What I said is not contrary to law. That’s just the problem. The jurors, like some posters here, got it in their heads that they had to have specific proof of every step in the sequence of events. That is wrong. You can prove that Casey did it beyond a reasonable doubt while still not knowing what time she did it or what her precise motions were.
This is correct.
In my view, the prosecution should have charged her with negligent homicide.
They could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
- the remains were Caylee's
- that foul play was involved
- that Casey was culpable in the foul play.
The evidence as to the second and third points are circumstantial. If the jury were permitted to consider the reasonable implications of the fact that Casey was in the position of the most knowledge of the specific circumstances of Caylee's death and refused to speak, taken together with all of the evidence of the behavior of the defendant pointing to consciousness of guilt and the lies she told about Caylee's whereabouts, then the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was a victim of foul play and that Casey was culpable in Caylee's death.
The element of evidence of premeditation and intent for a capital murder charge was to me a bridge too far, but that Casey was culpable was demonstrated by the circumstantial evidence and could support a verdict of negligent homicide, which would not require evidence of premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
This jury wouldn’t have been happy unless the prosecution told them that casey murdered Caylee at 4:35 pm with a candlestick in the library and Professor Plum saws the whole thing.