No Flames - Innocent until proven guilty

[Marina2]

I do agree with that and probably should have stated that I think along the route of examining the evidence as it becomes available, impressions can and do cause ones opinions to swing one way or the other.

It's kind of like a scale, as in the scales of justice, each piece of evidence being a weight placed on one side or the other. The scale eventually starts to tilt in one direction. However until each and every piece of evidence is placed on the scale it still has the ability to tilt in the other direction. And there is always the possibility that a huge weight will come out that completely changes the direction the scale is tilting.

The primary point I was trying to make is my inability to understand those who believe the scale is fixed in one direction or the other when there are still more weights to be applied to it.

How many times in these forums have we seen someone make the statement, "I hope they have enough evidence to convict." For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why someone would make such a statement. Either they will have enough evidence or they won't. My own personal hope is that all the evidence is presented in a fair manner and decision rendered by a fair jury.

They make this statement because, in their mind, KC is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. At the same time they recognize that LE may not have all the evidence to bring justice to this little girl and convict her murderer.
For many reasons, evidence may not be allowed into court. Also, much evidence was lost because KC never reported her daughter missing. It's not unheard of that a murderer is set free because of lack of evidence and this is what they fear. Since they truly believe in KC's guilt they hope LE has enough evidence to convict.

I also hope that all the evidence is presented in a fair manner. That will never happen though because LE doesn't have all the evidence. How can they when her own mother didn't even report her missing? That's what isn't fair in all this. KC will have have a fair trial. I can't say the same for that sweet little child. I hope LE does get enough evidence to convict Caylee's murderer in spite of KC's efforts to thwart the investigation.

The reason you can't understand someone in these forums making that statement is because you are applying a standard that jurors are to follow to the public. We are not held to this standard. It is completely acceptable for those of us not on the jury to form opinions outside a court of law. Even though opinions are formed strong evidence to the contrary will likely tip the scale for those of us in the public. I don't think we are as fixed as you think. It's just that nothing has been presented to tip the scale yet. Maybe during the trial but I doubt it.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

I believe she can get a fair trial, and I believe she could get one right there in Orlando. Why? I believe the jury would be honest and weigh the evidence accordingly.

Is she guilty? Of course she is. Her actions and the evidence say so, and we haven't seen all the evidence! She's behind bars, so I believe they have enough evidence to find her guilty in court.

Just for the record, while people "are presumed guilty until proven innocent", that applies to the those within our legal system, and does not govern the mind of the average citizen. We are allowed to make our own decisions without benefit of "evidence". I can't go to jail for thinking or saying "Casey is guilty" before her trial and conviction.

 

[Indigo]

I so agree ... and also there are real "sleuths" on both sides of this case. You can make a sure bet that the sleuths on the defense are sleuthing in their direction and the same for the prosecution. I like this forum because it nurtures us to "sleuth for the TRUTH." That should be our motto! I think a lot of times we get to focused on guilt or innocence and like the sleuths I mentioned above ... we only search for the things that back up our position. Personally, I have never been swayed by anything that I have seen in Casey's defense ... but I really want the truth to come out. You know how when you taste something that is sweetened with artificial sweetener ... it is sweet but it's like the taste isn't quite complete ... a guilty verdict without really knowing what happened would be like that to me ... sweet but not complete! I want the sugary sweet taste that only the truth can bring ... and I just have a feeling that I am going to be left craving, when all is said and done!

:clap::clap::clap: Real sleuths on both sides, sleuthing for the truth.

 

[stilettos]

I have an opinion as to KC's guilt or innocence based on the information that we have at this time. Should other information arise in opposition of that opinion, it would then change due to the facts. I believe that you can sleuth with an opinion. Also, in relation to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yes, that is the way the law reads. In this day and age though we are all aware of the reality and that is that MANY juries do not work that way. Just as many in this nation are Christian by faith yet do not follow the scripture " a man is not to be put to death on the strength of less than two witnesses (that would mean we'd need two eye witnesses at minimum to Caylee's death for the DP)." Many Christians believe in the death penalty and many juries convict (in their minds) before all the evidence is in. Should not be that way. It is the reality today though. Jury nullification anyone?

