The thing that seems to be keeping me awake at night, apart from just the heartbreaking aspects of this case, is trying to think like a juror. There are some things, some evidence, presented in this trial that I just can't seem to make fit, no matter how hard I try. For instance, my gut feeling (along with some testimony) tells me ICA didn't intend for Caylee to die. But then, I can't reconcile that to her behavior after Caylee was deceased. The girl was just flat out happy. So I ask myself, if ICA chloroformed Caylee and bound her with duct tape just to get her out of her hair for a few hours (shudder), and Caylee died as a result of that, wouldn't ICA still be upset over that turn of events? Even if she didn't give a rat's you know what about this child (and I sure don't think she did), wouldn't ICA still have been upset to have the dead body of her child to deal with? And yet, I see evidence that clearly tells me she wasn't bothered at all.
Then I have to ask myself, DID she INTEND to kill this child? If so, what solid evidence do I have of that? Duct tape that covered the mouth, but may or may not have covered the nose...chloroform found in the trunk of the car that I can't state with any certainty was ever even used on Caylee...nefarious computer searches that could simply be searches to bolster any number of her many lies...ARG!
But when you put all these things together...it paints a picture. Is it the RIGHT picture, though? That's the question.
And so my thoughts go round and round and round. :banghead: