Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...

[robcee12]

The problem was that all of them were living in the same huse, so it is not possible to say who was responsible for what.

Caylee was found close to the home in association with items from the home.

The stuff from the car was a red herring. If her body had been left in the car the car would have been full evidence of that. The only way to prevent that would have been to seal the body in a water tight bag. But if that happened, the "death hair" would have still been in the bag, not in the car. The implication is that the body was stored somewhere else for a significant Length of time and the hair ended up in the car by transfer at a later date. either that or it wasn't a death hair.

The evidence suggests that the body probably never left the home for a considerable time, and if that was the case, then it could have been any of them. We know that KC moved out and was apparently unaware that Caylee was missing. Then she appeared to be involved in a cover up. The assumption is that KC was the one being protected, but maybe it wasn't her, maybe the protection was for someone else and they just thought they could get away with it letting KC appear like the guilty one but knowing there wasn't really any evidence for that. Misdirection.

The chloroform theory was kind of ridiculous. At the very least they should have undertaken controls to demonstrate their theory was possible but they did not.

If you look at the "foolproof suffocation" search, it was followed 51 seconds later by a visit to a site about suicide, that had nothing to do with methods. So, the search had nothing to do with homicide, but suggests more the idea of suicide. And you have to wonder why. Whatever happened, it was clearly not a first degree homicide.

Everyone I think agrees that something illegal happened to Caylee, the question however is what and who did it? That is far from clear and it is largely the reason KC was aquitted. All of this should have been clear to the prosecution, but they went for a hail mary anyway in the hopes that they could elicit an emotive response from the jury in the absence of evidence. But, as we know, it didn't work and they got nothing.

They would have had for more success with lesser charges IMO.

The death hair was found in the trunk because Caylee was driven around dead in the trunk and wasn't bagged until the 17th or 18th when the neighbor noticed FCA backing her car into the garage.

 

[Gecko100]

I can buy your husbands theory except I think she came up with the kidnapping theory and therfore put the tape on her to support the kidnapping theory. But it still doesn't explain the clothing Caylee was wearing. That clothing I believe were those extra pair of clothes you always keep in the baby bag in case of emergencies or sleep overs which we see her wearing after a nite of staying at Ricardo Morales's house

A bit o/t, but in my opinion the message on the tshirt was meant for her parents. Big trouble did come in a small package.
Poor Caylee.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

A bit o/t, but in my opinion the message on the tshirt was meant for her parents. Big trouble did come in a small package.
Poor Caylee.

I agree, I think she believed it was a joke dressing her in that outfit, a msg for her parents. It was a shirt she only dressed her in for overnight stays at "Zanny's" aka flavor of the month.

 

[heidisams]

The problem was that all of them were living in the same huse, so it is not possible to say who was responsible for what.

Caylee was found close to the home in association with items from the home.

The stuff from the car was a red herring. If her body had been left in the car the car would have been full evidence of that. The only way to prevent that would have been to seal the body in a water tight bag. But if that happened, the "death hair" would have still been in the bag, not in the car. The implication is that the body was stored somewhere else for a significant Length of time and the hair ended up in the car by transfer at a later date. either that or it wasn't a death hair.

The evidence suggests that the body probably never left the home for a considerable time, and if that was the case, then it could have been any of them. We know that KC moved out and was apparently unaware that Caylee was missing. Then she appeared to be involved in a cover up. The assumption is that KC was the one being protected, but maybe it wasn't her, maybe the protection was for someone else and they just thought they could get away with it letting KC appear like the guilty one but knowing there wasn't really any evidence for that. Misdirection.

The chloroform theory was kind of ridiculous. At the very least they should have undertaken controls to demonstrate their theory was possible but they did not.

If you look at the "foolproof suffocation" search, it was followed 51 seconds later by a visit to a site about suicide, that had nothing to do with methods. So, the search had nothing to do with homicide, but suggests more the idea of suicide. And you have to wonder why. Whatever happened, it was clearly not a first degree homicide.

Everyone I think agrees that something illegal happened to Caylee, the question however is what and who did it? That is far from clear and it is largely the reason KC was aquitted. All of this should have been clear to the prosecution, but they went for a hail mary anyway in the hopes that they could elicit an emotive response from the jury in the absence of evidence. But, as we know, it didn't work and they got nothing.

They would have had for more success with lesser charges IMO.

