moo
In the analysis of the crime scene, the lack or presence of a gun is a fact. We were discussing whether a ME can use other than scientific facts to draw a conclusion as to whether the manner of death is homicide or suicide. When the ME concludes that a death is homicide rather than suicide based on the lack of a gun at the crime scene, he is relying on circumstantial evidence, not a scientific fact. It's circumstantial because, even though it's a fact that the gun wasn't there, there is more than one reason for it not being there. Just because a gun isn't there doesn't mean it never was there. That's why this would be circumstantial evidence of homicide and not a scientific fact.
Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.
If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape.
She states that it was "clearly" placed before decomposition. To me, this is something she could see with the naked eye, but she didn't elaborate on how she concluded this. It was probably as far as she could go in her analysis without further lab testing. Surely, there's some sort of testing that can take her analysis further and prove placement before death. They brought the death penalty back 4 months after finding Caylee. If it was just the tape and no other evidence related to the tape that made them bring back the DP, why did they wait 4 months? We haven't seen the fiber results from the tape so it's reasonable that there could be other evidence related to the tape we haven't seen.Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.
If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape.
I'm sure there were pictures and probably drawings to show exactly how the tape was placed.They just weren't released .I suspect the placement of the tape,more than anything,helped Dr.G rule homicide.Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.
If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape.
You are so right,Mystic.A parents reaction to an unexpected death is to get help and "My child will be okay.My child CAN"T be dead".From my own experience,even after the dr told us ,I kept asking him to keep trying.It just was not possible our son was dead.Now we know our son had did before my daughter found himand all the CPR was useless,but a parent would try. I just can't imagine anyone finding their child lifeless and going for the duct tape instead of 911.
Man Jolynna,
An S&M hypothesis was presented in the appeal.
