Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[natsound]

I don't think the fact that circumstantial evidence is to be given equal weight as direct evidence is common sense at all. I only learned that this past year, and only from reading heavily on WS and about various cases, and I thought I knew a lot before that. I think the state really needed to not only point this out, but pound on it, JMO, until it was ringing in their ears, blocking out everything else if necessary. Again, JMO.

(Bold by me) And I'm sure if the prosecutors could have a re-do, they would do just that.

 

[Solange82200]

What I am finding hard to believe is that 11 jurors would/could have allowed 1 juror (the foreman) to lead them so astray on matters of the law. If that is indeed what took place.

The young lady (Ms. Ford) seems less than assertive and not particularly in possession of any strong critical thinking skills. And she's a nursing student??? God help us.

A "den mother" juror who is washing and neatly folding the underwear of another juror? How bizarre is that?

As many witnesses said about Casey's car (all of whom were IGNORED by this jury) Something STINKS here!

In discussing review of a jury verdict, the TV lawyers said only if there was outright fraud could a verdict be looked at. What qualifies as outright fraud, I wonder? Who initiates such an investigation?

The jury foreman had access to the internet throughout the sequestration? Come on!
I would like to see a forensic examination of the hard drive on the computer the juror was using throughout the trial.

IMO

LMAO, what is the point of sequestration??? If they have internet??? that is crazy

 

[cluciano63]

(Bold by me) And I'm sure if the prosecutors could have a re-do, they would do just that.

As inept as he was for most of the trial, look at how much time CM took explaining levels of doubt...and with the State getting the last word, I really wish they had hammered on about circumstantial evidence not being subject to any more doubt than any other kind of evidence. But again, I feel that the State was so dismissive of the defense, that they did not feel the need, or even think to take the time to carefully refute things the defense alleged or spent time on. The state's theory of the case, which in fact in this case is circumstantial evidence, came off, IMO, as just a theory, well-told in dramatic fashion, but not stressed as being a compilation of circumstances that = evidence.
JMO of course.

 

[Solange82200]

The prosecution does have to prove murder. The medical examiner said on the stand that the cause of death could be drowning. There wasn't anyone that could testify how she died, murder or accident. The prosecutions theory was chloroform, or duck tape. The chloroform evidence wasn't strong enough and esp. since there wasn't any present in the hair, nor drugs. The tape wasn't wrapped around the skull. The duck tape, 2 pieces was on the side in a hair mass, the third piece was found 8 to 10 feet away. How did the third piece get separated from the other 2 pieces? This tape was circumstantial evidence, but not strong enough. I wouldn't have found her guilty to anything but accidental manslaughter. That is the only charge that would fit the evidence. MOO.

Someone did testify how she died, Dr. G said it was a murder. And she explained how she came to that conclusion Think about how different all people are, all different situations. Yet the fact that 100 percent of parents who's child drowns accidentally call the police. 100 percent. That is telling, that no matter if they are good or bad parents, rich or poor, black or white, someone ALWAYS tries to save the child.

The chloroform evidence was very strong. Not only was it still detectable in the trunk months after, but she searched for HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM. I dont know what else people need, a video of her making it?

The fact that chloroform wasnt in her hair means nothing. If she used chloroform and the duct tape to murder Caylee, why would it be in her hair? Her hair doesnt grow post mortem. It would only be in her hair if she had used it previously to knock Caylee out. This is just more proof that this wasnt an accidental chloroforming of the child so she could go party, she meant to kill Caylee. Also, the expert testified that even if the child was being drugged, it doesnt always show up in the hair. It isnt the most reliable way to find out if a child has been drugged.

It has been explained why the tape wasnt wrapped around the skull, plenty of times. First of all, you dont have to wrap it around the child's skull to kill her, you only have to cover her mouth and nose, which is what happened. The reason it wasnt still stuck to her nose and mouth is because the nose and mouth were gone, decomposed. If the tape WERE stuck to the skull where the nose and mouth had been ,that would prove that it was stuck there after decomp, not before death.

