[Vedderman]

No, no one KNOWS she is guilty. If anyone did, she'd have been convicted.

Fact of the matter is, this is America and in this country you cannot convict a charged offender in the Court of Public Opinion alone.

The prosecution had NO case. They couldn't even prove that the child was murdered, let alone tie it to the mother. Anthony even had an incompetent, blundering jackhole of a defense lawyer and the prosecution STILL couldn't nail the case closed.

There was no evidence. And without evidence there is no guilt. Any of you who would prefer it ANY other way deserve whatever you get.

I, personally, don't know or even care whether she's guilty or not. What I do care about is that yet another crooked prosecution team in this country was not able to ride roughshod all over our justice system, as happens every single day in cases that do not receive so much media scrutiny.

If she is guilty of murder, then she'll pay for it one day. God/Karma/the Universe/whatever will see to that. But it is not for us to say, as she has been found NOT GUILTY in the court of man.

[BlueNosePit]

Branedon youre a absolute fuckin idiot. You think oj was "not guilty" also huh

[BlueNosePit]

And all that nanny kidnapped her shit she made up. Wtf? This bitch told so many lies she dont know what the fuck she said.

[Vedderman]

You'll note that I never said she wasn't a lying bitch. Nor did I ever say that she was INNOCENT.

Only that the prosecution's case was shoddy enough that it didn't manage to convince a single jury member of her 'guilt.'

[Drusilla]

I meant to ask guys,I know in the US you can't be tried for the same crime,but is there is a 'get out' clause if new info comes to light?Here in Qld,we had the law changed in 2007 to avoid the problem of a 'double jeopardy' case,after the infamous Deidre Kennedy murder case,not dissimilar to this one.



Double jeopardy rethink

December 16 2002



The mother of murdered 17-month-old Deidre Kennedy now works in an Ipswich supermarket. One of the customers is the man a jury said killed Deidre. Greg Roberts reports.

Faye Kennedy remembers vividly the April morning in 1973 when her five-year-old daughter, Stephanie, came into her bedroom. "She told me Dee-Dee was not in her cot," Mrs Kennedy said. Stephanie's sister, 17-month-old Deidre, had been abducted during the night. In a crime which shocked the nation, Deidre was sexually abused and strangled.

Her body, bizarrely clad in women's underwear stolen from a clothes line, was thrown on to the roof of a toilet block in Limestone Park, 200 metres from the Kennedys' rented house.

"She was the shyest little girl, she had only been walking a few weeks," an emotional Mrs Kennedy said from her Ipswich home last week. "What happened to my daughter was a dreadful, dreadful thing. Even now, some days are really low."

Deidre's case has sparked calls for a review of a pillar of the criminal justice system, the double jeopardy rule - when a person cannot be sent to trial more than once for the same offence.

A 17-year-old RAAF electrician at the time, Raymond John Carroll, was charged with the murder and found guilty by a jury in 1985. The conviction was overturned by Queensland's Court of Appeal. When further evidence was later unearthed, Mr Carroll could not be charged again with murder. He was charged instead with perjury - that he lied at his murder trial when he said he had not killed Deidre - and found guilty by a second jury in 2000.

That conviction also was overturned by the appeals court. This month, the High Court rejected an application from Queensland to annul the appeals court decision. Mr Carroll spent a total of 19 months in jail.

Said Mrs Kennedy: "For more than half my life, this has been chasing me around. There is something wrong with a system that says two juries are wrong. Something has to be done. My daughter's death must not be in vain."

Mrs Kennedy said she is "revolted" that Mr Carroll regularly fronts her at the checkout counter in the Ipswich Woolworths supermarket where she works.

Detective Inspector John Reynolds, now retired, headed the murder investigation. He said three bite marks on Deidre's left thigh were central to the case against Mr Carroll.

At the first trial, the Crown presented forensic evidence purportedly showing that the marks matched Mr Carroll's dental impression. The prosecution also proved Mr Carroll was not in South Australia at the time, as he had claimed.

The appeal court rejected the forensic evidence on the basis that experts differed about the extent to which the bite marks matched Mr Carroll's teeth. The case was reopened primarily because, according to the Crown, advances in forensic science confirmed beyond reasonable doubt a match with the bite marks.

Said Mr Reynolds: "I have had people convicted for murder, rape, you name it, on evidence a lot flimsier than this. I am 110 per cent sure of who was responsible. I think the justice system has gone to the shit."

Queensland's Attorney-General, Rod Welford, plans to ask the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to review the double jeopardy rule.

A leading Melbourne criminal lawyer, Rob Stary, said the case for removing the rule for homicide cases because of advances in forensic medicine is strong.

But the federal president of the Council for Civil Liberties, Terry O'Gorman, said the rule was a key protection against abuse of power.

Legislation has been tabled in Britain's House of Commons removing the rule for 30 offences.

Former High Court chief justices Sir Anthony Mason and Harry Gibbs are among Australian legal experts saying Australia should follow Britain's lead in reviewing double jeopardy.

Her criminal law options exhausted, Mrs Kennedy plans to launch a civil prosecution against Mr Carroll with financial assistance from The Australian newspaper, along the lines of action taken against footballer O.J. Simpson
More detail here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Carroll

[Pyramid_Head]

Poor little child. I hope someone gets that bitch!

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by Drusilla ↗

I disagree.I think they presented a good case.The trouble is,I think,the definition of a case proved beyond 'reasonable doubt' has become increasingly vague & unwieldy.The standard is so high,that fewer cases can meet the requirements.

Disagree all you like. The fact remains that this jury (and in fact the entire country) WANTED to convict her. They'd have been thrilled to see her get time or the death penalty.

But, in spite of the overwhelming bloodlust, the prosecution still didn't manage to convince even one single juror. Not one.

And this wasn't a '12 Angry Men' sort of affair with Henry Fonda screaming against the tide for days on end. Their deliberations took barely 10 hours. On a case that's been getting coverage for 3 years.

Again, I am in no way saying that she is 'innocent.' But you trying to defend the State's slipshod, half-assed case is pretty ridiculous. If their case had held even an ounce of water, that jury would still be wrangling even now.

[BlueNosePit]

No matter what comes to light she could never be re-tried.

[carkees]

Yep, bitch is guilty as hell.

[Ntwadumela]

Casey is a lying bitch, that doesn't change the fact that there was no proof she killed the child. It's not what you know or think you know, it's what you can prove in court. Hopefully if she did do it, she pays dearly for it.