2009.10.02 JB & TM on Early Show

[Hez]

Could they referring to the email on page one here:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21161111/detail.html


The FBI tech says she can't be absolutely sure the hair is from a dead body but it is consistent. Ooooh, then I just read the email on the next page where she says if she could find more than just one hair w/decomp it would help prove it's from a body and not just a random possibility that one hair could look that way.

Well, there's part of the defense we'll hear during trial right there.

I'm sure it has already been pointed out by posters smarter than me, but if you look at the date on that e-mail, it is from August 1, 2008, way before the remains were discovered. The duct tape on the skull kept Caylee's hair intact, so they have more than one hair available for comparison to the hair with the decomposition ring found in the trunk, we just haven't seen that report yet. It is important to remember that most of these recently released reports were written before the remains were found. I am confident that after the remains were found they were able to make even more connections to the previously collected evidence, we just aren't privy to that information yet. I wouldn't accept anything the defence says about this evidence as fact, because they will say anything at this point to attempt to sway the court of public opinion regarding their client. The State's case is far from falling apart, imo.

 

[kageykaren]

I'v been away from here for far to long! Is defense still taking their song and dance around town? Great Burlesque team, who's going to reel'em in with cane?

 

[nums24]

I didn't know where else to post this, I think it will work here:

From Nancy Grace Facebook:

Nancy Grace Stunning News: Casey Anthony’s attorneys on the offensive - hitting the airwaves to claim that someone else killed Caylee Anthony. Tonight - what evidence do they have that points to another killer?

http://www.facebook.com/NancyGraceHLN

 

[BostonSu]

I didn't know where else to post this, I think it will work here:

From Nancy Grace Facebook:

Nancy Grace Stunning News: Casey Anthony’s attorneys on the offensive - hitting the airwaves to claim that someone else killed Caylee Anthony. Tonight - what evidence do they have that points to another killer?

http://www.facebook.com/NancyGraceHLN

I think the word we're looking for here is NONE.:furious:

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

I got this from WS "Today's current news" credit and thanks to Angel Who Cares.

"Specifically, the state cannot establish whether Caylee Anthony's death was accidental, natural, or the result of an intentional or negligent homicide," they said.

On "The Early Show" Friday, Todd Macaluso, a lawyer for Casey, said bluntly, "Casey Anthony is innocent, she will be proven innocent. The state has not produced any evidence whatsoever to prove their case. The case should be dismissed."

On "The Early Show", co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked Macaluso and fellow Casey Anthony defense attorney Jose Baez how they will "explain the fact that Casey did not report her daughter missing for a month, that she was out partying when Caylee was supposedly missing, and that she lied to investigators trying to help her find Caylee?"

Baez responded, "We feel that Casey has a very compelling reason for her actions, and we plan on laying them out at trial. That's the proper place for us to lay out a defense."

Please, someone explain this. If someone already has and I am in the middle of posting, sorry. But if Casey is innocent because the state has no evidence and the case should be dismissed...then how can we find out what "Casey's very compelling reason for her actions" are/were by going to trial? Do they want to go to trial or not? Where is the "other side in this?" Why don't they say or do something about this? :banghead:

:cow:

 

[Chiquita71]

What is the reason/gain for "swaying public opinion"? If a jury are people that are not familiar with the case? I don't understand what they gain with "us" thinking anything?

TIA

 

[Mendara]

There's no job
There's no babysitter
There's no blackjack
There's no rotting pizza in the trunk
There's no dead squirrel
There's no script
There's no remorse
There's no outcry to find the real killer

There's no excuse.

Add to that there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE POINTING TO ANYONE ELSE.

CASEY ANTHONY MUST TAKE THE STAND. She will have to explain the exchange that occured from when Caylee was alive with her to CAYLEE NOT BEING IN HER POSSESION! And she will have to not use the ZG story because that story has been debunked by her family as a cover for someone else.

Just because DNA was not transfered from Casey to the crime seem doesn't mean anything - this was a soft kill - no bodily fluids or fighting occured for this DNA to be there.

Caylee was overpowered and then put into bags and thrown into woods. Casey's parents cleaned out her car and washed her clothing that reaked of evidence they potentially could have destroyed other physical evidence as well.

