Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

[Etiana]

I joined this wonderful forum recently. It's a little... okay, a lot overwhelming, I feel like a very, very tiny fish swimming in a huge pond! But, I joined to have a place where I could learn more about the history and background of this case. I'm grateful for the wealth of information here!

I remember hearing about the death of Caylee and feeling sad that a little girl had died but not really knowing anything about how or why. I watch very little t.v. but I do go online for my news. Twenty days ago, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of I clicked on a link to the trial and joined in during Linda Drane Burdick's opening statement. I've been absorbed in the trial ever since. So, I'm essentially hearing and seeing everything for the first time. I've wanted to join in the conversations more but I've been worried I'll come across as a complete idiot because I know so little!

Please forgive my simplified comments and understand I have a gazillion thoughts and questions that constantly swirl inside my head and my post is only in response to the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

* I believe ICA is guilty of killing Caylee but I'm unsettled as to how it happened.

* There's no question in my mind that Caylee was in ICA's trunk and that she drove around with her in it for several days. I can't bear the thought of Caylee being in the trunk and then dumped in the woods like garbage

* I admit that I can't wrap my head around how deceitful ICA is. I can't wrap my head around her "on beyond" inappropriate behaviour after Caylee died. Even if by some slim chance it was an accident and she covered it up, I can't fathom how she could do what she did and then party and act as if nothing at all was wrong. And then to lie to her parents while Caylee was missing all the while knowing she was dead and then lie to the police and in jail to her family and to everyone who was out searching for Caylee. It just makes reason stare. Basically I have a difficult time even watching her in the courtroom. She puts on a show for the jury most of the time with her fake tears. Her body language screams guilty.

* I don't know what to make of George and Cindy Anthony.

* When Cindy testified at the beginning you could see that all of this was tearing her up, her emotion seemed real. It does appear that there's a lot of dysfunction in the family. Cindy seems like she could be overbearing and hot headed. And yet at the same time from the tapes at the jail it seems like ICA would walk all over her Mom and Dad and anyone else for that matter. I believe her grief, she must miss Caylee so much.

* I don't believe that George was involved with Caylee's death at all. It abhors me what ICA is accusing him of and yet I can't say I'm certain there wasn't abused involved in some form. However, even if that's a possibility it does NOT justify what ICA has done. Overall it has bothered me that JB's opening statements opened the door for doubt about certain things

* JB is infuriating, irritating and the perfect lawyer for ICA, they seem well suited for each other. He reminds me of a sleazy, slimy used car salesman. I can barely stand to listen to him speak and I dislike the way he talks down to the jury, does he honestly think they don't see right through him? He seems like he's in it for the money and fame. He has managed to come across as unprepared and pretentious and lately I'm starting to worry that his shoddy behaviour will be to Casey's benefit. I don't care for Mason either.

* Jeff Ashton is brilliant! I admit that I was having a difficult time listening to him at first with all his coughing and he seemed a little disorganized with his thoughts and to be honest a touch boring, I preferred Linda at the podium. Now that the defense is presenting their case, I see a totally different person in Ashton - he's passionate, relentless in the best possible kind of way and it's a privilege to watch him blow the defense testimony out of the water. I truly believe the prosecutors care about Caylee and are fighting for justice in her behalf.

* Thank goodness for testimonies like Dr. G!

* Judge Perry is..... well.... forgive me - simply adorable I respect the concern he has for the jury. He's forthright, fair and extremely knowledgable and I'm so impressed with him, I can't imagine anyone else being the judge for this trial.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I joined this wonderful forum recently. It's a little... okay, a lot overwhelming, I feel like a very, very tiny fish swimming in a huge pond! But, I joined to have a place where I could learn more about the history and background of this case. I'm grateful for the wealth of information here!

I remember hearing about the death of Caylee and feeling sad that a little girl had died but not really knowing anything about how or why. I watch very little t.v. but I do go online for my news. Twenty days ago, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of I clicked on a link to the trial and joined in during Linda Drane Burdick's opening statement. I've been absorbed in the trial ever since. So, I'm essentially hearing and seeing everything for the first time. I've wanted to join in the conversations more but I've been worried I'll come across as a complete idiot because I know so little!

Please forgive my simplified comments and understand I have a gazillion thoughts and questions that constantly swirl inside my head and my post is only in response to the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

* I believe ICA is guilty of killing Caylee but I'm unsettled as to how it happened.

