This may be a dumb series of questions but I’m asking them honestly.
What happens to the investigation into who killed the child? Does it get shelved as a ‘cold case’ thing? Or does some agency keep working on it? Also, if it some one keeps working on it and finds some kind of irrefutable evidence that implicates Casey again - is she protected now from being tried again (double jeopardy thing)? I am just curious.
Thank you.
She can’t be retried for the murder of her child. She can go on CNN tonight and tell the world she did it, she’s glad she did it, and she hated the child. Nothing can be done about it.
As I understand it, Casey could go on national television tomorrow, confess to the murder, describe in detail how and why she killed her daughter, (“Babysitters ain’t cheap, bitches!!!”) and she still couldn’t ever be retried for her crimes…
Can someone (I have no idea who) bring a civil suit against her, as in the OJ case(s)?
Pretty much this although perhaps there could be some federal law they could get her for (like when the police were found innocent in LA for beating Rodney King they were tried under federal laws).
I do not know there is a federal law that would cover this but if she ran around saying “I did it!” I bet someone would look to see if there was something else to bust her on. I seriously doubt however she would make any such statement and I bet this case is done.
Also, civil suits can be brought which are not in violation of double jeopardy (such as happened to OJ Simpson). Not sure who would sue her in this case…just saying a “not guilty” verdict does not necessarily mean you are totally out of the woods. You are safe from going to jail for that specific crime though.
This is true to a point unless anything she said introduced new evidence that warranted new charges for some aspect of the case she wasn’t already tried for.
As happened to Paul Warner Powell. After having his murder charges thrown out, believing he was protected under double jeopardy laws he wrote mocking letters to the district attorney laying out in explicit detail how he committed the rape, attempted rape, murder, and attempted murder, of two girls.
Because he connected the rape and murder of one of the girls where the state had only failed to prove the murder, it became a capital murder charge and he wasn’t protected under double jeopardy. He has been re-tried and executed.
Wow, y’all are FAST!
Thanks for all the replies - that’s kinda what I was thinking on the doube jeapordy issue.
But what about the investigation itself? Does it just go dormant and fade away or is there some agency that keeps looking at it?
:eek: He got the chair, too.
Casey’s explanation was that there was no murder. Her child had drowned in atragic accident, and fearful of being charged with neglect and in a state of panic, they conspired to make it look like she had been murdered by a stranger or strangers unknown.
So if Casey’s storey is true there’s no murderer to look for.
This. Prosecutors can be creative in terms of how to “find” offenses in a person’s life to charge.
I recall that Sun Myung Moon (leader of a much-disliked religion) was brought up on tax evasion charges in the US even though the amount of the evasion was below the standard threshold of prosecution (de minimis non curat lex and all that). I’m sure that the decision to prosecute for such a small amount had something to do with his public perception as someone who was up to no good somehow and that just deserved to be in jail.
In theory, if she let slip that she drove Casey to Georgia (for instance) and killed her there, the state of Georgia could try her for murder. Or so I happen to think; I might be off base about this point.
Caylee’s estate would be the party to bring such a suit. Ordinarily, Caylee’s mother would be the representative of her estate, but she’s obviously conflicted in this case. I suppose the grandmother could petition the court to be named Caylee’s representative, or possibly the state could ask that someone be appointed as her representative for the purpose of exploring civil legal options. Presumably Casey has no money just now, but one can imagine that there might be book or movie money down the road.
Even if it isn’t true. If you can’t convict the most likely person, the case is “over”–unless some completely new information arises that it could’ve been someone else.
A not-guilty verdict doesn’t suddenly mean that they “were investigating the wrong person after all.” It doesn’t mean that the police suddenly now have to find the “real” murderer, a la OJ Simpson.
Depends on what the DA thinks. If he says, “Stupid jury! The let the killer off!”, then he’s not going to pursue it any further. But if he accepts the jury as intelligent, and is willing to concede that maybe Casey did not do it, AND there are some leads to follow up on, then I suppose they’ll go back to looking for someone else.
If you look at Lizzie Borden things like this get interesting. Although acquitted Lizzie was shunned by her contemporaries and generally thought of as getting away with murder.
Though some Bordenphiles have made decent (though not overpowering) arguments that this lead to the real killer getting away with it and allowing others to be harmed.
Also look at OJ if you believe he was innocent, then someone got away with it and is still out there. Same if you believe the Ramseys are innocent
As for admitting crimes after being found not guilty, while it’s true they can’t retry you, they can always find something else to charge you with.
Lack of a conclusive cause of death in this case was cited by jurors as being one of their doubts.
There was never any question in anyone’s mind about the cause of Lizzie Borden’s parents deaths. And there was no question that the intention of whoever did it was to kill them. It was inside a private home that only a few known persons were able to enter. The only “reasonable doubt” in her case was mostly that people just didn’t want to believe that a young woman could do that to her parents.
I always viewed this case as being one more of negligence, irresponsibility, than homicidal aggression. I think if the state had pursued negligence or manslaughter charges the same evidence might have convicted her on the lesser charges.
Thanks for the information everyone. Interesting stuff I didn’t know before.
In theory, but no lawyer would ever advise someone to do that. She couldn’t be tried for first degree murder but there are several things that could happen:
There is some crime that would not be considered a “lesser included offense” that she could be charged with (who knows.)
She could face civil action (probably from her mother or someone of that nature.)
She could be the target of vigilantism.
Given that Casey’s mother perjured herself trying to cover for her daughter (by falsely claiming to have made the incriminating internet searches) I’d say that she isn’t terribly interested in avenging her granddaughter’s death.