First of all, I would like to thank Richard Hornsby for taking his time to answer some of our questions. And special thanks to Tricia for letting this thread stand.
However, after reading this very enlightening thread, I have to wonder if we have just been subjected (and enjoyed) a mini version of the defense's opening arguments. It didn't take long for an expert attorney to completely turn the opinion of the possible outcomes in the minds of some.
Now while I realize that this is not a fair test, as it has been one sided, and those who truly feel that the State has a good case against Casey have given up on this thread long ago. I still feel it was an interesting exercise. (Also, in this exercise, we have only dealt with the discovery that has been released to date and have basically ignored most of it.)
Look how fast some of us gave up on some very incriminating, yet highly circumstantial evidence, when an expert attorney gave his opinion that either it wouldn't be allowed in as evidence, or that it didn't carry the necessary weight.
Again, the evidence is not all in and this was not a fair measure of a trial, but I think it was interesting exercise nonetheless.
Maybe it is late and I have had too much leftover turkey, but it makes me wonder, wouldn't it be interesting if we could get an expert attorney from both sides and stage a mock trial based on just the evidence (or discovery) known to date?