury got fed up with the drama and the BS and the fact that they have been practically "incarcerated" in a hotel room without phone, radio, TV or contact with anything or anyone for 30+ days and gave a verdict to just get it done and over with so they could go home.

oh it's one of those huh... yea that must get real annoying real fast.

[Yorak]

When Casey appears before the Lord, justice will finally be served.

[DocM]

Motive, Means and Opportunity.

going out of order -

Means: duct tape, whatever - everything found with her body was available to everyone in that house, not just Casey.

Opportunity: since we don't know the time and date of death, and the car was often left there, we are again left with everyone in the house.

Motive: yes, Casey had her motive - she liked to party - but there are other things that raise doubt.

Let's assume for a minute that the prosecution is right and chloroform was used on her. That's a very odd thing forensically because of the demographic: kids who are found to have been anesthetized with chloroform are almost universally victims of sexual assaults, often by those making kiddie porn. Women rarely make kiddie porn. Women do, however, often cover for men in the family who are doing such things. Don't ask why; I've given up trying to figure out female denial syndrome.

Something to think about.

[CoLdFuSi0n]

About time this is over, so tired of reading this about this trial everyday in the news paper

[Windows7even]

When Casey appears before the Lord, justice will finally be served.

dont think she will get that opportunity...she gets a "go straight to jail (or should i say hell) card!

[Nexus-]

Well, glad to see I'm getting less crap than I expect! :)

Our justice system is based on everyone being innocent until proven guilty. There have been enough false confessions or tainted evidence that everyone should deserve a fair shake.

The defense attorney isn't just defending Casey, he is defending every single one of us and our Constitutional rights. What do you think would happen if--even if just in this case--the police didn't have to prove their case and we just all presumed Casey was guilty. Maybe that doesn't matter in this case, but what about the next case? We need to make sure that our justice system isn't chipped away case by case.

The defense attorney's job is to make sure the government does its job.

We can't simply presume someone is guilty just because the crime is awful.

I always say, what if you were the person that was accused of some awful crime and everyone thought you were guilty before you even got a chance in court to prove your innocence? I bet you'd be glad you had a defense lawyer that took you at your word and did his best to defend you.

Excelent. This pretty much shuts the door on this argument. Another way of thinking about it is the defendant is not defending the person, they are challenging government to govern within the law, and they are challenging law enforcement to have legally obtained evidence, and finally prosecution to take both and put them together well enough to convince the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person is not guilty. This is a counterbalance to the other side.

Also you may think that these people may have trouble sleeping at night, but they are paid very well. Imagine how well Michael Jackson's legal team must have been paid to get him out of 'Jesus juice'. Yeah they are paid well.

[mudslag]

BS post. Quit trying to compare two different situations. Troll is a troll. Go away.

Explain exactly why it's BS, while the two are different situations, the overall point has merit. Being found not guilty doesnt mean you are actually innocent. Seeing you are unwilling to understand or take the time to even try, that makes you the troll.

[primexx]

Excelent. This pretty much shuts the door on this argument. Another way of thinking about it is the defendant is not defending the person, they are challenging government to govern within the law, and they are challenging law enforcement to have legally obtained evidence, and finally prosecution to take both and put them together well enough to convince the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person is not guilty. This is a counterbalance to the other side.

Also you may think that these people may have trouble sleeping at night, but they are paid very well. Imagine how well Michael Jackson's legal team must have been paid to get him out of 'Jesus juice'. Yeah they are paid well.

criminal law actually doesn't pay very well compared to the other areas (e.g. corporate, family, etc.). a few high profile cases could result in large sums, but most of the routine jobs aren't all that great (comparatively speaking, of course).

[Nexus-]

double post. :blush: