Health

ZK – “From what I have heard the DA failed to prove the case leaving the jury no choice but to acquit. The standard of a criminal case is “Beyond a reasonable doubt” not “Badmouthed on the TV news” for a reason.”

From my post above:

They should have judged up on the facts, not anything else! Doubt is fine as long as you don’t use it find the guilty innocent. Only Hashem knows everything for sure, but this case fufilled the requirement of the law -Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! The evidence here is called circumstantial, but never the less this evidence has found many a person guilty. She is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Cherrybim -“There was no scientific proof presented at the trial which indicated that she was murdered, only circumstantial speculation, or guessing by the medical examiner.”

You really have no clue about murder cases. Why don’t you watch some reality TV like AMW or 48 hours? If you find a two y.o. dead in the woods, the presumtion is murder. If you find tape and a bag with the child, it strengthens your presumtion. If a defense lawyer (liar) wants to claim that this child was killed accidently – the burden of proof is now on the defense to prove his claims. Claiming it and manipulating minds doesn’t change the presumption of murder. Instilling doubt doesn’t change the ratio of presumtion of murder against accidental death, no matter how many times the lawyer repeats it. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but many a criminal has been convicted on this type of evidence.

“Laboratory testing of the remains produced no scientific evidence of murder.”

We are very lucky in the last couple of years because they have discovered how to use DNA as evidence, but before the discovery of DNA – people still killed others. I wouldn’t expect them to find any scientific evidence, due to the length of time before they discovered the body. Do you have any scientific knowledge?

“It’s no wonder that the jury acquitted Casey.”

This statement I can agree with, but for different reasons. The Juries in America are hand picked by the lawyers. They can’t be too smart, but not extremely dumb. Main thing is that they don’t want them to think for themselves. They want them to believe what’s ever fed to them. Americans used to be quite bright, but now the generations are being brought up on TV, internet, etc. Sitting your whole childhood like a zombie won’t make you into a genius! You see this isn’t a small problem because a good portion of America agrees with this Jury!

cherrybim- “Casey did not testify, so we don’t know anything from her directly.”

I was talking on the logic that she was killed accidentally, like the defense claimed. If it was an accident -A parent calls 911 if they see their kid drowned -maybe they can revive the kid! So this claim of the defense is bogus.

“Logic says.”

My logic says if she thinks noone will find the body -there is no reason for her to put on a grieving mother act!

“Exactly, a guilty person will leave some type of physical evidence, and there was none.”

Yes, a body with tape in the mouth is called physical evidence.

Do you mean she had to hang onto the rest of the tape and the choloroform until she got caught -she couldn’t possibly throw these away? And not all cases there is any physical evidence at all. Did you ever hear of the case of an American girl in Aruba whom they presume is dead?

“As I said above, the job of a defense attorney is to place doubt in the minds of the jury.”

Oh, he definitely did a good job. Somehow he convinced a Jury to ignore all the evidence and find a gulity perp innocent. He probably played on their emotions. They should have judged up on the facts, not anything else! Doubt is fine as long as you don’t use it find the guilty innocent. Only Hashem knows everything for sure, but this case fufilled the requirement of the law -Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!

cherrybim -“Casey did not sit shiva, but that does not make her guilty. Some people cannot cope with personal tragedy and go into denial and act accordingly.”

True, but how did she know for sure the child was dead, unless she killed her herself? A parent calls 911 if they see their kid drowned -maybe they can revive the kid!

“If it was a premeditated murder, Casey certainly would have acted the grieving mother part.”

Who says?

“And it doesn’t appear that Casey was that sophisticated to dispose of all physical evidence.”

What physical evidence?

The Goq -“I think shes guilty however the prosecutions case was not very strong they didnt have any witnesses no confirmed cause of death, and their main point seemed to be she didnt act like a mother would act when their child was missing there was no smoking gun that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty”

deiyezooger -“How can someone even be charged on first degree murder without any real evidence? There was no finger prints, no DNA, no witnesses, all there was is a theory that may be true and may not be true. If the jury would FEEL they believe the prosecutions theory (who themselves cant say for sure) she could have got the death penelty!!”

The evidence here is called circumstantial, but never the less this evidence has found many a person guilty. She is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

OOmis -“I believe that her child’s death was accidental, probably the result of incompetent parenting or the result of trying to put her sleep for a few hours so she would not interfere with her mother’s partying,”

And why do you believe that? The facts point to murder. Child’s body found in woods with tape in mouth. Are you basing your decision on your emotions, just like the Jury?