She got away with murder....how wrong of her...ugggghhhhh!

Casey will soon be a multi-millionaire several times over. Watch for her on next season's "Dancing with the Stars" Originally Posted by Bababoeuy

Guaranteed she poses for Playboy magazine

I haven't followed one word of evidence in this case, and frankly, I doubt any of the posters who have expressed outrage here have followed much more of the evidence. Granted, you may have read biased media accounts of the evidence, but not the evidence itself.

The twelve jurors who spent weeks of their lives with his case, heard every word of evidence. The looked, or at least had the opportunity to look at, every single document that was admitted into evidence. They heard the cross-examination of witnesses by the attorneys. They heard the arguments of the lawyers about the evidence. And they heard the law that applied to the case explained by the judge. Not one of you had that advantage. Yet you smugly sit and disparage weeks and weeks of hard work by the men and women who had all of that available to them based on a half-heard smattering of ignorant (and often inaccurate) "infotianment" media bullshit.

Shameful in the extreme and very disrespectful of our jury system. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Very well said TTH.

I've watched a couple of segments where some of these commentators are worried she will profit from the freak show they created. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites...

Guaranteed she poses for Playboy magazine Originally Posted by faz

I'd rather she be acquitted of posing for Playboy's mag and guilty of the crime of spread eagle hoochie showing for Hustler! I'd give her 6 to 9 if she does

Sad that the truth didn't emerge during the trial. Logically I get why the jury went with the Not Guilty.

There was no way to determine how the child was killed.
Casey's behavior while outrageous and suspicious, does not mean she murdered her own child. All the evidence was circumstantial.

I'm extremely disappointed, but I understand. I think Casey is going to serve a life sentence every day she walks the earth.

She will be spurned by society, she's allowed her attorney to trash and falsely accuse her father of being a sexual preditor, she won't be able to find a job or certainly a good job, if she goes out partying some drunk is going to kick the shit out of her and moving to another city or state won't help.

This ain't Judge Judy....this is eccie, bring on the Hustler spread.

Plus I bet there are a pile of potential employers' out there right here on this board!

The prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that She was guilty. I thought that she had the motive (just like OJ)...based on what I read from the media...but that does not convict a person. The sad thing about this whole situation is that a little girl is dead...and no one has been brought to justice....yet.

Originally Posted by WTF

Then back up and hit it again?

I am of mixed feelings because I don't know everything the jury heard. That rules out elation or astonishment

I have read and heard bits and pieces from the tial. The jury knew far more about the trial than I. Far be it from me to pass judgement. With that said, it is an absolute shame that a little girl has been killed yet no one has been convicted of the crime. But I have faith in our criminal justice system and hopefully one day the murderer will be tried and convicted of the crime. It is not in anyone's best interest for our justice system to have anything less than the prosecution's long held obligation to satisfy an absolute burden of proof. Most especially in a murder trial. It is apparent the prosecution failed to satisfy their burden in this trial.

As it relates to the accused, I have no strong feelings should she eventually profit from the trial. As far as I am concerned, it is totally irrelevant. I do know enough about the trial to have made a personal determination that she was not a good mother. However, being a bad mother is not a crime. Assuming she is not the murderer, she still has to live with herself knowing that she has lost her child. If she has an ounce of decency within her, she will live the rest of her life knowing that she could have possibly prevented it. That is what I refer to as a
self-imposed burden of proof! In and of itself, that burden carries with it a pretty stiff penalty!

She will probably get some book deals / movie deals / interviews and make a lot of $$$. Ultimately, she will probably be a social pariah and people will yell at her in public when they see her. She will probably need to hire body guards with some of that $$$ because she is hated by so many people. Even though she was voted "Not Guilty", That does not mean she is "innocent".

She will probably get some book deals / movie deals / interviews and make a lot of $$$. Originally Posted by coast_encounter

Mere proof that she worked hard in life.

Nobody gets rich unless they absolutely deserve it. Nobody.

No one would have even heard of Casey if it wasn't for that pig Nancy Grace who started reporting on her in July 2008. And now that fat pig is upset that Casey will become a rich woman. But if it wasn't for Casey, the pig wouldn't have any ratings. No ratings means no $$$ for the pig.

Mere proof that she worked hard in life.

Nobody gets rich unless they absolutely deserve it. Nobody. Originally Posted by Doove

Im from florida And I followed it from the beginning a few yrs ago ,I know you All think shes quilty because she lied to the cops about her where abouts ,and it wasnt reported for a month ,but shes not guilty ,her parents were taking care of their granddaughter blame it on the grandparents .

With all of the evidence Nancy Grace threw at us day after day, the jury still couldn't find her guilty? She must not have really done it if, with ALL of this evidence, the jury (who probably DID want to convict her as we all do), couldn't find an excuse to lock her up.

Even the prosecuting attorney said he accepted the jury's decision. Sounds to me as if he even knew there wasn't enough evidence.

So if she didn't do it..then WHO did???

Maybe she DID do it.... acquittal doesn't equate to innocence... it just means they didn't have a solid enough argument to convict her to the severe sentence the prosecutor was pursuing.

With all of the evidence Nancy Grace threw at us day after day, the jury still couldn't find her guilty? She must not have really done it if, with ALL of this evidence, the jury (who probably DID want to convict her as we all do), couldn't find an excuse to lock her up.

Even the prosecuting attorney said he accepted the jury's decision. Sounds to me as if he even knew there wasn't enough evidence.

So if she didn't do it..then WHO did??? Originally Posted by AimeeAims

The one time I had jury duty filled in a lot of the blanks. If you follow the judge's instructions pertaining to the rules of evidence and testimony, the verdict should be straight forward. DNA for example. They told us that DNA was bullet proof unless some questions about improper handling, etc. Trying to exclude the evidence happens before the trial or if during, not in front of the jury. In our trial, the major debate was between the total values of the equipment. At $300,000 there was an increase in penalty. It was either $285,000 or $330,000. One of the jurors brought up the point that if this was his first offense, the lower value was good enough. If it wasn't his first offense, the prior would give him the same bonus upgrade the higher value would have given him. That was really the only thing we could debate. Can somebody hold out against logic and overwhelming evidence? They sure can.