I will pretend like I am a TH does this sound like one of them?
If I were a juror, and all I knew about this case was what has been presented in evidence:
I would think KC is a liar, and not a model citizen, and was very upset about being in jail. (if I was innocent and in jail, I would be very upset as well).Additionally...if I were a person accustomed to fooling family and friends...I would be miffed that my "act" failed to work on LE. I would wonder why the state brought in so many witnesses to prove she was a liar. I would only wonder about this if I were a paranoid defendant. That was pretty obvious after the first two or three, and one jailhouse tape would have confirmed that. All that repetition seemed redundant. It also drove home the point that all these witnesses believed she was a good mother, and had a great relationship with her daughter. A "good" mother is a subjective term and even "good" mothers are capable of bad things.
Her father did not seem sincere on the stand, and he didn't get upset when accused of molestion and looked guilty when he answered. Then later he got very agitated about gas cans???? Sincere is subjective and of course a DT member would assume that GA was NOT sincere. An aside....being fully apprised of the defense plan 6 weeks in advance.....would GA really be "shocked at the accusations?
The trunk of the Pontiac smells really bad, like somebody died in there.
The hair with apparent decomp, may have come from a living person, or from a dead person according to the FBI expert. Hair with apparent decomp has never been used in a trial before. And as Jeff Ashton has proven...there is a FIRST time for everything.
The white trash bag sat in a dumpster for hours before it became part of the chain of evidence, and some of the evidence from this white trash bag may have been inadvertantly altered.Altered by the dumpster? The expert who put the trash in the drying room seemed very nervous after seeing the photo of the wet trash. Subjective opinions are not admissible in trial.
The collection of samples provided to the air sample expert were not collected by the expert, and the shockingly high level of chloroform doesn't make sense because the FBI expert said it wasn't a shockingly high level of chloroform. Nice try...but we all know JB referred to 2 different exhibits. Nice defense bait and switch.Air samples have never been used in a trial before. This expert thought he read his initials on an evidence can, but he was mistaken, wonder what else he has misread or been mistaken about.
The two dogs have never alerted without a find anytime they were in a real world scenario, ever in their entire careers, until this case. (Anthony backyard) (trunk) Actually not true. don't forget that one of the dogs was tired after 31 searches.....and became disinterested.
84 times? HUH? recess till tomorrow morning
Now I know these are all little things, but when you take the totality of all of these points well then circumstantially you find yourself with reasonable doubt.And when taken in totality, a plausible explanation can be gleaned.
Did I do good huh? Does this sound like one of the TH's?
