No Flames - Innocent until proven guilty

[RR0004]

I couldn't use any of the computer searches as evidence of guilt because I research eveything on the computer- including chloroform, gun registration, tons of things having to do with this case or others. For instance, I'm reading a biography of Josephine and it was mentioned that Napoleon may have been poisoned with arsenic-so I researched arsenic. Being a reader of crime fiction, I've done lots of searches that may be considered suspicious if I were being investigated.

I think you're tad more of an academic than Casey. LOL

(I know, we still don't know WHO did the searches.)

 

[Dr. Know?]

The hair did it for me. Up until then I had a niggling doubt. The death band on the hair found in the trunk solidified my opinion that she was guilty. And then there was the lack of a Zenida-nanny, the lack of a job and the lies to LE about that. And when her long-time friends say she she is a known liar, and seeing how she treats her mother (goes to character, not guilt), her loose morals (character again), and, well, just a whole bunch of stuff - morals and truth were not high on Casey's list, Caylee was certainly in the way of Casey's good times. Was it anger and frustration that she couldn't live "La Bella Vita", was it revenge on her mother; a convenient "accident"? I dunno. The child is dead. The mother put forth absolutely no effort in providing for or caring for her child. Casey, as the mother, is totally responsible.

Her whining that no body will listen to her is a complete crock. I have read or heard nothing in her interviews or visits as to where she is telling the officers the truth about what happened to the child. She lies, she lies, she lies. Then she speaks in riddles and code - that is not forthcoming. You do not play games with LE when the life of a child hangs in the balance.

[And, frankly, I can't see how any reputable attorney or expert witness would want to associate themselves with this defense. Protect her rights, yes of course, but to defend (in the broadest sense of the word) her? Um, no.]

Legally, innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. My opinion, guilty.

I loved your post. She will cry for a long time. Justice served, I hope.

 

[DotsEyes]

If they are without financial means, may I suggest that they all go back to work? I chose #4.

LOL LOL LOL

a voice of reason:clap:

 

[DotsEyes]

I wish we had a court system like over in Germany. You are guilty until proven innocent! They don't need search warrants, if they have reason to believe your hiding anything, they can just come on in. Just think how much could have been saved on this case?

Joke right?

 

[babycat]

Are the any groups/websites set up soley to "Pay For Casey's Defense?" What I mean is, that there are many people who believe that, here in America, all people are innocent until proven guilty.

Is this occuring anywhere?

Have we all here at WS, concluded that she is guilty? Even without a trial? Would anyone here contribute to her defense? She and her family are obviously without financial means.

I fully support her constitutional right to be treated as if she were innocent until proven guilty by the government, but I do not feel obligated to reserve my personal judgment, because

a) I am not required by law to do so
b) I have a constitutional right to my own opinion

So I would fightfightfight for her constitutional rights if it came down to it, but I will also exercise my own, because I personally believe that (having the information that I have access to) it is probable that she is guilty. I don't feel that the government, state, etc is treating her any less fairly than any other person charged with such a crime, given the evidence available. Otherwise, I would think it an egregious miscarriage of justice. But I haven't seen anything that I find questionable yet, though the bail was a bit high initially.

to put it another way:

If I knew that a person were charged with child abuse or molestation, I would fully support their right to be treated innocent until proven guilty by the courts, but I would not personally hire them to watch my kids, or let them around my family, or hire them to cut my grass, etc, because it is my right (and also my responsibility) to use what I believe is my best judgment given the facts I am given, to protect my family and myself

So given that scenario, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that many here would do the same. We are always told "don't judge anyone, don't judge anyone" but if we all went around willy-nilly hiring any random person to watch our kids, etc, it would be a silly, and sometimes fatal error. I think there is a happy medium between reserving personal judgment and being trustful, and I will treat that on an individual basis as it occurs, and not generally

That said, I think she should get a fair and just trial, and that means not getting jury members like, say, me, who have admitted to forming their own opinions before she has been convicted.

