Remember that a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as "innocent." Our standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," based upon the reliable and credible evidence. That's a good thing, even though it may lead to acquittals we don't like. It's true that it leads to unsatisfying results when "everyone knows" (and we don't; we are only going on what we saw in news reports, and I can tell you from experience they are usually very incomplete and inaccurate) that the defendant "did it." But our hunch or even fairly confident conclusion that the defendant did it is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he did -- and that's assuming that it was what the person was charged with, not something else. I think if you think about it, you will be glad that we have a justice system that doesn't throw people into prison -- or worse -- on a lesser standard of proof, on evidence of some lesser offense, on the basis that they are sleazy people, because the victim is sweet and innocent, or even because the crime itself is so horrifying that we want to see SOMEONE convicted. There are plenty of countries where all of that is standard procedure (check out their relative crime rates to see whether it even works to reduce crime). I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in them.

It is amazing to me that such a huge majority of people who has been following this case, and who saw the evidence presented, thinks Casey is guilty. And yet, out of 12 randomly chosen people, not one of them found reasonable doubt. Is it possible that juries are too 'protected' from pertinent information and thereby getting too narrow a view???? Also, about that unfortunate woman during jury selection who blurted out that she thought Casey killed "someone". That caused a potential juror on the stand to be dismissed, and the judge said that if the whole panel had been there they would have had to start all over again. Didn't the (potential) jurors already know that she was accused of killing "someone"? Of course it is totally wrong for a spectator to speak up like that,and the judge handled that firmly,as he should, but would it really taint the jury? Are their minds that fragile? Elisabeth

Thank you to those who seem to have a good handle and understanding of how the legal system works, and sharing it with us. I think a lot of the posts, from members like me, is mostly personal opinion and wishful thinking of what we would like to see happen to Casey and how we wish things had turned out. In my opinion, there is room on this site for our thoughts, and the expertize of the 'experts' without chastising and belittling. Personally, I wish Casey would take a long walk on a short pier.

Good lawyers do make a big difference and there's generally a correlation between good lawyers and how expensive they are (not always but usually). To me, that doesn't really show any flaw in the legal system because verdicts are based on the evidence. It's the lawyers job to present the evidence in a way to benefit their clients and some lawyers are better than others. Prosecution and defense is a lot more complicated than people believe. I see nothing wrong with hiring the best lawyer that you can. People always have the option to represent themselves. It's sort of like with doctors. If you had to have brain surgery and you had the choice between the local surgeon and the top neurosurgeon in the world, wouldn't you want the best? But if insurance didn't cover him and only the rich can afford it, does that mean it's wrong for them to pursue it?