Quote:
Originally Posted by PennBF
F.Lee Bailey said in his book,"It is not important that you are innocent. It is important that you can prove it to 12 jurors."
In this case no one can identify how she died, when she died and where she died. There has been no proof of these reqirements and therefore it is becoming like the old "hanging" in the west when these questions were not important, just the "feelings" and "emotions". Our country was not built on the old west but rather on justice through proof "beyond a doubt".
It has become a great shell game by the State as they have no proof to the above 3 requirements and it is a real danger when people ignore them and replace them with emotion and feelings.
She may be the biggest liar that ever walked on the earth, the most selfish
mother ever to live, a true sociopath, etc. But it is still necessary to prove she was responsible in some way for the child's death and that has not been done. Is it possible that it would be terrible for her to go free? Maybe..But if in the process the our freedoms and justice are protected then let her walk.
Hopefully, we will stop the "hanging" emotions and look for proof beyond a doubt and I have seen that yet by the state.
|
Your post seems well thought out and right on. The State has proved (proven?) nothing... lots of
theories, yes, but
not proof. As you said, feeling and emotions are not proof, either. Even some of the news "analysts" who are or have been judges themselves have said much the same thing. Where's the proof? Caylee could well have drowned and Casey panicked, Casey could have used chloroform, or tape, or whatever...she is the only one who really knows what happened.
Does it look bad for her? Absolutely, but then only the prosecution has had a turn. The one expert testifying today seemed one of the most credible because he said that everything he presented is not absolute.
Remember when I said that she could have placed the tape on her child to support her original story of kidnapping? At the time she came up with that story, she first told it to her mother and it grew from there. She couldn't have given her attorneys a different story at that point because she didn't even have attorneys. She had no need for them.
Why didn't the State verify if and when George was at work on the 16th? They did it for the computer searches. Why didn't Cindy take Casey's calls that afternoon? She testified that the number of calls in a row was unusual. If so, why did she not think there might be a problem? Did she answer them or just see or know that it was Casey calling and choose to ignore them? The State contends that cell phone records show that Casey was still home or near there most of the afternoon around the time she was making those calls.
If the stories are true about her mother not "allowing" her to put Caylee up for adoption, how is that? She was of age and her mother couldn't have done a thing about it if she had. With the open adoptions now, the grandparents could still have been a part of her life. All the tension between Casey and her family couldn't have been good for Caylee. Couldn't the rest of the family see that? Maybe Cindy thought that by forcing Casey to keep Caylee, she would see the light and change. That's as effective as having a child either one of a couple doesn't really want just to hold a marriage together.
Too, too many questions still and not nearly enough answers. We just need to let the system work all the way through. That hasn't happened, yet.