2011.06.11 Sidebar (Trial Day Sixteen)

[ThinkTank]

I believe the duct tape was NOT put on Caylee's tender face skin and into her hair as a means to silence her after being "put to sleep" with chloroform, as a repeated occurrence. I don't believe the Inmate had done this before, to her daughter. Maybe the chloroform before...but not the duct tape before.

As LDB said in opening statements, when the duct tape was put on Caylee's face it was NEVER intended to come off - EVER. The person who put that duct tape on Caylee's face expected Caylee to be dead and to never be found with duct tape on or near her nose and mouth. It was not intended to stage a kidnapping and/or murder by someone else, because Caylee was not supposed to be found. (why the Inmate had a meltdown at jail when she heard that Caylee had been found)

Just like a bandaide is sometimes difficult to remove, and sometimes leaves a red mark on the skin when removed, especially on a child with sensitive skin.... IF the duct tape had ever been applied at any time to Caylee's face while she was alive, and then removed (when she woke up from her nap in the trunk for example) it would have been very painful for an alive Caylee to have that duct tape pulled off of her face skin and out of her hair, and it would have certainly left some telltale redness on Caylee's face from being removed, and would have been an experience which Caylee would certainly tell JoJo and CeeCee about.

 

[Trident]

Would you be comfortable letting someone walk for this crime, even though you think they are guilty? The state will not present the evidence you are asking for, so you believe Casey should be sent free?

Sorry, if I'm dwelling on this, I am really taken aback by this. I've never heard this expressed this way, and I'm curious about your take on this.

It's okay to "dwell" on this, I'm doing it myself. Let me say that I started out believing Casey was GUILTY as hell. I then moved along to disliking CA, GA, and LA, you saw the same videos I did, and I never lost my dislike for them. I saw the jailhouse tapes, and I gotta tell you hinky meter jumped out of the box and ran around the room.

Okay, we now are at trial. I am keeping an open mind, looking, listening, watching every day and every night. The more I see the less I see the evidence I would need to convict Casey. So, to answer your question, yes, I would rather let her walk free than convict her when I had a reasonable doubt, which I do, and that doubt seems to grow every day. EDITED - not the doubt that she's guilty, but the doubt that prosecution has proved she is.

Oh, emotionally, I know she did it - she lies, has from day 1. She slept around, a lot it seems. There is mayhem all around this group = BUT - I cannot see where the prosecution has tied Casey excusively to the murder of Caylee. With that in mind, I could NOT vote to convict.

 

[wandering]

Think of Scott Peterson murdering Laci Peterson. The State didn't have her body or the baby for months and months and months. They had a boat, anchors he made and a girlfriend. SP is in San Quentin for life.

AND was sentenced to death. Not life.

 

[fifteen89]

<snipped>
Did anyone watch Geraldo's show last night?.....
For all Geraldo's complaining about the Prosecution pouring it on, he doesn't see that he's doing the exact same thing for the other side. Was hoping someone posted about it because I can't remember what Geraldo was going on and on about that made me think that. But I don't see where anyone posted about the show. Is his show online anywhere?

Sorry to quote my own post but I remembered what GR was going on and on about last night. He was saying the Prosecution shouldn't have said the duct tape was the murder weapon because now they're tied to having to prove it. Wow. Pot meet kettle. JB's opening statement had an awful lot of pieces to it, Geraldo. Wonder how many JB will be able to prove..... Maybe GR was mesmerized by his good friend JB???

 

[stilettos]

Do you think the jury will feel they've been punked once the trial is over & they are able to view ICA's behavior prior to them (the jury) entering the courtroom and after they leave?

I do believe that they will be pizzled....majorly!

 

[Tipstaff]

AND was sentenced to death. Not life.

TY....it takes so long to get to the actual event....crossed over to LWOP in my mind. But the DP is what he deserved.

 

[Cheewawa007]

I believe the duct tape was NOT put on Caylee's tender face skin and into her hair as a means to silence her after being "put to sleep" with chloroform, as a repeated occurrence. I don't believe the Inmate had done this before, to her daughter. Maybe the chloroform before...but not the duct tape before.

