No Flames - Innocent until proven guilty

[Lanie]

I have never followed a case before, certainly not to the degree that I have followed this one. It stands to reason that I never read nor participated in a forum such as this one before either. I also have never served on a jury.

I stumbled upon this case purely by accident, I was preparing for a trip to the Orlando area and visited the newspaper web site to check the weather report which just so happened to be the day Casey was released from jail the first time. I could not quite understand what a young woman of that age had done which was causing such public outcry. The curiosity to find out eventually led me here.

Perhaps I am the oddball, I frequently feel out of place here. To me the word "sleuth" means to gather details and then studying those details in a search for truth. And to keep repeating that process until there are no more details before attempting to reach a final conclusion.

It seems that many people tend to form opinions early on, or at least before all the details are known and studied. From that point forward they tend to dismiss any new details that might be contrary to their already formed opinion. And they continue to "hope" for new details that prove their already formed opinion.

Perhaps I am way out in left field, but that approach is not sleuthing to me. It becomes a sort of what's the point? Once someone is convinced of something, it seems it should be time to move onto something else.

Having never served on jury I don't know if this same sort of dynamic commonly exists within a jury. Do jury members tend to form opinions early on, and from that point forward begin dismissing evidence that tends point away from their already formed conclusion?

If jury members in this case or any other take that approach, then no it is not a fair trial. However if jury members do keep an open minded approach and wait until the debate within the jury room to form any conclusion, then it will have been a fair trial.

I do not think its about where a trial is held that is important. It is about seating a jury with people who have that capacity to justly fulfill that duty.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I also think theories and conclusions are not the same thing.
I have served on a jury. It was a civil case, not a criminal one, and my experience on it was my theory began to form as evidence was presented. When evidence was presented that contradicted my theory, I changed my theory. When we got together in the jury room after the trial, there were a couple of people who seemed to have formed an opinon right at the beginning, and disregarded everything that came after if it didn't match. I have noticed this in here, as well, but it seems to be a minority.
I have some theories, but they aren't written in stone. I have no vested interest in this case, I don't know any of the people involved, etc., etc. I go where the evidence leads me, which is sometimes all over the place. When someone posts something I didn't know, I look it up. If true, and in conflict with what I am thinking, I adjust what I am thinking. I am not, however, viewing this case as a pretend juror, I am viewing it as a pretend investigator. There is a difference, and contrary to somes beliefs, one viewpoint is not better than the other, they are simply different, period.
If you are waiting to hear all the evidence before you make any decisions whatsoever, then that is what you should do, regardless of what anyone else thinks. I think you'll find most people will respect that.
Lanie

 

[Lanie]

I keep coming back to this thread ... It just hits on many of my annoyances with peoples overall misconception of the law. I have one more thing to add and then I am done ... for now at least!

Not guilty does not mean innocent! So even the term "innocent until proven guilty" is flawed. If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.

IMO Casey is both not innocent and guilty ... but with a crafty defense and mistakes by prosecution she may be found not guilty regardless of her lack of innocence!

A long time ago, I had left a friend's house, and passed another friend's house where I observed her bf dragging her across the yard by her hair. Fortunately for her, I wasn't confused by 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law', otherwise, I would have kept on going. Instead, because I considered the 'blank' guilty as he!!, I stopped, rescued her, and went to the nearest payphone and called police. (No cell phones back then).
Lanie

 

[Pattymarie]

A long time ago, I had left a friend's house, and passed another friend's house where I observed her bf dragging her across the yard by her hair. Fortunately for her, I wasn't confused by 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law', otherwise, I would have kept on going. Instead, because I considered the 'blank' guilty as he!!, I stopped, rescued her, and went to the nearest payphone and called police. (No cell phones back then).
Lanie

Yes, but you were an EYEWITNESS to his guilt. That is one aspect that is missing in this case. (Although, how that girl bagged up her poor child, draw right down the street in probable broad daylight and pitched her into the woods without anyone seeing her is beyond me.)

 

[Lanie]

Yes, but you were an EYEWITNESS to his guilt. That is one aspect that is missing in this case. (Although, how that girl bagged up her poor child, draw right down the street in probable broad daylight and pitched her into the woods without anyone seeing her is beyond me.)

