No Flames - Innocent until proven guilty

[TraceyLeigh]

From a legal standpoint, innocent until proven guilty. In my mind, guilty as sin.

 

[Bluebelle]

Casey will get her day in court to fight the charges. She will be found guilty by a jury overwhelmed with evidence that proves what she did to her child. I hope the rest of her wretched life worsens from "completely and utterly miserable" as she herself says she is, which is also a line from Beetlejuice by Wynona Ryder ("completely and utterly" alone), to horrifically & painfully haunted until the day she dies.

:gavel:

 

[JMCDAD]

the media is not the cause of her being convicted in the court of public opinion
KC is responsible for that
the non reporting of her missing child, all the lies,the ridiculous behavior, the made up people
if I just found out about this story today, the facts are quite obvious enough, that I would feel she is guilty as sin

 

[Marina2]

No KC could not just leave Caylee with her parents or Lee anytime she wanted... read her text messages and IM's. When CA did watch Caylee it is obvious CA would call KC when she had been gone too long and she would have to go home... you want me to believe KC did not get angry and resent that she had to go home!?
Susan Smiths' mother said " My daughter is not a violent person. My daughter never abused her children. My daughter loved them dearly, they were her life"
Sound familiar?

CA did try to force KC to be a responsible parent. This was something KC was not willing or able to do. I don't think it was her motive for killing Caylee though. Unless her mental state was such that she just refused to give in to her mother and admit her inadequacy she could have signed over custody of Caylee and been rid of the responsibility, free to do as she pleased. She did not need to kill her to accomplish this and CA, no doubt, will testify to this in court. The prosecution will have to show very compelling evidence as to why KC would never give custody to CA in order to convince the jury that this was her motive.

 

[Balthazar]

I just want to make it crystal clear that MANY completely innocent people are indicted by a grand jury. This actually happened in the Caren Koslow case, where her husband, Jack, WAS indicted for her murder by the grand jury. The police were about to go place Jack under arrest when the truth came out...and it turned out that Jack was the main target in the attempted pay for hire double homicide! Caren was only the secondary target. It just so happened that Jack Koslow somehow lived despite having his throat slashed and being brutally beaten about the head with a tire iron. However, in the weeks after the murder, Jack was convicted in the press and by local gossip and great pressure was brought to bear upon the police to arrest him, hence the indictment. The saddest thing was that he was actually treated as a pariah at Caren's funeral. Here he was the grieving husband of the victim and a victim himself, and people were hateful towards him.

The other thing about the case is that the police did not reveal to the media the incredible amount of physical evidence that pointed to intruders in this case. Evidence that included tire tracks and footprints on the master bedroom door where one of the intruders had kicked it in (footprints that were a different size than Jack Koslows.)

Check out this story, it is quite shocking:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

So it is important to remember that grand juries DO indict innocent people from time to time.

I have been following this case in great detail and what we know so far makes Casey look guilty, but we don't know everything yet because we don't know Casey's story. Despite EVERYTHING we know, I remind myself that I HAVE NOT heard Casey's story yet. If I were a juror, it would be easy for me to set aside personal prejudices and listen to the facts as they were presented in the courtroom and make my judgement based ONLY on what was presented at trial. Therefore, I believe that it is possible for Casey to get a fair trial, even in Orlando and I believe that she is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Does she look guilty based on what has been presented in the media? Yes. But has guilt been irrefutably proven? No. Proof of guilt can only happen in a court of law. I patiently await the trial and finally hearing Casey's side of the case.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Presumption of Innocence is a legal term - PERIOD ... it applies to the court. The judge and jurors must proceed with the presumption of innocence at trial. Therefore, it is not applicable to the general public ... nor is it necessary in order for KC to receive a fair trial.

The reason that it exists is that during trial certain evidence will be presented and there will also be evidence in which the jury cannot consider ... a potential juror will have to prove in voir dire that he or she has the ability to weigh ONLY the evidence presented at trial, with the burden of proof being wholly on the state... thus presuming KC is innocent at the start. It is important part of the judicial system in this country and is in place because most people are NOT criminals ... therefore, someone has to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt (meaning that it is ok to have doubt as long as it is reasonable) that the defendant is guilty of the crime accused.