The tape separated from the other pieces and was moved the same way plenty of Caylee's bones were, by animals and/or flood waters. I keep hearing the same arguments about these things, and people keep explaining them, but yet the same arguments keep popping up. I don't understand what is so hard to believe about the explanations given above (which were also given by the experts who testified).

 

[natsound]

As inept as he was for most of the trial, look at how much time CM took explaining levels of doubt...and with the State getting the last word, I really wish they had hammered on about circumstantial evidence not being subject to any more doubt than any other kind of evidence. But again, I feel that the State was so dismissive of the defense, that they did not feel the need, or even think to take the time to carefully refute things the defense alleged or spent time on. The state's theory of the case, which in fact in this case is circumstantial evidence, came off, IMO, as just a theory, well-told in dramatic fashion, but not stressed as being a compilation of circumstances that = evidence.
JMO of course.

ITA, and I felt the same way the prosecution did during the trial. The defense witnesses and strategy came off as a joke and a waste of jurors' time to me. I did think the state's closing argument was a bit wishy-washy, but I felt the state had it in the bag after some of the jailhouse conversations between KC, GA and CA.

 

[Solange82200]

Exactly. I have yet to see a single explanation about those jailhouse videos.. Were George and Casey both "acting", even when it was just them??? It sounds so farfetched.

 

[JBean]

Jurors may have been confused on different types of evidence.

Direct evidence=eye witness to the crime or a video of the crime.

Circumstantial evidence=DNA,fingerprints,behavior,footprints, well pretty much everything else that paints a picture or an inference as to what happened. It can be every bit as compelling as direct evidence,if not more so.

If I testify that I saw KC kill Caylee that would be direct evidence.

Suppose I testify that I saw KC walk in and out a room where I last saw Caylee alive. After KC left, I went in the room I found Caylee dead, I did not see anyone else walk in or out of the room and only KC's fingerprints in the room. Then she lied and said she was not in the room. This is circumstantial evidence supporting her guilt, (except for the direct evidence supporting only that I saw her walk in the room). It paints a picture of guilt even though I did not actually see her commit the murder.

Circumstantial evidence is powerful and used to convict murderers all the time. Forensic evidence is some of the most powerful circumstantial evidence there is. I would actually trust it more than direct evidence in some situations since identity can always be mistaken, but fingerprints cannot. I think the circumstantial evidence was compelling and painted guilt. But the jurors saw it differently and that is the end of the story.

 

[Nenato5]

Exactly. I have yet to see a single explanation about those jailhouse videos.. Were George and Casey both "acting", even when it was just them??? It sounds so farfetched.

IMHO, that is because there has not been one decent interview of a member of the DT or the few jurors who have come forward. The only exchange I have found to be insightful was asked by Joy Behar while interviewing DCS. Are they saving the relevant questions for ICA? (joke) :floorlaugh:

I also find the foreman to be a joke--and the fact that he was on the Internet every night quite troubling. I hope other jurors come forward. Was this a REAL "Runaway Jury"?

 

[EPfan]

Someone did testify how she died, Dr. G said it was a murder. And she explained how she came to that conclusion Think about how different all people are, all different situations. Yet the fact that 100 percent of parents who's child drowns accidentally call the police. 100 percent. That is telling, that no matter if they are good or bad parents, rich or poor, black or white, someone ALWAYS tries to save the child.

The chloroform evidence was very strong. Not only was it still detectable in the trunk months after, but she searched for HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM. I dont know what else people need, a video of her making it?

The fact that chloroform wasnt in her hair means nothing. If she used chloroform and the duct tape to murder Caylee, why would it be in her hair? Her hair doesnt grow post mortem. It would only be in her hair if she had used it previously to knock Caylee out. This is just more proof that this wasnt an accidental chloroforming of the child so she could go party, she meant to kill Caylee. Also, the expert testified that even if the child was being drugged, it doesnt always show up in the hair. It isnt the most reliable way to find out if a child has been drugged.

