Thank you so much Christine for such wise comments.
I wanted to repost here some of my reasons for having reasonable doubts
sorry it's so long)
Here is my thinking on the case, which I hope to be able to articulate without offending anyone. I am not sure if Caylee is dead or alive. I agree that it looks bad. However, I have a huge mountain of reasonable doubt. There are four things about this case I know for sure:
1- Caylee is an adorable Angel and she will always be in my heart, no matter what happens.
2- Casey is a liar and a thief.
3- Caylee is missing.
4- There was a dead body in the trunk of Casey's car.
Now, here is why I have reasonable doubt:
Many people here on this board, in the media, and in the general public have made the statement "I trust LE 100%".
This is a dangerous attitude for citizens of a democracy to take. Trusting authority completely is just asking for tyranny. There are many reasons to take the pronouncements of LE skeptically, not least of which they have made many honest mistakes, or mistakes born of incompetence and a desire to quickly close a case, high profile or otherwise.
But in many instances LE have made corrupt "mistakes". Remember the
Riley Fox case? I bet the Sheriff in that case told the media many lies about Kevin Fox in a corrupt desire to be re-elected. Kevin Fox is sitting home today, innocent as can be while the real murderer has had years of freedom while the evidence grows cold.
LE has said that there are "indications" "suggestions" that Caylee was in the trunk, dead. There is no reason, if they have the reports back from the labs and they show Caylee to be dead, for them NOT to come right out and say: "Caylee was dead in the trunk. No question". Forensic science of this sort does not 'indicate' anything. Caylee is either dead or alive. Period.
Lies, distortions, and spin in the media-(remember "WMD"?)
Chloroform
Media reports have taken the leaks about chloroform and run with them. According to NG and the rest of the media the trunk had "significant amounts" of and the air was "saturated" with chloroform. The whole world now thinks Casey either used the chemical to drug Caylee or to murder her. But could that possibly be true?
Chloroform is an ingredient in many
pesticides. If Casey had used it on Caylee, there would have been NO INSECT ACTIVITY in the trunk of her car at the tow yard. But according to the testimony of the tow yard employee, we know that there was. If the trunk was "saturated" at the time of testing, how much moreso must it have been at the tow yard?
ZG/Samantha/the script
How do we know that Casey ever changed her story on this score? First,
LP said that Casey told him the script story in the living room of the Anthony home. When he told NG about it, he added that he told Casey he didn't want to know from ZG. Casey then told him to get out of
her house. NG was outraged that she would have the gall to tell him that about her
parents home.
Then, someone must have pointed out to LP that he had earlier said that
Casey never said ONE WORD to him about the case while he was down in Orlando. So then
RD comes out with the story that Casey told
him the story as they rode alone to her attorney's office.
That version must not have worked out too well either as LP NOW says (on Fox the other afternoon) that CINDY told him the story. How are we to find this supposed change in Casey's story credible? I don't think we can until we have proof.
Now, many people on this board and in the general public have said "Presumption of Innocence only applies in a court of law!! The public can think/say whatever they want"
Technically, that is true. But *who* in a court of law is it most crucial that they apply this principle? The jurors, of course. And where do the jurors come from? The public. If it is ok, if it is allowed, if the public *allows* themselves to presume the guilt of every person LE investigates or even arrests for crimes then how is
any accused person to ever hope to receive a fair trial from an untainted jury?
Remember
Sam Shepherd? The US Supreme Court overturned a guilty verdict saying pre-trial publicity had tainted the jury's deliberations.
Remember
Richard Jewel? The FBI had him tried and convicted and the media went right along with the witch hunt.
Some of them are very sorry they did that but it hasn't seemed to have changed the way they operate.
All I am saying is things are not always as they seem. Authorities can lie, authorities can make mistakes and the public has a solemn duty not to turn into a lynch mob and convict a person of murder before all of the facts are laid bare, before the accused has a chance to confront and cross-examine the evidence against her, and certainly not on the word of sensationalist media who seem in many instances to have a blatant disregard for the truth.