[happyman]

really? did you listen to all the testimony? what proof did they have that a HUMAN decomposed in the trunk of that car? assuming (big assumption) it was human, was there evidence that the decomposed human was caylee anthony? the air sampling evidence should not have been allowed in to begin with. it's cool science, neat research but certainly does not adhere to the Daubert standard.

2 cadaver dogs alerted in the trunk and there was adipocere (sp?) on paper towels in a trash bag, also in the trunk. The prosecution went through great lengths to explain the training process of the dogs and how it is virtually impossible that they would alert to anything other than human decomposition or human remains. Neither dog has ever previously false alerted. There was also a 9-inch long, untreated hair in the trunk with that "death band" around it. It was a pulled, not shed hair. It could belong to any maternal relative of Caylee, but all of those relatives had treated hair (with the exception of the brother, who never had 9-inch long hair). They also went to great lengths performing experiments, TRYING to replicate the death band on hair from a living person - it was impossible. There was bug evidence, the air samples, etc, etc. Maybe each of these factors could be questionable individually, but put TOGETHER only add up to one thing - there was a body in the trunk of that car.

and she wasn't the only one who had control of it for 31 days. it was impounded at some point BEFORE the 31 days between caylee's disappearance and her father picking the car up from impound.

After texting her friends about how bad her car smelled, she abandoned it in a parking lot next to a dumpster and threw a bag of trash from her boyfriend's house in the trunk to cover up the smell. There was no evidence that anyone accessed the car before the parents picked it up, the same day they called police. Everyone agreed on that point.

how did they know the body was underwater during most of that time? because the spot where the body was found was under water? hm, if there was a lot of water couldn't the body have moved? it wasn't under water when it was found.

That area is known to be under water off and on throughout the year. At the time they were initially searching, and months after, it was under water due to a hurricane. When they found it, most bones were partially or fully buried in the dirt, plus the mandible was still in perfect anatomical position.

did theys how photos of the skull with the duct tape? my understanding was that it wasn't actually covering the mouth/nose area. that some was across the lower jaw. But i'm just going by descriptions in the press.

Yes, they showed the skull with duct tape (only to people in the court room). There were 2 pieces overlapping. Some tape was across the lower jaw. They had some kind of forensic animation which showed that the duct tape was wide enough to cover the lower jaw, nose and mouth of the kid at the same time, as well as based on where the duct tape was found, how it could have moved during the decomp process. (i.e., it could not have been around her forehead, eyes, etc, only her lower face). The animation was apparently really graphic and they wouldn't let the public see it.

Was there any evidence presented to connect the duct tape to Casey Anthony?

Just that the tape was a certain brand that was also found in the Anthony home. That's why the defense tried to pin it on the grandfather. But there was no other evidence that connected him to the crime. There was no DNA of anyone on anything (even Caylee), aside from the little piece (not even a full profile) from one of the forensic examiners on the duct tape. Also, she was dumped with several items from the home - blanket, laundry bag, etc - so it's not like it could be a stranger.

though i certainly have reasonable doubt that she was chloroformed, i agree she was killed (intentionally or accidently, who knows?) and tossed in woods. IMO, what was lacking is evidence that proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Casey is the person responsible.

The chloroform is questionable, I agree. But I think it is irrelevant. Like I said, maybe each piece of evidence separately could be questioned, but if you look at the big picture there is NO other reasonable explanation other than that she killed her child. There is no reasonable excuse to make an accident look like murder.

The 12 jurors obviously felt the same.

She should have at least been convicted of manslaughter. The jurors were lazy and wanted to go home. Even the one who was on TV said they "didn't feel like" going through the evidence during deliberations. Some of the holes she talked about in her interviews were clearly answered in the prosecution's case, but she forgot. She didn't take notes.

And yeah, hkp, I did watch it beginning to end. It is all over youtube. Fast forward through the sidebars and breaks, it is only adds up to a few hours each day. Or play it in the background during work. Some people spend their entire day on this site and no one questions them. Some people spend whole weekends watching Lost marathons. I thought watching a "real" trial was very interesting and informative. So what?