It has been explained why the tape wasnt wrapped around the skull, plenty of times. First of all, you dont have to wrap it around the child's skull to kill her, you only have to cover her mouth and nose, which is what happened. The reason it wasnt still stuck to her nose and mouth is because the nose and mouth were gone, decomposed. If the tape WERE stuck to the skull where the nose and mouth had been ,that would prove that it was stuck there after decomp, not before death.

The tape separated from the other pieces and was moved the same way plenty of Caylee's bones were, by animals and/or flood waters. I keep hearing the same arguments about these things, and people keep explaining them, but yet the same arguments keep popping up. I don't understand what is so hard to believe about the explanations given above (which were also given by the experts who testified).

Dr. G, also said she could have drowned. HER conclusion was murder, but
not 100% proven. The drowning theory proved reasonable doubt and Her saying 100% percent of drowning accidents reported was evidence would not prove that the child didn't drown. You shouldn't convict on statistics, by law.
The tape didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Ashton said his theory from the beginning was the tape. They focused on this tape but they should have somehow connected it to Casey. Just coming from the home didn't do it.
The chloroform wasn't proven, there was not enough of it in the car, or anywhere. You can't rule out that is may have come from household cleaning products. That was testified to.
There is just so much reasonable doubt. There is so much more on TV for 3 years we listened to and we were pretty much brain washed to guilt. I have to respect the jury's decision because they were limited to the evidence and testimony in the court room only. Like it or not the Jury spoke. We may not like it but we should respect it. It's reality now and you can argue, state you case but if you would be fair and think about it I don't see how you can't see the reasonable doubt that was created.
For me, GA created reasonable doubt for this jury, and for me. Right off the bat early on, I could get past him not calling 911 when he went to pick up the smelling car from the tow yard. I can't even imagine my child being gone and I haven't seen her, not to mention a grandchild, and the smell of death is in the vehicle and I don't call 911. I can't get over that, no excuse what so ever.

 

[Solange82200]

Dr. G, also said she could have drowned. HER conclusion was murder, but
not 100% proven. The drowning theory proved reasonable doubt and Her saying 100% percent of drowning accidents reported was evidence would not prove that the child didn't drown. You shouldn't convict on statistics, by law.

Here we go again.... You realize that no one is saying she should be convicted on JUST what Dr. G said. It is only one piece of the evidence, and I think supports what all the other evidence supports. Again, when people say "oh but you cant convict on this", it is not a fair argument, it's a strawman, because no one is saying to convict on just one of the many pieces of evidence, we are saying convict based on ALL of it.

The tape didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Ashton said his theory from the beginning was the tape. They focused on this tape but they should have somehow connected it to Casey. Just coming from the home didn't do it.

Each piece is not supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The totality is. It is connected to Casey because the only other two people who had access to it, the rest of the evidence excludes them as suspects. I wish people would stop trying to judge the evidence in isolation, it doesnt work that way and it isn;t supposed to work that way.

The chloroform wasn't proven, there was not enough of it in the car, or anywhere. You can't rule out that is may have come from household cleaning products. That was testified to.

It was proven, there was enough in the car to prove that there had been a good amount there, since it is a volatile substance that would have evaporated. Also, a reasonable person would rule out household products because if a household product had been used, the defense would have presented it. You really think they wouldnt show the jury "Hey this is what she used, here are the ingredients that caused chloroform to appear, etc". You can tell me they don't "have" to present anything, but the fact that the chloroform and the searches are so incriminating would cause any good defense lawyer to prove that is not what happened. Except he couldnt in this case, because it wasnt from cleaning products. Again, you dont have to prove EACH piece of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is just so much reasonable doubt. There is so much more on TV for 3 years we listened to and we were pretty much brain washed to guilt. I have to respect the jury's decision because they were limited to the evidence and testimony in the court room only. Like it or not the Jury spoke. We may not like it but we should respect it. It's reality now and you can argue, state you case but if you would be fair and think about it I don't see how you can't see the reasonable doubt that was created.