As long as we are not involved as a judge or juror ... we can presume KC whatever we want and are not in any way obligated to wait for the trial to do so.
Personally I believe that as my dear Granny would say ... She is as guilty as homemade sin!

 

[Marina2]

For me, this case has been very thought provoking for the last six months. The wheels in my mind have been spinning fast and furious but no topic or thread has me as perplexed as the concept of "reasonable doubt" and the "burden of proof". I began a search to define these principles and found that it's not my ignorance of legal standards that prevent me from understanding. Even those legal experts as high up as the Supreme Court have difficulty in their definition. I did, however, find a very informative paper that helped me understand the subjective nature of these terms and how they came to be used in a modern sense.

It's quite long, 171 pages. I read it all, very interesting stuff. For those not inclined, a lot can be gained by scanning the paper and reading the opening and conclusion. I've included the abstract and link to the pdf. Relative to this thread I think it states what is necessary to ensure a fair trial to the accused.

"The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt"
James Q. Whitman, Yale
ABSTRACT:
The "reasonable doubt" rule is notoriously difficult to define, and many judges and scholars have deplored the confusion it creates in the minds of jurors. Yet "reasonable doubt" is regarded as a fundamental part of our law. How can a rule of such fundamental importance be so difficult to define and understand?

The answer, this paper tries to show, lies in history. The "reasonable doubt" rule was not originally designed to serve the purpose it is asked to serve today: It was not originally designed to protect the accused. Instead, it was designed to protect the souls of the jurors against damnation. Convicting an innocent defendant was regarded, in the older Christian tradition, as a potential mortal sin. The purpose of the "reasonable doubt" instruction was to address this frightening possibility, reassuring jurors that they could convict the defendant without risking their own salvation, as long as their doubts about guilt were not "reasonable." In its original form, the rule thus had nothing to do with maintaining the rule of law in the sense that we use the phrase, and nothing like the relationship we imagine to the values of liberty. This helps explain why our law is in a state of such disquieting confusion today. We are asking the "reasonable doubt" standard to serve a function that it was not originally designed to serve, and it does its work predictably badly.

The paper offers a detailed account of the Christian moral theology of doubt, and a reinterpretation of the development of jury trial in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It also includes a discussion of an important jurisprudential distinction: the distinction between proof procedures and what the paper calls "moral comfort" procedures. Without a proper comprehension of this distinction, we cannot understand the original significance of "reasonable doubt," or more broadly the structure of pre-modern law.

Citation:
James Q. Whitman, "The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt"" (March 1, 2005). Yale Law School. Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1.

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=yale/fss

 

[natsound]

How so? Sorry, but if I misunderstood. How can a person be guilty of 1st degree murder if there isn't enough evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If that were the case, she'd be acquitted. I think?

What I'm saying is, I believe she's guilty of first degree murder. But I don't know if the prosecution will present enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Option B is closest to what I believe, but I need a better idea of all the evidence first.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

For me, this case has been very thought provoking for the last six months. The wheels in my mind have been spinning fast and furious but no topic or thread has me as perplexed as the concept of "reasonable doubt" and the "burden of proof". I began a search to define these principles and found that it's not my ignorance of legal standards that prevent me from understanding. Even those legal experts as high up as the Supreme Court have difficulty in their definition. I did, however, find a very informative paper that helped me understand the subjective nature of these terms and how they came to be used in a modern sense.

It's quite long, 171 pages. I read it all, very interesting stuff. For those not inclined, a lot can be gained by scanning the paper and reading the opening and conclusion. I've included the abstract and link to the pdf. Relative to this thread I think it states what is necessary to ensure a fair trial to the accused.

"The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt"
James Q. Whitman, Yale
ABSTRACT:
The "reasonable doubt" rule is notoriously difficult to define, and many judges and scholars have deplored the confusion it creates in the minds of jurors. Yet "reasonable doubt" is regarded as a fundamental part of our law. How can a rule of such fundamental importance be so difficult to define and understand?

