- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi John,
Maybe, but not being a loving mother is not a crime...yet. When it is, trust me there will be a jail full of women and if the same law convicts men of not being loving fathers, then all the jails in all the world won't have enough room to hold those behind their bars.
Largeli,
You responded: Im just curious, what do these people think is gonna happen when "God judges her"? Would he not forgive a repentant murderer who murdered someone physically just the same as He would forgive someone who murdered someone in their heart? Didnt Jesus say that the person who is mean spirited towards another is just as guilty as the murderer?
That all depends if whether between now and her death she turns to Jesus. If not, yes, God will judge her for every wrong deed. If so, then God will see her as the same as he sees me. I don't think most here are being mean spirited. What I see most among those who decry her being found not guilty is a frustration in being wrong in what they believed about the woman. They have all believed that she is hands down guilty. I don't know, but I, much like I'm sure the jury finds that there were too many questions yet unanswered to find her guilty of the highest crime of our nation. Possibly facing a death sentence. For the charge of first degree murder with the death penalty as a possible consequence, I would certainly hope that we would know the manner of death and have clear evidence of the person responsible for that manner of death.
The prosecutor would have been much better off seeking a charge of negligent homocide or some lesser charge that is more easily proved without all the physical evidence that was missing in this case.
I have mulled over in my mind the possible scenarios and quite frankly I don't find it particularly difficult to understand a way in which she could have found herself in the very position she may have been in and certainly not be guilty of first degree murder.
She was known to be a party girl and surely had many nights that she stayed out until the wee hours of the morning. Perhaps she fell asleep on the couch and the two year old climbed her way into the pool and drowned. When Casey woke up and saw what had happened, but knowing that many parents have gone to jail for such behavior as hers as a criminally negligent parent, she may well have tried to come up with some ruse to explain the disappearance of the baby. She doesn't appear to be particularly bright and so just saying to the first person that asked, 'Oh she's with someone else.' would seem a very easy way to delay the inevitable. Of course, once you have stepped onto that path it becomes nearly impossible to turn back. It would not even come to her that she couldn't just continue to explain the disappearance of her child, but that would not prevent her from trying until the inevitable discoveries were made that would wash away all that she had told people.
Let's just assume for a moment that you have made up a story to cover the disappearance of someone that you know is dead and you have spread this story for a week. Do you think you would, at that point a week later, be able to turn back and tell everyone that all you had said for the last week was a lie and here's what really happened. I don't think it would be that easy and so you find yourself just being carried along by the story until it all falls apart. I know that when my son was two years old I could put him in his room with toys and might go off and take a short nap. Now let's set the stage with a young woman who is just worn completely out from being up until 4 in the morning. Is it at all possible that she would lay down to read a book or watch tv and wake up 3 hours later and see her child floating dead in a swimming pool? I don't find that a difficult scenario that might well explain why this not very bright young woman might panic and carry the body of her child out to the trunk of her car and when her parents and others came and began asking questions make up some silly story to explain the childs absence. And again, once the choice to take that path is made and stories have been made and spread, it is very, very difficult to just throw up your hands and call everyone back and say, 'Oh wait, no,no, no, all that I have said is a lie. I fell asleep and my daughter drowned in the pool and I threw her in the trunk and have been telling all these lies to cover her disappearance. Here, come on out to the car and I'll show you her body.'
What do you think? Any possibility that something such as this might explain the physical evidence that we have. After all, everyone said that she was a wonderful mother and all the pictures we see show a happy, well adjusted child who's mother truly enjoyed being with her during the day. I find it much more difficult to believe that she might have murdered her child with some malice in her heart rather than the child suffered some accidental death, but for whatever reason the mother felt a need to try and cover it up.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Maybe, but not being a loving mother is not a crime...yet. When it is, trust me there will be a jail full of women and if the same law convicts men of not being loving fathers, then all the jails in all the world won't have enough room to hold those behind their bars.
Largeli,
You responded: Im just curious, what do these people think is gonna happen when "God judges her"? Would he not forgive a repentant murderer who murdered someone physically just the same as He would forgive someone who murdered someone in their heart? Didnt Jesus say that the person who is mean spirited towards another is just as guilty as the murderer?
That all depends if whether between now and her death she turns to Jesus. If not, yes, God will judge her for every wrong deed. If so, then God will see her as the same as he sees me. I don't think most here are being mean spirited. What I see most among those who decry her being found not guilty is a frustration in being wrong in what they believed about the woman. They have all believed that she is hands down guilty. I don't know, but I, much like I'm sure the jury finds that there were too many questions yet unanswered to find her guilty of the highest crime of our nation. Possibly facing a death sentence. For the charge of first degree murder with the death penalty as a possible consequence, I would certainly hope that we would know the manner of death and have clear evidence of the person responsible for that manner of death.
The prosecutor would have been much better off seeking a charge of negligent homocide or some lesser charge that is more easily proved without all the physical evidence that was missing in this case.
I have mulled over in my mind the possible scenarios and quite frankly I don't find it particularly difficult to understand a way in which she could have found herself in the very position she may have been in and certainly not be guilty of first degree murder.
She was known to be a party girl and surely had many nights that she stayed out until the wee hours of the morning. Perhaps she fell asleep on the couch and the two year old climbed her way into the pool and drowned. When Casey woke up and saw what had happened, but knowing that many parents have gone to jail for such behavior as hers as a criminally negligent parent, she may well have tried to come up with some ruse to explain the disappearance of the baby. She doesn't appear to be particularly bright and so just saying to the first person that asked, 'Oh she's with someone else.' would seem a very easy way to delay the inevitable. Of course, once you have stepped onto that path it becomes nearly impossible to turn back. It would not even come to her that she couldn't just continue to explain the disappearance of her child, but that would not prevent her from trying until the inevitable discoveries were made that would wash away all that she had told people.
Let's just assume for a moment that you have made up a story to cover the disappearance of someone that you know is dead and you have spread this story for a week. Do you think you would, at that point a week later, be able to turn back and tell everyone that all you had said for the last week was a lie and here's what really happened. I don't think it would be that easy and so you find yourself just being carried along by the story until it all falls apart. I know that when my son was two years old I could put him in his room with toys and might go off and take a short nap. Now let's set the stage with a young woman who is just worn completely out from being up until 4 in the morning. Is it at all possible that she would lay down to read a book or watch tv and wake up 3 hours later and see her child floating dead in a swimming pool? I don't find that a difficult scenario that might well explain why this not very bright young woman might panic and carry the body of her child out to the trunk of her car and when her parents and others came and began asking questions make up some silly story to explain the childs absence. And again, once the choice to take that path is made and stories have been made and spread, it is very, very difficult to just throw up your hands and call everyone back and say, 'Oh wait, no,no, no, all that I have said is a lie. I fell asleep and my daughter drowned in the pool and I threw her in the trunk and have been telling all these lies to cover her disappearance. Here, come on out to the car and I'll show you her body.'
What do you think? Any possibility that something such as this might explain the physical evidence that we have. After all, everyone said that she was a wonderful mother and all the pictures we see show a happy, well adjusted child who's mother truly enjoyed being with her during the day. I find it much more difficult to believe that she might have murdered her child with some malice in her heart rather than the child suffered some accidental death, but for whatever reason the mother felt a need to try and cover it up.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
