Casey Anthony

[Immanuel]

The evidence is compelling. The computer held search terms like chloroform, neck breaking, head trauma, ruptured spleen.. This, combined with all of her other antics are quite believable. The prosecution team was solid even though they didn't produce proof she killed her daughter.

She won't walk in any case.

Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what they MUST do to convict?

The evidence that Caylee was murdered is solid, but you say right here that the Prosecution Team has not produced proof that Casey killed her daughter. That is what Casey is on trial for. If the Prosecution Team has not produced proof that Casey killed her daughter then Casey must without a doubt be found not guilty.

Jurors cannot decide based upon their gut feelings. By your own words, you agree with me and if that is the case you would be required to vote not guilty. At least that is how I understand our laws.

Immie

Circumstantial evidence can convict her.

In the United States, the law shows no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in terms of which has more weight or importance. Both types of evidence may be enough to establish the defendant’s guilt, depending on how the jury finds the facts of the case.

Direct Evidence

I understand that, but circumstantial evidence is also easier to raise doubt.

Immie

 

[R.D.]

Okay, here is the point you seem not to understand. The trial is about whether or not Casey murdered Caylee. The Prosecution MUST prove that Casey murdered Caylee. The prosecution has spent 19 days trying to prove that Casey murdered Caylee. From everything I have seen, they have failed horribly. And if they failed, then she walks.

The Prosecution must prove that Caylee was murdered by Casey. The defense need only raise doubt in the minds of the jury that it was Casey that murdered Caylee which since there is no direct evidence linking Casey to the crime, it seems to me that they do not need to try very hard to achieve.

In opening statements the defense stated that Caylee drowned in the pool. The prosecution has proven that Caylee was murdered, but they have not proven that it was Casey that did it and the defense does not need to prove who killed her. They only need to raise reasonable doubt that it was Casey who did it.

That was why OJ walked. His defense team did not try to prove who murdered Nicole and Ron only raise doubts that it was OJ.

Oh, and they profess to know that she died in the pool. None of that has yet been introduced into evidence. The defense doesn't even need to mention the pool in their arguments if they don't want to.

The odor in the car? She forgot hamburger in her trunk for several days. It spoiled and the car still reeks.

The sticker and duct tape? No proof that it was Casey that put it on Caylee's mouth and suffocated her.

The tatoos? Makes the prosecution appear desperate.

The hair proved nothing.

What evidence besides "she's a pathological liar" do you point to that says... Casey Anthony killed her daughter and no one else possibly could have done it?

One of the red flags I feel is that Caylee was missing for so long. That leads me to suspicion of Casey, but, I have not heard anything that proves that it means that she murdered her daughter.

And for the record, I'm not saying you are wrong that she will be convicted. Only that from what I have heard, the prosecution has failed miserably. We can only wait to hear what the jury has to say about that.

Immie

You're sounding confused

The defense claims no murder. If you believe she was murdered, you can't believe the defense.

 

[Immanuel]

Okay, here is the point you seem not to understand. The trial is about whether or not Casey murdered Caylee. The Prosecution MUST prove that Casey murdered Caylee. The prosecution has spent 19 days trying to prove that Casey murdered Caylee. From everything I have seen, they have failed horribly. And if they failed, then she walks.

The Prosecution must prove that Caylee was murdered by Casey. The defense need only raise doubt in the minds of the jury that it was Casey that murdered Caylee which since there is no direct evidence linking Casey to the crime, it seems to me that they do not need to try very hard to achieve.

In opening statements the defense stated that Caylee drowned in the pool. The prosecution has proven that Caylee was murdered, but they have not proven that it was Casey that did it and the defense does not need to prove who killed her. They only need to raise reasonable doubt that it was Casey who did it.

That was why OJ walked. His defense team did not try to prove who murdered Nicole and Ron only raise doubts that it was OJ.

Oh, and they profess to know that she died in the pool. None of that has yet been introduced into evidence. The defense doesn't even need to mention the pool in their arguments if they don't want to.

The odor in the car? She forgot hamburger in her trunk for several days. It spoiled and the car still reeks.

The sticker and duct tape? No proof that it was Casey that put it on Caylee's mouth and suffocated her.

The tatoos? Makes the prosecution appear desperate.

The hair proved nothing.

What evidence besides "she's a pathological liar" do you point to that says... Casey Anthony killed her daughter and no one else possibly could have done it?

One of the red flags I feel is that Caylee was missing for so long. That leads me to suspicion of Casey, but, I have not heard anything that proves that it means that she murdered her daughter.

