BBM No, I'm sure the jury didn't have any idea what happened to Caylee, and that in my opinion, was because the State didn't tell them a cohesive story with any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. If I hadn't know from years of following this case, I would have been left in the outfield myself.
Circumstantial cases are fine, theoretical scenarios are not - who in their right mind would put anyone in jail on a story concocted by the State? Yes, that is how I see it, a concoction of unverifiable suppositions bolstered by questionalbe science, aided by liars on the witness stand.
A perfect storm. Yep, I'm starting to appreciate that phrase more and more.
My opinion only
Here - let me help you out. I know what happened to Caylee - she's dead. She ended up in the trunk of her mother's car leaking decomp fluid and stinking up the car so bad that many persons. experts and the canine dogs testified to it.
And her mother drove her dead body around for 1 - 4 days while it decomposed.
Then Caylee's remains were thrown off the side of the road to rot like so much trash.
That's what happened to Caylee.
Who did this to Caylee? Well, through the process of opportunity, evidence, and who most profited by this crime, the decision is obvious and easy.
But then here's the thing. I believe Grand Juries do not come to a decision to recommend charges easily. I don't believe SA's spend three years of their lives interviewing hundreds of witnesses and spending Floridian taxpayer dollars on a "whim". And I don't believe police official, whether sheriff, Lead detective or FBI persons get on the stand and lie over and over again.
And I know that no scientist will state any fact as a certainty - it is not part of their makeup or profession.
I saw a jury who could have come to one of three decisions, decending from very serious involvement to some involvement. And I saw a jury who feels "horrible" about their decision and did not think to go back over the evidence to double check they were making the right decision.
Theory bored them. Like many posters here who have opinions - they got bored during the scientific evidence, which was what this case was all about. I love the internet, but to me it has turned us all in to one minute brains. We have no need to consider a question - just type in a question and there's your answer in less than two seconds. So why bother to exercise your brain at all?
Apparently this jury thought they were googling their decision. Wah, no one gave us the answer and we don't want to actually have to find it ourselves.
Pathetic.