1) ok, may be disputed, but WILL never be changed.
2) please do not add words I didn't use, but as far as a court of law is concerned, not guilty is as good as innocent.
3) big whoop - what does the DCF ruliung get anyone?
4) you are assuming the father is alive, did not have a part in Caylee's death, and assuming the civil court would find Casey guilty - just as the vast majority of the public felt would happen in criminal court. How did that work out? By the way, what would happen if Casey was found responsible in a civil court? She isn't going to do jail time, and has no money.
Lastly, may I add this ( in part, rest found at link if you're interested:
The Meaning of a Not Guilty Verdict
By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:06:20 PM EST
A handy little primer, followed by some thoughts on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.
A Verdict of Not Guilty Includes:
Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury find that the defendant is absolutely 100% innocent.
Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury,
cannot be absolutely sure that the defendant is innocent.
Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury are confident that the defendant is innocent.
Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe that the defendant is probably innocent. [More...]
Based upon the evidence presented,
we the Jury are not really sure one way or the other if the defendant is guilty or innocent.
Based upon the evidence presented,
we the Jury believe it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty.
Based upon the evidence presented,
we the Jury believe that the defendant is probably guilty.
We the Jury believe that the defendant is guilty but the evidence falls a little short and we cannot find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal trials should not be equated with a search for the truth. They are merely a process for the testing of evidence: Can the state prove the charges against a defendant by proof beyond a reasonable doubt? As former Chief Judge Richard Matsch wrote in an opinion granting separate trials for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols:
The ones highlighter/bolded are what happened with the 12 idiot jurors, I don't think even a video of OCA taping her poor childs face would have convinced those Pinelles 12, after all, they were in a hurry to get to Disney land.
With the last 2 posts I rest my case. Hope beyond hope you'll read even further into these laws, but I won't hold my breath
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/7/5/23620/67938