Posted on 07/05/2011 7:27:58 AM PDT by freebird5850
The evidence in this case was almost entirely circumstantial; and to call it "flimsy" would be an understatement. The defense poked more holes in the state's case than a piece of swiss cheese and created more than enough reasonable doubt for this result.
Yes 1st degree murder is hard but she was acquitted of killing, period.
The jurors knew she knew what happened, that she buried the body and went out partying. And they decided they had no evidence that the mother killed her child.
I’d say if any of us disappear and a family member buried us at a dump, lied to police about it, and went out partying, they would be convicted of killing in most cases.
Sidebar comment on how far our culture has declined:
They interrupted the Jerry Springer Show on my local TV station to cover the verdict. Now it’s back to Springer.
UN-freakin’-real!!!
She’ll be out partying again soon!
God rest the soul of her murdered daughter!
O.J. Anthony
Who the Heck do the Jurors think KILLED this little girl????
You are an idiot or a lawyer, either way wishing you all the worst.
We absolutely need a professional jury system.
Yeah screamin’ what’s up with your post?
I vote the former. Today most parents are “guilt” parents b/c the state won’t let them discipline their children. All discipline is “abuse” now. It’s better to kill/abort your child than to spank your child. Obviously this so-called mother was raised as a narcissist and in the failed “self esteem” movement with a huge sense of entitlement (as are most kids nowadays)
One for each of the four counts. She'll probably be released very soon with time served. (She's been in jail for almost three years now.)
Shouldn’t there have been some charge for concealing and disposing of the body?
Agreed. I haven’t kept up with this case that closely, but I was on a jury a few years back in a similar situation for a much less serious crime. It was what looked like an open-and-shut cocaine possession with intent to distribute case, when police, searching the apartment of a drug dealer under investigation, found a few grams of crack in his roommate’s dresser. Seems pretty straightforward, right?
Remember that this is Durham County, North Carolina—the home of Mike Nifong. The authorities took a simple case and screwed it into the ground. The FBI was involved as part of one of those drug task forces that are the rage nowadays, and we were stunned when the FBI agent, on the stand, maintained that “we don’t record interrogations”...so there was no record of the confession from the roommate. The printed FBI form which contained a *paraphrase* of his confession, not a literal recording, was never entered into evidence (thrown out pre-trial, I assume). The defense attorney made the FBI agent look like a fool, and made a credible case that the confession was coerced under threat of sending the roomie up on Federal distribution charges—meaning 20 years in the Federal pen—to try to get to his drug-dealing friend who was the original target of the investigation.
Did the guy have drugs in his dresser? Maybe. Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had them in there with intent to sell them? Not even close, despite a confession. It took us two hours to acquit the guy. When the verdict came back, the DA just got this look on his face like “dammit, I had a feeling this was gonna go wrong.”
“Reasonable doubt” is the kicker. If a prosecutor can’t meet that, they don’t deserve to win the case, no matter how much of a scumbag the defendant may or may not be.
}:-)4
You're wrong about that. You don't need "bloody hands." MOST criminal cases are circumstantial--and there was a busload of circumstantial evidence in this case. The problem is that jurors don't want to use common sense and draw a conclusion--hell, our whole educational system today teaches people that common sense and conclusions are bad.
Hey just look at it this way, now we all see how come Obama won in 2008..maybe Bill Maher had a point about how this country has a bunch of stupid people in it
I doubt it mst likely it will be the 3 years sh’s aready served she will be home Friday night if her parents will let her come home.
Liberal and stupid for sure.
my theory on George and Cindy is that for years they have dealt with “problem child” Casey, and that it eventually led them to all of this, I think they had to come to terms with the fact that Casey is responsible for the death of their beloved granddaughter - but didn’t want the death penalty (why I think Cindy lied about the web searches) but expected her to be punished with manslaughter. just my observations....
What a sad state of affairs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.