You are right that we heard and saw a lot of casey;s behavior in court and on bond that reinforced our belief in her guilt, but the actual evidence presented still was more than enough to convict, and other trials are proof of that. I don't expect the verdict to change or Casey to be charged, we know that wont happen. But I dont think we should just stay quiet and not voice concerns when the justice system fails us. It;s OUR system, we have a right to decide if its meeting our needs or not. I don't see any reasonable doubt, Ive tried, but I dont see it. There is no reasonable explanation that explains ALL the evidence except for murder. All the evidence as a whole. All the guilty aspects arent coincidences, they are there for a reason.


For me, GA created reasonable doubt for this jury, and for me. Right off the bat early on, I could get past him not calling 911 when he went to pick up the smelling car from the tow yard. I can't even imagine my child being gone and I haven't seen her, not to mention a grandchild, and the smell of death is in the vehicle and I don't call 911. I can't get over that, no excuse what so ever.

Ive said it before, I think George should have called 911` but remember, Cindy had been talking to casey every day, and casey was telling caylee was fine. Do you think he really imagined at that time that caylee could be dead and casey would say otherwise?? can you see how the fact that he was told that both caylee and casey were ok (by casey herself) could cause him to be in denial? Not to mention, he had called the police before over the gas cans, only to find out casey stole them. I could see him being reluctant to call the police again before knowing for sure there was a reason to. Also, they found the car and called 911 THE SAME DAY. Maybe not 5 minutes later, but the same day. Casey on the other hand never called 911, ever, even after 31 days. George and Cindy found the car and called the very same day!

Also, rarely in cases do we get to hear the suspects (if you consider George a suspect) talking to each other on tape or on video. Here we got to see George and casey having long conversations where it is clear that George wanted Casey to tell the cops everything she knew, and that he was trying to get info from her. It is unreasonable to think that they were BOTH acting.

.....

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH
Example: If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. If the person denies the shopping spree and attempts to cover up everything purchased, that is further circumstantial evidence. If the person claims someone else purchased the items and hid them in her closet when the items are discovered, that is even more circumstantial evidence.
Or if a person claims that a family member is missing when in actuality they are deceased, the cover up is circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.


The most important piece of circumstantial evidence in the Casey Anthony case was her BEHAVIOR around the time of the offense. There was a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.

1. When a person uncharacteristically disappears for a MONTH after the disappearance of her child, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

2. When she makes up a story about a FAKE NANNY kidnapping their child at the time her child is missing, that is tremendous CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

3. When she LIES to the POLICE about why her daughter is missing, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.When a person lies to friends and family, claiming their child is ALIVE when they are actually DEAD, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

4. When the words "how to make chloroform" was searched on her computer numerous times and traces of it are found in her trunk, which also smells of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

5. When the "missing" child ends up in a bag in the woods 6 months later, that is EVIDENCE.

6. When duct tape is found near the face of a dead child, that is EVIDENCE.

7. When the defendant is seen at Blockbuster happily renting videos the evening that her child went missing and/or died, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

8. When the defendant is out dancing after her baby disappears or dies, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

9. When a person appears happy or even "giddy" after the offense, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

10. When a person does not appear SAD when their child is missing or dead, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

11. When a person gets a tattoo that says "Beautiful Life" a few days after their child supposedly "accidentally drowned" that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

12. When numerous experts, along with cadaver dogs, testify to the smell of human decomposition being in her trunk, that is EVIDENCE.

13. When numerous experts state that the components found in her trunk are consistent with human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE. When that same car has been ABANDONED by the defendant, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

14. When a hair from Caylee's head is found in the trunk with indication of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

15. When a mother tells people that she spoke to her DEAD child a month after she died....circumstantial evidence doesn't get much stronger than that. A mother could never claim she spoke to her dead child if she was not covering up her own contribution to her death. It goes against the laws of motherhood and loving a child. Most mothers had rather stay in prison for the rest of their lives rather than utter those words.

