I believe in our justice system, and I'd like to believe that we get things right more often than we get things wrong; however, juries are not infallible. Juries don't always interpret the evidence and/or the law correctly; innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death), and guilty people are set free. As much as I dislike that, it happens because our system is not flawless. That being said, I respect the jury's decision,
but I do not agree with it. My opinion is not based on mere emotion; it's based on the evidence I saw presented during the trial.
Here's how I connected the dots based on the evidence:
The Car
I believe that there was a dead body in the trunk at some point. This is based on the testimony of several people who have had numerous experiences smelling dead bodies (including Simon Birch, who has also smelled all sorts of garbage/rotten food due to his prior work in waste management), the cadaver dogs, the chemical analysis, and the death band on the hair.
Here's the thing, though: As the defense pointed out, some of the technology/science the state presented is still new, so it's not 100% reliable. If the state had
only presented the hair with the death band, for example, I would have reasonable doubt; however,
when you take all of those things together, it's far more reasonable to believe that there was a dead body in the trunk than it is to believe that all of the trunk evidence was incorrect. When I consider the fact that Casey's defense attorney admitted that Caylee died on June 16th, I feel even more strongly about this.
Access to the Car
The DT seemed to imply that since George had keys to the car, he also had access to it and may have been responsible for putting Caylee's body in the trunk . . . which is odd when you consider the fact that they'd been fighting so hard to prove that there'd never been a body in the trunk in the first place.
But the thing is, when would George have had a chance to put the body in the trunk? If I remember correctly, the DT seemed to try to imply that he could have done it after Casey left her car or after it had been towed,
but to believe this would mean that one would have to believe that George somehow randomly found her car in a city as big as Orlando, somehow transported a decomposing body in his own vehicle, somehow put it in Casey's car in a public place where he could have been seen, and somehow later came back to take it out. That, IMO, is far less reasonable than believing that Casey put the body in the trunk, even if you only go on the basis that she had more access to the car. (Of course, there are other things that tie Casey to trunk and to the crime itself, and I'll get to that in a bit.)
Chloroform
Regardless of whether or not the chloroform site was visited eighty-four times, it seems clear that someone* searched for it -- along with instructions on how to make it. That alone isn't too damning, but it is when you consider that the reason the computer was searched to begin with was due to unusually high levels of chloroform in the trunk. If the state had only presented the computer searches without presenting the evidence of chloroform in the trunk (or vice versa), then I would have reasonable doubt on this issue.
The chloroform in the trunk could have been explained away by cleaning products, but when you view the evidence in conjunction with the computer searches, it seems far more sinister and a lot less coincidental. True, there is no proof that chloroform killed Caylee, but since evidence of Caylee's dead body and chloroform were both found in the trunk, there seems to have been some sort of connection. Personally, I've always believed she used the chloroform to knock Caylee out before placing the duct tape over her nose and mouth because there'd be no reason to place duct tape over her nose and mouth if she'd already been killed by the chloroform. I think it's likely that she used the chloroform to prevent a struggle.
*I'm not even going to mention Cindy's testimony because I think the state proved pretty conclusively that she was at work when those searches were made. George was also at work when these searches were made, so that leaves us with Casey.
The Duct Tape
This, IMO, was the murder weapon. Like Jeff Ashton said,
there is absolutely no reason to put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child, regardless of whether the child is dead or alive. Some people have speculated that the duct tape may have been used to stage a kidnapping, but this did not look like a kidnapping; it looked like a murder by suffocation. Kidnappers generally use duct tape to prevent someone from making noise, so if this was a staged kidnapping, the duct tape would have only covered her mouth. There would have been no need for three pieces to cover her nose
and her mouth. Others have suggested that she may have used the tape to prevent decompositional fluids from coming out of her nose and mouth, but by the time her body was decomposed enough to be leaking fluids, that would be the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Her face, along with the rest of her body, would have already been leaking.
So ... did someone put the duct tape on Caylee's skull after it was already decomposed, which is what Dr. Spitz suggested? First of all, why would anyone do that? There is absolutely, positively no evidence that any of the investigators tampered with the scene. The defense claims that Roy Kronk moved the body and may have placed the tape on Caylee's skull, but why on earth would he do that? Why would he care if her mandible became detached from the rest of her skull? What reason would he have to risk tying himself to the scene -- and, therefore, possibly implicating himself -- if all he cared about was claiming the reward money? I'm also not the least bit concerned about the lack of DNA on the tape and the lack of tape residue on the skull. After all, both had been exposed to the elements for six months, so that's not too unexpected.
Basing his opinion on the "pet cemetery" testimony, one of the alternate jurors thought that the tape could have come from the burial, but that doesn't really make sense. First of all, the Anthonys didn't place duct tape on their pets' faces. Secondly,
the presence of the duct tape on the nose/mouth area -- with the mandible still attached -- strongly seems to indicate that the duct tape was placed on her face prior to decomposition, otherwise the mandible would have become detached when her face decomposed.
Tying Casey to the Crime Scene
The laundry bag Caylee was found with came from the Anthony home. The remains of the shirt found with Caylee's body hadn't been seen in the Anthony home, but Caylee was seen wearing it in a photo she'd had taken with Casey. Therefore, it's logical to assume that Casey may have kept it with her in a diaper bag. IIRC, Cindy also testified that she hadn't seen Caylee's Winnie the Pooh blanket since May of 2008, so it's logical to assume that Casey also had this in her possession. As far as I'm concerned, these things (along with other things, of course) rule out everyone in the Anthony home except for Casey.
The Manner of Death and Other Things
Dr. G said that Caylee died as the result of homicide by undetermined means. She based this on the duct tape and the manner in which Caylee was found.
She also said that whenever an accident happens, 911 is always called. When you take this into consideration -- along with the rest of the evidence -- it seems reasonable to conclude that Caylee did not die as the result of an accident. There is no logical reason to make an accident look like a murder.
And last but not least, we have Casey's behavior. As you may have noticed, I've listed this last. Contrary to popular belief, it's possible to come to the conclusion that Casey killed Caylee without even looking at her behavior; however, when you look at her behavior in conjunction with everything else, it's pretty damning.
All that being said, I have no idea why the jurors were unable to put the puzzle pieces together. Like Vinnie Politan said, what other reasonable explanation is there that explains
all the circumstances?
Many of the jurors have said that they needed a motive, a concrete cause of death, a time of death, a place of death, etc., but legally, none of those things were required. Don't believe me? Take a look at their jury instructions.
