Well, I am surprised by that. I really am. Although I figured she wasnt guilty, I didnt actually think this was going to happen.
|AnimeGalleries [dot] Net||AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com||AnimeLyrics [dot] Com||AnimePedia [dot] Com||AnimeGlobe [dot] Com|
Not talking about the particulars of the evidence, simply that OJ got away with it even though everyone knows he did it. Just like Casey.
Well that's to be expected when you base a case only on circumstantial evidence. There's no proof that she did anything outside of like to the authorities. She'll still probably end up in jail for five to ten years though. Not to mention she should have a full mental evaluation done for how she handled things after the baby died.
I predict she'll come forth with being guilty eventually. Like she came forth with lying about having a job at Universal while giving a tour to the deputies.
I'm very upset with this verdict though as well as the rest of the internet from all the buzz
She may get away from the crime she did when she was alive, but the time comes when she is dead that good for nothing piece of garbage will answer the things she did to God.
I'm real angry and feel beyond sick to my stomach, but you know. She's just a baby killin' skank.
I just found out she is not guilty and seriously, what the hell? I feel like going to Downtown Orlando and shoot her myself and I don't live too far away from there. v_v
Mothers killing their children is not an uncommon thing, believe it or not. It's the reason safe haven laws were established. Cases like these are basically conceived on slow media days.
Eh, hard to say really. The case was completely circumstantial, and they couldn't even prove that the girl was murdered, much less by whom. If anything, the prosecution aimed too high here. They would've had a more solid case for something like negligent homicide, but murder one is very hard to prove, and rightly so. So while they showed that the mother is a pretty awful human being, they did not show any actual guilt.
Most cases are completely circumstantial. If direct evidence was needed to convict, our jails would be nearly empty. If you see a man holding a smoking gun with a dead shot man near him, it's circumstantial evidence. The question is: What is the probability someone else shot him, and put the gun in an innocent man's hand?
What's the probability that her child happened to drown, that the mother happened not to really care that much, that the mother wrote a journal entry about having no regrets yet be talking about something else, duct tape on the face, Google searches, etc?
There are few cases where an eye witness or camera caught the suspect in the act.
And where did Casey leave her child when she had a nanny that didn't exist and when she went MIA with some guy in jacksonville who doesn't exist. How many other times did she neglect her. She doesn't look guilty because she doesn't have a sane bone in her body. You'd want to smack those smiles off of her face of her partying in the time frame "Caylee is missing"
Last edited by blueangel06661; 07-06-2011 at 08:05 AM.
It was probably Casey who disposed of the body, but they weren't charging her with that. And yes, her behavior was inhumane, and no sane parent should be acting that way, and even a sociopath would consider how they have to pretend to act.
In the case of the gun, yes, that evidence is circumstantial also, but if you can show that the person died from a bullet, that the bullet was shot from that gun, and that the suspect fired a gun, and his prints are on the murder weapon, thats very solid evidence already, because it builds upon itself. That entire chain would fall apart if it can be shown that the dead guy with a bullet in him died of a heart attack.
If you can't show how someone died, can't show that it was an intentional death, don't have evidence of a plan to kill them, you should not be going for murder one, because no sane jury will give you that verdict. Remember that murder one requires that not only was it intentional, but it was premeditated, and the evidence just wasn't there for that.
Sentencing has been passed, she'll be out later this month or in August.
I haven't really researched this case at all, but I've heard enough to think that she is guilty. As Blueangel stated before, no one places duct tape on a victim that is already dead. I'm sorry to say this but I think she was found not guilty just because she's young, or else the jury didn't think it was enough for a death penalty sentence.
I'm sorry but I just think this case comes down to the fact that she's still young. They don't want to put a girl her age though a death penalty for that sole reason.
That's what i was thinking but i think also because some people think she's pretty and feel sorry for her, which is bullcrap. Don't do the crime of you can't do the time.
I forgot the death penalty was still in Florida. Anyways i think the jury was dumb for making that decision. I'm really ticked off. That baby didn't deserve that.
Man that is whack!
Token Black Guy
I think she should be guilty for child abuse.
Even if she didn't kill her daughter.
Wow, I thought she was more guilty than that Peterson guy. Granted most cases like these are circumstantial, at the same time, you can't believe they're all coincidences.
Check out my anime reviews at: http://www.youtube.com/grapplerjmo
I don't care.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)