<p>LOL, Mantori! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…</p>
<p>I guess my bottom line is that I wouldn’t be hiring Casey Anthony to babysit my kid…or my dog, hamster or lizard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To play devil’s advocate…</p>
<p>1) Time - You can’t PROVE that. The time on CC’s servers could be off. He could have posted at 12:52. 
2) Post count - Once again this is not proof unless you can also prove that CC’s backend software is counting correctly.
3) Parents - LOLOL, how many people find out their parents are not their biological parents. How many never find out.
4) My birth certificate says Silas B. Hayes hospital, Fort Ord, Monterey CA though I was actually born in Cork, Ireland. So that is not proof either…</p>
<p>Proof is something that is irrefutable. ;)</p>
<p>I should have said that he posted at 12:54 based on CC’s system and same with his post count based on CC’s system. </p>
<p>Interesting that your birth certificate says you were born in a hospital in CA when you were born in Ireland. I wonder how you obtained a birth certificate that is false? </p>
<p>I have never heard, until now, of someone who has a birth certificate that claims a hospital where the child was NOT born. I can’t imagine the hospital that verified my birth in Philadelphia not really being my birth or how else does it get onto the birth certificate? Curious now!</p>
<p>I believe that when a birth certificate lists a mother who gave birth at a hospital to a baby, that it is proven that the mother listed is the biological mother (one could dispute the father I suppose).</p>
<p>In any case, I find it incredulous for someone to question the proof that the dead toddler was indeed Caylee Anthony given the way that dead bodies are scientifically identified. </p>
<p>Maybe we should now doubt that Casey is Caylee’s mom??? :rolleyes: Can’t be proven??? The baby came out of her birth canal and was witnessed at a hospital. That is not 100% proof that Casey is her mother???</p>
<p>Proof
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Proof with reason to doubt</p>
<p>Compare and contrast.
Discuss in relation to the Casey Anthony case.
If you were a judge giving instructions to a jury, how would you explain the difference?
What is required for conviction in a US court of law?
Is there a concept of how much evidence of a certain type taken in combination disproves innocence? Vs how evidence of of certain type above going the other way?
How important is plausibility???</p>
<p>In terms of proof…</p>
<p>The dead body had the DNA of Caylee and her dental records. These are the methods used to identify dead people. I would say that is 100% proof it was her (unfortunately).</p>
<p>(on a side note, she was wearing the clothing that Caylee was last seen wearing, even though that would not be proof in itself)</p>
<p>
Then either you don’t understand 100% or you don’t understand “proof”, or both.</p>
<p>Educate me. Is not DNA, along with dental records, how dead bodies are identified once they are past the point of recognition due to decomposition?</p>
<p>Isn’t DNA something like 1 in a billion? Like maybe the identity is not 100% proof but it is 99.999999999999999999999 % proof.</p>
<p>
Some people pay good money for that.</p>
<p>
Sure it is. That doesn’t mean that it constitutes “100% proof”. There’s a difference between “100% proof”, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (i.e. strong evidence), and “reason to suspect”. DNA evidence probably constitutes the second of these, though it certainly doesn’t constitute the first.</p>
<p>OK, so the dead toddler is Caylee Anthony beyond a reasonable doubt. The point you are making is a bit much since there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the dead body is Caylee Anthony. If it is not 100% proof, it is as close to 100% as anything possibly can be.</p>
<p>I accept the acknowledgment of your error and the tacit apology which underlies it.</p>
<p>If it is not 100% proof, it is as close to 100% as anything possibly can be. Which means for all intents and purposes it’s proof.</p>
<p>LOL… So you are both right…</p>
<p>
Let’s not muddy this up.</p>
<p>I know it’s inconvenient to read 100+ pages of posts, but the whole reasonable-doubt-versus-all-doubt debate has been had, resurrected, had again, and resurrected again. Can we all just agree that there is never 100% proof of anything, but there is sometimes so much evidence that it might as well be called proof for all practical purposes? Cuz this argument is getting so old.</p>
<p>^^^^^^Agreed.</p>
<p>Money, Money, Money–Moooneeeeeey!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if we went together as a group and tried to have this thread published? I have visited Florida, had a next door neighbor named Casey once and have lent neighbors a shovel. I KNOW (100% certainty) that I am qualified to write and make money on Casey/Caylee. </p>
<p>We could name it ***De-bunk the Trunk ***or Cashing in on Caylee. The title possibilities are endless.</p>
<p>hahahaha^^^^</p>
<p>Unfortunately - it is the truth. Cashing in on Caylee. So sad.</p>
<p>do i need to read back or did we go full circle again LOL!</p>
<p>so was Dr Albow a commentator during the trial or just cashing in now?? who is he?</p>
<p>After reading his Wiki page, this guy sounds like Dr. Phil Lite.</p>