As LDB said in opening statements, when the duct tape was put on Caylee's face it was NEVER intended to come off - EVER. The person who put that duct tape on Caylee's face expected Caylee to be dead and to never be found with duct tape on or near her nose and mouth. It was not intended to stage a kidnapping and/or murder by someone else, because Caylee was not supposed to be found. (why the Inmate had a meltdown at jail when she heard that Caylee had been found)

Just like a bandaide is sometimes difficult to remove, and sometimes leaves a red mark on the skin when removed, especially on a child with sensitive skin.... IF the duct tape had ever been applied at any time to Caylee's face while she was alive, and then removed (when she woke up from her nap in the trunk for example) it would have been very painful for an alive Caylee to have that duct tape pulled off of her face skin and out of her hair, and it would have certainly left some telltale redness on Caylee's face from being removed, and would have been an experience which Caylee would certainly tell JoJo and CeeCee about.

BBM: Not to mention the heart sticker placed on the duct tape. I don't think she intended for anyone to find her body either. She thought she was slick enough to pull this whole thing off and no one would ever think to look 15 houses down because "Zanny" took her.

 

[Leila]

For the most part, I've tried to stay away from forming any theories regarding what I think happened. But the past 2 days, I've found myself wandering more and more into that territory. Last night, I landed on a string of thoughts that made perfect sense to me.

Why would you chloroform a child, duct tape her mouth, and possibly her hands as well? If you are going to kill a 2 year old by smothering them with duct tape, why would you need to make chloroform (not an easy process) and use that to subdue them. Cough syrup would work just fine. That's a question I've come back to every single time I've tried to figure out what might have happened here. The chloroform searches were done in March. Caylee died in June. You don't click on a recipe for chloroform 84 times to learn how to make it in March, and then actually make it (not refreshing your memory on how to make it) 3 months later. I believe ICA actually made the chloroform in March or early April. So, if Caylee didn't die until June, what was ICA doing with this chloroform?

We know that there was a loose hair with a death band found in the trunk of the car. Caylee's body was triple bagged. How did that hair end up loose in the trunk of the car? How did decomp fluid leak through 2 trash bags and a laundry bag with waterproof liner, onto the liner of the trunk itself? I don't think it did.

I think ICA was using chloroform as a "babysitter". She wanted to meet up with TL the night Caylee went missing. There were numerous rapid calls to GA and CA late that afternoon. ICA couldn't find a babysitter, imo. She chloroformed Caylee, duct taped her mouth to keep her silent if she woke up, possibly bound her hands with duct tape so she couldn't remove the mouth duct tape if she woke up, and put her in the trunk of her car. Later, she goes to check on Caylee, and Caylee is dead. This fits with both Dr. Vass' and Dr. Hackett's testimony regarding the body being in that trunk very close to time of death. It also fits with why we might find a loose death band hair in the trunk (she's not bagged), and decomp fluid on the liner.

So, if Caylee died in the trunk of the car, why do cadaver dogs hit on the backyard? I didn't have a clue. Until I recalled Forgey's testimony on cross. He states that a person could cut their finger, bleed on the ground, the blood begin to decomp outside the body...dogs would hit on that. Aha! After ICA borrows the shovel to bag Caylee (in the trunk of the car), she goes into the backyard to wash the shovel. Where does she do this? Where cadaver dogs hit.

That's the most reasonable theory I can come up with at this point, but I think it makes sense.

ETA: More to the point, I think this is exactly the scenario the state is trying to show with all this evidence. Big lightbulb moment for me.

Interesting scenario and well thought out! I think what you've described would be an accidental death, as she didn't intend on Caylee dying, only being subdued and out of the way while Casey did what she wanted. But it would certainly fall under child abuse - to the extreme. And Casey's partying afterward shows that Casey was not at all emotionally impacted with the loss of her child.

One thing that many have noted is that in some of the last pictures of Caylee, there's dark circles under her eyes. This isn't normal at all for a 2 and 1/2 year old, and I've wondered if it indicates being drugged on a regular basis?

 

[stilettos]

Interesting scenario and well thought out! I think what you've described would be an accidental death, as she didn't intend on Caylee dying, only being subdued and out of the way while Casey did what she wanted. But it would certainly fall under child abuse - to the extreme. And Casey's partying afterward shows that Casey was not at all emotionally impacted with the loss of her child.

One thing that many have noted is that in some of the last pictures of Caylee, there's dark circles under her eyes. This isn't normal at all for a 2 and 1/2 year old, and I've wondered if it indicates being drugged on a regular basis?

Not accidental death at all if in the commission of an act of child abuse the child dies.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

George told the cops that Casey wouldn't let him go to her trunk, she insisted on getting the wheel blocks herself, and at the same time, threw out the gas cans and said "here's your damn cans.."
(paraphrasing). He never looked in the trunk, and why would he?

