Good for the Jury and the Jury System!!

The question is not is she guilty but is she guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented.

I have no idea what weight the jury gave to the fact that the duct tape is usually a great source of fingerprints and that the defendant's father was forensically aware. I have no idea what weight the jury gave to the father's evasiveness and belligerence, but it did seem he was not frank and forthright. He certainly can not claim to both recognize the smell of a human death based on his police work and to have driven away and kept silent without the jury wondering about the weight of those actions.

I doubt there was any sort of unknown nefarious kidnappers acting in cahoots with the meter reader and I imagine the jury was not swayed by that either.

The question is not whether she killed the kid but whether the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Congenital liar? Yes, but the indictment did not charge her with that.
Wonderful roommate? Yes. Did she kill the kid to go nightclubbing or was the nightclubbing no more significant to her than the favors she performed for her other roommates by doing their laundry and ironing. Based on her interaction with the child there was no reason to assume that the nightclubbing meant anything more to her than the ironing did. Sure it more enjoyable but nothing showed a particular motive.

The jury of "twelve good men and true" may now contain women as well but I still maintain that the "good" and "true" remain applicable. In olden days a jury would be kept without light or heat and without food or water until they rendered a verdict. It took courage in those days. Now in our modern times jurors often have it much easier, but even this jury which had been sequestered knew they would be under great scrutiny and they bore up very well.

Casey Anthony Trial

They are off and running.

Right out of the gate, the defense plays the Sex Abuse card which quite frankly is the proper time to play it if he is ever going to play it. No 31 days. The kid drowned in the pool. The mother reacted badly due to a lifelong habit of dysfunctional performance and denial. Oh and by the way the Defendant's Father started right away screaming at her about lifetime in jail and cowed her into not calling 911 or proceeding properly. No allegation, however, that the drowning incident which was unwitnessed by the defendant was actually an unlawful act by the grandfather.

Prosecution of course simply proceeds as if the defense had not said a word, hoping the jurors will pick up on their attitude and adopt a similar stance. This is sort of similar to the way the prosecution keeps saying The Defendant instead of using her name, they hope the witnesses and the jurors will shortly depersonalize her too.

So far the evidence is simply that of a very amiable young woman who was a good mother and who after her circumstances changed was a cheerful roommate and helpful companion who went to her boyfriend's events and adopted a "den mother" attitude towards the otherwise vulnerable half-naked shot girls who might have been continually pawed by over-eager and overly lubricated young males. Nothing evil, vile or cruel shown at all.

The prosecution hopes the jury will view it as "she preferred nightclubs to wet diapers" and she liked "hot body contests" instead of she helpfully joined in a hot body contest to round out the field when only a few women were there for the event.

Well, I'd like to hear more about this Kronky Korpse guy who had just too many versions of what he saw and too much of a coincidence in where he wanted to take a leak.

I'd also be a bit curious to talk to that Grandfather who is a former police detective inhaling an unmistakable odor of death but who doesn't drive to a police station or forensics unit and makes no report of it, he simply drives home.

Prosecution wanted the jury to hear about "shovel" and "corpse" for its emotional value. It was to brief a time to have buried the corpse and the shovel was not returned in any sort of soiled condition, its hardly significant but for its emotional appeal to the jury.

That opening statement alluded to incest but it failed to definitively state whether the victim's dna established that incest had in fact taken place.

Today's testimony seemed to be a parade of friends and acquaintances who had no reason to think ill of Casey Anthony. One witness seemed to look askance on a little white lie being uttered in a social situation.

That grandfather was giving lectures, questions, comments, etc., just about anything other than a direct and responsive answer.

Commentary on Friday's testimony: Not really all that impressive. Lee Anthony's fiancee thought the mother-daughter interaction was amazingly loving. A tow truck driver claims to have smelled decomposition when the car was parked in the strip mall but the manager of the loan company it was parked at stood near the trunk to read the license plate and smelled nothing unusual.

Several videotapes introduced to show the defendant is of bad character even though she has not taken the stand and put her character into evidence. The tapes are supposedly introduced solely to disprove her contentions during police questioning that she was searching for Cayley and negotiating with kidnappers during the time period of her shopping in stores. I don't see why buying some beer is viewed as bad character.