And for the record, I'm not saying you are wrong that she will be convicted. Only that from what I have heard, the prosecution has failed miserably. We can only wait to hear what the jury has to say about that.

Immie

You're sounding confused

The defense claims no murder. If you believe she was murdered, you can't believe the defense.

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what they MUST do to convict?

The evidence that Caylee was murdered is solid, but you say right here that the Prosecution Team has not produced proof that Casey killed her daughter. That is what Casey is on trial for. If the Prosecution Team has not produced proof that Casey killed her daughter then Casey must without a doubt be found not guilty.

Jurors cannot decide based upon their gut feelings. By your own words, you agree with me and if that is the case you would be required to vote not guilty. At least that is how I understand our laws.

Immie

Circumstantial evidence can convict her.

In the United States, the law shows no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in terms of which has more weight or importance. Both types of evidence may be enough to establish the defendant’s guilt, depending on how the jury finds the facts of the case.

Direct Evidence

I understand that, but circumstantial evidence is also easier to raise doubt.

Immie

I guess that's why I disagree with you that the prosecution's case was weak. I found them very strong and in any case, they're done. Now the defense gets to try and change the jury's mind. After what I heard, they have a tough road ahead.

 

[Immanuel]

Circumstantial evidence can convict her.

I understand that, but circumstantial evidence is also easier to raise doubt.

Immie

I guess that's why I disagree with you that the prosecution's case was weak. I found them very strong and in any case, they're done. Now the defense gets to try and change the jury's mind. After what I heard, they have a tough road ahead.

It seems to me that the prosecution's case usually seems strongest right before the defense begins to tear holes in it.

Immie

 

[KissMy]

How does the red heart sticker prove that Casey killed Caylee.

A good defense lawyer can place enough doubt in the hearts of the jury that the sticker could have been placed their by any number of people including either one of the grandparents.

How does the red heart sticker prove that Caylee did not drown in the pool? Casey could have pulled Caylee out of the pool and put the sticker over her mouth after she was dead... now how they explain the duct tape and the sticker and the idea that she drowned in the pool is something a little more touchy, but it does not definitively point back to Casey in either case.

Note: I'm only raising questions. It seems to me that the circumstantial evidence can all be explained away which will allow Casey to walk the way I see it. I'm not saying Casey did not kill Caylee, but all the defense needs to do is convince the jury that someone else may have killed Caylee and Casey walks.

Immie

There is enough evidence to convict Casey. Chloroform & evidence of a dead body was found in Casey's trunk. Casey's computer showed searches for "neck breaking" and "how to make chloroform". The defense alleged that Casey panicked after Caylee drowned. So Casey had to be involved in discarding her daughters body.

Casey lies nonstop & only shows emotion for herself but none for her dead child. That is the definition of a psychopath. She shows agitated, erratic behavior. Intentionally or subconsciously the T-Shirt Casey placed Caylee's dead body explains the way Casey viewed her child. "BIG TROUBLE comes in small packages"

Has the prosecution proven that Casey made those searches? Could someone else have had access to her computer?

And the T-Shirt? Have they proven it was Casey that put her in the T-Shirt after she died?

The prosecution has presented their case. Evidently they have proven Caylee was murdered. Now all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt that Casey was the killer. All they need to do is convince the jury that grandpa might have killed Caylee and tried to blame Casey.

Grandpa used Casey's computer to search for Chloroform and neck breaking because he had abused her and was afraid of being caught. He killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's car. He later discarded the body. Casey found out about it. He threatened to kill her thus her silence for 31 days. Being afraid of her father, Casey attempted to claim that Caylee drowned in the pool.

Would she be lying? I think so... but she only needs to raise reasonable doubt to save her ass. What do I think? She's a cold hearted Bitch who murdered her daughter. I simply don't think the prosecution has done its job to prove that.

Immie

The prosecution has shown Casey's means, motive & opportunity. She has also been proven to be an habitual lier. The jury should always take her fathers word over hers. Her rape story is not even credible. She is going down.

 

[oldsalt]

Okay, here is the point you seem not to understand. The trial is about whether or not Casey murdered Caylee. The Prosecution MUST prove that Casey murdered Caylee. The prosecution has spent 19 days trying to prove that Casey murdered Caylee. From everything I have seen, they have failed horribly. And if they failed, then she walks.