BBM

With all due respect, Tugela, I've never been one of those who buys into the argument that "we know the computer search happened, but we don't know who was actually sitting behind the computer" or "that other people had access to the duct tape and laundry bag," etc... This is a perfect example of why so many are outraged and frustrated with the lack of common sense seen time and time again with this case. Common sense used to be the cornerstone, or the norm, when it came to determining someone's guilt or innocence. And I for one, do know who was sitting behind the computer, or backing into the garage and using henkel duct tape and stealing her parents canvas laundry bag... I know because the evidence tells me this... JB, and defense attorneys of the like, tell me I don't know, but I do. Call me politically incorrect or old fashioned, but right now I really miss good ole common sense. And if fca was truly unaware that Caylee was missing, then that means she really thought she was at Cocoa Beach or making the amusement park rounds with the nanny, who doesn't exist??? And if someone was looking to commit suicide, why type in fool-proof suffocation? Why not fool-proof ways to kill yourself? When you think about the word choice, do you think it's logical to assume that if suicide was the purpose of that search, that one would expect to get results on suicide methods when entering fool-proof suffocation? Or does it make more sense that the user wanted to make dog gone sure that someone was, for sure, dead by means of suffocation? And, coincidentally, someone disappeared from that house, on that day, and ended up being found with duct tape across her face, and bagged in plastic trash bags... Imo, the suicide page is the red herring... And as far as the prosecution reaching, and a lack of evidence, I don't even have words for that. That's where I'm baffled. To me, the thousands of pages of evidence is overwhelming... I will try to agree to disagree, but sometime it's hard when two people see the exact same thing and end up so far apart, on opposite ends of the spectrum. What I see as common sense, others see as reasonable doubt...

All jmo.

 

[heidisams]

I think the intense media scrutiny and Nancy Grace screeching GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY every night on TV in cases like this makes it impossible to have a fair trial for either side. Either you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and find people so ignorant and disconnected they literally can't understand the evidence, or you get liars who have already formed an opinion but claim they haven't. NG claims to be on the side of the victims but he best thing she could do for both sides IMO is keep her mouth shut.

Mark Fuhrman made some excellent points in his recent book about the ridiculous nationwide "search" for Caylee. There was no need for it. Everyone who smelled that trunk knew the child was dead and most likely somewhere close by.

The Phylicia Barnes case here in Baltimore was more or less ignored by NG, and while some people were angry about that and pointed out that NG only seems to care about young white women, it's also true that they found the body, brought the suspect to trial, and got a conviction within about 2 years. I'm not sure that would have been possible if the search and trial had become a Casey Anthony type national media event.

Imo, Nancy Grace isn't the reason fca looked guilty, fca is the reason fca look guilty. If Nancy Grace, and others, were going on and on without evidence to back it up, I would agree with you. But, in this particular case, they had the benefit of Florida's sunshine law, which is why we see so many cases, pretrial, covered so extensively in FL. I don't want to keep harping on the speculation nonsense that we're constantly accused of, but, again, we're not speculating when we base our conclusions on facts... And I see your point about the pretrial publicity effecting the jury pool, but I think, when you're dealing with a missing child, the more coverage the better, even if there's only a slim chance of finding him/her alive... When a child's life (or anyone's) is in danger, my thoughts are find the child first, then deal with punishing the perp later... If my child were missing, and we had a pretty good idea who was responsible, I would be knocking on every door, NG being at the top of that list, to put pressure on that person and to get as much exposure as possible... Concerns about trials, jury pools, etc., would would come later...

All jmo.

 

[Gecko100]

I agree, I think she believed it was a joke dressing her in that outfit, a msg for her parents. It was a shirt she only dressed her in for overnight stays at "Zanny's" aka flavor of the month.

Yes, I agree, and when I think of her like that premeditation is very obvious, and so were the consequences. It was an 'accident' waiting to happen.
Neglect could have been a path the prosecution team went down, there were very clear signs in my opinion.
My work in child protection for 30+ years has honed my bat radar!

 

[LolaMoon08]

As for the "fool-proof" suffocation search being followed by the "suicide" search... it means to me what it always meant to me. That Caylee was not Casey's only intended victim. She had every intention of killing her parents too. She just never got around to it as she was having so much fun with her Bella Vita at the moment. Casey was going to deal with them when she reached the end of the hallway with them. There was going to come a time when her stories were not enough anymore. I believe she thought she at least had until Caylee's birthday. She was completely thrown for a loop on July 15th, 2008.

