Why did the State have so many witnesses testify that FCA was a "good" Mom ... to dispel the theory of an accident proposed in the DT opening statement. "Good" moms call 911 in the case of an accident.
Well fo me to backfired on them then.
With all due respect, you are obviously seeing things thru the DT's rose-colored glasses ... you forget JB's comment about "cutting the cheese", you forget JB's lack of ability to ask non-leading questions or questions that had already been asked and answered. You forget JB's obvious discovery violations ... all of those things are what led to the State's numerous objections and sidebars.
To me the procecution seemed to be GRANDSTANDING, objection, substained, and then they would shake their head like he was dumb.
And where would anyone get the idea that the prosecution team is over-confident ? I don't remember any interviews with JA/LDB/FG or even Lawson Lamar expressing such feelings.
There you go about interviews, I'm talking about what I observed in the trial, they didn't tie the evidence to KC they took it for granted they were confident they had the case won.
As far as the expert witnesses go, let's say they cancelled each other out although I believe the State's experts did a great job. But, even if they cancelled each other out and the jury did not consider the expert testimony, we still have all of the "consciousness of guilt" evidence presented by the State. No report for 31 days, lying to investigators, Bella Vita tattoo, etc.
Since when is lying, and a tatoo evidence of murder. (I get consciousness of guilt, too. )
These particular jurors did not understand how to connect the dots as they could have convicted FCA by the process of elimination. If the jurors were so confident in their verdict, why didn't they hang around and explain how they arrived at it ? Why didn't they explain how in <10 hours of deliberation, they could go over 6+ weeks of testimony ? Why wouldn't they explain how the possible sentence played into their decision ? Why wouldn't they explain how they expected the why,where,how & when of Caylee's death when legally it's not required to convict ?
The evidence to connect the dots wasn't there. I don't think you have to know exact: why, where, when and how but you have to connect the person that is accused. It is my fervent opinion that when the juror's names are released, some of them will come forward and say they made a huge mistake.
I think they did what they did by the evidence. They may think they mad a mistake but it will be because of Talking heads and things that weren't in the trial, so how will that opininion matter. That is why you have a trial, judges to decide what comes in and what doesn't. That is why you have witnesses expert and otherwise. You have to but the monkey on the procecutions back, LE and whomever put the case together.