The Prosecution must prove that Caylee was murdered by Casey. The defense need only raise doubt in the minds of the jury that it was Casey that murdered Caylee which since there is no direct evidence linking Casey to the crime, it seems to me that they do not need to try very hard to achieve.

In opening statements the defense stated that Caylee drowned in the pool. The prosecution has proven that Caylee was murdered, but they have not proven that it was Casey that did it and the defense does not need to prove who killed her. They only need to raise reasonable doubt that it was Casey who did it.

That was why OJ walked. His defense team did not try to prove who murdered Nicole and Ron only raise doubts that it was OJ.

Oh, and they profess to know that she died in the pool. None of that has yet been introduced into evidence. The defense doesn't even need to mention the pool in their arguments if they don't want to.

The odor in the car? She forgot hamburger in her trunk for several days. It spoiled and the car still reeks.

The sticker and duct tape? No proof that it was Casey that put it on Caylee's mouth and suffocated her.

The tatoos? Makes the prosecution appear desperate.

The hair proved nothing.

What evidence besides "she's a pathological liar" do you point to that says... Casey Anthony killed her daughter and no one else possibly could have done it?

One of the red flags I feel is that Caylee was missing for so long. That leads me to suspicion of Casey, but, I have not heard anything that proves that it means that she murdered her daughter.

And for the record, I'm not saying you are wrong that she will be convicted. Only that from what I have heard, the prosecution has failed miserably. We can only wait to hear what the jury has to say about that.

Immie

You're sounding confused

The defense claims no murder. If you believe she was murdered, you can't believe the defense.

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

Are you serious? So, you think they can just abandon that story?????? What are they gonna tell the jury? That they bought ICA's story initially, enough to put it out in the opening, but now this is what we REALLY think???? That's just nuts.

 

[Dabs]

How does the red heart sticker prove that Casey killed Caylee.

A good defense lawyer can place enough doubt in the hearts of the jury that the sticker could have been placed their by any number of people including either one of the grandparents.

How does the red heart sticker prove that Caylee did not drown in the pool? Casey could have pulled Caylee out of the pool and put the sticker over her mouth after she was dead... now how they explain the duct tape and the sticker and the idea that she drowned in the pool is something a little more touchy, but it does not definitively point back to Casey in either case.

Note: I'm only raising questions. It seems to me that the circumstantial evidence can all be explained away which will allow Casey to walk the way I see it. I'm not saying Casey did not kill Caylee, but all the defense needs to do is convince the jury that someone else may have killed Caylee and Casey walks.

Immie

There is enough evidence to convict Casey. Chloroform & evidence of a dead body was found in Casey's trunk. Casey's computer showed searches for "neck breaking" and "how to make chloroform". The defense alleged that Casey panicked after Caylee drowned. So Casey had to be involved in discarding her daughters body.

Casey lies nonstop & only shows emotion for herself but none for her dead child. That is the definition of a psychopath. She shows agitated, erratic behavior. Intentionally or subconsciously the T-Shirt Casey placed Caylee's dead body explains the way Casey viewed her child. "BIG TROUBLE comes in small packages"

Has the prosecution proven that Casey made those searches? Could someone else have had access to her computer?

And the T-Shirt? Have they proven it was Casey that put her in the T-Shirt after she died?

The prosecution has presented their case. Evidently they have proven Caylee was murdered. Now all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt that Casey was the killer. All they need to do is convince the jury that grandpa might have killed Caylee and tried to blame Casey.

Grandpa used Casey's computer to search for Chloroform and neck breaking because he had abused her and was afraid of being caught. He killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's car. He later discarded the body. Casey found out about it. He threatened to kill her thus her silence for 31 days. Being afraid of her father, Casey attempted to claim that Caylee drowned in the pool.

Would she be lying? I think so... but she only needs to raise reasonable doubt to save her ass. What do I think? She's a cold hearted Bitch who murdered her daughter. I simply don't think the prosecution has done its job to prove that.

Immie

God damn dude, it has already been made known to everyone...those in the court room, the jury, the Tv viewers, the hobos down the street...at the time the searches were done on CASEY'S computer for chloroform, it was proven that George and Cindy Anthony BOTH were at work!!!!

 

[Immanuel]

There is enough evidence to convict Casey. Chloroform & evidence of a dead body was found in Casey's trunk. Casey's computer showed searches for "neck breaking" and "how to make chloroform". The defense alleged that Casey panicked after Caylee drowned. So Casey had to be involved in discarding her daughters body.

