Just out of curiosity, what possible evidence could the state have shown to indict Jack Koslow? The ONLY evidence they had was that Jack was present at his own attempted murder. If a US citizen can get indicted for that, then it's possible to get indicted for almost anything.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to indict Casey, but no direct evidence. We still don't know:
1. How Caylee died.
2. When Caylee died.
3. Where Caylee died.
And there is no proven motive so far. No real evidence of Casey committing child abuse previously, no absolute proof of the fight between Casey and her mother the night of July 15th has been seen yet. I don't believe we've even seen the interview with the neighbor who reportedly heard the fight - just heard rumors of it - so how do we know that's even true?
At this point I would estimate we have seen about 35% of the evidence in this case and yes, it makes Casey look guilty. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. So over 65% of the evidence is still unseen. What if the evidence we have not seen is in favor of Casey? What if LKB proves that the odor signature in the trunk was not human decomp like the original U of Florida report stated? What if she proves the hair with the deathband was not a deathband at all but came from Casey? What if they can't prove the duct tape or trash bags came from the Anthony home? Then what?
I won't make up my mind about this case until I have seen the majority of the evidence from both sides. I don't know why that is so hard for you and others to understand and accept. I support your right to make up your mind now and I won't attempt to change your mind. But for me, it is very premature to make a decision, no matter what the evidence we have seen so far shows.
Well,
1) MOST people are convicted with circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is too unrelieble.
2) The FBI is still involved. The feds tend not to mess with cases this far, unless they are almost 100% sure of a win.
But, in the extremely unlikely event that all the incriminating evidence turned to cow pies, KC would STILL have a very serious problem with any jury.
This because NO parent would blow off a helpless toddler's disappearance for over a month. It defies logic. The parents and grandparents on the jury will NOT be able to compute.
And, no INNOCENT mother would ever cover for the murderer of her child. Period.
In fact, I'm betting that if any parent on these threads (or anywhere else) got wind of the location of any person who chose to hurt his/her child in any way, the perp would be LUCKY if the cops got him first! (Which is why two deputies had to physically restrain Mark Claas, at one point).
That's why KC is toast.
And, it's OK if you want to see the trial first.
But, most of us see the small inconsistencies in testimony of a bunch of ditzy kids as trivial. Try as we might, we have never found anything substantively suspicious in anyone else's testimony.
So, if KC really wanted to be believed, she would have to truthfully explain:
1) Why she did not report her child missing-- ever?
2) Who took her child?
And, that's just for starters.
Thanks!XXXXOOOO