Replies

I believe you missed the entire point. I live within walking distance of the courthouse here in Orlando, so everyone I know has been living and breathing this case since the girl went missing. I drive by the damn parking lot almost every day where Casey’s car sat when it was missing. While I tried my damnedest to ignore this whole thing, I have friends and relatives obsessed...not because of the media firestorm, but because so many in this community were heartbroken when the child was missing.

This was a tough case all along because the physical evidence had disappeared due to the lies of the defendant causing a massive goose chase for non-existent nannies and fake employers. The importance of a jury trial is as important than ever, but but much like our political system, it has been bent and abused in a hundred different ways over the years, and in recent times, the methods of jury shaping have become a multi-million dollar industry. With the massive media coverage of stories like this, identifying twelve people without prior knowledge is damn near impossible.

In this case, the state presented more than sufficient evidence to show that Casey had done everything in her power to sidetrack the investigation, had absolutely no concern about the location of her child, and showed that the evidence they did have on hand - car, duct tape, etc - showed that is was in fact done with resources in her possession. The defense presented a bunch of wacky ideas like child molestation by her father and drowning in the opening statements with absolutely nothing to support those charges. Yet somehow, the jury members and alternates that have spoke indicated that those unsupported statements had a bearing on the case. That is poor critical thinking. Logic and critical thinking are critical for a jury. Seldom is there a smoking gun. There is almost always room for some doubt. As many have stated, it is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ not beyond any doubt. For example, in the OJ case DNA matching the scene was in his car. Sure, someone else ‘could’ have put it there, but the evidence points to his involvement.

In this case, her car was missing, her mother reported it found smelling of decomposition, duct tape from their house was found on the child’s skeleton, and she spent 30 days lying to investigators. She also was seen throughout in video and audio as abusive to her family and uncaring. Does all this prove 1st degree murder...probably not...a prosecution would have had to make a masterful case to get that conviction. Does this show negligence of a child and most likely manslaughter? Certainly should require this jury more than a few hours to revisit the evidence and come to a thoughtful conclusion. Through selection of jurors and their willingness to accept wild accusations as fact, I believe we had a less than committed jury, and a case where there is now too much burden to get to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Through more advanced tactics, too much edge goes to the defense in too many cases today. This level of burden of proof is very difficult to achieve when the playing field is tilted so much.