The answer, this paper tries to show, lies in history. The "reasonable doubt" rule was not originally designed to serve the purpose it is asked to serve today: It was not originally designed to protect the accused. Instead, it was designed to protect the souls of the jurors against damnation. Convicting an innocent defendant was regarded, in the older Christian tradition, as a potential mortal sin. The purpose of the "reasonable doubt" instruction was to address this frightening possibility, reassuring jurors that they could convict the defendant without risking their own salvation, as long as their doubts about guilt were not "reasonable." In its original form, the rule thus had nothing to do with maintaining the rule of law in the sense that we use the phrase, and nothing like the relationship we imagine to the values of liberty. This helps explain why our law is in a state of such disquieting confusion today. We are asking the "reasonable doubt" standard to serve a function that it was not originally designed to serve, and it does its work predictably badly.

The paper offers a detailed account of the Christian moral theology of doubt, and a reinterpretation of the development of jury trial in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It also includes a discussion of an important jurisprudential distinction: the distinction between proof procedures and what the paper calls "moral comfort" procedures. Without a proper comprehension of this distinction, we cannot understand the original significance of "reasonable doubt," or more broadly the structure of pre-modern law.

Citation:
James Q. Whitman, "The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt"" (March 1, 2005). Yale Law School. Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1.

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=yale/fss

Thank you Marina ... I am a lawyer and I enjoyed reading your post! It's true, even those in the legal profession do not use the term and application of "reasonable doubt" correctly a lot of times ... you hear analysts on NG and other shows saying "ohhhh Baez is just trying to drum up some reasonable doubt" ... Man, that makes me mad ... reasonable doubt is allowed ... not reasonable ... anything beyond reasonable and a juror must find that the State did not make the case for the charges. And again, as with presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt is also a legal term ... it applies to the jury only. Joe Public can have much or little doubt when deciding whether KC is innocent or guilty ... or hey guess what ... he doesn't have to decide at all!! Also ... it is important to note that this term is subjective ... what is reasonable for my conscious might be more or less than what is reasonable for yours ... and that is why jury selection is so important to both sides!

 

[Indigo]

I just want to make it crystal clear that MANY completely innocent people are indicted by a grand jury. This actually happened in the Caren Koslow case, where her husband, Jack, WAS indicted for her murder by the grand jury. The police were about to go place Jack under arrest when the truth came out...and it turned out that Jack was the main target in the attempted pay for hire double homicide! Caren was only the secondary target. It just so happened that Jack Koslow somehow lived despite having his throat slashed and being brutally beaten about the head with a tire iron. However, in the weeks after the murder, Jack was convicted in the press and by local gossip and great pressure was brought to bear upon the police to arrest him, hence the indictment. The saddest thing was that he was actually treated as a pariah at Caren's funeral. Here he was the grieving husband of the victim and a victim himself, and people were hateful towards him.

The other thing about the case is that the police did not reveal to the media the incredible amount of physical evidence that pointed to intruders in this case. Evidence that included tire tracks and footprints on the master bedroom door where one of the intruders had kicked it in (footprints that were a different size than Jack Koslows.)

Check out this story, it is quite shocking:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

So it is important to remember that grand juries DO indict innocent people from time to time.

I have been following this case in great detail and what we know so far makes Casey look guilty, but we don't know everything yet because we don't know Casey's story. Despite EVERYTHING we know, I remind myself that I HAVE NOT heard Casey's story yet. If I were a juror, it would be easy for me to set aside personal prejudices and listen to the facts as they were presented in the courtroom and make my judgement based ONLY on what was presented at trial. Therefore, I believe that it is possible for Casey to get a fair trial, even in Orlando and I believe that she is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Does she look guilty based on what has been presented in the media? Yes. But has guilt been irrefutably proven? No. Proof of guilt can only happen in a court of law. I patiently await the trial and finally hearing Casey's side of the case.

We have Casey's story as to what happened on the day Caylee went missing--what we don't have is what the Defense will outline as her story. JMO.

 

[PaperDoll]

Even though the law says "innocent until proven guilty" I believe, from all the evidence that I have, I think she is GUILTY! :behindbar The defense would not want me on the jury.. She is already guilty in my mind... I would not contribute to her defense either. Why should she get special treatment, do other murders get special treatment? I don't think so.