* There's no question in my mind that Caylee was in ICA's trunk and that she drove around with her in it for several days. I can't bear the thought of Caylee being in the trunk and then dumped in the woods like garbage

* I admit that I can't wrap my head around how deceitful ICA is. I can't wrap my head around her "on beyond" inappropriate behaviour after Caylee died. Even if by some slim chance it was an accident and she covered it up, I can't fathom how she could do what she did and then party and act as if nothing at all was wrong. And then to lie to her parents while Caylee was missing all the while knowing she was dead and then lie to the police and in jail to her family and to everyone who was out searching for Caylee. It just makes reason stare. Basically I have a difficult time even watching her in the courtroom. She puts on a show for the jury most of the time with her fake tears. Her body language screams guilty.

* I don't know what to make of George and Cindy Anthony.

* When Cindy testified at the beginning you could see that all of this was tearing her up, her emotion seemed real. It does appear that there's a lot of dysfunction in the family. Cindy seems like she could be overbearing and hot headed. And yet at the same time from the tapes at the jail it seems like ICA would walk all over her Mom and Dad and anyone else for that matter. I believe her grief, she must miss Caylee so much.

* I don't believe that George was involved with Caylee's death at all. It abhors me what ICA is accusing him of and yet I can't say I'm certain there wasn't abused involved in some form. However, even if that's a possibility it does NOT justify what ICA has done. Overall it has bothered me that JB's opening statements opened the door for doubt about certain things

* JB is infuriating, irritating and the perfect lawyer for ICA, they seem well suited for each other. He reminds me of a sleazy, slimy used car salesman. I can barely stand to listen to him speak and I dislike the way he talks down to the jury, does he honestly think they don't see right through him? He seems like he's in it for the money and fame. He has managed to come across as unprepared and pretentious and lately I'm starting to worry that his shoddy behaviour will be to Casey's benefit. I don't care for Mason either.

* Jeff Ashton is brilliant! I admit that I was having a difficult time listening to him at first with all his coughing and he seemed a little disorganized with his thoughts and to be honest a touch boring, I preferred Linda at the podium. Now that the defense is presenting their case, I see a totally different person in Ashton - he's passionate, relentless in the best possible kind of way and it's a privilege to watch him blow the defense testimony out of the water. I truly believe the prosecutors care about Caylee and are fighting for justice in her behalf.

* Thank goodness for testimonies like Dr. G!

* Judge Perry is..... well.... forgive me - simply adorable I respect the concern he has for the jury. He's forthright, fair and extremely knowledgable and I'm so impressed with him, I can't imagine anyone else being the judge for this trial.

Welcome! Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down for us. I'm new to posting here too, but I've found most everyone to be very helpful and thoughtful. I agree with most everything you said... It's such a bizarre case, isn't it?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[Leah0107]

Saw some others posting on this so I wanted to chime in.
Perhaps there is no evidence of abuse per se, that doesn't mean that it did not exist. And what I mean by that is..
Caylee lived with and was supported by her grandparents - they clothed, fed and provided for her. Listen, I had my son at 16. My parents did the same thing and if fact provided over and above for my son and me while I also grew up some more. So I am not dogging the Anthony's in anyway for this. Thank God for grandparents who care! God knows where I would have been without them.
Her grandparents love and care was evident by testimony given-they loved her, spent time with her, did special things for her (i.e., the play house, birthday parties, spending time with great-grandparents, pictures, etc.) Casey's love and care are not 'evident' to me at all. Although Baez at the beginning of the state's case asked questions of Casey's 'friends' about whether Caylee was fed, clothed, etc., and if they thought Casey was a good mother. Their response was yes. But what evidence to support that is there (the good mother part)? I haven't seen one shred of proof that she was a good mother at all. Because she didn't yell at or hit her while in the presence of her friends is hardly clear-cut proof that she was a good mom. In fact, one thing that has made me questions this is that at least on the day of the June 16th, the day Caylee died, she was on the phone or texting almost continually the entire day (from midnight on) with only a few breaks. Is that representative of how she was every day? If that is representative of how she was on a regular basis, Caylee got very little attention from Casey and wasn't a priority at all in her life. I don't know - just sayin. I don't want to read something into what's not there, but I believe there is more in her past behavior than what has been said-at the very least neglect. I hope this is addressed in someway either in support of or refute of these things.

