Casey support thread all beliefs welcome

[Maui4me]

I do believe that Casey was involved in disappearance of Caylee and I feel she is gone. Casey is entitled to her trial, I am glad I do not have to sit on jury, I could not find her not guilty. My only feeling is that I feel really bad that there are people who are so sick that they could do something like this. I am a grandmother and I still don't understand it after all these years.

 

[magic-cat]

Support Casey? Well, hmmm...uh, no, I guess I am on the wrong thread...sorry bout that...

 

[monoxide]

Support Casey? Hmmmmmm why would anybody do that?

 

[IBegg2Differ]

Support Casey? Can't say that I do. I just believe in innocent until proven guilty as a general principle not specific to Casey, and it is being sorely tested in this case.

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been pointed out, but "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that only applies to the courts and the legal system. What it means is that in this country, we have a system set up wherein the courts will not presume a person to be guilty of a crime simply because they've been arrested and accused. In other words, the court will give a person the benefit of the doubt until their guilt has been proven.

This concept has nothing whatsoever to do with how other individuals may view a person with regard to their guilt or innocence. As an individual who is not a judge or jury member in a case, you are perfectly free to hold whatever views you like, or reach whatever conclusions you happen to reach. And there is nothing morally wrong with that.

For example, if I see my neighbor beating his wife and then I see the cops arrest him, I have no moral obligation to believe he is innocent until a court convicts him. The court must treat him as innocent until he's proven guilty, but I personally have no such obligation.

 

[monoxide]

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been pointed out, but "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that only applies to the courts and the legal system. What it means is that in this country, we have a system set up wherein the courts will not presume a person to be guilty of a crime simply because they've been arrested and accused. In other words, the court will give a person the benefit of the doubt until their guilt has been proven.

This concept has nothing whatsoever to do with how other individuals may view a person with regard to their guilt or innocence. As an individual who is not a judge or jury member in a case, you are perfectly free to hold whatever views you like, or reach whatever conclusions you happen to reach. And there is nothing morally wrong with that.

For example, if I see my neighbor beating his wife and then I see the cops arrest him, I have no moral obligation to believe he is innocent until a court convicts him. The court must treat him as innocent until he's proven guilty, but I personally have no such obligation.

:clap:

 

[Straitfan]

.

BTW: I dont believe the odds are better than 1% at this point..

Also, I happened across a Fox video minute ago while ck'ing on the hurricane that had LP stating Casey's story HAS BEEN changed?! Wow, now zanny held her down in the park and took Caylee??? Unbelievable! Didn't see thread on it, has anyone else seen the video? (It's entirely possible I missed it elsewhere, my mind is all over today)

 

[Straitfan]

Ibegg2differ,
I haven't felt for a very long time our court system works very well.. IMO , OJ is a good example, guilty people with enough $$$ can walk free. I think it is an extremely broken system just like politics are... More "Innocent until proven Guilty unless you have $$$ to pay a crooked atty to get you off" That is not a very good system to me..

 

[Straitfan]

Opps, sorry guess I should have read the entire original post prior to posting

 

[johnielee333]

No support for Casey here with me. I do however support Caylee. By the way, if you go to other boards on the net, You will see very,very little support for Casey.
Now let me say, I do support the fact that Casey deserves a fair trial and that was even hard for me to type/say. If i had my way, I would just lock her up in :behindbar prison for life & throw away the key, No trial at all. But of course that wouldnt be right.

3 Roses :rose::rose::rose: For Caylee.

 

[Rose Mom]

Support her ??? Sorry ... NO ......Plain and simple.... Where is Caylee ?

 

[monoxide]

I support her conviction and execution down the road

 

[Straitfan]

I support her conviction and execution down the road

LOL, you and me both! I Really must be tired to have posted on a thread that may "support" her somehow ( Even if she killed Caylee??? what, think I missed something.)

 

[BeanE]

where's caylee?

 

[Seranade]

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been pointed out, but "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that only applies to the courts and the legal system. What it means is that in this country, we have a system set up wherein the courts will not presume a person to be guilty of a crime simply because they've been arrested and accused. In other words, the court will give a person the benefit of the doubt until their guilt has been proven.

This concept has nothing whatsoever to do with how other individuals may view a person with regard to their guilt or innocence. As an individual who is not a judge or jury member in a case, you are perfectly free to hold whatever views you like, or reach whatever conclusions you happen to reach. And there is nothing morally wrong with that.

For example, if I see my neighbor beating his wife and then I see the cops arrest him, I have no moral obligation to believe he is innocent until a court convicts him. The court must treat him as innocent until he's proven guilty, but I personally have no such obligation.