Casey never thought in a million years that Cindy would have called the police on her. Why would she? She had never called police for Casey's constant financial crimes against the family. Had Cindy not been so frantic... knowing that the smell she smelled coming from Casey's car was her dead grandbaby, she would have never called the police and she would be dead too. With police on the way, Casey didn't have time to complete her crime the way she had wanted. So she had to think quick and tell Cindy what she wanted to hear. That Caylee was alive, but someone else had her.

 

[skbsoccermom]

BBM

With all due respect, Tugela, I've never been one of those who buys into the argument that "we know the computer search happened, but we don't know who was actually sitting behind the computer" or "that other people had access to the duct tape and laundry bag," etc... This is a perfect example of why so many are outraged and frustrated with the lack of common sense seen time and time again with this case. Common sense used to be the cornerstone, or the norm, when it came to determining someone's guilt or innocence. And I for one, do know who was sitting behind the computer, or backing into the garage and using henkel duct tape and stealing her parents canvas laundry bag... I know because the evidence tells me this... JB, and defense attorneys of the like, tell me I don't know, but I do. Call me politically incorrect or old fashioned, but right now I really miss good ole common sense. And if fca was truly unaware that Caylee was missing, then that means she really thought she was at Cocoa Beach or making the amusement park rounds with the nanny, who doesn't exist??? And if someone was looking to commit suicide, why type in fool-proof suffocation? Why not fool-proof ways to kill yourself? When you think about the word choice, do you think it's logical to assume that if suicide was the purpose of that search, that one would expect to get results on suicide methods when entering fool-proof suffocation? Or does it make more sense that the user wanted to make dog gone sure that someone was, for sure, dead by means of suffocation? And, coincidentally, someone disappeared from that house, on that day, and ended up being found with duct tape across her face, and bagged in plastic trash bags... Imo, the suicide page is the red herring... And as far as the prosecution reaching, and a lack of evidence, I don't even have words for that. That's where I'm baffled. To me, the thousands of pages of evidence is overwhelming... I will try to agree to disagree, but sometime it's hard when two people see the exact same thing and end up so far apart, on opposite ends of the spectrum. What I see as common sense, others see as reasonable doubt...

All jmo.

Common sense is severely lacking, and it certainly was lacking in this jury. In this day and age, people have gotten lazy in many aspects of life, and want everything to be quick and easy. Anyone who goes through the evidence and applies common sense and deductive reasoning, will come to the conclusion that this was premeditated murder. The State didn't have to rely on anyone using emotion. In fact, as much as the jury bragged that they "followed the letter of the law", and "didn't use emotion", IMO that's exactly what they did. They factored in the punishment, and seeing her sitting there in her school girl outfit and lowered chair influenced them. I still to this day wonder if they thought by convicting her on a lesser charge, she could still be put to death, and that is why they refused to do so.

When I see the reasons people list as why they wouldn't be able to convict her, I either see flaws in their logic, or a misrepresentation of the facts. Had the jury taken their time and carefully gone through the evidence, they may have reached a proper verdict (and I say MAY, because you still can't bank on the fact the some people are capable of critical thinking). This can't be done in 11 hours ... it would take days .. also an apparent problem for this jury.

When I hear people discuss other cases, and say "he/she is innocent because there were no fingerprints, DNA or fibers", I just SMH. How were people convicted before this technology? Not only that, but what about a perp taking measures to prevent this type of evidence from being found ... like .... I don't know ... perhaps wearing gloves?

ALL evidence needs to be factored in when weighing innocence or guilt, and that includes actions and behaviors of the defendant, which this jury refused to consider. How can you 'connect the dots', when you are leaving some of them out?

 

[heidisams]

Common sense is severely lacking, and it certainly was lacking in this jury. In this day and age, people have gotten lazy in many aspects of life, and want everything to be quick and easy. Anyone who goes through the evidence and applies common sense and deductive reasoning, will come to the conclusion that this was premeditated A. The State didn't have to rely on anyone using emotion. In fact, as much as the jury bragged that they "followed the letter of the law", and "didn't use emotion", IMO that's exactly what they did. They factored in the punishment, and seeing her sitting there in her school girl outfit and lowered chair influenced them. I still to this day wonder if they thought by convicting her on a lesser charge, she could still be put to death, and that is why they refused to do so.

