Human beings naturally notice others' appearance, anyone who says otherwise, imo, is being less than honest. We read people by way of observation - what we see - such as attractive physical features, unattractive physical features, obvious physical abnormalities - limps, moles, scars, missing limbs,... facial expressions - scowl, smile, frown, raise eyebrows, cry, flushed (anger, embarrassment, or menopause as in my case),... mannerisms, mental issues and/or disorders that may have physicals manifestations such as nervous habits; tics, twitches, grinding teeth, shaking hands,... speech; use of words; correctly or incorrectly, choice of words; profanity, context, proper pronounciation, speech sound; lisps, nasal sounding, loud, low, etc,...and Clothes because they represent an individual's choice(s) and judgement and that says something about them also. Some memorable (and noticable) court appearances are PS - "lightbulb" hairdo, MJ - pajama's, CC - revealing a little too much T & A.
I've never heard of a conviction being appealed because the verdict was (or claimed to be) reached based upon a defendent's clothing. My opinion is that a defendent's choice of clothing can hurt some or it can help some but it doesn't carry a verdict in and of itself. There is a natural over-fascination right now in KC's case because we have a mother that never reported her child missing, the child's grandmother didn't find out until 31 days following her disappearance and she called the police, the mother lied throughout her initial police interviews, incriminating evidence has been found against her, she's not talking, her child's body has been found - dead, not only is she not talking, she isn't showing appropriate emotions over the loss of her child and naturally the public wants to know why.
The answers aren't going to come from her therefore we (the public) are left to try to put "her together" like the pieces of a puzzle - just like we do here everyday with transcripts, records, pictures, maps,... all of the evidence, trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It's not a matter of judging one based upon their looks, certainly there may be some people that do but generally if these are people that you spend any amount of time with whether it be at work, at the gym, co-member's in a group, etc,...people get the opportunity to dispell their shallow assumptions or initial opinions based upon appearances as they get to see you "in action" on a day to day or week by week basis.
That is the case as well for a jury. They will have the time and opportunity to observe KC, although they may never literally hear her speak, they will hear her speak through the evidence and the witnesses presented which imo, won't do well for her but that's her choice, she has the right to get on the stand and to tell her side of the story, in her own words and in her own voice to try to convince a jury of her innocence, if she chooses not to she won't be convicted because of the clothes she wore to court, she'll be convicted on the evidence presented. A jury is going to watch EVERYTHING that she does, every turn in her chair, every smile, wink, nod, scowl, eye roll, tucking hair behind the ear, scratching her nose, rubbing her forehead, her posture, the movement of her lips when she whispers to her attorneys - EVERYTHING to look for some kind of sign that she cares, that she loved Caylee, if she misses her, anything...
MOO