The reason why Casey went free is because the jurors were IGNORANT of the LAW. Jennifer Ford is the perfect example of how it happened. She thinks you have to know CAUSE of death in order to convict someone. She thinks there was more evidence that there was a drowning although there was ZERO evidence of a drowning. There was ZERO circumstantial evidence of a drowning. She thinks you have to know HOW someone died in order to convict them. Not all murders have a bullet Ms Ford. Does ANYONE know how Laci Peterson died? No. Yet Scott Peterson still got First Degree Murder and was put on death row. For a very good reason. The jury followed the law and looked at the circumstantial evidence and came to the determination through logic and reasoning that Scott Peterson more than likely is the person who killed his wife. This means they had no REASONABLE DOUBT that anyone else killed her.

People are too busy watching CSI to understand how most murder cases are determined. IT IS THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Just like in the Scott Peterson case. He got the death penalty with MUCH less circumstantial evidence than there was against Casey Anthony. For centuries we have been convicting murderers before forensics even existed. Forensics are quite often not there. Life is not a TV show.

Anyone complaining about people being upset that Casey Anthony went free, if they want to say that there was no evidence against Casey Anthony and that the jury did the right thing....then maybe they should campaigning for Scott Peterson's release from prison because obviously they believe he was wrongly accused.

How does one rule out alternative explanations? As the source states, an explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

In this case, many believe that the behavior of KC is the strongest circumstantial evidence. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,9,10, 11 and 15 all involve KC's behavior. The state explained that this behavior is strong evidence that KC murdered Caylee (over half of LDB's opening statement, and nearly half of the states CIC was spent on KC's behavior). The defense countered with a grief expert who gave an alternative explanation to the states claim, by explaining that all KC's behavior could indeed be caused by grief. KC's behavior was deplorable, however, the jurors did not rule out the grief experts alternative explanation.

Number 4 deals with the chloroform search and traces of chloroform in the trunk. The state explained that chloroform had been searched on the Anthony computer 3 months prior to Caylee's demise, and presented air sample evidence for proof of the possible use of chloroform. The defense countered by explaining that her boyfriend had 'win her over with chloroform" on his myspace page, and that the air sample results were obtained without using quantities or standards. The jurors did not rule out the defense's alternative explanations of this evidence.

Numbers 5 and 6 deal with area A. The state explained this evidence was proof KC murdered Caylee and placed her in Area A with numerous experts. The defense explained this evidence was incorrect with numerous experts contradicting the states experts. The jurors did not rule out the defense's alternative explanations of this evidence.

Numbers 12, 13, and 14 deal with the trunk. The state explained this evidence puts Caylee in the trunk for 3 days using numerous experts. The defense explained that this evidence is incorrect, using experts to contradict the states experts. The jurors did not rule out the defense's alternative explanations of this evidence.

When you consider the totality of items 1-15, many feel this is strong circumstantial evidence, and if all or even some of the alternative explanations could have been ruled out, it would have been strong circumstantial evidence. Some feel, since the alternative explanations of items 1-15 could not be ruled out, that this was not strong circumstantial evidence.

HHJP ruled the defense could argue the drowning theory in closing. The jurors weighed the drowning theory against the murder theory, and ultimately decided it could have been either. When either theory remains a possiblity, you have reasonable doubt, so the jury could not find KC guilty of the first charge.

HHJP told the jury, in regards to a witnesses testimony, you can either chose to believe the testimony or disbelieve the testimony. On charges 2 and 3, the jurors chose to disbelieve GA's testimony. In chosing to disbelieve GA's testimony, this brought reasonable doubt as to who was the actual caregiver the morning of June 16th 2008. Because the jury had reasonable doubt about what occurred on the morning of June 16th, they could not find KC guilty of charges 2 and 3.

Did the jury get it wrong? I have a feeling this will be an ongoing debate for years to come.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Well, she got away with it. And from reading the law on the subject, per the US Supreme Court in several decisions, once a person is found Not Guilty they will NEVER be tried again in any way for that particular crime.

Let us just all hope she doesn't go on to kill again.

