I watched much of the hearing and couldn't help but notice the difference in the demeanour and behaviour of the two sides. ICA and her "boys" were smiling (although she'd often try to hide her smiles), whispering to each other, touching, apparently having a good time (although ICA did become more serious as the judgments and sidebars went on). The State team, on the other hand, seems to be much more serious; I didn't see them giggling and whispering together.
Looking at the two groups, it's hard to believe that ICA is the one whose child died two years ago. Her lawyers are not much better than she is. Can't they try to take this a bit seriously? Even if they are planning to pretend that this was an accident, or that "some other dude did it," surely there ought to be some expression of sadness or concern that a child - Casey's child - died tragically??
I was also rather horrified by Baez' comments about the photos from Fusion. I think he rather gave himself away by saying that "these were taken after the crime" (I think he later stuck in "alleged crime") but what horrified me was that he went on to say "so there is no relevance." What? You wouldn't think it was relevant that a supposedly loving mother was out partying hard and happily after her child was (a) kidnapped or (b) killed? Really?
We can look at it this way. A man is having money problems, doesn't have enough money to do what he wants. A rich woman the man knows and was last seen with is murdered and her money disappears. The man is subsequently seen spending money and buying things he couldn't buy before. Certainly that would be evidence that connects the man to the crime.
In the same way, Casey was having "Caylee problems." Her child was hindering her from doing what she wanted - partying, having sex, getting out from under her parent's thumbs. Caylee disappears and is found dead. The fact that Casey is seen as happily enjoying her new freedom and being able to party IS evidence. It shows that the crime accomplished her goals.
Tink