Oh please, do you suppose that the prosecution attorneys "presume" innocence until "proven" in a court of law? Evidence is evidence, and I listened to this same mumbo jumbo with the Edwin Hall and Kelsey Smith case, and guess what? We were right who did not "presume" his innocence-he did it, and FINALLY after a long circus of lies, he admitted it to save his own neck from the death penalty. Presumed innocence is for the lawyers and the judges, BUT for the PUBLIC, if the evidence says
1. Hair from a dead body who shared your same mitochondrial DNA was in your trunk
2. There was HUMAN decomp in your trunk
3. Your daughter was missing for more than a month and you told NOBODY
4. There was vaporized chloroform in your trunk
5. Every word you say is a lie and a charade and a game and NOT helping find your daughter
Then the "presumption" of innocence falls by the wayside in lieu of the EVIDENCE...
Thinking people are not just going to look at ALL the evidence in this case and say, oh come on now, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...
Yes, from a legal standpoint that is true. But from the HUMAN REALITY we can make some judgements of the facts based on the EVIDENCE and this MONSTER is guilty as charged and guilty of more than charged and CAYLEE IS DEAD and Casey should DIE for that if she did one thing to CAUSE that baby's demise.