 

[Jolynna]

Originally Posted by stagehand
I do agree with that and probably should have stated that I think along the route of examining the evidence as it becomes available, impressions can and do cause ones opinions to swing one way or the other.

It's kind of like a scale, as in the scales of justice, each piece of evidence being a weight placed on one side or the other. The scale eventually starts to tilt in one direction. However until each and every piece of evidence is placed on the scale it still has the ability to tilt in the other direction. And there is always the possibility that a huge weight will come out that completely changes the direction the scale is tilting.

The primary point I was trying to make is my inability to understand those who believe the scale is fixed in one direction or the other when there are still more weights to be applied to it.

How many times in these forums have we seen someone make the statement, "I hope they have enough evidence to convict." For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why someone would make such a statement. Either they will have enough evidence or they won't. My own personal hope is that all the evidence is presented in a fair manner and decision rendered by a fair jury.

I think when people say this, they are expressing concern that some jurors might be more impressed by presentation than substance.
With O.J. and Spector it was not a matter of NOT ENOUGH evidence to convict. In both of those cases the prosecutors had the evidence.

Yes, even when defendants are caught on videotape (like Casey was forging checks) they are STILL presumed innocent legally.
But, with a pretty young female defendant and a celebrity high-profile defense team worrying over the possibility of justice not prevailing is valid.

All I think people mean when they say they hope the prosecution has the evidence is that they hope the prosecutors have the ability to skillfully relay it.

IMO

 

[mydailyopinions]

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.

I understand your feelings. The one thing that makes me sleuth in this way, is the things I am learning about with the younger people in this world. (I only reference the younger people because of my own children being young). Before this case, I never heard of chloroform uses, I have never heard of marijuana brownies, nor beer pong! I feel like being able to sleuth this way, and having others do the same is opening my eyes to a whole new world out there that I didn't know existed. So while some think that it is suppose to be all about finding the truth, its just as important to me to be able to learn the happenings in this world so that I myself am more vigilant of my surroundings.
I guess I am a little selfish in the way I look at things, but the truth is, I have 4 children and if they were to ever walk to their rooms with 10 kids with a batch of brownies, I would have never thought anything! Now, I know to pay close attention.

 

[Who_What_When]

I imagine if you talk to any real sleuths, they would tell you they suspect everyone, not assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty, while keeping an open mind that anyone could be guilty or innocent.

I have disagree with that, at least for me. I consider myself a sleuther as I have always enjoyed true crime. Although I'm somewhat new to posting on this site, I've been coming here for years just to read.

When I look into things and try and figure it out, my first quest is to try to find holes in the prosecution or person's guilt. Not sure why I do this, but I do. I go into it with the mindset that the person is innocent and just then take it from there. I think it's a lot easier to figure out guilt then it is to see if a person is innocent or really investigate every angle.

I have been on a jury and absolutely loved it. It's a great experience and I learned a lot from it. There are always two sides, even when it seems like a slam dunk case. It's amazing when you have to actually go through the process, it's nothing like watching it on tv or reading about it. I can definitely see how some trials end in a hung jury. When the judge gives you the rules, it's very complicated and by the way the law is written, is NEVER as easy as you think it's going to be when you have to go through each step and charge of the crime.

To me, Casey is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not to say that I don't think she did it or was involved, or that I like her or condone her actions, but until I can see everything, whether it's bull or not, I can't say this is a slam dunk closed case. JMO

 

[stagehand]

I understand your feelings. The one thing that makes me sleuth in this way, is the things I am learning about with the younger people in this world. (I only reference the younger people because of my own children being young). Before this case, I never heard of chloroform uses, I have never heard of marijuana brownies, nor beer pong! I feel like being able to sleuth this way, and having others do the same is opening my eyes to a whole new world out there that I didn't know existed. So while some think that it is suppose to be all about finding the truth, its just as important to me to be able to learn the happenings in this world so that I myself am more vigilant of my surroundings.
I guess I am a little selfish in the way I look at things, but the truth is, I have 4 children and if they were to ever walk to their rooms with 10 kids with a batch of brownies, I would have never thought anything! Now, I know to pay close attention.

