Hello, everybody! Some of you may know me from the JonBenet forum. But I confess that I don't really know much about this case. So, I thought it might help if I could gain a little more knowledge. But I have my own reasons. What inspired me was a blurb on TV the other night. In in, it was stated that the case against Casey is purely circumstantial. I knew that, but it illustrated the difference between the approach law enforcement in Boulder took vs. the approach they take just about every place else. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this: --the police arrested Casey before they even found a body; --there are no eyewitnesses, no confession, no DNA, nothing at all that would be considered a classic "smoking gun;" --the prosecutor in this case cared more about a little girl's death than about hurting the suspect's feelings or their politcal careers or the town's reputation; --Casey cannot afford high-price, politically connected lawyers; --the evidence against Casey is mostly anecdotal; --Casey had no known history of violence, mental illness, etc. See, over on the forum where I'm so well-known, this is the perfect counterpoint to some, who claim that literally every single case must have a "smoking gun" in order to get a conviction, that there's no such thing as putting together circumstantial evidence into a totality, that probable cause is a very easy thing to establish, etc. By their own logic, then, Casey has been railroaded six ways to Sunday. To me, the way this case was handled vs. the JonBenet case is night and day, but that's about the ONLY difference. But, as I said, I don't know that much. I am your empty cup. Fill me, baby!