 

[Bluebelle]

I think there is definite motive that can be proven.

Casey would never have given Caylee to Cindy because Caylee would be showered with Cindy & George's full love & attention. Casey did not want to share or be replaced by Caylee with her parents. She even stole all of the money given to Caylee by George... the piggy bank and savings account were nearly emptied by Casey.

And look how jealous Casey became in the Aug 14 jail tape when she accused her parents of having a bunch of people at the house - she wants to share them with no one, least of all Caylee.

:gavel:

 

[stagehand]

I have never followed a case before, certainly not to the degree that I have followed this one. It stands to reason that I never read nor participated in a forum such as this one before either. I also have never served on a jury.

I stumbled upon this case purely by accident, I was preparing for a trip to the Orlando area and visited the newspaper web site to check the weather report which just so happened to be the day Casey was released from jail the first time. I could not quite understand what a young woman of that age had done which was causing such public outcry. The curiosity to find out eventually led me here.

Perhaps I am the oddball, I frequently feel out of place here. To me the word "sleuth" means to gather details and then studying those details in a search for truth. And to keep repeating that process until there are no more details before attempting to reach a final conclusion.

It seems that many people tend to form opinions early on, or at least before all the details are known and studied. From that point forward they tend to dismiss any new details that might be contrary to their already formed opinion. And they continue to "hope" for new details that prove their already formed opinion.

Perhaps I am way out in left field, but that approach is not sleuthing to me. It becomes a sort of what's the point? Once someone is convinced of something, it seems it should be time to move onto something else.

Having never served on jury I don't know if this same sort of dynamic commonly exists within a jury. Do jury members tend to form opinions early on, and from that point forward begin dismissing evidence that tends point away from their already formed conclusion?

If jury members in this case or any other take that approach, then no it is not a fair trial. However if jury members do keep an open minded approach and wait until the debate within the jury room to form any conclusion, then it will have been a fair trial.

I do not think its about where a trial is held that is important. It is about seating a jury with people who have that capacity to justly fulfill that duty.

 

[Just__me]

CA did try to force KC to be a responsible parent. This was something KC was not willing or able to do. I don't think it was her motive for killing Caylee though. Unless her mental state was such that she just refused to give in to her mother and admit her inadequacy she could have signed over custody of Caylee and been rid of the responsibility, free to do as she pleased. She did not need to kill her to accomplish this and CA, no doubt, will testify to this in court. The prosecution will have to show very compelling evidence as to why KC would never give custody to CA in order to convince the jury that this was her motive.

Absolutely KC could have given up Caylee... but the price for doing so was just too high for KC... She would have lost "control" of her family had she done so. KC wanted it all she wanted to be able to throw a tantrum and get what she wanted and to continue to freeload and steal from everyone to get what she wanted...without Caylee her family was not going to take it any longer... CA counseling...thought love... KC's gravy train was being called in.

 

[Jolynna]

I completely agree with you. I think KC is as guilty as they come, but until she is proven guilty in a court of law, she is innocent.

As Casey has the best of the best to review and challenge the prosecutor's evidence, I don't think anyone needs to worry that Casey won't get a fair trial.

I think LKB will be good enough to diminish the JB factor. I see her as being a Cochran for Casey.

As I said in a previous post, we have seen plenty of defendants walk and juries hung despite the most negative of negative pre-trial publicity.

We've also seen formerly reputable judges become star-struck publicity hounds when cameras get turned their way.

I don't see the media attention and the people this kind of attention seems to draw as necessarily a bad thing for Casey. If anything the state's case will be MORE scrutinized and held to an even higher standard than what is afforded to average Joes whose cases barely get media mention.

