I am STILL waiting to hear the FACTS and CONNECTIONS from Baez OS.
Clearly he placed ICA WITH Caylee at TOD which concludes that ICA was the last person to be with a live Caylee.
Then there is a huge gap and no real explanation from Baez as to the chain of events that leads us to finding Caylee bagged and thrown in the woods.
No real explanation WHY noone called 911 IF Caylee drowned.
No explanation for the 31 days partying, 84 searches of chloroform, the tattoo, the imaginary nanny and Mr Kronk hijacking remains of a toddler.
When is Baez going to explain and more importantly HOW will he pull it off??
Although the opening statements are not to be considered evidence when the jury begins deliberating, JB's opening statement is out there, lurking in the background, begging for an explanation.
By contrast, the state's opening statement was a chronological outline of what they presented with their case in chief.
JB
has to address the statements he made in his opening statement. So far, all he's done is present expert witnesses in an attempt to undermine the forensic evidence. Not only has he not been successful in undermining the forensics, but the testimony from some of the defense witnesses has provided more support for the state's case.
If Caylee wasn't murdered, and her death was the result of an accidental drowning as JB claims, he will have to present something that supports an accidental drowning.
But, what can JB present to support his claim of an accidental drowning? He can put George Anthony on the witness stand, and George will deny any knowledge of the scenario that JB outlined in his opening statement. He can put Cindy and Lee on the witness stand and they will deny any knowledge of Caylee drowning. They can put Roy Kronk on the witness stand who will deny any involvement other than finding the remains. They can put River Cruz/Crystal Holloway on the stand to relate what George told her about an accident, but that's not enough to prove accidental drowning.
Then, we have the state, who will present a rebuttal after the defense rests. They will present computer and phone logs along with work schedules of George and Cindy that will disprove an accidental drowning on June 16, 2008.
The way I see it, the defense is backed into a corner. They can offer a theory of an accidental drowning, but cannot offer anything to support that theory. So, the jury is left with:
1. a dead child whose remains were tossed off the side of the road like trash
2. a mother that hid the child's death for 31 days
3. a mother that spent those 31 days lying to friends and family
4. a mother who didn't exhibit any grief
5. a mother who spent those 31 days partying
6. a mother who when asked where her child was, made up a kidnapping story
7. evidence that suggests that chloroform was used on the child
8. evidence that suggests there was duct tape covering the child's mouth and nose