LOL, yes, but I am sure there are people in here who could argue they were actually playing some kind of weird caveman sex game.
Lanie

 

[PrintGal]

stagehand, you should watch the movie "12 Angry Men". I'm sure most juries don't conduct themselves like that, but it is interesting.

I have served on a criminal jury, as has one of my family members. We both have rather assertive personalities and were able to help some of the other jurors to better understand the evidence presented.

If you can read or find video of interviews with some of the Scott Peterson jurors from after the trial that would be very insightful for you.

Regarding reasonable doubt- a case in point is the hair from the trunk. Could it possibly have been from someone other than Caylee? Statistically, yes. But is it reasonable to suppose that someone other than KC, CA, LA or Caylee, the most likely persons with hair of that type, to have been decomposing in the back of KCs car? That is not a reasonable assumption, so therefore I would consider that evidence that Caylee was in fact placed in the trunk post mortem.

Is it reasonable to suppose that a person named ZFG, whose existence cannot even be shown by so much as a phone call from KC (despite her assertions that she made them), kidnapped Caylee, killed her, placed the body near the pool, then stored her in KC's trunk, then dumped the body down the street from the A home? And all this without leaving a trace of her very existence? The defense can argue that ZFG did this, or even another person we haven't heard of yet (the SODDI defense), but unless they can demonstrate some reasonable method of this having been done I can't buy it. Aliens may have come down from space and done this. We can't DISPROVE this. But is simply is not reasonable. As they say in medicine, if you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.

 

[2goldfish]

I am pretty sure she is guilty. I am aware that legally she is presumed innocent. The trial and jury system is in place for a reason and I trust the system although no system is perfect - humans can and do fail.

I could be selected for this jury and I could remain open minded because I go with the facts presented before me. What I have in front of me now screams guilt but there is always the little doubt even now. I dont know if it is a reasonable doubt at this time, as I am not nor will I be in that position as a juror. (lucky to have never been called for jury duty, an expat now and wont ever be called, I would refuse to serve as I dont want the right to judge another)

I do think it is possible she will be found not guilty. People will be furious, I will be furious, just as many were over OJ's not guilty. But as another poster said (sorry I forgot who) it's better to let guilty go free than innocent convicted. and truth be told I dont believe she would ever murder again. stealing, is another story.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Yes, but you were an EYEWITNESS to his guilt. That is one aspect that is missing in this case. (Although, how that girl bagged up her poor child, draw right down the street in probable broad daylight and pitched her into the woods without anyone seeing her is beyond me.)

Yes, but the jurors in this case would still have to presume innocence, even if there was an eyewitness ... it just illustrates the fact again, that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal term ... and does not apply to anyone outside the judge and jury! Think how many rape victims have sat in a court looking at their attacker KNOWING that he was guilty ... and helplessly watch as a jury finds him not guilty for one reason or another. To her, he IS guilty, he will always be guilty -- she was not forced to presume him innocent because of a law that governs the court (judge and jury). We, the public, have no obligation to afford KC, that right, which a jury will be committed, by law, to uphold -- therefore we are free to judge her in any way we please, by whatever means we like and change our minds at will ... and know that it will not affect her constitutional right to a fair trial.

I feel like the original post on this thread and the many other posts that have said the same thing ... "Casey is to be believed innocent until she is found guilty in a court of law" ... are an effort to bully people into thinking that we are all obligated, by law, to do so when in fact, we are not -- as I highly doubt that anyone who has posted on this board with such a strong interest in this case would be allowed on the jury -- regardless of what we believe!!!!

 

[babycat]

I have never followed a case before, certainly not to the degree that I have followed this one. It stands to reason that I never read nor participated in a forum such as this one before either. I also have never served on a jury.

I stumbled upon this case purely by accident, I was preparing for a trip to the Orlando area and visited the newspaper web site to check the weather report which just so happened to be the day Casey was released from jail the first time. I could not quite understand what a young woman of that age had done which was causing such public outcry. The curiosity to find out eventually led me here.

Perhaps I am the oddball, I frequently feel out of place here. To me the word "sleuth" means to gather details and then studying those details in a search for truth. And to keep repeating that process until there are no more details before attempting to reach a final conclusion.

It seems that many people tend to form opinions early on, or at least before all the details are known and studied. From that point forward they tend to dismiss any new details that might be contrary to their already formed opinion. And they continue to "hope" for new details that prove their already formed opinion.

