“It’s certainly possible that had we been part of the jury, as much as it might have pained us, we might have had to find her not guilty because circumstantial evidence is not proof.”
This is two statements you’ve made on here now that are simply mind boggling. Circumstantial evidence is not proof? Are you sure of that? I think maybe you should quit before you embarrass yourself any further.
I feel bad for people that speak just to speak, create pixel words just to interject in trying to sound sanctimonious but have a real lack of understanding. I guess that is why I laugh at people.
No, circumstantial evidence is not proof.
It’s suggestible, but not proof. For example, you come across a person who has been stabbed, his wound is exactly 6.5 inches wide and 3 inches deep and it was done by a narrow blade. You learn that I have a knife precisely 6.5 inches wide and 3 inches deep.
That’s quite the coincidence and it’s higly suggestible that my knife might have had something to do with that wound, but it’s not proof that it actually had anything to do with that wound.
And I submit to you that all the circumstantial evidence does point to the likely hood that Casey is the most likely suspect, but all the defense has to do is show there are reasonable alternatives to the circumstantial evidence to create reasonable doubt.
That’s what the defense successfully did.