 

[tamild]

After today's testimony by Cindy Anthony, I was wondering what impact it had on others who are new to this case.

For me, I hadn't given any weight to the internet searches to begin with. In addition to that, I felt the whole chloroform thing was a bit of a stretch. I believed the testimony about chloroform in the trunk, but I could never get how the dots were connecting. In other words, there seemed to be a lot of things alluding to chloroform being used on Caylee, but no one was spelling out a theory on how or why it would've been used.

Now today we saw Cindy Anthony's testimony, and heaven help me, I don't believe a word of what she was saying. I thought I heard it said in expert testimony that either chlorophyll or chloroform was misspelled. I doubt that a nurse would misspell either of those words. I also don't understand why anyone would search for either of those words if their dog was listless. A search for "is bamboo poisonous to dogs" or something along those lines would be more appropriate. Furthermore, there seemed to be a lot of deception in Cindy's testimony with regard to her being at home even though her work records show she was at work.

When Cindy took the stand at the start of the trial, I remember feeling sympathy for her, but I also remember that there was something "off" about her testimony. I felt she was maybe being disingenuous...perhaps painting a rosier picture of her family life than was actually the case. Today didn't seem too much different, except that the dishonesty was more obvious.

Now I am left wondering....if Cindy felt that the internet searches were damaging enough for her to take the blame for them, should I now give the searches merit where I didn't think they had any before? Could there really be some truth to this whole chloroform thing?

Anxious to hear others thoughts on the matter

 

[GeekyGirl]

After today's testimony by Cindy Anthony, I was wondering what impact it had on others who are new to this case.

For me, I hadn't given any weight to the internet searches to begin with. In addition to that, I felt the whole chloroform thing was a bit of a stretch. I believed the testimony about chloroform in the trunk, but I could never get how the dots were connecting. In other words, there seemed to be a lot of things alluding to chloroform being used on Caylee, but no one was spelling out a theory on how or why it would've been used.

Now today we saw Cindy Anthony's testimony, and heaven help me, I don't believe a word of what she was saying. I thought I heard it said in expert testimony that either chlorophyll or chloroform was misspelled. I doubt that a nurse would misspell either of those words. I also don't understand why anyone would search for either of those words if their dog was listless. A search for "is bamboo poisonous to dogs" or something along those lines would be more appropriate. Furthermore, there seemed to be a lot of deception in Cindy's testimony with regard to her being at home even though her work records show she was at work.

When Cindy took the stand at the start of the trial, I remember feeling sympathy for her, but I also remember that there was something "off" about her testimony. I felt she was maybe being disingenuous...perhaps painting a rosier picture of her family life than was actually the case. Today didn't seem too much different, except that the dishonesty was more obvious.

Now I am left wondering....if Cindy felt that the internet searches were damaging enough for her to take the blame for them, should I now give the searches merit where I didn't think they had any before? Could there really be some truth to this whole chloroform thing?

Anxious to hear others thoughts on the matter

I never placed much weight on the chloroform and/or searches either. However,I sort feel like her whole testimony was just to mitigate the searches for any juror that MIGHT be swayed by the chloroform searches. Just confusion and misdirection from the defense IMO.

 

[cluciano63]

I am tempted to drop all of the computer searches from my "deliberation" after today. Partly because Cindy probably lied, but I have never read her deposition and neither have the jurors. She lied pretty well, if she did lie. Anyway, assuming she is a liar, I am now wondering if anyone in this family can tell the truth, or doesn't have something to hide. I already thought dad and brother acted very oddly/suspiciously on the jail tapes. Now we have mom in on covering up something.
I am not too far from believing they were ALL involved in covering up Caylee's death from the start. If I assume all Anthonys lie, I can believe they would cover up any kind of death...accidental or otherwise.

 

[ladylurker]

tamild, great post. i have followed this case from the beginning and spent way too many hours of my life reading discovery, but your question about whether you should now give it weight BECAUSE she is being deceptive is the same one i have.

i am not convinced on the chloroform at all, nor am i convinced the duct tape was the murder weapon. the 84 searches (whether or not that is true, which seems to be debated as of today) swayed me, but this swayed me more. she is lying about it (IMO), and if you are going to commit perjury there better be a good reason. so to me, it seems a lot more likely that there is something here that CA does not want us to know about casey and chloroform. so now i am trying harder to understand the chloroform evidence because the deception makes it seem a lot more suspicious to me than it originally did.

i do wonder what the jury thinks of this testimony and whether it plants reasonable doubt or inadvertently increases suspicion.