Perhaps I am way out in left field, but that approach is not sleuthing to me. It becomes a sort of what's the point? Once someone is convinced of something, it seems it should be time to move onto something else.

Having never served on jury I don't know if this same sort of dynamic commonly exists within a jury. Do jury members tend to form opinions early on, and from that point forward begin dismissing evidence that tends point away from their already formed conclusion?

If jury members in this case or any other take that approach, then no it is not a fair trial. However if jury members do keep an open minded approach and wait until the debate within the jury room to form any conclusion, then it will have been a fair trial.

I do not think its about where a trial is held that is important. It is about seating a jury with people who have that capacity to justly fulfill that duty.

Well, I understand what you are saying, but "sleuthing" does not mean that you cannot form your own opinion based on facts you find. You can still go in search of hard facts and have an opinion, simultaneously. I do, however, agree with you that if there are credible facts that oppose the popular viewpoint, they should be presented and considered. In fact, if you have some ideas I'd love to hear them. My opinion will not stop me from searching or presenting credible opposing facts, if I find any, but, I don't see the problem with forming an opinion based on evidence released so far.

Opinions are sometimes necessary. If the state didn't have an opinion about the probability that Casey committed these crimes based in the evidence that has been released so far, she'd still be out. If the police didn't form an opinion that Casey was lying, the investigation would be over. When did it become a bad thing to form opinions? They don't have to be staunch, but where else do you find direction to move in? Should they not be charging her until all of the facts are presented, too?

I understand being objective, and I think it is very important, but I don't see the taboo of having your own opinion, as long as it's based on credible facts, and can be backed up, and you are willing to seriously entertain other ideas, and not shut them out just because they don't fit what you think.

I just haven't personally found many opposing facts that I consider credible.

In fact, I think in the beginning, even though many sleuths thought that Casey Anthony was guilty STILL went searching for a "ZG" in New York, Florida, California, Puerto Rico, etc, If that's not searching out facts that don't fit your current opinion, I don't know what is.

This is a site for "sleuthing" AND discussing cases. I see no reason that anyone here should be required to move on, if they still wish to discuss an open case, or find out facts (maybe even facts that could change their opinion!) that might still be released.

Just my opinion

 

[Lanie]

I am pretty sure she is guilty. I am aware that legally she is presumed innocent. The trial and jury system is in place for a reason and I trust the system although no system is perfect - humans can and do fail.

I could be selected for this jury and I could remain open minded because I go with the facts presented before me. What I have in front of me now screams guilt but there is always the little doubt even now. I dont know if it is a reasonable doubt at this time, as I am not nor will I be in that position as a juror. (lucky to have never been called for jury duty, an expat now and wont ever be called, I would refuse to serve as I dont want the right to judge another)

I do think it is possible she will be found not guilty. People will be furious, I will be furious, just as many were over OJ's not guilty. But as another poster said (sorry I forgot who) it's better to let guilty go free than innocent convicted. and truth be told I dont believe she would ever murder again. stealing, is another story.

And I could not in good conscience be selected for this jury, and it's not because I can't be fair or open-minded. I have already looked at way too much of the evidence regarding this case, discussed it, debated it, etc. This case is going to drag on for a while, and maybe in the jury room I would bring up evidence not allowed in the trial, not on purpose, but just because there is so MUCH evidence. That wouldn't be right.
Lanie

 

[grammieto5]

Could this trial be moved out of state. There are a lot of people here in Arizona who do not know about the Caylee Anthony case. Oh wait, it's not about Caylee, so I guess that would make it the Casey Anthony case. Either way, if we are to believe it's innocent until proven guilty then we are to believe she can get a fair trial. I just hope we get to watch the trial on TV.

 

[stagehand]

Well, I understand what you are saying, but "sleuthing" does not mean that you cannot form your own opinion based on facts you find. You can still go in search of hard facts and have an opinion, simultaneously. I do, however, agree with you that if there are credible facts that oppose the popular viewpoint, they should be presented and considered. In fact, if you have some ideas I'd love to hear them. My opinion will not stop me from searching or presenting credible opposing facts, if I find any, but, I don't see the problem with forming an opinion based on evidence released so far.