Casey lies nonstop & only shows emotion for herself but none for her dead child. That is the definition of a psychopath. She shows agitated, erratic behavior. Intentionally or subconsciously the T-Shirt Casey placed Caylee's dead body explains the way Casey viewed her child. "BIG TROUBLE comes in small packages"

Has the prosecution proven that Casey made those searches? Could someone else have had access to her computer?

And the T-Shirt? Have they proven it was Casey that put her in the T-Shirt after she died?

The prosecution has presented their case. Evidently they have proven Caylee was murdered. Now all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt that Casey was the killer. All they need to do is convince the jury that grandpa might have killed Caylee and tried to blame Casey.

Grandpa used Casey's computer to search for Chloroform and neck breaking because he had abused her and was afraid of being caught. He killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's car. He later discarded the body. Casey found out about it. He threatened to kill her thus her silence for 31 days. Being afraid of her father, Casey attempted to claim that Caylee drowned in the pool.

Would she be lying? I think so... but she only needs to raise reasonable doubt to save her ass. What do I think? She's a cold hearted Bitch who murdered her daughter. I simply don't think the prosecution has done its job to prove that.

Immie

The prosecution has shown Casey's means, motive & opportunity. She has also been proven to be an habitual lier. The jury should always take her fathers word over hers. Her rape story is not even credible. She is going down.

Question for Kissmy, Oldsalt, Sarah G and anyone else that thinks she is going down.

Did you think OJ was going down for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Immie

 

[R.D.]

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

 

[Immanuel]

There is enough evidence to convict Casey. Chloroform & evidence of a dead body was found in Casey's trunk. Casey's computer showed searches for "neck breaking" and "how to make chloroform". The defense alleged that Casey panicked after Caylee drowned. So Casey had to be involved in discarding her daughters body.

Casey lies nonstop & only shows emotion for herself but none for her dead child. That is the definition of a psychopath. She shows agitated, erratic behavior. Intentionally or subconsciously the T-Shirt Casey placed Caylee's dead body explains the way Casey viewed her child. "BIG TROUBLE comes in small packages"

Has the prosecution proven that Casey made those searches? Could someone else have had access to her computer?

And the T-Shirt? Have they proven it was Casey that put her in the T-Shirt after she died?

The prosecution has presented their case. Evidently they have proven Caylee was murdered. Now all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt that Casey was the killer. All they need to do is convince the jury that grandpa might have killed Caylee and tried to blame Casey.

Grandpa used Casey's computer to search for Chloroform and neck breaking because he had abused her and was afraid of being caught. He killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's car. He later discarded the body. Casey found out about it. He threatened to kill her thus her silence for 31 days. Being afraid of her father, Casey attempted to claim that Caylee drowned in the pool.

Would she be lying? I think so... but she only needs to raise reasonable doubt to save her ass. What do I think? She's a cold hearted Bitch who murdered her daughter. I simply don't think the prosecution has done its job to prove that.

Immie

God damn dude, it has already been made known to everyone...those in the court room, the jury, the Tv viewers, the hobos down the street...at the time the searches were done on CASEY'S computer for chloroform, it was proven that George and Cindy Anthony BOTH were at work!!!!

Do you know if the time stamps on file retrievals are based on the time the computer is set at or by some other means? I don't know the answer to that myself. But, let me ask you this. At this moment, my computer time is set to 6:16 pm. If I go into the system and set it for 11:16 am, will the time stamp say 6:16 or 11:16?

Dang! It sounds like I am making excuses for her. I'm not. Just asking questions.

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

I understand that, but circumstantial evidence is also easier to raise doubt.

Immie

I guess that's why I disagree with you that the prosecution's case was weak. I found them very strong and in any case, they're done. Now the defense gets to try and change the jury's mind. After what I heard, they have a tough road ahead.

It seems to me that the prosecution's case usually seems strongest right before the defense begins to tear holes in it.

Immie

There's a huge hole the defense can't explain away, that 31 day hole where she didn't report the child missing.

 

[KissMy]

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

The defense has very little credibility left. They will lose all credibility if they try to change their opening argument. They were stupid for putting it out there like that. The only thing that will save her ass is a mistrial due to a incompetent defense attorney.

 

[Dabs]

Has the prosecution proven that Casey made those searches? Could someone else have had access to her computer?

And the T-Shirt? Have they proven it was Casey that put her in the T-Shirt after she died?

The prosecution has presented their case. Evidently they have proven Caylee was murdered. Now all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt that Casey was the killer. All they need to do is convince the jury that grandpa might have killed Caylee and tried to blame Casey.