The smell in her car the lies - the fake nanny - will send her to jail as it did to Scott Scot Peterson - there was no physical evidence in that case either and in many other cases as well.

 

[aafromaa]

Could they referring to the email on page one here:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21161111/detail.html


The FBI tech says she can't be absolutely sure the hair is from a dead body but it is consistent. Ooooh, then I just read the email on the next page where she says if she could find more than just one hair w/decomp it would help prove it's from a body and not just a random possibility that one hair could look that way.

Well, there's part of the defense we'll hear during trial right there.

Dear P

I think that email is exactly what they are referring to and I'd sure like to see the report that is referenced in that email as being "on Cary's desk" as I believe it would further explain the parenthetical statement in the email that says "I can't say absolutely that the hair came from a dead body but is consistent..." Do you know if that report has been released and if it has where to find it?

I think it's a stretch to say the report says it's NOT from a decomposing body when I agree with you that the intent was to say that it is consistent with a hair that would come from one but that there could be some far-fetched reason that the defense could come up with for a single hair to appear that way - especially in light of the 2nd email you mentioned which was also written by the same person on the same day just a few hours later.

I've not read the report itself but that doesn't mean it isn't in docs already released. I haven't read everything we've seen but I'd like to read that one. Does anyone know if it has been released?

added in edit:

I went back and did some reading to see if I could find the actual report referred to in the email. It was included in the 1/21/09 doc dump and was dated the same day of these emails. (Pg 3329) The item number is Q12.1 which was a hair from Q12 which was debris from the left side of the trunk liner. Q12.1 "exhibits characterisics of apparent decomposition at the proximal (root) end" (Pg 3335 has the mitochondrial DNA analysis showing the hair was either from KC or Caylee.)

So what happened was that the report was written the morning of 8/1/08 and stated the hair exhibits characteristics of apparent decomp and then an email was sent at 12:01pm as follow up to clarify that the examiner cannot say that it absolutely came from a dead body but that it was consistent with having come from one. The 3:59pm email stating that if another hair was found the case would be stronger that it came from a body was written in hopes of finding additional hair(s) amongst other evidence that had been gathered.

The emails weren't written to say that the hair didn't show signs of decomp or to dispute the report that says it exhibits characteristics of an apparent decomposition.

(Sorry I couldn't provide an actual link as I found these reports on my computer but hope that anyone who wants to find them can do so as they were included in the 1/21 doc dump and note the page numbers 3329 & 3335 referenced above.)

 

[Curious Me]

Hogwash, there's plenty of evidence still that points to Casey Anthony and her family's involvement in covering up the murder of a little girl by her mother.

Chiquita71 wrote, "Please, someone explain this. If someone already has and I am in the middle of posting, sorry. But if Casey is innocent because the state has no evidence and the case should be dismissed...then how can we find out what "Casey's very compelling reason for her actions" are/were by going to trial? Do they want to go to trial or not? Where is the "other side in this?" Why don't they say or do something about this?"

I ask the same questions - Does the Defense team think they can just keep saying she's innocent and we'll understand it all someday? How about they tell us that part now before asking for a dismissal?

Who committed the murder then? Shouldn't we tell all so we can go catch the killer?

JB must think we're as stupid as he is.

 

[notthatsmart]

Maybe before your eyes...but please don't include me! We (many of us) always knew that there was the likelihood that dna evidence would have been washed away in the six months of being immersed in water. In my mind, nothing has changed. Curious as to what your opinion was on December 11th.

My opinion was that she may still be alive.

 

[CitizenKim]

Even when JB was on the show today, there was no statements about finding the "real" murderer. Boggles my mind.

EXACTLY! Their case pretty much falls apart for me right there. IF Casey didn't do it (in their delusional world) --SOMEONE did. :banghead:

Why aren't they desperately seeking the killer? What possible scenario would make that step unnecessary? Are they really THAT stupid and/or do they just think we are? :furious:

 

[AZlawyer]

My opinion was that she may still be alive.

OK, the original poster asked what your opinion was on Dec 11 (when the body was found). Maybe a better question is what your opinion was on Dec 19 (after the body was identified).

