It is interesting that the PI's come out with this video and, according to WFTV states that .....
"Dominic Casey, a colleague of Hoover who works for the Anthonys, claims he went to the site in November with a camera to rule out the possibility that there was any evidence of Caylee there. Dominoc Casey said he didn't find anything, but admits he might have missed the remains."
http://www.wftv.com/news/18388517/detail.html
Why? If he might have missed the remains why even say anything and risk scrutiny and possible exposure of defense work product, etc? What's the cost versus benefit?
Obviously this is a desperate attempt, once again, to completely cloud the discovery of Caylee's remains to create reasonable doubt in the jury pool. If the video date can be corroborated but it doesn't show the exact location in detail then -- it proves nothing -- other than the media hype which is seeding doubts.
The bones scattered over an acre took a grid search and soil sifting to locate, the only thing to be seen were the little remains left in a bag of some sort in an area of trash and debris.
It is still interesting that the PI's only searched and filmed this area 'to rule out the possibility that there was any evidence of Caylee there' BUT -- they filmed it -- and they claim it was on the basis of a statement from Kiomarie. Hmmmmm.
Quite psychic to specifically seek to rule out one area of many many possible sites that turns out to be the same area that the 'murderer' ultimately chooses to dispose of the remains. Logic suggested a dump site further away or in water or a dumpster - not so close to home.
Curiouser and curiouser. Something smells in dodge. Someone wanted the remains located but animals and water had changed and moved them -- so they were not as apparent.