Grandpa used Casey's computer to search for Chloroform and neck breaking because he had abused her and was afraid of being caught. He killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's car. He later discarded the body. Casey found out about it. He threatened to kill her thus her silence for 31 days. Being afraid of her father, Casey attempted to claim that Caylee drowned in the pool.

Would she be lying? I think so... but she only needs to raise reasonable doubt to save her ass. What do I think? She's a cold hearted Bitch who murdered her daughter. I simply don't think the prosecution has done its job to prove that.

Immie

The prosecution has shown Casey's means, motive & opportunity. She has also been proven to be an habitual lier. The jury should always take her fathers word over hers. Her rape story is not even credible. She is going down.

Question for Kissmy, Oldsalt, Sarah G and anyone else that thinks she is going down.

Did you think OJ was going down for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Immie

THIS THREAD is about a beautiful little girl named Caylee Anthony who was murdered.
The O.J. Simpson trial has nothing to do with this case!
Why must you bring an old trial into this??
The Simpson thing is done, over..and he is sitting in prison for other charges, who the fuck cares.
We all here, no matter what our opinions might be, just want justice for this little girl..that's it....do you get it??

 

[Immanuel]

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

Seems to me though that if they did try to live by that, they will screw up. Seems to me, that they need to dump that idea as there is too much evidence that it was murder. The only problem being as to who it was that committed the murder.

Immie

 

[KissMy]

Do you know if the time stamps on file retrievals are based on the time the computer is set at or by some other means? I don't know the answer to that myself. But, let me ask you this. At this moment, my computer time is set to 6:16 pm. If I go into the system and set it for 11:16 am, will the time stamp say 6:16 or 11:16?

Dang! It sounds like I am making excuses for her. I'm not. Just asking questions.

Immie

Your searches are also saved by the search provider who has the correct time. Also most computers auto sync time now days. If your time is off by more than 24 hours you will get lots of security errors while trying to surf or search on-line. Most sites will block incorrect dated computers.

 

[Immanuel]

I guess that's why I disagree with you that the prosecution's case was weak. I found them very strong and in any case, they're done. Now the defense gets to try and change the jury's mind. After what I heard, they have a tough road ahead.

It seems to me that the prosecution's case usually seems strongest right before the defense begins to tear holes in it.

Immie

There's a huge hole the defense can't explain away, that 31 day hole where she didn't report the child missing.

Granted. I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean they can't explain it. It seems to me that they initially tried to say that she was not missing those 31 days. Then again, it also seems the prosecution has proven that she was.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

The defense has very little credibility left. They will lose all credibility if they try to change their opening argument. They were stupid for putting it out there like that. The only thing that will save her ass is a mistrial due to a incompetent defense attorney.

Now that I agree with.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

They already discarded that option. Remember, the swimming pool did it. Motive, opportunity and evidence point to ICA. They'll convict her.

Really, they already discarded the option that someone else may have killed Caylee?

If so, why is the trial going on?

Did Casey sign a confession?

Immie

Yes they did.

The defense is she accidentally drowned. That George orchestrated the cover up. The trial is because the State knows otherwise.

I don't think a confession was signed, because she is lying and no plea was offered.

Regarding the sticker, the defense again denies the existence of the sticker. Too late now for them to place blame on someone else. Same goes for the evidence of a corpse in the car - they claim there never was a body in the car.

The defense is all over the place, it will be very interesting to watch

IF the state "new otherwise," they did a lousy job of presenting proof. As the defense lawyer stated, it's all supposition. I do hope he makes his opening statements on the acquittal motion part of his closing argument as well, because the jury needs to hear that--in plain language. The State has no evidence proving that Casey Anthony "murdered" her child (which is their complaint), or that it was a "murder" at all. The same evidence provided by the State can also suppose her death was an accident and someone tried to cover it up by duct taping the body and stuffing it in a garbage bag.

 

[Sarah G]

It seems to me that the prosecution's case usually seems strongest right before the defense begins to tear holes in it.

Immie

There's a huge hole the defense can't explain away, that 31 day hole where she didn't report the child missing.

Granted. I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean they can't explain it. It seems to me that they initially tried to say that she was not missing those 31 days. Then again, it also seems the prosecution has proven that she was.

Immie

You can always put yourself in the shoes of the jury, they are you and me. If my child was missing, I would report it immediately. I wouldn't go shopping and dancing.