I think that is very true, we all learn from each other that is a very good thing, I love to learn. Each of us also bring different life experiences, I have heard of marijuana brownies, I ate some by accident but that was nearly 40 years ago, I guess I wasn't impressed never tried them again.

When I first heard the word chloroform I thought of a use that is completely different than the common theory in this case. I still haven't learned anything in this case that would cause me change my idea of what it was more likely used for.

The exchange of ideas, experiences, learning from each other, healthy debate are all awesome things. They are just a few of the ways we grow though the experience of this thing we call life

 

[joyceandjay]

I following this case from day 1, can honestly say that I strongly believe she is guilty. Without an ounce of doubt and for very simple reasons, sure call me quick to judge but as a young mother myself, I cannot understand the single fact that she never not once, made a public outcry to have her daughter brought home! Furthermore, another fact is the lies she told LE such as the bad addresses she gave, the lie about speaking to caylee the day before she was arrested, LE proved no such call was ever made or received and thats just for starters.
I would also like to add that while there are juriors out there who are expected to look at this case with an open mind, no one can ignore the coldness and callous behavior KC has portrayed from even before she was arrested.

 

[websurfer]

:behindbar

 

[PrintGal]

To me, based on the evidence we have have knowledge of, Casey is guilty. "Absolutely." I cannot fathom any evidence that defense could pull out unless it was actual videotapes of someone else putting duct tape around Caylee's head, placing the sticker over the tape around her mouth, placing her in the laundry bag, etc. Unfortunately the jurors may not be allowed to consider all the evidence that we have seen.

It is interesting to note that several LE agents that I know and two Child Service investigators have left their jobs and gone into other lines of work because they felt they'd reached a point after all they'd seen and been exposed to and had become so jaded that everyone they came in contact with was guilty until proven otherwise.

One of the things I've noticed even on this board is that people simply can't accept that a pretty young girl like Casey could do something like this to her own child. Or that someone like Patsy could not possible have killed her child. Because decent people just don't do things like that. Yet people like my friends above see it over and over again. It is just that those cases don't get national publicity.

My sister was a nurse in a pediatric intensive care unit. She moved into another speciality after she lost 10 kids in 2 weeks. The majority of her patients were in PICU either because they'd been born to mothers on drugs and were NICU graduates or they were victims of child abuse, usually at the hands of their parents or step-parents. In one memorable case, a 10-year old girl was permanently blinded due to abuse by her mother. And yet the girl kept asking when her mom was coming to visit because she really missed her.

Whether a mother is genetically gifted with good looks or not, statistically in cases of child murded or abuse it is a parent that has hurt the child.

 

[tiredofthis]

To me, based on the evidence we have have knowledge of, Casey is guilty. "Absolutely." I cannot fathom any evidence that defense could pull out unless it was actual videotapes of someone else putting duct tape around Caylee's head, placing the sticker over the tape around her mouth, placing her in the laundry bag, etc. Unfortunately the jurors may not be allowed to consider all the evidence that we have seen.

It is interesting to note that several LE agents that I know and two Child Service investigators have left their jobs and gone into other lines of work because they felt they'd reached a point after all they'd seen and been exposed to and had become so jaded that everyone they came in contact with was guilty until proven otherwise.

One of the things I've noticed even on this board is that people simply can't accept that a pretty young girl like Casey could do something like this to her own child. Or that someone like Patsy could not possible have killed her child. Because decent people just don't do things like that. Yet people like my friends above see it over and over again. It is just that those cases don't get national publicity.

My sister was a nurse in a pediatric intensive care unit. She moved into another speciality after she lost 10 kids in 2 weeks. The majority of her patients were in PICU either because they'd been born to mothers on drugs and were NICU graduates or they were victims of child abuse, usually at the hands of their parents or step-parents. In one memorable case, a 10-year old girl was permanently blinded due to abuse by her mother. And yet the girl kept asking when her mom was coming to visit because she really missed her.

Whether a mother is genetically gifted with good looks or not, statistically in cases of child murded or abuse it is a parent that has hurt the child.

I voted innocent until proven guilty, because everyone deserves a fair trial and in the eyes of the U.S. law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am fairly certain KC is guilty and so far all of the evidence points in that direction. I can only hope the evidence is enough to convict her in a court of law and she won't walk walk free ever again.