 

[GeekyGirl]

tamild, great post. i have followed this case from the beginning and spent way too many hours of my life reading discovery, but your question about whether you should now give it weight BECAUSE she is being deceptive is the same one i have.

i am not convinced on the chloroform at all, nor am i convinced the duct tape was the murder weapon. the 84 searches (whether or not that is true, which seems to be debated as of today) swayed me, but this swayed me more. she is lying about it (IMO), and if you are going to commit perjury there better be a good reason. so to me, it seems a lot more likely that there is something here that CA does not want us to know about casey and chloroform. so now i am trying harder to understand the chloroform evidence because the deception makes it seem a lot more suspicious to me than it originally did.

i do wonder what the jury thinks of this testimony and whether it plants reasonable doubt or inadvertently increases suspicion.

That's an interesting question. I'm sure the DT put her on to decrease suspicion, but it might have backfired. Knowing what we know, I still tend to believe the chloroform is a red herring, but I think the DT felt like they had to address it based on what the jurors have heard.

 

[Sabrina2011]

tamild, great post. i have followed this case from the beginning and spent way too many hours of my life reading discovery, but your question about whether you should now give it weight BECAUSE she is being deceptive is the same one i have.

i am not convinced on the chloroform at all, nor am i convinced the duct tape was the murder weapon. the 84 searches (whether or not that is true, which seems to be debated as of today) swayed me, but this swayed me more. she is lying about it (IMO), and if you are going to commit perjury there better be a good reason. so to me, it seems a lot more likely that there is something here that CA does not want us to know about casey and chloroform. so now i am trying harder to understand the chloroform evidence because the deception makes it seem a lot more suspicious to me than it originally did.

i do wonder what the jury thinks of this testimony and whether it plants reasonable doubt or inadvertently increases suspicion.

That is an Excellent point! It is the fact she would get up (and use that I am in charge voice I saw in the past that rubs me the wrong way) and it is what she is not telling us.. Why say you did the chloroform search.. why? because you want us to stop thinking it has anything to do with the babies death?

good observation...

 

[TexasLori]

I joined this wonderful forum recently. It's a little... okay, a lot overwhelming, I feel like a very, very tiny fish swimming in a huge pond! But, I joined to have a place where I could learn more about the history and background of this case. I'm grateful for the wealth of information here!

I remember hearing about the death of Caylee and feeling sad that a little girl had died but not really knowing anything about how or why. I watch very little t.v. but I do go online for my news. Twenty days ago, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of I clicked on a link to the trial and joined in during Linda Drane Burdick's opening statement. I've been absorbed in the trial ever since. So, I'm essentially hearing and seeing everything for the first time. I've wanted to join in the conversations more but I've been worried I'll come across as a complete idiot because I know so little!

Please forgive my simplified comments and understand I have a gazillion thoughts and questions that constantly swirl inside my head and my post is only in response to the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

* I believe ICA is guilty of killing Caylee but I'm unsettled as to how it happened.

* There's no question in my mind that Caylee was in ICA's trunk and that she drove around with her in it for several days. I can't bear the thought of Caylee being in the trunk and then dumped in the woods like garbage

* I admit that I can't wrap my head around how deceitful ICA is. I can't wrap my head around her "on beyond" inappropriate behaviour after Caylee died. Even if by some slim chance it was an accident and she covered it up, I can't fathom how she could do what she did and then party and act as if nothing at all was wrong. And then to lie to her parents while Caylee was missing all the while knowing she was dead and then lie to the police and in jail to her family and to everyone who was out searching for Caylee. It just makes reason stare. Basically I have a difficult time even watching her in the courtroom. She puts on a show for the jury most of the time with her fake tears. Her body language screams guilty.

* I don't know what to make of George and Cindy Anthony.

* When Cindy testified at the beginning you could see that all of this was tearing her up, her emotion seemed real. It does appear that there's a lot of dysfunction in the family. Cindy seems like she could be overbearing and hot headed. And yet at the same time from the tapes at the jail it seems like ICA would walk all over her Mom and Dad and anyone else for that matter. I believe her grief, she must miss Caylee so much.