To get the block. LOL LOL She only gave him the can as far as I know.

 

[21merc7]

Think Tank I completely agree. Duct tape was used to end Caylee's life. At least one tool used, there may have been other actions, but the tape was the finality. Even worse, no matter how many other things done and including the duct tape, it just took seconds for the entire horrific event, imo.

Mock Juror must ignore the above.

 

[wandering]

It isn't up to the DT to prove it was an accidental drowning, nor that GA helped dispose of the body, abused ICA, or that Kronk stashed/staged the body. It IS up to the prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ICA killed Caylee, and I don't believe they have done so with what they have so far presented. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. If I were a juror, with what I've seen/heard so far I would have to let ICA walk because they did NOT prove ICA did anything.

Many legal talking heads have said that the defense erred by suggesting accidental drowning, and saying that George and Lee molested KC. It is the JOB of the defense to give the jury another scenario to consider. SODDI is common.

The fact remains that if it was an "accident," an ambulance should have been called, and certainly the baby wouldn't have duct tape on her face, and she wouldn't have been thrown on the side of the road like trash.

Also, KC could have told investigators that "truth" when first questioned, instead of lying and inventing fake scenarios. The truth would have avoided this lengthy and expensive trial. I believe this will be obvious to the jury.

Fact is, it's all too obvious that KC is not to be believed, and I believe she will be convicted.

As for circumstantial evidence, that's the best kind. It just sits there, it does not change and does not rely on human error, such as forgetful witnesses, bribed, biased, or deceased.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by Mountain_Kat
Give it up.

I know how wide one piece of duct tape is. I know that it is certainly wide enough to cover both the nose and mouth of a child. But without knowing WHERE this duct tape was positioned on the face, I can not state that it ever covered the nose of this child. I can't.

Now leave me alone and stop trying to tamper with the jury!

:angel2:

I believe that as one of the jurors you can look at the tape and picture for yourself if it is possible to NOT cover her mouth and nose. The jurors have this info to decide for themselves.

and...the video superimposition the jurors saw of Caylee's face when she was alive, turning into her skull photo, with duct tape across her mouth in different possible positions, was to SCALE .. it showed the exact width of the Henkel duct tape and the exact dimensions of Caylee's face and how the width of even one piece of this particular duct tape would have been sufficient to make it impossible for Caylee to breath from her mouth or nose.

The duct tape did not cover Caylee's nasal aperture (holes where her nose would have been on top of), but would have covered her nostrils when her nose and flesh were on her skull in life.

 

[Sabrina2011]

And she would not be in shorts and t-shirt, she would be in Pj's

 

[Dr.Fessel]

It's okay to "dwell" on this, I'm doing it myself. Let me say that I started out believing Casey was GUILTY as hell. I then moved along to disliking CA, GA, and LA, you saw the same videos I did, and I never lost my dislike for them. I saw the jailhouse tapes, and I gotta tell you hinky meter jumped out of the box and ran around the room.

Okay, we now are at trial. I am keeping an open mind, looking, listening, watching every day and every night. The more I see the less I see the evidence I would need to convict Casey. So, to answer your question, yes, I would rather let her walk free than convict her when I had a reasonable doubt, which I do, and that doubt seems to grow every day. EDITED - not the doubt that she's guilty, but the doubt that prosecution has proved she is.

Oh, emotionally, I know she did it - she lies, has from day 1. She slept around, a lot it seems. There is mayhem all around this group = BUT - I cannot see where the prosecution has tied Casey excusively to the murder of Caylee. With that in mind, I could NOT vote to convict.

I respect your position and I am really glad you are talking about it. Makes for some good thinking and conversation.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Yes, they had a boat Scott bought without telling anyone stored away until he needed it. Unfortunately, Scott went fishing, and was SEEN, fishing in the area were the bodies eventually washed up on shore. I believe there was also a hair caught on something in the boat, Scott had a girl friend, changed his appearance, and was headed toward Mexico with about $10,000 cash, plus camping equipment.

When someone testifies they saw ICA parked alongside the road where Caylee's body was found, in the right time frame, it would lend more weight. If Casey headed out of town, that would also lend more weight. From what I've seen so far, anyone could have killed Caylee and dumped her body like a piece of trash. I see no proof ICA did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the longer this case goes on, the more I see how flimsy the evidence really is insofar as PROVING Casey was the one who killed her daughter.