I have heard this a lot, here and elsewhere. Yes, technically and legally 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to a court of law, particularly a jury. But where do you think a jury comes from? Individuals in the public. When the public presumes the guilt of accused persons (accused by LE who can and do make mistakes) you can often end up with a mob mentality. Sort of like in this case. Like those white men down here in the south who used to hang black men on the merest suggestion that he looked sideways at a white woman.

When the public presumes guilt on the word of LE and media, how are accused persons to hope to have a fair trial by a neutral jury?

Citizens of a democracy have a solemn duty not to take every word of authorities at face value.

One day you could be the accused.

 

[monoxide]

I have heard this a lot, here and elsewhere. Yes, technically and legally 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to a court of law, particularly a jury. But where do you think a jury comes from? Individuals in the public. When the public presumes the guilt of accused persons (accused by LE who can and do make mistakes) you can often end up with a mob mentality. Sort of like in this case. Like those white men down here in the south who used to hang black men on the merest suggestion that he looked sideways at a white woman.

When the public presumes guilt on the word of LE and media, how are accused persons to hope to have a fair trial by a neutral jury?

Citizens of a democracy have a solemn duty not to take every word of authorities at face value.

One day you could be the accused.

They got a jury for Oj's new trial didn't they? They'll be able to get one for Casey's as well

 

[BeanE]

I have heard this a lot, here and elsewhere. Yes, technically and legally 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to a court of law, particularly a jury. But where do you think a jury comes from? Individuals in the public. When the public presumes the guilt of accused persons (accused by LE who can and do make mistakes) you can often end up with a mob mentality. Sort of like in this case. Like those white men down here in the south who used to hang black men on the merest suggestion that he looked sideways at a white woman.

When the public presumes guilt on the word of LE and media, how are accused persons to hope to have a fair trial by a neutral jury?

Citizens of a democracy have a solemn duty not to take every word of authorities at face value.

One day you could be the accused.

I believe that Casey killed Caylee. That's my personal opinion and view after pouring over all the information currently available to us.

If called to do my duty as a U.S. citizen and sit on her jury, I am also confident that I could put aside my personal feelings, and the information currently available, to review and consider all evidence presented at Casey's trial, and only the evidence presented at Casey's trial, and do what the law tasked me to do: determine whether Casey is *legally* guilty, starting from the basis that she is *legally* innocent unless and until the evidence presented at trial proves otherwise.

Some people understand the distinction between court of law and court of public opinion, others don't. Some people can put aside what they've heard and read and their feelings, and consider only the evidence presented, others can't. It's neither good nor bad, it just is.

The law does allow it to be a gutwrenching, horrifying, stressful, thought provoking experience that keeps you crying and up at night. And, thank God, the law does allow - and encourage - discussion in the jury room during jury deliberation to help ensure that all jurors are considering the evidence presented and only that evidence.

We have trials all the time of cases that widely publicized and even sensationalized. Juries are found. Only 12 (plus a few alternates) are needed.

It may take going through hundreds of people to find the ones with the appropriate mindset to help provide a fair trial, but it can be, and is, done all the time.

 

[poco]

Believe it or not, the whole world doesn't know about this case. They are many people who if you ask them what they think about the KC case they will say "who???"

 

[BeanE]

Believe it or not, the whole world doesn't know about this case. They are many people who if you ask them what they think about the KC case they will say "who???"

That's true. I know a number of people who deliberately avoid any news about murders, abuse, etc, because it upsets them, or because it intrudes on what they see as their idyllic lives, or because they never pay attention to any news, or for any number of reasons.

 

[halleyscomet]

As a resident of Orange County, I'm supporting Casey every time she goes back to jail. I'm paying for her protection by the police every time someone in that family makes a nuisance call for the police to come out. I'm paying for her safety every time she writes a note to daddy ordering him to make sure to call the police so there's enough security for the vigil. And I will be supporting her when she's finally put in the pokey for good for killing her daughter.

I think I'm doing my part to support her. Anyone disagree?

 

[bdmama]

That innocent until proven guilty crap doesnt fly with me as far as this case is concerned. She's presumed to be guilty until proven guilty! An inocent person wouldnt be sitting at home with a monitoring device on her ankle. An innocent person does not lie to police regarding the whereabouts of her babu girl. An inocent person does not have the remnants of decomposing tissue in the trunk of her car. To ask for any support of this monster is just stupid and very insulting to the intelligence of the people on this board.