* I don't believe that George was involved with Caylee's death at all. It abhors me what ICA is accusing him of and yet I can't say I'm certain there wasn't abused involved in some form. However, even if that's a possibility it does NOT justify what ICA has done. Overall it has bothered me that JB's opening statements opened the door for doubt about certain things

* JB is infuriating, irritating and the perfect lawyer for ICA, they seem well suited for each other. He reminds me of a sleazy, slimy used car salesman. I can barely stand to listen to him speak and I dislike the way he talks down to the jury, does he honestly think they don't see right through him? He seems like he's in it for the money and fame. He has managed to come across as unprepared and pretentious and lately I'm starting to worry that his shoddy behaviour will be to Casey's benefit. I don't care for Mason either.

* Jeff Ashton is brilliant! I admit that I was having a difficult time listening to him at first with all his coughing and he seemed a little disorganized with his thoughts and to be honest a touch boring, I preferred Linda at the podium. Now that the defense is presenting their case, I see a totally different person in Ashton - he's passionate, relentless in the best possible kind of way and it's a privilege to watch him blow the defense testimony out of the water. I truly believe the prosecutors care about Caylee and are fighting for justice in her behalf.

* Thank goodness for testimonies like Dr. G!

* Judge Perry is..... well.... forgive me - simply adorable I respect the concern he has for the jury. He's forthright, fair and extremely knowledgable and I'm so impressed with him, I can't imagine anyone else being the judge for this trial.

Welcome! Thanks for coming out to play! You will find that everyone here is very nice and respectful, so don't be shy.

PS I think Judge Perry is adorable too!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I asked my mom if she were following the trial, and she claimed that she was, but then she asked me what state it's occurring in, so she's definitely more of a casual follower. She hasn't watched the actual trial, but she watches all the shows that talk about it. She believes Casey is 100% guilty. She believes that Casey is a psychopath, and think it's disturbing how any mother who could just murder their 2-year-old daughter in cold blood. She was very vocal about how repulsed she is by Casey murdering Caylee just so she could live a party girl lifestyle. She wants Casey to get the DP, and doesn't believe she will be acquitted.

 

[txsvicki]

My mother is 85 and started following the trial, but also didn't know what state it happened in. She thinks George looks guilty of something when he was rubbing his face, but doesn't think he's guilty of child molestation. I won't repeat what she said about Casey or motive, but she doesn't see what Tony saw in Casey. She didn't have a very high opinion of Casey's boyfriends either.

What the jury might be thinking after today depends on who they believe. If they believe Vaas and the other guy they may be thinking that the little dog could have been drugged and was having trouble recuperating. That chloroform could have been made earlier than people think. Maybe a revised batch needed to be looked at since the dog was still alive.
They probably believe there were a few small stains on the trunk liner when the car was bought.
If they connected it, they may realize that the felony charges were for checks. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. They may have been wondering what kind of felony Casey had been charged with. Checks aren't that bad, but any felony is, of course

 

[Pondering Mind]

tamild, great post. i have followed this case from the beginning and spent way too many hours of my life reading discovery, but your question about whether you should now give it weight BECAUSE she is being deceptive is the same one i have.

i am not convinced on the chloroform at all, nor am i convinced the duct tape was the murder weapon. the 84 searches (whether or not that is true, which seems to be debated as of today) swayed me, but this swayed me more. she is lying about it (IMO), and if you are going to commit perjury there better be a good reason. so to me, it seems a lot more likely that there is something here that CA does not want us to know about casey and chloroform. so now i am trying harder to understand the chloroform evidence because the deception makes it seem a lot more suspicious to me than it originally did.

i do wonder what the jury thinks of this testimony and whether it plants reasonable doubt or inadvertently increases suspicion.

I've had questions about the chloroform and other computer searches myself and never put a whole lot of stock in them because I just was never comfortable with much of that..but as you said..the fact that I believe Cindy is lying through her teeth now makes me believe MORE now that there's something more to them than I originally thought..Cindy has done more harm to ICA's defense from the get go with her half truths..white lies...whatever she wants to call them. She should have just kept her mouth shut if she couldn't tell the truth...moo

 

[AnotherGladysKravitz]

I recently did my clinicals at a assisted living facility. 100% of the residents we spoke to thought that she was guilty. I don't think the jury will be fooled.