IMO

 

[Just__me]

I just want to make it crystal clear that MANY completely innocent people are indicted by a grand jury. This actually happened in the Caren Koslow case, where her husband, Jack, WAS indicted for her murder by the grand jury. The police were about to go place Jack under arrest when the truth came out...and it turned out that Jack was the main target in the attempted pay for hire double homicide! Caren was only the secondary target. It just so happened that Jack Koslow somehow lived despite having his throat slashed and being brutally beaten about the head with a tire iron. However, in the weeks after the murder, Jack was convicted in the press and by local gossip and great pressure was brought to bear upon the police to arrest him, hence the indictment. The saddest thing was that he was actually treated as a pariah at Caren's funeral. Here he was the grieving husband of the victim and a victim himself, and people were hateful towards him.

The other thing about the case is that the police did not reveal to the media the incredible amount of physical evidence that pointed to intruders in this case. Evidence that included tire tracks and footprints on the master bedroom door where one of the intruders had kicked it in (footprints that were a different size than Jack Koslows.)

Check out this story, it is quite shocking:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

So it is important to remember that grand juries DO indict innocent people from time to time.

I have been following this case in great detail and what we know so far makes Casey look guilty, but we don't know everything yet because we don't know Casey's story. Despite EVERYTHING we know, I remind myself that I HAVE NOT heard Casey's story yet. If I were a juror, it would be easy for me to set aside personal prejudices and listen to the facts as they were presented in the courtroom and make my judgement based ONLY on what was presented at trial. Therefore, I believe that it is possible for Casey to get a fair trial, even in Orlando and I believe that she is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Does she look guilty based on what has been presented in the media? Yes. But has guilt been irrefutably proven? No. Proof of guilt can only happen in a court of law. I patiently await the trial and finally hearing Casey's side of the case.

Actually there have been many people convicted that were 100% innocent. The judicial system is human and therefore falable. We are given an opportunity to confront our accusers before a jury of our peers, they then render an opinion of our innocence or guilt. I do believe in our country justice can and is bought. My biggest fear is that is exactly what is going to happen in this case. High powered "experts" are brought in with the only purpose of mudding the water to the point that just one person on the jury gets lost or unsure and will not convict.
45 minutes of visitation with her family when she is "totally out of the loop" and "everything has been taken from me" and not once does she ask a question about her precious daughter! KC, Baez and entourage are still figuring out what her defense is...KC says nothing because the only thing she can say is to admit her horrible act!

 

[Lanie]

Actually there have been many people convicted that were 100% innocent. The judicial system is human and therefore falable. We are given an opportunity to confront our accusers before a jury of our peers, they then render an opinion of our innocence or guilt. I do believe in our country justice can and is bought. My biggest fear is that is exactly what is going to happen in this case. High powered "experts" are brought in with the only purpose of mudding the water to the point that just one person on the jury gets lost or unsure and will not convict.
45 minutes of visitation with her family when she is "totally out of the loop" and "everything has been taken from me" and not once does she ask a question about her precious daughter! KC, Baez and entourage are still figuring out what her defense is...KC says nothing because the only thing she can say is to admit her horrible act!

Bolded by me.
(Just_Me, this is not directed at you, I am just utilizing your sentence.)
There have been many, many more people who were 100% guilty who have not been convicted.
Our criminal system is flawed, and I guess people just have to decide what is worse, being convicted of a crime you didn't commit, or being the victim of a criminal who was not convicted for lack of evidence.
Lanie

 

[LaLaw2000]

From a legal standpoint, innocent until proven guilty. In my mind, guilty as sin.

:clap::clap::clap:

Well said! I agree 100%!

 

[Just__me]

Bolded by me.
(Just_Me, this is not directed at you, I am just utilizing your sentence.)
There have been many, many more people who were 100% guilty who have not been convicted.
Our criminal system is flawed, and I guess people just have to decide what is worse, being convicted of a crime you didn't commit, or being the victim of a criminal who was not convicted for lack of evidence.
Lanie

You are nabsolutely correct and I should have stated that as well. My point is exactly as yours the system is human and therefore flawed.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I keep coming back to this thread ... It just hits on many of my annoyances with peoples overall misconception of the law. I have one more thing to add and then I am done ... for now at least!

Not guilty does not mean innocent! So even the term "innocent until proven guilty" is flawed. If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.

IMO Casey is both not innocent and guilty ... but with a crafty defense and mistakes by prosecution she may be found not guilty regardless of her lack of innocence!