Last night on Greta she had the prosecutor on. She asked him if he thought the tape was put on Caylee’s mouth or if it could have moved there over the time. His answer was YES that he agreed that with the body etc being covered with water for a time and animals rummaging around the tape could have moved there from somewhere else. There was no indication that the tape had actually been over her mouth
Now, if even the prosecutor himself is unsure of whether that tape was actually put over her mouth or not and no evidence of who put the tape there in the first place could you assume that maybe the jurors picked up on that? Whether or not you can, if there is doubt even in his mind as to the origin and placement of that tape would you be willing to convict? You see, that’s deductive reasoning.
It’s called stupidity.
ON O'Reilly he said the tape WAS on the mouth/nose area
... and demonstrated how it was placed.
....except of course, the skin of her face was gone and it was loosely draped on her skull...
..and how it wrapped from the front to the back.
..because the mandible ( lower jaw) naturally falls away from the skull because all skin and ligaments are gone...
..but this one is perfectly in line with the top portion of the skull because of the duct tape holding it in alignment!
Just where do you apply duct tape to a 2 year old, either alive or dead, where it isn’t a crime? If she put the duct tape ANYWHERE on the child it is child abuse at a minimum.