When I see the reasons people list as why they wouldn't be able to convict her, I either see flaws in their logic, or a misrepresentation of the facts. Had the jury taken their time and carefully gone through the evidence, they may have reached a proper verdict (and I say MAY, because you still can't bank on the fact the some people are capable of critical thinking). This can't be done in 11 hours ... it would take days .. also an apparent problem for this jury.

When I hear people discuss other cases, and say "he/she is innocent because there were no fingerprints, DNA or fibers", I just SMH. How were people convicted before this technology? Not only that, but what about a perp taking measures to prevent this type of evidence from being found ... like .... I don't know ... perhaps wearing gloves?

ALL evidence needs to be factored in when weighing innocence or guilt, and that includes actions and behaviors of the defendant, which this jury refused to consider. How can you 'connect the dots', when you are leaving some of them out?

BBM

Exactly skb... And not only did they brag about not using emotion, they mistakenly ignored vital evidence (31 days) claiming it was based on emotion and, therefore, had to be tossed :what:.. And they did follow the letter of the law, however, it was their very own revised version of the law and standards, fed to them by the dt... Colossal mistakes...

As you said, those who defend fca, and/or the verdict, typically have flawed logic and often misrepresent the facts, which, imo, is the only way to get to an acquittal... I really don't think most even know the basic facts. If they did, we wouldn't hear reasons such as, "I don't think fca ever even knew Caylee was missing," or "fca never said anything to anyone while she sat in jail, and faced death, because she was protecting her molester and was so skeered!!!" or "she was a good mom, trying to protect Caylee, and that's why she had to fake a job and keep Caylee away from big, bad gpa JoJo." Etc... Really? Have you reviewed any of the evidence? Fca has never been noble, or honest, or selfless, or a mother to her daughter ever, never ever, ever, imo. And posing in a picture, smiling with her daughter, so she could add another picture of herself to her photobucket account, doesn't make a good, amazing mom, either. Nor does playing nice, loving mom to your kid, for a grand total of about 5 minutes, when you're in front of your new friends, and a guy you want to climb in the sack with... Especially when we know how p'sed off fca really was for the inconvenience of having to drag around a snothead 2 yr old. The nerve of those lousy parents of hers, they are going to owe her bigtime!...

And if any supporters of fca have actually read the evidence, and interpret it different, or know something I don't, I welcome their opinion or knowledge. There's nothing more in this world that I'd love to be wrong about... my stomach hurts when I think about the behind closed doors treatment of little Caylee, by her mother. When I think about that picture of Caylee desperately crying with her arms out to be picked up, my stomach turns, and I can't even grasp the evil it takes for a mother, to not only not immediately comfort her, but to snap a picture of her child in agony. Sadistic pleasure, imo... That's why I haven't been able to let this go... Not when, unfortunately, I think I'm right about what the evidence says, and fca is walking the streets, enabled, toxic, and trying to make a buck off the precious daughter she hated... And we grew to love...:angel:

 

[cityslick]

BBM

Exactly skb... And not only did they brag about not using emotion, they mistakenly ignored vital evidence (31 days) claiming it was based on emotion and, therefore, had to be tossed :what:.. And they did follow the letter of the law, however, it was their very own revised version of the law and standards, fed to them by the dt... Colossal mistakes...

As you said, those who defend fca, and/or the verdict, typically have flawed logic and often misrepresent the facts, which, imo, is the only way to get to an acquittal... I really don't think most even know the basic facts. If they did, we wouldn't hear reasons such as, "I don't think fca ever even knew Caylee was missing," or "fca never said anything to anyone while she sat in jail, and faced death, because she was protecting her molester and was so skeered!!!" or "she was a good mom, trying to protect Caylee, and that's why she had to fake a job and keep Caylee away from big, bad gpa JoJo." Etc... Really? Have you reviewed any of the evidence? Fca has never been noble, or honest, or selfless, or a mother to her daughter ever, never ever, ever, imo. And posing in a picture, smiling with her daughter, so she could add another picture of herself to her photobucket account, doesn't make a good, amazing mom, either. Nor does playing nice, loving mom to your kid, for a grand total of about 5 minutes, when you're in front of your new friends, and a guy you want to climb in the sack with... Especially when we know how p'sed off fca really was for the inconvenience of having to drag around a snothead 2 yr old. The nerve of those lousy parents of hers, they are going to owe her bigtime!...

