Very well, we're all outraged, annoyed, dumbstruck, unsurprised, penguinfied, ect. about the fact she was acquitted.
So, what was she acquitted? In law the must be a reason. The reason doesn't have to be reasonable or just (they often aren't), but there MUST be some reason.
According to my mom, she got four 1-year sentences.
She didn't get sentenced yet. The sentencing hearing will take place Thursday. Depending on how the judge determines how severe the penalty should be for the misdemeanor of lying to police on 4 counts, she could be released due to time already served.
The reason she was found not guilty was mainly because the prosecutors couldn't link anything to Casey directly (other than lying). They were trying to charge her with 1st degree premeditated murder (which is very hard to prove), child abuse, and child neglect There was nothing to say she was the only person who could've done it. They also couldn't prove child abuse/neglect due to lack of evidence.
But does it make sense that she didn't do it? I mean who would just leave their child. I don't know one person who would have their child die and do nothing to commemerate them. No funeral, no depression, nothing. She just partied. If they wanted more evidence they should have looked into it more and then made a decision.
Perhaps another family member could've done it. They looked into it for over a year and could find nothing that directly connected her to the murder. During the trial, the prosecutors never said anything like "And that's how Casey murdered her!" They said "that's how she died."
Also, there isn't any evidence directly connecting her to the murder.
This is incorrect. During a trial procedure all high profile cases like this one are brought before a Grand Jury to decide if the case is fit to stand trial. Therefore, there MUST be evidence to support the prosecution's case.
In trial however, it all comes down to how that evidence is presented. A poor presentation, a lack of explaination to the jury (simple minds require explainations), or any numerous factos can contribute to make the evidence seem less concrete. The defense has a very easy job, they must simply raise doubt. That is what they did. The prosecution can have as much evidence as they want, however, if a jury is convinced that MAYBE she didn't do it, the case is all but lost. The fact that a lesser murder charge was not given is perhaps the oddest thing about this case. It is a rare event when a 1st degree murder charge is simply dropped without settling for the lesser charges of second degree, third, or manslaughter. The only case that comes to mind is, once again, O.J Simpson.
I think she strategically wormed her way out of it, without doing anything. I mean, if you were on the jury, you'd be toying with life and death, and so the big question to come into play is whether there is any reasonable doubt between you and her needle. I think her pretty face and emotions may have done a good job on the jury. Many people thought the prosecution did a great job, but the defense, while not having much evidence to play with, did what it had to do. Their idea was, I think, to accept that yes, she's a terrible mom, a liar, filled with unbecoming behavior or whatever, but to still say that in the end, it's still too 'iffy' to say she killed her. That's all I can say.
Because, throughout all the news/personal stuff I've seen, nobody agreed with the verdict. My only guess is that the people in the jury may have felt some sympathy or some doubt.
How does a mentally ill person have such an active social life and stuff? I mean, at best she looks bipolar, and even that doesn't explain much. I'm sure if there were any indication of her being ill/insane, the trial would have found out about it.
The fact that a lesser murder charge was not given is perhaps the oddest thing about this case.
There was enough evidence to say the girl was murdered and that's why the trial took place, but there was no evidence that directly linked Casey. OJ was famous at the time and had friends in high places. Casey was a nobody with a messed up family and problems of her own with little actual evidence (mostly speculation, maybes, and what-ifs). Usually in murder cases there's more direct evidence like if the person was choked to death by another's bare/gloved hands, the Medical Examiner can testify the size of the person's hands/fingers based on the injuries. The evidence just wasn't there.
Because, throughout all the news/personal stuff I've seen, nobody agreed with the verdict. My only guess is that the people in the jury may have felt some sympathy or some doubt.
On CNN today at about 6EST they had an alternate juror on the phone; they were hoping he would agree with their condemning of the jury's discision and say something like 'I'd've said guilty if I was there'. He didn't. Instead he said, (I'm paraphrasing) 'I wholeheartedly agree with the verdict.' His reason? There wasn't enough evidence linking Casey to the murder.
Oh I forgot to add that as soon as he was off the line, the host tried to basically say that the alternate was nuts, but a legal anylist next to him was like 'wow! that alternate knows what he's saying' before the host could complain.
I've heard a host on CNN say today about the trial, "I know a lot of you will say 'the Constitution says the person is innocent until proven guilty'. Forget about the Constitution! Justice must be served!"
It's true her behavior was beyond bizarre, but maybe she's severely mentally ill. That might be the answer to the constant lying.
I doubt she is mentally ill. If she was, why didn't she plead so? And also, there would have been a note of that as well if she seriously was mentally ill. And even people who are mentally ill know the difference between truths and straight-up lies and her lies were apparent in every way. Nothing that came out of her mouth matched up to how she acted.
What, should the jury be psychically aware of what happened? Or should they merely look at the person and decide guilt? What do you suggest, if explanation is so unsavory?
People just want someone to blame. I'm just glad the jury declared her not guilty. It's trials like these -- a not guilty verdict against the majority (and stupid) public opinion -- that restore my faith in the legal system.
What equates to neglect? If the whole waiting a month to report the kid missing thing is correct, then that is in fact neglecting the health of the child for an entire month is it not? Most mothers I know can't do much of anything other than freak out when they don't know where their kid is for more than even a few minutes....let alone go out and party like crazy. I'm admittedly not everyone in the world... but going out and partying, drinking, and getting a "The Good Life" tattoo during a time when my child was missing would be beyond impossible. ...even if my child died in a pool accident and the incident had been covered up. I wouldn't be happy, nor would I have the "Bella Vita" tattoo on my person anytime thereafter during this lifetime.
If you can't prove murder, then you can't prove murder... but to hide the body after a supposed accident and be able to call my life "The Good Life" while that body decomposes in a swamp (not even an improper burial) is just beyond words for me.
summing it up. Hiding the fact the child is missing is neglecting the child's health. Anyone who watches these random csi shows has heard that there is a very limited window of time where the missing person has a greater chance of being found (it's based off of the real deal)... and after it closes their chances drop significantly with each hour... not to mention each day........ not watching the child when there's a pool outside that the child can get into and drown in and/or child proofing the pool entrance is neglect on someone's part for not watching her.
With all the random stuff being spouted off on the news, I don't know what all is true and what is not. There are all kinds of things about the car smelling of decay and other things related to the conspiracies having been found, but I dunno. All I do know is that if my child had gone missing I would've used every resource at my disposal and made the issue public asap. I probably wouldn't have eaten or slept for days... let alone gone and shook my drunken butt at some party(that I'd never have been at). ....if she didn't do it... but she is in fact as uncaring as some of her actions would suggest, then she's just a terrible mother. She probably shouldn't have anymore kids if that's the case.
I hope she doesn't go write a book that's entitled something to the effect of "IF I'D REALLY KILLED CAYLEE, THEN THIS IS HOW I WOULD'VE DONE IT" just to make money off of her situation. ...seems to be the trend with this kind of thing tho.
