Here's the thing I have always hated about our legal system. The prosecution is in the business of having to prove everything, and that is the way it should be. However, the defense is allowed to sling mud and do everything they want to do without any proof of it whatsoever. In the Mary Winkler case, the defense attorney was allowed to say that her husband woke up and put his hand over the baby's mouth (they said to smother it) when the evidence showed that his bladder was full meaning he wasn't up for awhile. In this case, we have the opening statements where the defense attorney said that her dad put a penis in her mouth when she was 13 along with the accidental drowning off of a picture where she was opening a door. I just hate that a defense attorney is not bound by law (because many of them sure don't have any ethics if they are willing to throw crap and hope it sticks) to prove what they say.
Side note: The motive is clear with the dateline investigative report. There was a bitter relationship between her and her mother. Through this trial and with Caylee, who was punished the most? Cindy lost Caylee, had to sit through listening to her husband supposedly molesting her daughter and cheating on her, and hearing her son supposedly molesting her daughter. Everything in this case ties back to her mother. Coincidental?