 

[websurfer]

It just always to me and for me,
comes back to the smell in the car that everyone including CASEy mentions and then CA disses as PIZZA...
I mean COME ON NOW!!

 

[websurfer]

I voted innocent until proven guilty, because everyone deserves a fair trial and in the eyes of the U.S. law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am fairly certain KC is guilty and so far all of the evidence points in that direction. I can only hope the evidence is enough to convict her in a court of law and she won't walk walk free ever again.

Most importantly it matters what the JURY thinks:behindbar

 

[warbuckle]

I think the real question is guilty of what? I think she is guilty of lying to police. I think she is guilty of child neglect. I am not sure at this point if she is guilty of 1st degree murder. It could be neg. homicide? I think her attorney is taking a huge gamble. If it was an accident then she would have been way better of to take a plea deal and come clean. But there is to much evidence to say she was not involved in some way with Caylee's death so she might very well get first degree. I need to go back and read the statute for 1st degree. If premediation is an element then I think that will be the most difficult to prove.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I need to go back and read the statute for 1st degree. If premediation is an element then I think that will be the most difficult to prove.

< snipped

Premeditation? I'm sure that Scott Peterson's attorney thought the same thing!

 

[DJ3569]

I think the real question is guilty of what? I think she is guilty of lying to police. I think she is guilty of child neglect. I am not sure at this point if she is guilty of 1st degree murder. It could be neg. homicide? I think her attorney is taking a huge gamble. If it was an accident then she would have been way better of to take a plea deal and come clean. But there is to much evidence to say she was not involved in some way with Caylee's death so she might very well get first degree. I need to go back and read the statute for 1st degree. If premediation is an element then I think that will be the most difficult to prove.

That's how I feel, I'm not sure if she murdered her......or it was an accident and she cracked and her mind would not let her compute what had happened. I have had someone very close to me murdered and the reality of what happened was too much for me to accept at that time! I would not,could not and did not believe that it had happened it was easier for my mind,heart and soul to believe that it was not my fiance who was lying in that morgue dead, gone forever,not ever coming back! My reality was too much so my mind made a new one that it could live with. It was a short fix and eventually I crashed and burned and had to find a way to deal with the tremendous loss in my life and the horrible senselessness of how someone who did not know him could take his life for what little money he had in his pocket!! I also had to deal with the outcome of this person's trial, he got 10 years because he was high on drugs and wasn't in his right mind at the time of the shooting. He only did 7 of those years he got out early on good behavior.:shakehead:

 

[kathyn2]

Doesn't the duct tape on the mouth prove premeditation? premeditation doesn't have to be some long term planning. Premeditation can take place in an instant. A dead child doesn't need duct tape to silence them or smother them. Only a live child. The duct tape alone proves premeditation and I am praying KC's fingerprints are on that duct tape. That should cinch the deal.

 

[cfromcanada]

I think it's important to remember that reasonable doubt DOES NOT mean beyond all reason. A person's mortal soul is not in jeopardy to decide guilt if they believe it is a "reasonable" conclusion...How did this get so screwed up?

 

[gardenhart]

I have disagree with that, at least for me. I consider myself a sleuther as I have always enjoyed true crime. Although I'm somewhat new to posting on this site, I've been coming here for years just to read.

When I look into things and try and figure it out, my first quest is to try to find holes in the prosecution or person's guilt. Not sure why I do this, but I do. I go into it with the mindset that the person is innocent and just then take it from there. I think it's a lot easier to figure out guilt then it is to see if a person is innocent or really investigate every angle.

I have been on a jury and absolutely loved it. It's a great experience and I learned a lot from it. There are always two sides, even when it seems like a slam dunk case. It's amazing when you have to actually go through the process, it's nothing like watching it on tv or reading about it. I can definitely see how some trials end in a hung jury. When the judge gives you the rules, it's very complicated and by the way the law is written, is NEVER as easy as you think it's going to be when you have to go through each step and charge of the crime.

To me, Casey is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not to say that I don't think she did it or was involved, or that I like her or condone her actions, but until I can see everything, whether it's bull or not, I can't say this is a slam dunk closed case. JMO

I was talking about real detectives and others who work on crimes for a living, not websleuthers.