I believe that KC will be found guilty of murder.
Here are what has led me to that determination:
*1, Last person seen with a living Caylee= KC
*2. Failure to report a 'missing' child. And to go along with that is an apparent lack of concern for the child, as evidenced by appearances in nightclubs and etc. Failure to produce an alleged 'script.'
3. Appearance of lying to investigators in instances not related to the disappearance.... as in her employment.
*4. Alleged lying to investigators about what happened to Caylee.... she reported that she left her with 'Zanny'. Yet no evidence has been found of a Zanny related to the case. Persons that KC has said introduced 'Zanny' deny the intro, calls alleged to and from 'Zanny' cannot be found. And no one seems to have met 'Zanny' or know anything about her. To me, this one is huge. You don't forget who you left your child with under any circumstances, and esp. not when your child is missing!
*5. Evidence of decomp found in KC's car that she continued to drive. Comments made to friends re the odor of the car.
*6. Abandoning the car. Instead of returning the car to her parents or even selling it, she abandons it. Why get rid of it, unless there is something in it that you don't want known? If she sold it, I would think that maybe it was a scam to get money, but she didn't even try to sell it. She dumped it.
*7. Type of tape found on Caylee's remains, may have been matched to tape used in the A. home.
8. Nightmares reported by Tone.
*9. Failure to participate in any type of search or to cooperate with others who were attempting to search.
*10. Changing stories. She left her with 'Zanny' at Sawgrass, she left her with 'Zanny' at the park. You don't ever forget the last sight of your child if she is missing.
11. And this is a biggie. I hate to admit it, but many of the family actions have confirmed my suspicions for me that KC was involved in Caylee's death. From the car cleaning and washing clothing, the denial of known evidence (it was a squirrel, no a pizza is one of my favorites), refusal to submit items with Caylee's DNA on it. All of this type of thing IMO smacks of a coverup, and you don't coverup when you have a missing child unless you know that cooperation will not help. And there is no need for a coverup if no one did anything wrong. The A.'s failed to take that into account when they began the denials and the appearances of coverup.
Most of this is my personal feelings and what led me to believe in KC's guilt. But the ones in astrisks are the ones that I think will have the most impact in court.
I am going to use a hypothetical situation:
The states attorney had a mountain of circumstantial evidence that a black 2009 Honda Civic was used to commit a crime. He called the top engineer in from the Honda corporation to testify as his expert. The SA had so much circumstantial evidence he felt this would be a slam dunk.
At trial the expert witness took the stand and the states attorney started his questioning by affirming the experts credentials, then went on to:
SA This key (exhibit A) was found in the pocket of the accused. We believe it was used to start the black 2009 model Honda. In your expert opinion is this possible?
EW It is absolutely possible, I personally used that key to start the black 2009 model honda.
SA In your expert opinion, is the color on the 2009 model black?
EW Yes
SA Was the model made in 2009?
EW Yes
SA (thinking to himself, this is too easy, absolute slam dunk), We have a gas can here (exhibit B) that contained unleaded gas that we believe was used to fuel the 2009 model. Is this possible?
EW Yes, unleaded gas is consistant with the accelerant normally used to fuel this model.
SA We believe this model was used on the interstate and a large number of bugs splattered on the windsheild. Could the windshield wiper commonly installed on this model have been used to clean these bugs off the bug splattered windshield?
EW Absolutely, when I used the key to start this model, I tested to see if the standard installed wiper was working properly and it was.
SA O.K. Almost done, the rest of these questions can be answered with a simple yes or no. Does this black 2009 Honda have tires?
EW Yes
SA A seat, brakes, taillights?
EW Yes, yes, yes.
SA A windshield, a muffler, a carburator?
EW Yes, yes, yes.
SA An automatic transmission?
EW Yes
SA In your expert opinion, a seat, brakes, tailpip, windshield, muffler, carburator and automatic transmission are all consistant with the items you would normally find standardly installed on a black Honda 2009 model.
EW Yes
SA So, based on alll the circumstantial evidence stated in your answers, we can say that a black Honda 2009 model was used in this crime.
EW Yes
Under cross examination
Defense lawyer Is it your expert testimony then, that your answers given to the SA were based on your examination of a black 2009 Honda Civic?
EW No.
Defense lawyer No, but the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointed out by the SA points to a black 2009 Honda Civic. What were you basing your answers on if not a black 2009 Honda Civic?
EW A black 2009 Honda DN-01 motorcycle.
So in my opinion strong circumstantial evidence may lead someone to a conclusion, but it may be the wrong conclusion therefore, for me I still cannot say Guilty or Not Guilty as of today I am still Undecided.