But I'm not on her jury, nor will I be, and if I were on her jury, I'd tell them to remove me, because I personally feel I'm a bit biased

Just my opinion on the matter.

 

[babycat]

Or to take my last thought even further

Michael Jackson was found innocent.

Who here would let him babysit their kids?


Innocent in the eyes of the law doesn't mean we should reserve personal judgment. I means the government, state, and courts should.

Again, only my opinion

 

[radio]

Or to take my last thought even further

Michael Jackson was found innocent.

Who here would let him babysit their kids?


Innocent in the eyes of the law doesn't mean we should reserve personal judgment. I means the government, state, and courts should.

Again, only my opinion

Many of the Jurors later said they felt Jackson was
guilty - but they just did not like the 13 yr old accusers
mother and did not want her getting a lot of money.

I mean - what is with THAT????

Talk about self serving ignorant jurors.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I believe in our jury system and I believe that jurors take their responsibility seriously. Just having heard of the case is not as significant as, can they base their decision only on the evidence presented in the trial and follow the instructions given without prejudice. I believe that once placed in the position of juror most people take that power very seriously and give their utmost to make the right decision...they realize, especially in a Murder trial, a person's freedom depends on it.

 

[Indigo]

I fully support her constitutional right to be treated as if she were innocent until proven guilty by the government, but I do not feel obligated to reserve my personal judgment, because

a) I am not required by law to do so
b) I have a constitutional right to my own opinion

So I would fightfightfight for her constitutional rights if it came down to it, but I will also exercise my own, because I personally believe that (having the information that I have access to) it is probable that she is guilty. I don't feel that the government, state, etc is treating her any less fairly than any other person charged with such a crime, given the evidence available. Otherwise, I would think it an egregious miscarriage of justice. But I haven't seen anything that I find questionable yet, though the bail was a bit high initially.

to put it another way:

If I knew that a person were charged with child abuse or molestation, I would fully support their right to be treated innocent until proven guilty by the courts, but I would not personally hire them to watch my kids, or let them around my family, or hire them to cut my grass, etc, because it is my right (and also my responsibility) to use what I believe is my best judgment given the facts I am given, to protect my family and myself

So given that scenario, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that many here would do the same. We are always told "don't judge anyone, don't judge anyone" but if we all went around willy-nilly hiring any random person to watch our kids, etc, it would be a silly, and sometimes fatal error. I think there is a happy medium between reserving personal judgment and being trustful, and I will treat that on an individual basis as it occurs, and not generally

That said, I think she should get a fair and just trial, and that means not getting jury members like, say, me, who have admitted to forming their own opinions before she has been convicted.

But I'm not on her jury, nor will I be, and if I were on her jury, I'd tell them to remove me, because I personally feel I'm a bit biased

Just my opinion on the matter.

Great post, babycat! You found the perfect way to illustrate the element of judgment we need to use in our daily lives. As human beings we learn to hone this skill from the cradle to the grave. We need it to survive and to keep our families safe... and I don't believe there should be any guilt involved in forming an opinion in cases like this.

In a court of law everything changes and the legal definition comes into play. Casey is legally innocent until she is legally proven guilty. I believe that jurors will be fair and listen to all the evidence before deciding. Casey will get a fair trial.

 

[Cerenity2u]

Aleve N Fla, this is a great topic ) IMHO, those of us who believe KC is guilty at this point, have formed this opinion based on forensic evidence and documents released to the public, as well as videos, photos and media reports. Factor in the finding of Caylee's remains less than a mile from her home and KC sitting in jail without bond awaiting trial for first degree murder, it's understandable how easy it is to form a guilty opinion. However, I also realize that we do not have all the facts or evidence. Both will be presented at trial. Opinions can change very quickly when presented with ALL of the facts and ALL of the evidence. I for one, believe in and will fight to uphold "innocent until proven guilty" and "the right to a fair trial". I can honestly say that If I were asked to sit on that jury, I would be very capable of putting my preformed opinion aside, listen to the evidence, follow orders from a judge, and base my verdict only on those factors alone, with no problem. I feel certain that I am not alone here. I will happily stand up and claim that KC is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, because that is the truth according to law. This case is not the first high profile case ever tried, as there have been many tried successfully before KC's. I believe KC can and will get a fair trial.