And if any supporters of fca have actually read the evidence, and interpret it different, or know something I don't, I welcome their opinion or knowledge. There's nothing more in this world that I'd love to be wrong about... my stomach hurts when I think about the behind closed doors treatment of little Caylee, by her mother. When I think about that picture of Caylee desperately crying with her arms out to be picked up, my stomach turns, and I can't even grasp the evil it takes for a mother, to not only not immediately comfort her, but to snap a picture of her child in agony. Sadistic pleasure, imo... That's why I haven't been able to let this go... Not when, unfortunately, I think I'm right about what the evidence says, and fca is walking the streets, enabled, toxic, and trying to make a buck off the precious daughter she hated... And we grew to love...:angel:

I don't really defend the verdict, I think she killed her daughter and should of been convicted. But I also don't agree with those who refuse to put the reasons of the acquittal on the prosecution, at least partially. I firmly believe that the prosecution always assumed they were going to get a guilty verdict based on their evidence. IMO, you never assume anything. You drive home the points in 100 different ways, then you do it another 100 different ways to show that there is one person and only one person that could do this crime. You throw the kitchen sink at the jury, from showing cell pings, to her exact movements, to previous history, etc. You do this because there is always a chance, no matter how small, that there will at least be one, let along 12, that the evidence will not be clear to. That will have questions. I don't care how monotonous it is, you repeat the same points over and over again. Lastly, you humanize the victim. Show and illustrate what was taken. Describe how a 2 year old was robbed of life by this person and why.

IMO, they (prosecution) didn't do that or at least enough of it. Perusing through the trial threads you'll find numerous posts about this (why didn't they do this, that, etc). Never assume a guilty verdict. Always assume a NG verdict and drive home till the end to get the best possible outcome.

 

[heidisams]

I don't really defend the verdict, I think she killed her daughter and should of been convicted. But I also don't agree with those who refuse to put the reasons of the acquittal on the prosecution, at least partially. I firmly believe that the prosecution always assumed they were going to get a guilty verdict based on their evidence. IMO, you never assume anything. You drive home the points in 100 different ways, then you do it another 100 different ways to show that there is one person and only one person that could do this crime. You throw the kitchen sink at the jury, from showing cell pings, to her exact movements, to previous history, etc. You do this because there is always a chance, no matter how small, that there will at least be one, let along 12, that the evidence will not be clear to. That will have questions. I don't care how monotonous it is, you repeat the same points over and over again. Lastly, you humanize the victim. Show and illustrate what was taken. Describe how a 2 year old was robbed of life by this person and why.

IMO, they (prosecution) didn't do that or at least enough of it. Perusing through the trial threads you'll find numerous posts about this (why didn't they do this, that, etc). Never assume a guilty verdict. Always assume a NG verdict and drive home till the end to get the best possible outcome.

I agree, there was definitely more they could've done, hence this thread... Mistakes made that led to fca being acquitted... But, imo, the evidence presented at trial was still sufficient enough to find her guilty. And ultimately, the jurors told us they disregarded the evidence anyway, because there was no COD... I'm not sure, even if the pt brought every single bit of admissible evidence in, that it would've helped with this group... Perhaps it could've helped if the jury had actually deliberated, and based their verdict on factual evidence, rather than some ridiculous, unproven theory proposed by a documented pathological liar...

Eta... The only exception I have to the above, would've been if the fool-proof suffocation search had been found, which would've changed the way this case was prosecuted... That's all, of course, in hindsight, and I have a feeling the jurors would've bought whatever spin the dt put on it, anyway... GA did it, timestamp was off, the purpose was suicide, etc...

Happy V-day all... And hugs sent to heaven, for little Caylee :angel:...


All jmo.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Frankly I had a sinking feeling this case was lost during jury selection...
I'm not even sure the foolproof suffocation searches would have made any impact on this Jury - heck they already had proof of Casey's chloroform searches with high levels in the trunk where her dead child had lain- they had neck breaking, researching how to kill 'that child' was going on for quite a while beforehand...

 

[zippitydoda]

I agree wholey ZsaZsa - IMO, the person who won this case for the DT was Ann Finnell.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Defens...-Case/-/475880/1949334/-/jxaqcbz/-/index.html

After being asked to serve on the defense team, Finnell helped pick the 12 jurors from Pinellas County who acquitted Anthony. "I think it was the key to winning the case, really, was the jury selection," Finnell said.