 

[Solange82200]

Everyone should be scared to death. The same problems that we saw with this jury are the same problems that cause innocent people to be locked up. It happens more than we think, in my opinion. Just cause we can;t try Casey again doesn't mean we shouldn't figure out the problems in the system for future cases. I don't see how anyone can be satisfied with a system that lets out even one guilty person or locks up even one innocent. We should always strive to improve a system that has people's lives and safety in it's hands. This is as serious as it gets. It's easy to think this doesn't affect you, but you never know when you may be an innocent person on trial or a victim of a crime where the perpetrator gets off. I hope people don't think that since this doesn't affect them yet, they shouldn't worry about it...

 

[JBean]

Did Dr G actually testify that it was a murder in her opinion? I thought she only testified as to COD ( undetermined) and MOD ( homicide).

 

[Solange82200]

HHJP ruled the defense could argue the drowning theory in closing. The jurors weighed the drowning theory against the murder theory, and ultimately decided it could have been either. When either theory remains a possiblity, you have reasonable doubt, so the jury could not find KC guilty of the first charge.

.

I agree, as long as there is one innocent alternative, there is reasonable doubt. But many of us do not think drowning is a possible alternative. If you take each piece of evidence separately, yes you can twist it to make it fit a drowning maybe. But not in it's totality, not if you realize the way the real world and real people work, and that this isn't a tv show where there is tons of evidence against a person, only to find out at the end it was the person you least expected.

The duct tape, chloroform, google searches, her behavior, her lies, the fact she sat in jail for three years and never said the child drowned, etc., all those things don't fit a drowning. You can come up with explanations for each of those things separately to match a drowning, but many of them are a stretch, and then looking at all of it together, to assume these are all "coincidences pointing to guilt" is in itself a stretch. Just the fact that someone would make an accident look like a murder (especially an excop who knows most accidental drownings dont result in jail time, but hiding a body and lying will) is more proof that it isn't a reasonable alternative, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Solange82200]

Did Dr G actually testify that it was a murder in her opinion? I thought she only testified as to COD ( undetermined) and MOD ( homicide).

Homicide is murder. So yes, when she said it was a homicide, she meant Caylee was murdered.

 

[SATA]

Well, she got away with it. And from reading the law on the subject, per the US Supreme Court in several decisions, once a person is found Not Guilty they will NEVER be tried again in any way for that particular crime.

Let us just all hope she doesn't go on to kill again.

Maybe she will kill again and maybe not. But one thing is for sure, she will keep destroying people´s lives. How many is it that she has destroyed so far - apart from killing her own daughter?! Everybody: STAY CLEAR OF THAT WOMAN, and I mean EVERYBODY!

 

[Solange82200]

Jurors may have been confused on different types of evidence.

Direct evidence=eye witness to the crime or a video of the crime.
.

I think also jurors need to be shown some of the new studies coming out about eyewitness testimony and it's unreliability. At least when it comes to recognizing strangers. I don't think it applies when the person sees someone they know killing someone, obviously that's pretty clear, but it usually is a problem when they are asked to pick a stranger out of a lineup who they saw near the crime or committing a crime. It's just fascinating and scary the way the human mind and memory works, I think we have so much still to learn about it...

 

[JBean]

Homicide is murder. So yes, when she said it was a homicide, she meant Caylee was murdered.

All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder. Murder is a logical conclusion in this case of course,imo.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I agree, as long as there is one innocent alternative, there is reasonable doubt. But many of us do not think drowning is a possible alternative. If you take each piece of evidence separately, yes you can twist it to make it fit a drowning maybe. But not in it's totality, not if you realize the way the real world and real people work, and that this isn't a tv show where there is tons of evidence against a person, only to find out at the end it was the person you least expected.

The duct tape, chloroform, google searches, her behavior, her lies, the fact she sat in jail for three years and never said the child drowned, etc., all those things don't fit a drowning. You can come up with explanations for each of those things separately to match a drowning, but many of them are a stretch, and then looking at all of it together, to assume these are all "coincidences pointing to guilt" is in itself a stretch. Just the fact that someone would make an accident look like a murder (especially an excop who knows most accidental drownings dont result in jail time, but hiding a body and lying will) is more proof that it isn't a reasonable alternative, by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't agree with HHJP on a few things, so I guess its understandable that many think HHJP is wrong his ruling that the defense could argue the drowning theory.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.