 

[DotsEyes]

Would I contribute to her defense? No. Why should I? Why should anyone? The tax payers of Florida will pay for her defense. Public Defenders. JB was once one of them and his record was mighty impressive.

Can she get a fair trial? Absolutely. Even in Orlando. Potential jurors with biases will be excused and no matter how long it takes, they can find 12 jurors and 2 alternates that both sides agree upon. And none of them will be able to get passed the fact that Caylee was missing and this "loving, caring, wonderful young mother" didn't mention it to anyone for 31 days. It is what it is.

Change of venue? Why, are people stupider in other parts of Florida? Because it doesn't matter where this case is tried, the "31 days" is all that is needed to be said whether they try this case in Orlando, Oakland or Oshkosh.

Fair trial does not mean a guarantee to stupid jurors.

Let us remember that the PRESUMPTION of innocence protects everyone from being convicted without a trial at all. It also protects everyone from being imprisoned and punished without a trial. The presumption is rebuttable. Evidence can rebut that presumption, but not without a public trial by an impartial judge with effective assistance of counsel and the bonus of 12 peer group jurors.

In my opinion, the presumption has been rebutted. However, even if I were on her jury, I would hold the State responsible to convince me and would be looking for any sign of reasonable doubt. Before I could condemn someone in our legal system, I would have to have absolutely no doubt that they were guilty. Taking away a person's freedom or their life are not things I take lightly and I hope to never be in a position to make that decision.

 

[njustice]

Presumed innocent in a court of law - I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean that as a private citizen I can't put two and two together and decide for myself whether I think she's committed the crime - I'm not gonna be sitting on her jury any time soon. And as far as I'm concerned, she's convicted herself. All the media has done is reveal her actions, her words, and these same things are going to re-surface at trial. I'm sick of hearing her say how the media has "misconstrued" her actions, yet I hear from her own mouth the lies that she spews in police interviews and the pictures of her partying while her baby rots in the woods. If the media is responsible for her premature trial in the court of public opinion she only has herself to blame.

 

[gitana1]

Legally, she's still innocent and will be until and unless there is a guilty verdict. But practically, come on! She's guilty as heck from all I have seen and that's why even though she's technically innocent in the law's eyes, she's sitting in jail instead of in front of the t.v. at her parent's house.

 

[shadow of my mind]

I wish we had a court system like over in Germany. You are guilty until proven innocent! They don't need search warrants, if they have reason to believe your hiding anything, they can just come on in. Just think how much could have been saved on this case?

I am very much in disagreement with this.
Our justice system in this country, although long and tedious and not without it faults is the best. That is why there is a legal system in place. To insure that, to the best of our abilities, no one who is innocent is considered guilty. The rules were put in place to be followed with all information collected, shared and then an open trial, with record of every word spoken in front of a group of fellow citizens that will make the determination of guilt or innocence and that was done on purpose so that someone could just not be thought to be guilty on the whim of whomever was in power, from the police officer on the street to the judge on the bench.

My personal opinion is that Casey is guilty based on the evidence that is known right now. But… I have not seen all of the evidence and if after a jury of her peers do so in fact find her innocent after seeing all of the evidence than so be it.

As far as being able to find a jury pool that can come into this trial without already having made up their minds. I think that if someone is at honest they will have to admit that yes they do have a preconceived idea as to guilt or innocence not matter how much or how little they know about a case. That is human nature. It is the job of the attorneys to question the potential jurors to rule out those who cannot or will not listen and watch. It is the attorney’s job to bring forth the information during the trial to correct any of those preconceived thoughts.
I do believe that there are plenty of people who can listen and watch what is presented in court and make a determination based on what is presented in court and not what they think they know or may have heard or read.

