you can prove a putative father posthumously. but there has to be either evidence that the father recognized the child while alive or definitive blood tests. on a general level, why does it matter (or why does LE want to know) if jesus is the father? i would understand if they were trying to prove that the father was someone who was alive (and could aide and abet casey), but i am missing the significance of a dead guy being caylee's dad. please explain?
on an unrelated note, there is this behavior by guilty defendants (and their families) that is often very telling. basically, the defendant thinks, well as long as no one can see inside my head, no one can ever know the truth. so i will just stick to my story, no matter how unbelievable it becomes, because without a way to get in my head, the police can never implicate me. family members act the same way, and their behavior is augmented by the fact that their credibility is riding on the defendant's (which could explain cindy and george's inane inconsistencies).
while it is true that there is no magical tool that can just glance into someone's true thought process, the problem with this line of thinking is that eventually enough evidence will prove the truth, regardless if the defendant opens up. and then, when there finally is enough evidence (read: forensics), the defendant looks even guiltier by bottling up instead of just giving their side of the story when it actually mattered.
i think casey is banking on the fact that no one will ever know what happened if she doesnt talk; however, i hope that dna and documentary evidence (phone records, computer records, security tapes, gas cans, etc) will prove otherwise....
)
