You'll have to excuse my newbieness. I'm learning.
I wanted to comment quickly on a posters comment that they thought Casey has a 50/50 chance of walking ...
If the State is diligent in how they present the evidence, I disagree. It is the totality of the evidence that convicts Casey. We have pieces of evidence along a road map of the crime. Step/evidence 1, step/evidence 2, step evidence 3, etc. Every step has one thing in common - CASEY. The Defense is going to try to show how every step/evidence could have been done by someone else. Step 1 could have been caused by Casey, yes BUT it could have also been done by Person A. Step 2 could have been caused by Casey, yes BUT it could have also been done by Person F. When the defense gets done, if you look at the totality of the evidence, it just won't make sense. It only makes sense if you look at the totality, and you accept it was ALL done by Casey. That is the only way the case makes sense beyond a reasonable doubt.