 

[Kimster]

If I were a juror, I would pay extra attention to being fair and treating her innocent until the evidence was presented. As a city councilor, I've done the same in decision making. I hope they find jurors who take the responsibility seriously.

However, I also feel the evidence against her is overwhelming and she will lose anyway.

 

[Kimster]

Many of the Jurors later said they felt Jackson was
guilty - but they just did not like the 13 yr old accusers
mother and did not want her getting a lot of money.

I mean - what is with THAT????

Talk about self serving ignorant jurors.

I forgot about that! SO SAD because it was the kids who were the victims here, not the parents!

 

[babycat]

O/T kimster, your signature is absolutely hilarious

 

[seagull65]

I wish we had a court system like over in Germany. You are guilty until proven innocent! They don't need search warrants, if they have reason to believe your hiding anything, they can just come on in. Just think how much could have been saved on this case?

Then again, I had the opportunity to watch part of a court case (sentencing) in Germany once. A man had attacked a complete stranger and stabbed him in the head with a knife, brain injuring him very badly, and I think the victim eventually died from the wounds. If I recall correctly the attacker was only sentenced to something like 6 or 7 years in prison, with opportunity for parole before then! I don't know if that is typical, this was back in the '80s.

 

[seagull65]

With the intense, constant, very biased media coverage of this case, I don't know where they will be able to get a fair trial, in or outside of Orlando. Whether KC is innocent or guilty, the media have been calling her a remorseless murderer on a several-times a day basis on national TV for 6 months now, creating a whole persona for her with motivations, etc, even vilifying the defense team ever since the GJ. I hope somehow she will get a fair trial anyway, hopefully they'll get people on the jury who aren't the rabid burn her at the stake types, but people who will want to see the evidence. I think our jury system is a good one, just getting 12 people together from different walks of life to look at a case. It's hard for 12 people to vote unanimously for anything unreasonable. I really don't know if they would have any better luck outside of Orlando.

It seems obvious to me that Caylee was murdered (not an accident), I am waiting to see if proof is presented at trial that KC is the only one who may have had access to her vehicle and to her computer. Personally I don't think the evidence we've heard about so far proves Casey alone could be the perpetrator, reportedly at least one friend also had information about chloroform on his computer before she ever searched on it, etc. She had no history of abusing Caylee or hostility toward Caylee. I'm not convinced of motive because she could leave Caylee with her parents or brother anytime if she wanted to be free. I think she could be convicted simply because of her bizarre inability or unwillingness to provide information. Personally I don't think she seems well mentally, because of the way she never seemed to understand the gravity of the situation or the urgency in Caylee being found, or her role in providing information. She seemed to really have a "blank" regarding Caylee. My opinion only. She has also put up absolutely no defense whatsoever of herself when she could easily have done so at many points along the way. (Either possible mental illness or she has some reason we don't know for not being able to tell, i.e. threat.) Then there are the many questions regarding the body, was it placed there after KC was already in custody, etc, which could certainly indicate a different perpetrator, as well as the location and manner of disposal of the body, no attempt to hide it or hide the nature of the death. And so many things were not ruled out forensically, so many people not investigated, so that leaves doubt as well. I honestly don't know what will happen in this case. I hope the truth comes out, I still don't know what it is.

 

[kline]

I wish we had a court system like over in Germany. You are guilty until proven innocent! They don't need search warrants, if they have reason to believe your hiding anything, they can just come on in. Just think how much could have been saved on this case?

Yeah thats how you end up with people disappearing in the middle of the night and taken to some soccer stadium and tortured and murdered and dumped in a mass grave by 'Police' Or 'Soldiers'
They tried that in Iraq and South America.
But as for the poll:Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law....which of course she will be because she's a baby murdering narcistic psychopath.
Ok,I made up the last part.