I don't know that time or age is going to change my view in all honesty. to me, there was legal reasonable doubt even if outside the bounds of the guidelines for the court justice system, reasonable doubt etc people could easily conclude she murdered her daughter. I viewed this trial with a bend towards how jurors were meant to, by ignoring outside influences, things that were said (true things and untrue things) outside the court because they are inadmissable in court and therefore not to factor into a decision. And by that standard, I do believe the jury followed the letter of the law in finding not guilty even though it sounds to me like that juror was saying in their guts it hurt like hell to give that finding because they wanted to be able to find her guilty but the law was against them.
I also thing that all of the media comparisons to OJ's trials are unjustified, they were night and day with the exception that both resulted in not guilty verdicts that the public felt outrage about. There was a cause of death in that case, that was a glaring fact missing in this case and it means a LOT in a criminal case. I also don't buy that this was about them leaving quick for holidays and wanting this over etc so they just said not guilty to get on their booked cruises etc. I mean it goes the same way then that they could have said guilty just as quick for that reason so it makes no sense to assume wanting to go home meant they didn't weigh evidence and shirked their responsabilities. Especially given the fact they KNEW what hte public outrage at not guilty would be. I think it's a shame they are now on trial in the court of public opinion simply because they believe they had to follow the letter of the law and that meant the case wasn't solid enough for conviction. When I hear people accuse them of shirking their duties for selfish motives I think why on earth would anybody ever sit for jury duty again if that is the response to cases where the public is angry at the outcome. Why not public respect for their role in taking it serious but doing what the court required? Is it their fault if this case was such a mess and that the body wasn't found soon enough to determine cause of death? Seemed to me they expressed being sick to their stomaches that they were forced to find her not guilty based on the evidence available. Would we want to live in a world where people ignored the standard of proof required for convictions? Can you imagine the huge influx of innocent people filling the prisons on evidence that couldn't prove things? Based on people not liking the actions of a defendent? Imagine our difficult child's? How many members here know first hand how easy it would be for them to be convicted not on proof and evidence but on judgement of character and previous actions like stealing, lying, manipulating, living in a reality of their own making? We'd want there to be PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt.
I see how the public is upset at this verdict and how it hits the pit of the stomache of people who are able to use all of the information floating around out there to convict her in their minds. But the criminal case is a different story, it has requirements and safeguards in place and like it or not, its a system in place with good reason. SOmetimes that means people do get not guilty verdicts that go against the grain of all that feels right with the world and leaves people disgusted that the system seems to have failed. But the system didn't fail. The jury didn't fail. The sad reality is, this case was a mess due to evidence that was not conclusive PROOF to a court standard burden of proof. It happens every day and is upsetting obviously but isn't a miscarriage of the system, it's just a sad reality that not everyone can be proven guilty. 15 years from now I'll have the same belief on burden of proof as I hold today. That doesn't mean I don't also feel devestated to hear of people getting away with crimes that under a less burden they would be convicted of. I'm human too.
). I respect her and the other jurors' integrity in not wanting to sentence someone to death if there was insufficient incontrevertible evidence to do so. I do acknowledge the whole dilemma of how one could convict Casey when one did not actually know the crime that she had committed: what was she to be convicted of precisely and based on what evidence? I do understand how the jury felt bound to come to the verdict they did. At the same time, something does not add up. And I think it's that they did not find her guilty of child abuse. This is strange and inexplicable.
