Post-mortem root banding has never been used as evidence in a Florida criminal trial until the Anthony case. The FBI analyst testified that she could not say with absolute certainty that the hair belonged to Caylee.
The jury could reasonably have discounted hair banding as unproven science, although someday it may be. IMO, not convincing.
The chloroform was a red herring. The two expert witnesses did not agree about the concentration in the air samples: one said it was extremely high, the other felt it was far less.
Furthermore, despite the State running a fine tooth comb through Casey's and the rest of the Anthony's lives, they found absolutely no evidence that chloroform was obtained by any of them from any source, and there would be no logical reason for any of them to possess it. The idea that Casey (or anyone else) made it in the laundry sink is ludicrous.
Attempting to convince the jury that chloroform was an agent of death for Caylee was a huge tactical error. Stretching the evidence in order to gain a conviction helped Casey gain her freedom.
It is the responsibility of the State to avoid amplifying areas of evidence that serve to destroy their credibility. This was only one. Smelling the cans would have been another. (Remember OJ's glove?)
Don't blame the jurors for questioning the quality of the evidence they were given.
*All* of it should have been pristine and above reproach.