Opinions are sometimes necessary. If the state didn't have an opinion about the probability that Casey committed these crimes based in the evidence that has been released so far, she'd still be out. If the police didn't form an opinion that Casey was lying, the investigation would be over. When did it become a bad thing to form opinions? They don't have to be staunch, but where else do you find direction to move in? Should they not be charging her until all of the facts are presented, too?

I understand being objective, and I think it is very important, but I don't see the taboo of having your own opinion, as long as it's based on credible facts, and can be backed up, and you are willing to seriously entertain other ideas, and not shut them out just because they don't fit what you think.

I just haven't personally found many opposing facts that I consider credible.

In fact, I think in the beginning, even though many sleuths thought that Casey Anthony was guilty STILL went searching for a "ZG" in New York, Florida, California, Puerto Rico, etc, If that's not searching out facts that don't fit your current opinion, I don't know what is.

This is a site for "sleuthing" AND discussing cases. I see no reason that anyone here should be required to move on, if they still wish to discuss an open case, or find out facts (maybe even facts that could change their opinion!) that might still be released.

Just my opinion

I do agree with that and probably should have stated that I think along the route of examining the evidence as it becomes available, impressions can and do cause ones opinions to swing one way or the other.

It's kind of like a scale, as in the scales of justice, each piece of evidence being a weight placed on one side or the other. The scale eventually starts to tilt in one direction. However until each and every piece of evidence is placed on the scale it still has the ability to tilt in the other direction. And there is always the possibility that a huge weight will come out that completely changes the direction the scale is tilting.

The primary point I was trying to make is my inability to understand those who believe the scale is fixed in one direction or the other when there are still more weights to be applied to it.

How many times in these forums have we seen someone make the statement, "I hope they have enough evidence to convict." For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why someone would make such a statement. Either they will have enough evidence or they won't. My own personal hope is that all the evidence is presented in a fair manner and decision rendered by a fair jury.

 

[Marina2]

I am pretty sure she is guilty. I am aware that legally she is presumed innocent. The trial and jury system is in place for a reason and I trust the system although no system is perfect - humans can and do fail.

I could be selected for this jury and I could remain open minded because I go with the facts presented before me. What I have in front of me now screams guilt but there is always the little doubt even now. I dont know if it is a reasonable doubt at this time, as I am not nor will I be in that position as a juror. (lucky to have never been called for jury duty, an expat now and wont ever be called, I would refuse to serve as I dont want the right to judge another)

I do think it is possible she will be found not guilty. People will be furious, I will be furious, just as many were over OJ's not guilty. But as another poster said (sorry I forgot who) it's better to let guilty go free than innocent convicted. and truth be told I dont believe she would ever murder again. stealing, is another story.

Bold is mine.
You may feel that you could be selected for the jury and remain open minded but what if certain things that you know of were not admitted as evidence in this trial? For instance, any of the trunk evidence, her statements to the detectives at Universal, evidence that she partied soon after Caylee went missing, the latest released video from the jail. Any of these things could be deemed inadmissable but can you honestly say that you could just forget they ever existed. I couldn't no matter how hard I tried. Sort of like when the judge instructs the jury to "disregard that statement" after an objection. Works in theory but in practice, not so much.
As for KC being acquitted and set free I don't feel comfortable that she would not murder again. I think she killed Caylee in a jealous, narcissistic rage. If so, she probably has no control over impulses like this and is likely to do it again. Especially if she gets away with it the first time.

 

[Indigo]

I have never followed a case before, certainly not to the degree that I have followed this one. It stands to reason that I never read nor participated in a forum such as this one before either. I also have never served on a jury.

I stumbled upon this case purely by accident, I was preparing for a trip to the Orlando area and visited the newspaper web site to check the weather report which just so happened to be the day Casey was released from jail the first time. I could not quite understand what a young woman of that age had done which was causing such public outcry. The curiosity to find out eventually led me here.

Perhaps I am the oddball, I frequently feel out of place here. To me the word "sleuth" means to gather details and then studying those details in a search for truth. And to keep repeating that process until there are no more details before attempting to reach a final conclusion.

It seems that many people tend to form opinions early on, or at least before all the details are known and studied. From that point forward they tend to dismiss any new details that might be contrary to their already formed opinion. And they continue to "hope" for new details that prove their already formed opinion.

Perhaps I am way out in left field, but that approach is not sleuthing to me. It becomes a sort of what's the point? Once someone is convinced of something, it seems it should be time to move onto something else.

