Trying to figure out where the defense is going with this case, come trial time.......I question a few things I've heard so far-----feel free to jump in.... I am just an amatuer looking for answers-------These are just my opinions..... 1) The theory of "Ugly Coping" - If KC's actions after Caylee disappeared is due to ugly coping, or how she chose to deal with it, then doesn't that mean "she already knew the child was dead?":waitasec: 2) 17 good healthy hairs of Caylee's in the trunk- the prosecution only has one hair with a death band- wouldn't that mean that apparently KC did keep Caylee in the trunk while she partied, and then after she murdered her? Therefore, how much of this child's life was spent in the trunk of her mother's car?:waitasec: 3) Filicide- If this behavior is how some 20 year olds deal with the birth of a child- and it worsen's with time- how do they explain, KC did all these things prior to Caylee's death also?:waitasec: 4) Since the defense is spending so much time looking for an excuse for how KC reacted and responded to Caylee's death, doesn't that say that they know KC is guilty? If she was innocent, why not just tell the truth? They can't because she's not. An innocent person is not going to sit in a cell all this time for a crime they did not commit. 5) Among other things the defense cannot explain away, how about with all the family visits and phone calls, not once did KC ask, "Any word on Caylee?" "Have they found my little girl that I profess to love so much and miss so much." KC does not bring up Caylee or Nanny ever, unless someone else ask's a question, and then she tries to change the subject or talks a mile a minute to get off the subject. 6) If KC tries to throw GA and CA under the bus for being horrible parents, she has debunked that, as she told them on camera at the jail how wonderful they are as parents, and how Caylee had and has the best grandparents. I do believe she had a little Freudian slip in there (had, still has).