 

[bayouland]

I don't really defend the verdict, I think she killed her daughter and should of been convicted. But I also don't agree with those who refuse to put the reasons of the acquittal on the prosecution, at least partially. I firmly believe that the prosecution always assumed they were going to get a guilty verdict based on their evidence. IMO, you never assume anything. You drive home the points in 100 different ways, then you do it another 100 different ways to show that there is one person and only one person that could do this crime. You throw the kitchen sink at the jury, from showing cell pings, to her exact movements, to previous history, etc. You do this because there is always a chance, no matter how small, that there will at least be one, let along 12, that the evidence will not be clear to. That will have questions. I don't care how monotonous it is, you repeat the same points over and over again. Lastly, you humanize the victim. Show and illustrate what was taken. Describe how a 2 year old was robbed of life by this person and why.

IMO, they (prosecution) didn't do that or at least enough of it. Perusing through the trial threads you'll find numerous posts about this (why didn't they do this, that, etc). Never assume a guilty verdict. Always assume a NG verdict and drive home till the end to get the best possible outcome.

:gthanks:

 

[Intermezzo]

As for the "fool-proof" suffocation search being followed by the "suicide" search... it means to me what it always meant to me. That Caylee was not Casey's only intended victim. She had every intention of killing her parents too. She just never got around to it as she was having so much fun with her Bella Vita at the moment. Casey was going to deal with them when she reached the end of the hallway with them. There was going to come a time when her stories were not enough anymore. I believe she thought she at least had until Caylee's birthday. She was completely thrown for a loop on July 15th, 2008.

Casey never thought in a million years that Cindy would have called the police on her. Why would she? She had never called police for Casey's constant financial crimes against the family. Had Cindy not been so frantic... knowing that the smell she smelled coming from Casey's car was her dead grandbaby, she would have never called the police and she would be dead too. With police on the way, Casey didn't have time to complete her crime the way she had wanted. So she had to think quick and tell Cindy what she wanted to hear. That Caylee was alive, but someone else had her.

IMO OCA got on the computer with the intent to search for the term fool proof suffocation

In regards to BBM, someone please refresh my memory because I don't remember that Suicide/venturing into the suicide pit was TYPED into the web browser as a search but rather "clicked" on a link from the web page after searching/typing the words "fool proof suffocation"

 

[iluvmua]

I read somewhere that a jury member was cussed out by his sister etc.

 

[OEJ]

I've known a few blow-hards in my life. They are so busy knowing-it-all that they don't pause long enough to learn what they are talking about before they start spewing self-importantly on a matter. That is what I saw in the jury.

 

[AZlawyer]

IMO OCA got on the computer with the intent to search for the term fool proof suffocation

In regards to BBM, someone please refresh my memory because I don't remember that Suicide/venturing into the suicide pit was TYPED into the web browser as a search but rather "clicked" on a link from the web page after searching/typing the words "fool proof suffocation"

You are correct. There was no suicide search. The suicide-related page was just one of the search results clicked on from the "fool-proof suffication" [sic] search. So was the page about how to kill a rhododendron or whatever plant it was.

JB described these as a "suicide" search and a "gardening" search because apparently he has no understanding of how Google works.

 

[logicalgirl]

You are correct. There was no suicide search. The suicide-related page was just one of the search results clicked on from the "fool-proof suffication" [sic] search. So was the page about how to kill a rhododendron or whatever plant it was.

JB described these as a "suicide" search and a "gardening" search because apparently he has no understanding of how Google works.

Yup that works for me. I think we saw that during the trial....

 

[Tsunvirtual]

I live in Central Florida and attended the trial day three. I lost faith not in our system for justice, but in jury’s, with the outcome of this case. On a highly publicized case like this, the jurors they pick usually have limited knowledge of the case. That may translate to being apathetic. I believe they stopped listening after the opening statements. I'm still upset that there was no justice for Caylee.

1.) I think sequestering the jury was a mistake.
2.) Better explanation in closing as to what constitutes reasonable doubt
3.) Better explanation as to what lesser included could be utilized
4.) Not disproving further into the allegations of sexual abuse
5.) Not bringing in all of the computer usage on June 16th. It might have shown Caylee didn't drown that morning.
6.) Not utilizing social media more effectively.