Having never served on jury I don't know if this same sort of dynamic commonly exists within a jury. Do jury members tend to form opinions early on, and from that point forward begin dismissing evidence that tends point away from their already formed conclusion?

If jury members in this case or any other take that approach, then no it is not a fair trial. However if jury members do keep an open minded approach and wait until the debate within the jury room to form any conclusion, then it will have been a fair trial.

I do not think its about where a trial is held that is important. It is about seating a jury with people who have that capacity to justly fulfill that duty.

(bold mine)
Hi, stagehand. I don't think you need to feel the least bit out of place for your sleuthing style. I know there are lots of great posters here who share your sentiments. These posters would make wonderful jurors.

My own personal opinion about sleuthing (10+ years now) is that you need to go where the evidence leads you, and it's not unusual for a sleuth to form an opinion before a suspect is legally tried. After all, if investigators used the approach you suggest, no suspect would ever get caught.

Those of us who've formed an opinion usually stick around in hopes that justice prevails...whatever that justice may prove to be.

Hope this helps.

 

[gardenhart]

Yes, but the jurors in this case would still have to presume innocence, even if there was an eyewitness ... it just illustrates the fact again, that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal term ... and does not apply to anyone outside the judge and jury! Think how many rape victims have sat in a court looking at their attacker KNOWING that he was guilty ... and helplessly watch as a jury finds him not guilty for one reason or another. To her, he IS guilty, he will always be guilty -- she was not forced to presume him innocent because of a law that governs the court (judge and jury). We, the public, have no obligation to afford KC, that right, which a jury will be committed, by law, to uphold -- therefore we are free to judge her in any way we please, by whatever means we like and change our minds at will ... and know that it will not affect her constitutional right to a fair trial.

I feel like the original post on this thread and the many other posts that have said the same thing ... "Casey is to be believed innocent until she is found guilty in a court of law" ... are an effort to bully people into thinking that we are all obligated, by law, to do so when in fact, we are not -- as I highly doubt that anyone who has posted on this board with such a strong interest in this case would be allowed on the jury -- regardless of what we believe!!!!

:clap::clap::clap::clap: Very well said. Since every single time this topic has been brought up, a number of people have posted to point out that this is a legal term that applies only to those directly involved in the trial and not to the general public, the media or anyone else, I have to assume those who keep bringing it up don't read very many posts here.

 

[gardenhart]

(bold mine)
Hi, stagehand. I don't think you need to feel the least bit out of place for your sleuthing style. I know there are lots of great posters here who share your sentiments. These posters would make wonderful jurors.

My own personal opinion about sleuthing (10+ years now) is that you need to go where the evidence leads you, and it's not unusual for a sleuth to form an opinion before a suspect is legally tried. After all, if investigators used the approach you suggest, no suspect would ever get caught.

Those of us who've formed an opinion usually stick around in hopes that justice prevails...whatever that justice may prove to be.

Hope this helps.

I imagine if you talk to any real sleuths, they would tell you they suspect everyone, not assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty, while keeping an open mind that anyone could be guilty or innocent.

 

[babycat]

I do agree with that and probably should have stated that I think along the route of examining the evidence as it becomes available, impressions can and do cause ones opinions to swing one way or the other.

It's kind of like a scale, as in the scales of justice, each piece of evidence being a weight placed on one side or the other. The scale eventually starts to tilt in one direction. However until each and every piece of evidence is placed on the scale it still has the ability to tilt in the other direction. And there is always the possibility that a huge weight will come out that completely changes the direction the scale is tilting.

The primary point I was trying to make is my inability to understand those who believe the scale is fixed in one direction or the other when there are still more weights to be applied to it.

How many times in these forums have we seen someone make the statement, "I hope they have enough evidence to convict." For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why someone would make such a statement. Either they will have enough evidence or they won't. My own personal hope is that all the evidence is presented in a fair manner and decision rendered by a fair jury.

I agree with all of this

cheers

 

[RR0004]

I have never followed a case before, certainly not to the degree that I have followed this one. It stands to reason that I never read nor participated in a forum such as this one before either. I also have never served on a jury.

I stumbled upon this case purely by accident, I was preparing for a trip to the Orlando area and visited the newspaper web site to check the weather report which just so happened to be the day Casey was released from jail the first time. I could not quite understand what a young woman of that age had done which was causing such public outcry. The curiosity to find out eventually led me here.

