[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaGirl

A-C are all fairly obvious to anyone who has watched any part of this trial and should certainly be obvious to the jury. Not cause for conviction, however.

As for 1-4:
1. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.
2. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.
4. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.

3. If Baez had not been such a blabbermouth in his opening statement, they could have possibly argued in closing that the State had not adequately associated Casey with the dead body. However, Baez said the child drowned, numerous witnesses testified to the smell of decomposition in the trunk of her car...and she was the one driving the car. That (to me) associates Casey with the dead body. Dead body found with laundry bag and other articles from the home pretty much rules out outsiders being involved. Dead body found in swampy woods rules out suicide. Dead body in the swampy woods = homicide. Homicide = death at the hands of another or as the result of actions of another, whether accident, manslaughter or murder.

IMHO, if the child had accidentally drowned, Casey would have called 911. The wrath of Cindy could in no way compare to years in prison (3 already so far!) and the possibility of life in prison or being put to death. On the other hand, if she ACCIDENTALLY overdosed the child with chloroform, how does she explain that to anyone without admitting to responsibility for her death? She doesn't - therefore, she makes up convoluted lies and manages to hide the body so well that it would (hopefully) be so decomposed when/if found that no cause of death could be proven.

Did the state prove premeditated murder? It certainly planted the seeds but did not prove it. Did the state prove aggravated child abuse? Nope - that requires "multiple instances", and even the State's witnesses testified that she was a good mother. In my mind, that lets out premeditated murder and felony murder (also does away with death penalty.) If I were on the jury I would find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and would pray the judge impose the maximum sentence simply because she threw the child away like trash.

PennBF, you also referenced Geraldo Rivera in another post. Whenever he appears, I just laugh...if he weren't married I would swear he has the hots for Jose Baez. Baez could show up in court in a pink tutu and Geraldo would go on air and announce what a brilliant legal move that was. Perhaps a bit of Latino bias, maybe? Having watched this trial in its entirety, switching between 4 different channels, almost every pundit EXCEPT for Geraldo agrees that Baez pretty much convicted Casey with his opening statement. And if it weren't for his ego, he would have been 2nd chair and let Cheney Mason be 1st chair, and it would have been an entirely different trial altogether. Baez was so out-lawyered it was often laughable.

C-Girl ... you are right on!