The evidence was NOT vague, though. Not vague at all, to a majority of the public. A majority of people who've heard, seen and processed the evidence provided do not find it, as a whole, too "vague" to conclude Caylee died because of criminal neglect or homicide.
Why a minority of folks find the evidence to be "vague" appears, to me, to be because of a lack of direct evidence or a "smoking gun". I have this impression by the reasons provided by pro-verdict folks for their support of the NG verdict.
"Vagueness" is NOT merely a personal opinion. Like I said before, personal opinion has no place in determining guilt in a court of law. In personal life? Sure. But in such an important context as a murder trial, the individuals determining guilt must adhere to higher standards of decision making. Like a scientist with a hypothesis, the juror must follow a well-proscribed pathway, employing logic and reason that may or may not reflect their PERSONAL opinion.
My gut reaction, from day 31, was that Caylee Marie was killed by her mother. It just so happens that the evidence provided by the prosecution underscores my gut reaction. My gut reaction was IRRELEVANT. In fact, I'd feel GLAD to know that Caylee did not die at her mother's hand
. It would give me a kind of relief to believe she drowned accidentally. That no one mishandled and neglected her, but that she simply died due to an understandable albeit tragic mistake anyone could make.
As the Sunshine Laws uncovered the reams and reams of interviews and examinations by this and that expert, I had to admit there was a LOT of very creepy details that cast Casey Anthony in a bad light. As these creepy details survived Frye hearings and were whittled down to undramatic bone, my gut feeling was justified, but who cares? My gut feeling is MINE. It is not a reflection of a greater reality, necessarily. For me to insist that it is is pure egocentricity. I am not an arbiter of Truth. I am just a human being subject to irrationality and emotionalism, not to mention my basic conviction that it is not HARD to raise a child without KILLING them. In fact, most people DO raise their children without killing them. And in light of exhaustive statistics, people who end up with dead children are abnormally negligent or murderous.
The rest of the picture is filled in with evidence.
For Casey Anthony, we have LIES. Lies, lies, lies. Theft. Lack of conscience. Unremitting tolerance for the pain she caused others. This paints a picture, and not exactly an uncommon picture. It is the picture of a sociopathic personality. A person without empathy or awareness of the pain others suffer because of their actions. A relentless adherance to "what about MEEEE???"
We also have a lack of concern for the welfare of Caylee, which undoubtedly would have shown up SOMEWHERE, but didn't.
Add this to the discarded body in the swamp, with a length of duct tape matching the circumference of a tiny skull still attached to a mat of hair and a mandible stubbornly attached in spite of the frailest connective tissue, now gone due to time and decomposition . . .
Not vague. No vagueness to be found anywhere.
How to make chloroform was searched on the A's computer. That is clear. There was a high level of chloroform in the trunk. What evidence was given:
That KC bought chloroform
That KC bought the ingredients to make chloroform
That KC had the skills to make chloroform from scratch
That KC used chloroform on Caylee ever, in any way
That KC stole the chloroform
That KC has ever even touched a bottle of chloroform
When did KC use the chloroform
Where did KC use the chloroform
Why did KC use the chloroform
What caused the high level of chloroform in the trunk
What could have caused the high level
That KC used chloroform on Caylee while she was in the trunk
In the end, JA could only hope KC used the chloroform on Caylee so Caylee didn't suffer. The prosecution should present evidence as to how the chloroform was used, they should present hope as evidence. The chloroform evidence was vague.
The substance like adipocere. If the state had pursued the further testing necessary to prove this substance was adipocere, and it was proven to be adipocere, they would have had direct evidence that a dead body had been in the trunk. They did not do so, WHY, as this left this piece of evidence questionable or vague. Had they did the additional testing, and it had been human adipocere, JA would have pounded this home. This would have solidified all the trunk evidence, so again you have to ask WHY didn't they take one more step. Did they know it was not adipocere, and that is why they didn't? Who knows.
The duct tape. The duct tape was in the vicinity of the skull, near the mouth and nasal cavity, and attached to a hair matt by sediment and debris. The state did not call RK as a witness. RK gave multiple statements interviews and depos, and his story changed every time. Area A was compromised by RK's manipulation of the skull, the amount of manipulation depends on which of his stories is true. RK's stories change, and this makes them untrustworthy which is why the state did not call the hero who found Caylee's remains to the stand. His testimony hurts the states case, because it causes reasonable doubt as to the actual location of the duct tape. According to the inferences (guesses) made by JA and Dr. G. the duct tape was placed over Caylee's mouth and nose. According to the superimposed photoshop movie, the duct tape could have been placed over Caylee's mouth and nose. Inferences about placement of the duct tape that were made without regard to contradictory statements by the man who found the remains, testimony of Dr. Spitz who testified that the skull was laying on its side while decomposing, and potential manipulation caused from animal activity and or Tropical Storm Faye, imo equals reasonable doubt. Also, did the state prove
KC ever had duct tape in her hands to use
KC used the duct tape on Caylee
When KC used the duct tape
Where KC used the duct tape
How KC used the duct tape
The duct tape was used for suffocation (not to stop leakage)
Why KC used the duct tape (suffocation, to silence her, to stop leakage)
Who the mystery DNA belonged to
Too many questions about the duct tape remained unanswered, which to me puts this evidence in the gray area, which is vague.
The barely visible stain in the trunk, that had no DNA, and no blood found in it. There was no blackness to the stain. Vague imo. Even if Caylee's body had been in the trunk
Who placed the body in the trunk
Why did they place the body in the trunk
Why did they leave the body in the trunk for 2.8 days
When did they place the body in the trunk
When did they take the body out of the trunk
why did they take the body out of the trunk
who took the body out of the trunk
The prosecution did not answer these questions, they left it up to the jury to speculate on these answers, and the jury is not allowed to speculate.
The prosecution did not prove
When Caylee died, where Caylee died, how Caylee died, why Caylee died, who killed Caylee, that Caylee did not die by accident, that Caylee did not drown by accident, that Caylee died by chloroform overdose, or chemical overdose, or suffocation by duct tape or any other means. That KC was the last one to see Caylee alive. The state left a mountain of questions for the jury to answer, and in order to answer these questions the jury would have to speculate or guess, because the state could not prove them. The jury is not supposed to speculate or guess. How could the jury possibly convict on the first 3 charges with so much speculation necessary to come to the conclusion of guilty.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only
