It's time to weigh in, I think there are many things to consider when passing judgement on a "judgement." Innocent until proven
guilty, is the standard by which the United States criminal Justice System operates, and with good reason.
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty), is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
Imagine yourself wrongfully accused of a crime because the majority of people found you different, whether it was the way you looked, acted, who you hung out with, or where you spent your free time. Personally and in my heart and mind, I agree with most everyone, the B@#$% had SOMETHING to do with it!
Did the Prosecution prove it? Not beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in my mind. I can't say that if I were on that jury, and was presented with the evidence that they were presented, that I could justify putting her to death, even though I think
she did do something. They just never explained what it was, how it happened, and who it was for sure that did it.
Some people are blaming the jury, not me. They did the job the way they were instructed. If there is blame to be pointed, I think it should go toward the prosecution. Zealous prosecution charging Murder One with a wholly circumstantial case, why not go after Aggravated Manslaughter, and argue that maybe she accidentally killed the child while trying to go partying. Put me on the jury with that charge, and I would have voted Guilty in a heartbeat based on the evidence presented. Like I said, I know the B@#$% was involved in some way, just don't know if the crazy girl was premeditated in what she did.
Somebody killed the poor child, that is not in doubt, but as we all feel that Justice was not served, remember, that the system works the way it does for good reason, and that is to protect us all from "the witch hunts" that will inevitably occur when a great wrong has been commited, and GOD forbid that you or I be that poor "witch" on the other end of the hunt.
Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...
( From the Rush Song "Witch Hunt"
Do I believe Casey killed Caylee? Let's just say, I am leaning heavily toward that conclusion... Yes... However, knowing something and legally proving it are two very different things. Was Caylee's death intentional or an accidental killing or drowning, we will never know. Why? Because, the Prosecution, not the Jury, "didn't connect the dots".
It's not the jury's place to second guess at what happened; the evidence must be laid out, in black and white; with no room for doubt to convict and send someone to their death.
Bottom line, right or wrong, the Prosecution tried this case in the media; instead of properly focusing in on their job and trying this case in the courtroom. The result was not guilty verdicts and no legal way to retry this case. Casey walks and Caylee is dead, end of story.
Those are the facts, blame the Prosecutors for not properly doing their job........