 

[mydailyopinions]

Baez is right, the truth will come out at trial...too bad it will take a full jury to give the truth..that Casey is guilty of first degree murder!!!
May not be the truth he wanted..but if his client would have told the truth all along, it may not have taken a jury to decide!:banghead:

 

[joeskidbeck]

If I were in KC's shoes (and I really was innocent), I would be using the media appearances to help find the real killer. There are absolutely no logical reasons to be talking about anything else at this point. Someone, anyone, PLEASE help me find the person who killed my precious baby girl!!! The whole family should be saturating every media outlet with pleas for help. I know that I don't see every news show or newspaper, but I have not heard any of these people trying to find the real killer. This alone tells me everything that I need to know about whether or not KC is guilty.

 

[sleutherontheside]

As Jose continues to repeat his soundbite " the truth will come out at trial" what comes to mind is....."truth about what?". Will it be the truth outlining KC's relationship with her family? Will it be the truth about certain pieces of evidence? Will it be the truth about what really happened to her daughter? Who knows. What I do know, is that while we may never know the details regarding Caylee's death, we do know that not one person has come forward with any credible evidence to exonerate KC. With the overwhelming "circumstantial evidence" pointing in one direction and no "circumstantial evidence" pointing away....all he has is his continued assertion that the evidence can be disputed. He fought the gag order, he continues to grandstand for the media, he will not back down from his strategy. His effort seems to be clearly focused on reaching as many people as humanly possible to create reasonable doubt before a jury is ever seated. And that is it. It's all he has. I have faith that the jury will not be able to ignore the overwhelming lack of interest that this entire family at large had in searching for Caylee. Sure some evidence may be disputed, some may be thrown out....but logic and reason will save the day.

 

[MissJames]

For those who don't have audio - here is a paraphrase of the video

duct tape doesn't match gas can in garage
dna on duct tape doesn't match KC (lab tech)
lack physical evidence implicating KC in murder
hair did not come from decomposing body

JB says:not enuf to support a legal finding
motion dismiss is legal plea - burden not a case for 1st deg murder or agg. child abuse - these specific charges do not reach level of prima facia case
KC has a compelling reason for actions - gonna lay out at trial
specific legal motion for court to have legal finding -
TM says we cant tell you our defense - kc will be proven innocent

BBM
What about reciprical discovery? Doesn't the defense have to show the state their evidence,experts reports,etc? FL is a "Sunshine Law" state.I realize that TM is not from FL,but he still has to follow FL Law.The State has a motion on the table to get said evidence.

 

[cyberborg]

For those who don't have audio - here is a paraphrase of the video

duct tape doesn't match gas can in garage
dna on duct tape doesn't match KC (lab tech)
lack physical evidence implicating KC in murder
hair did not come from decomposing body

JB says:not enuf to support a legal finding
motion dismiss is legal plea - burden not a case for 1st deg murder or agg. child abuse - these specific charges do not reach level of prima facia case
KC has a compelling reason for actions - gonna lay out at trial
specific legal motion for court to have legal finding -
TM says we cant tell you our defense - kc will be proven innocent

Thank you. Again with the 'compelling reasons' and 'we cannot tell you' so it is nothing that warrants KC being sprung on bail before the trial and we/she are going to have to wait for trial. We are not arguing innocence or guilt IMHO but LWOP versus DP. There is a mountain of 'circumstantial' evidence that the Defense is trying to push microscopic holes in.

 

[Reagan]

BBM
What about reciprical discovery? Doesn't the defense have to show the state their evidence,experts reports,etc? FL is a "Sunshine Law" state.I realize that TM is not from FL,but he still has to follow FL Law.The State has a motion on the table to get said evidence.

MissJames :wave:
I was watching something on wftv online yesterday regarding the frivolous motions from the defense, especially the motion to dismiss the charges.. and the defense attorney that wftv consults with basically said in a nutshell that he was highly disappointed with this so-called dream team, and the fact that they don't seem to be well versed in FL law. He was very unimpressed... as am I.

 

[cyberborg]

With all these defense media appearances how can they possibly argue for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity?

:dance::dance::dance::dance:

 

[sleutherontheside]

I have to wonder what this "dream team" is using as a defense strategy....

Is it the "grasping at straws" , throwing the spaghetti against the wall and "see what sticks", "spinning the bottle", "playing the lottery", "rolling the dice", using a "ouija board", "playing roulette", or is it as plain as playing a "simple game of chicken"? Hmmmmmmmmmm