 

[Donjeta]

After today's testimony by Cindy Anthony, I was wondering what impact it had on others who are new to this case.

snipped for space

I did not believe Cindy Anthony yesterday on the stand for a moment. She just didn't make any sense about why she was home although her time card said otherwise and why she would record she was at work when she wasn't if the problem was not being allowed overtime, since falsifying the records in that direction would create overtime, not decrease it. I also didn't hear a reasonable explanation why her dogs eating bamboo prompted her to search for chlorophyll or chloroform instead of "is bamboo dangerous for dogs?" or "dogs eating bamboo" or even "chlorophyll and dogs". Furthermore, I don't believe she'd have needed to google alcohol to find out if it's okay to give it to toddlers. It also sounded like a lie about the stain in the trunk. No reason whatsoever for her not to have said it three years ago, and she sounded IMO like she was intentionally muddling the issue talking about some different stains altogether.

The way she went to a lot of unrequested detail about why it's not worthwhile to check with her employers because they are a national and have offices in several states and therefore they haven't kept her emails from back then. It was exactly like Casey who had just talked to her coworker from Universal but it was impossible to get her phone number because she moved out of state two months ago.

And when confronted about not saying anything about it in her depo she said nyeh nyeh, you didn't ask me that question specifically then. Which means either that her failing memory is exceptionally selective in that she didn't remember those searches from a few months ago back in that deposition but she remembers now exactly which questions she was asked in the depo a couple of years ago... or that they carefully went through her depo with the attorneys before the testimony to see which specific holes they could find in the questions asked.

I now must believe that Cindy Anthony would lie to cover for her daughter and if she is willing to do that I must question if some of the other lacking evidence is missing because of a cover-up operation. She did say she cleaned the trunk so maybe some of the missing hairs and the rest of the legs of the fly Dr. Haskell found went that way?

The way she blurted out that Casey was arrested for check charges made me wonder if it was
A) unconscious resentment slipping through for being forced in the position to lie for her (I assume she had a choice but in her mind she might not have)
or B) a rehearsed attempt to get a mistrial since IIRC her previous charges were inadmissible.

 

[SarahEcho]

I really think this case has turned into one giant blob of WTH. I would not want to be a juror trying to wade through all this confusion.

What does "Hand to Hand Combat" have to do with the death of Caylee? Unless the state is alleging that Casey was training another toddler to kill Caylee, as a juror you would have to ask, how does that have any bearing? That just opens the door for me.

The impression I get with this case, just from what I see in testimony and some recap is that getting from point A to point B is murky, at best.

 

[tamild]

Now that the defense seems to be wrapping up their case, I was wondering if there were any thoughts from other "newbies" to this case.

For me, the defense's case has been a big letdown. I expected something more. I didn't hear much of anything that would support their opening statement.

For me, it all boils down to two things...1) duct tape on Caylee, and 2) smell of decomposition in the car. In my mind, everything else is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Nova24]

The Defense promised too much in the opening. I think they should have left George out of it as well as the abuse claims and gone straight accidental drowning with only Casey involved. I think she chlorod her and killed her but jurors might have believing drowning had she admitted it and said in a panic she threw her in trunk and planned a cover up. That seems more believede than the story they spun.

I think Casey did tie her attorneys hands as she wants to be the victim. Even in jail she kept saying how she was the victim, money should be used for her, her whole life is turned upside down, etc. Nothing about the poor dead baby. And self absorbed as she is no way would she stay in jail for years if she had thought sooner to blame her father. She doesn't just want to blame the father but say it was ALL on him. No one will see anyone but Caylee as the true victim here.

 

[cluciano63]

The defense was horrible from start to finish...that said, I am not 100% convinced by the state that Casey murdered Caylee in cold blood...am convinced that she killed her by something she did, some sort of neglect, abuse etc...

 

[Hali]

Now that the defense seems to be wrapping up their case, I was wondering if there were any thoughts from other "newbies" to this case.

For me, the defense's case has been a big letdown. I expected something more. I didn't hear much of anything that would support their opening statement.

For me, it all boils down to two things...1) duct tape on Caylee, and 2) smell of decomposition in the car. In my mind, everything else is smoke and mirrors.

As one of the "newbies;" A beautiful little girl, born into an evidently extremely dysfunctional family, died under strange and unknown circumstances. The actions/reactions of her family members after her death are even more strange.

After all these weeks, the case still appears circumstantial to me. The opening statements of both the defense and persecution are a non-issue to me; they're not evidence. Based on the evidence, while having a personal opinion as to what MAY have occurred, I wouldn't be able to give a guilty verdict.