Perhaps I am the oddball, I frequently feel out of place here. To me the word "sleuth" means to gather details and then studying those details in a search for truth. And to keep repeating that process until there are no more details before attempting to reach a final conclusion.

It seems that many people tend to form opinions early on, or at least before all the details are known and studied. From that point forward they tend to dismiss any new details that might be contrary to their already formed opinion. And they continue to "hope" for new details that prove their already formed opinion.

Perhaps I am way out in left field, but that approach is not sleuthing to me. It becomes a sort of what's the point? Once someone is convinced of something, it seems it should be time to move onto something else.

Having never served on jury I don't know if this same sort of dynamic commonly exists within a jury. Do jury members tend to form opinions early on, and from that point forward begin dismissing evidence that tends point away from their already formed conclusion?

If jury members in this case or any other take that approach, then no it is not a fair trial. However if jury members do keep an open minded approach and wait until the debate within the jury room to form any conclusion, then it will have been a fair trial.

I do not think its about where a trial is held that is important. It is about seating a jury with people who have that capacity to justly fulfill that duty.

...but then again jury selection tends to be just another game IMO (and I do hate to say that).
I can't speak for anyone but myself but I can assure you that from what I've seen here there has been an unbelievable amount of research that's gone on (and continues to go on). From what I see, it's more a need to make sense of a senseless situation and I am far from reconciling that. There is still much to learn. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this either, but if anyone feels they have all the answers to this case I wish they'd share.

 

[RR0004]

I do agree with that and probably should have stated that I think along the route of examining the evidence as it becomes available, impressions can and do cause ones opinions to swing one way or the other.

It's kind of like a scale, as in the scales of justice, each piece of evidence being a weight placed on one side or the other. The scale eventually starts to tilt in one direction. However until each and every piece of evidence is placed on the scale it still has the ability to tilt in the other direction. And there is always the possibility that a huge weight will come out that completely changes the direction the scale is tilting.

The primary point I was trying to make is my inability to understand those who believe the scale is fixed in one direction or the other when there are still more weights to be applied to it.

How many times in these forums have we seen someone make the statement, "I hope they have enough evidence to convict." For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why someone would make such a statement. Either they will have enough evidence or they won't. My own personal hope is that all the evidence is presented in a fair manner and decision rendered by a fair jury.

I'm still liking the rule: attack the post...not the poster.
I've learned so much by being a member here. If you don't understand, you can always ask them to clarify things for you.

 

[2goldfish]

Bold is mine.
You may feel that you could be selected for the jury and remain open minded but what if certain things that you know of were not admitted as evidence in this trial? For instance, any of the trunk evidence, her statements to the detectives at Universal, evidence that she partied soon after Caylee went missing, the latest released video from the jail. Any of these things could be deemed inadmissable but can you honestly say that you could just forget they ever existed. I couldn't no matter how hard I tried. Sort of like when the judge instructs the jury to "disregard that statement" after an objection. Works in theory but in practice, not so much.
As for KC being acquitted and set free I don't feel comfortable that she would not murder again. I think she killed Caylee in a jealous, narcissistic rage. If so, she probably has no control over impulses like this and is likely to do it again. Especially if she gets away with it the first time.

You are correct. I could not unknow what I know. And this among other reasons is why I would never ever serve on a jury.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I imagine if you talk to any real sleuths, they would tell you they suspect everyone, not assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty, while keeping an open mind that anyone could be guilty or innocent.

I so agree ... and also there are real "sleuths" on both sides of this case. You can make a sure bet that the sleuths on the defense are sleuthing in their direction and the same for the prosecution. I like this forum because it nurtures us to "sleuth for the TRUTH." That should be our motto! I think a lot of times we get to focused on guilt or innocence and like the sleuths I mentioned above ... we only search for the things that back up our position. Personally, I have never been swayed by anything that I have seen in Casey's defense ... but I really want the truth to come out. You know how when you taste something that is sweetened with artificial sweetener ... it is sweet but it's like the taste isn't quite complete ... a guilty verdict without really knowing what happened would be like that to me ... sweet but not complete! I want the sugary sweet taste that only the truth can bring ... and I just have a feeling that I am going to be left craving, when all is said and done!