Since cause of death couldn't be proved, I think the scientific evidence was just a red herring that confused the jury. It also gave the defense easy targets to rebut. IMO the prosecution should have stuck to what could be easily shown...that the child was missing for over a month with no report being made, Casey's behavior during that time and the lies she told the investigators. It wouldn't have proved murder 1, but negligent homicide could have easily been shown.
The jury wasn't taking notes and the prosecution should have seen this. That would have told them to keep it simple. They over-complicated the case and fed right into the defense's hand.
In spite of that, the jury didn't do its job in returning a guilty verdict for negligent homicide or at least a mistrial.
My .02. |