Yeah, let me say it again, I think she did, but before I could convict her, I would need more evidence, circumstancial or otherwise, than what the prosecution has produced so far. They NEED to tie ICA more closely into this, make sure she is the only one who could have killed the baby. They haven't done it so far. You only need one juror like me to get her off and I do think she's guilty.

The biggest issue for me in your thought processes that "Anyone" could have killed her ??..In all circumstancial cases the case had to prove that a death by others thus felony murder (in this case)..then they have to prove the suspect had the means opportunity to commit the crime. Then SA usually needs to show some sort of behaviors post murder and missing is compelling enough to show "avoidance" in truth tellings or possibly "Consciousness of guilt. So unless you believe the some stranger did this...how would some stranger have the access to all the evidence such as KC's car trunk/vehicle, rare duct tape and heart stickers, backyard house in general..Me doesnt believe any stranger did this at all..so by your summation then it would have to be either Cindy or George?..Hummm..Tho they did act somewhat over protective of KC..I find it not reasonable to suspect either of them.

I think this is why DT's had such an opening statement..as they know evidence points at KC..so by saying it was an accident, and accusing her father of sexual abuses..that explains KC's behaviors and lies...In order for their scenerio to fly you must believe both part one and two of their scenerio then feel that is enough to explain away why Caylee died and treated like garbage...DT is out on a very thin limb.. Child abuse and neglect that ends in death to that child means First degree felony and SA has the right to seek the DP...Caylee was under 3 years of age, she would not duct tape herself, package herself up and crawl to that critter infested site..

Ohhh well, Sometimes people just cant accept that any mother could do this to her own flesh and blood :seeya:

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Interesting scenario and well thought out! I think what you've described would be an accidental death, as she didn't intend on Caylee dying, only being subdued and out of the way while Casey did what she wanted. But it would certainly fall under child abuse - to the extreme. And Casey's partying afterward shows that Casey was not at all emotionally impacted with the loss of her child.

One thing that many have noted is that in some of the last pictures of Caylee, there's dark circles under her eyes. This isn't normal at all for a 2 and 1/2 year old, and I've wondered if it indicates being drugged on a regular basis?

Right. And that's why, when I got up yesterday morning, I looked into the requirements for First Degree Murder under Florida law. Law in NOT my strongsuit. I really thought that there had to be premeditation or intent in order for someone to be found guilty of First Degree Murder. That isn't the case at all, as it turns out. Under Florida law, if you accidentally kill someone during the commission of a crime against that person, it could still fall under First Degree murder. Aggravated Child Abuse is one of the crimes listed.

At least, that's what I took away from my reading. Bear in mind, I'm no mock lawyer.

ETA: Working on a new keyboard, so please try to overlook all my typos until I get the feel for this stupid thing.

 

[SondraK]

My opinion (which is worth less than nothing in the whole scheme of things) is that when we have one circumstantial fact that points to ICA more likely than anyone else and then add another circumstantial fact, and another, and another: You get the idea, right? There really is no reasonable doubt left.

The prosecution has not yet finished piling on the facts that point to ICA as the MOST LIKELY killer of this little child. I believe Caylee is speaking loud and clear.

Thanks to those who are doing the mock juror as I feel it is important to see what the jury may be thinking at this point. Let's reserve judgement until the prosecution is finished.

I would say wait for the defense, but I really feel they have nothing to offer.

 

[KathrynL]

It isn't up to the DT to prove it was an accidental drowning, nor that GA helped dispose of the body, abused ICA, or that Kronk stashed/staged the body. It IS up to the prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ICA killed Caylee, and I don't believe they have done so with what they have so far presented. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. If I were a juror, with what I've seen/heard so far I would have to let ICA walk because they did NOT prove ICA did anything.

This is true, however by choosing the story they did in their opening statement, they have put forth a scenario where (I believe) the jury will want to see evidence of their allegations. Had they chosen a different game plan-perhaps pointing out holes in the states case and leaving it at that-they may have had a better shot at convictions on lesser counts of the indictment and avoiding conviction on the top count. IMO the final instructions to the jury are critical, and I'll have to wait to hear them to see how the evidence matches up to the law. :cow:

 

[wandering]

Doesn't have to cover the nose to kill. A crying child can suffocate on their own mucus if they can't open their mouths. (sorry for the image)

Very astute. TYVM.