natsound
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,129
- Reaction score
- 1,932
Good Morning Bakersmom, IMO you hit the nail on the head.
Hi Toledo and thanks for the OP. As much as I grew to dislike Mark Geragoss I heard him as a TH last week, and what he said comes from all the experience he has had in high profile cases like this.
He said when not withstanding everything else evidenciary, it is going to boil down to Casey's actions after Caylee disappeared and the difficulty her lawyers are going to have in explaining this to a jury.
As to Circumstantial vs Real Evidence, on that show it was also pointed out how a circumstantial case can be and usually is much stronger in showing the truth. They said it is then like a puzzle with the pieces being laid in place to where the truth is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
One thing a lot of posters don't realize is that any evidence examined in a lab is forensic or circumstantial evidence. Fingerpprints, Bugs, blood, substances found in remains, hair, botany, etc. C evidence also includes any electronic evidence like wiretaps, phone records and cell tower pings.
I could be wrong, but have seen very little Real Evidence in this case. Someone said they saw Casey exiting those woods, but I do not know if that is a fact or not. It might have been that huge park where Joe wanted to search. If Casey made any incriminating statements to friends that would be RE.
At this point I see a strong Circumstantial case which will be very difficult for her attorney's to combat. IMO
If this is circumstantial evidence (above in bold), then what is physical evidence??