Like you ZsaZsa, I have an uneasiness about the "new evidence" in the SA's hands and I see on some threads we are back to Leonard P.'s daisy chain. So I'm going to seek reassurance by telling myself whenever we don't have news, conspiracies abound that go off in every direction. But one thing I know for sure - Leonard P., as likeable as he is, just blows smoke. When has he been right about anything? And if this really was a big "push" for the defense, we'd be hearing from them from every news source possible. They would at least be back to spouting the innocence defense. And if this daisy chain jail girlfriend of RK's has legs, why has Dom disappeared - and how could Cindy possibly keep this quiet?
Okay, for me it's back to the real evidence at hand, clutching my coffee and tylenol.
LOL one thing the "new evidence" isn't.....*drum roll*
The evidence that supports Todd Macaluso's claims in court. I wonder if he took that evidence with him when he left?
So far all of the discovery has come from the SA's office. Which to me is rather curious. Other then unsubstantiated claims and random Lexis Nexis motions I'm wondering what evidence is out there that shows Casey is innocent of Murder 1. To me since this is not a court of law we can weigh the defenses evidence and look at it from the point of view of how can Casey's defense prove her innocent.
So far the experts for the defense have been rather quite. To me I would think that if the defense had something significant that proved Casey's innocence it would be released to every news agency in the world. I'm pretty sure even Al Jazeera would have copies of it. So what evidence is there that proves the opposite (Casey being innocent of Murder 1)?
I personally don't think there is any. To me the only thing the defense is going to be able to do is argue against the SA's evidence by picking every little piece apart. Problem is it's going to take experts to do that, and those experts are going to have to actually analyze the evidence and give their unbiased reports on the evidence. To me this is why the defense is also reluctant to submit a witness list.
So for me it's not just a matter of does LE and the SA have enough evidence to convict Casey. It also comes down to the defense and what they have. Yes it is Casey's right to not submit any thing in court. Her and her lawyers could just literally sit there and do nothing but yell object every now and then. However given the evidence in this case I doubt that's the best course of action. To me the SA's evidence paints a pretty clear picture. Yes there is no "smoking gun" as some would put it. However the evidence seems to keep pointing to one reasonable conclusion. Ok maybe one could argue against the "grave wax", or argue against this piece or that piece. Sure ok I'll give the defense that. However I don't think the defense has even made it that far yet. All they have done is claim junk science at this point. They haven't even gotten around to making motions trying to eliminate certain evidence yet to my knowledge.
As I've said before a two year old girl has died and was found discarded like trash with duct tape on her face. The mother was the last person that had custody of Caylee. The jury is going to want answers for why a healthy two year old died, and how her remains ended up being discarded the way they were. Then the defense is going to have to explain Casey's actions and her lying to police. If they go with a SODDI defense then the defense is going to have to explain why Casey never came forward after her daughter was found dead.
So the defense is going to need answers for some very hard questions if they want to avoid a murder 1 conviction. Answers I just don't think they have personally. To me I think some posters on here have done a better job at questioning the evidence in this case and coming up with theories then the defense in this case has.
