2011.06.16 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty)

[PGWodehouse]

Wasn't there discussion at one time that the Henkel tape may have belonged to Amy H? Something like Amy asked KC if she took her tape out of Amy's bag?

There were some texts from Amy where Casey supposedly borrowed her gaffer's tape she uses for work, and lost the rest of it. Dont' think there was ever any mention of duct tape.

 

[coloradoteacher]

It was new to me too Salem and to be honest it had me (someone who is deeply convinced of KC's guilt) saying to myself--wait a minute, what? there was blood evidence? not enough to test for DNA? HUH? so if I respond that way, how will these 12 jurors respond---given that they testified that they have little to no prior knowledge of the crime commited?

I'm just pondering that at this moment. (i'm not worried about her being aquitted, I know you know that Salem, I'm wondering if it creates enough doubt about murder as opposed to a lesser charge, might or might not, the defense has just begun and I can't tell where they are going yet for sure)

I remember seeing (on the evidence list it is listed next to these items) there was one test that was positive for blood on both the blanket and shorts but was not backed up with a second test, kind of like the chloroform tests from the sides of the trunk. IMO, it would not be crazy to think there might have been blood on either of these two items from decomposition or animal damage...

 

[Softail]

:dunno: I really think JB was acting differently today. Can't put my finger on it. Almost demure. I really have to wonder if he is embarrassed by his opening.

 

[Scamperoo]

The State was VERY stupid not to meet these allegations of JB's head on about the molestation. They should have addressed it in their case and taken the sting out of it if they could. Now JB has full rein to tell his side and the State can't do much. Sounds to me like Lee did do something to Casey but that doesn't explain her behavior in my mind. The State didn't ask Lee about what he did to Casey when a teenager which makes him look guilty. I also think Lee is in on this and is going to admit to something when he gets on the stand but not enough to make KC into what she became.

It would have been a bad Idea, that would have allowed JB to go into this nonsense as evidence, opening statements are just that no evidence just lies and bluster. It's best to let the DT bring it in, if they have no evidence they can't and won't. Unless......KC gets on the stand, then they open a whole new can of worms for themselves because she is a pathological LIAR.

 

[strach304]

I could claim the that anyone raped me or molested me. It doesn't make it so. The State tested the DNA for parentage to eliminate moments just like the one we just saw. Casey was claiming Lee touched her. Anthony Lazzaro told them that. So in order to properly investigate they tested. It doesn't mean they believed Casey's claim it means they were thorough in their investigation.

Yes but does that open the door to letting AL testify about what Casey told him? Remember that? I don't know if JB can ask it on direct or not because it's self serving hearsay. So far the DT hasn't been able to get that in there other than opening statement.

 

[costalpilot]

its not brain surgery why they tested to find out who the father is, since the mother isn't talking. course she may not know

 

[grandmaj]

I don't know Starch. It would be heresay unless someone else testified first hand I believe. But I'm not sure.

My worry is that Lee is going to throw a Hail Mary Pass and admit to trying to grope her when they were younger.

 

[Soulmagent]

I remember seeing (on the evidence list it is listed next to these items) there was one test that was positive for blood on both the blanket and shorts but was not backed up with a second test, kind of like the chloroform tests from the sides of the trunk. IMO, it would not be crazy to think there might have been blood on either of these two items from decomposition or animal damage...

I just wonder if the decomp process would make a positive test for blood, given it was not enought to farther test. Where a drop of blood in normally enough even in a dryed stain on an item.

The animal blood thing I would have never thought about.

 

[angelmom]

In all fairness, why should the state address something that there is not one iota of evidence to show it actually happened? The state does not need to address the defense's fantasy about ICA being sexually abused, not without proof, and the defense is not going to prove it, and won't even put any mental health professionals on stand. The opening statements are NOT evidence. The defense can claim whatever it wants in the OS, and that's what it did. The state by no means is required to give an argument to go against pure fantasy with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

I completely agree. Personally I think the DT may TRY to get it in, but will not be able to without putting Casey on the stand. If they decide not to risk that, then the DT cannot argue any of it - opening statements are NOT evidence, as we've heard over and over, and closing arguments cannot include "facts not in evidence." If the DT doesn't put Casey on the stand, I don't see how they are going to get the molestation in at all, which is why they're looking for the Vasco T distraction, IMHO. If the state had even mentioned it, then it opens the door for the DT to discuss it in closing arguments. That is why I think JA is working so hard to keep any mention of it out unless there is actual evidence entered (which I don't happen to believe exists.)

I can only guess the answers to the FBI investigation on that aspect of this case show some indication that those claims can be supported. Otherwise why were they even asked to compare the DNA as a possible.

It is my understanding that, in crimes against children, it is SOP to take DNA profiles of the men involved so they can be ruled out, even when that man is not a suspect or person of interest. It's just a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in preparation for a trial (how bad would it look if the DT brought this up now and the comparison had never been done?).

 

[PGWodehouse]

:dunno: I really think JB was acting differently today. Can't put my finger on it. Almost demure. I really have to wonder if he is embarrassed by his opening.

Doubt he's the slightest bit embarrassed. In my experience it's those who should most feel that emotion, that seem completely immune to it. :innocent:

 

[mikeysmommom]

Lee was never asked about molesting his sister.

SA should have asked and cleared up Lee not being Caylee's dad.Makes me wonder why it was not addressed.

 

[Jetaime]

Interesting...wonder who?

PS- remember guys, this is already stuff we knew. We knew about the "unknown" DNA, we knew about the paternity tests (IMO done to shut some folks up or in other words, cover all bases)...let Jose have his fun. The State will handle it.

Respectfully C&BBM. I totally agree. And I do believe the jurors are smart enough to see what sneaky JB tried to do there. They followed DT's opening statement closely- and made note of the fact that Baez specifically said that Lee tried to follow in his fathers footsteps, although he didn't go as far. And I believe THAT is what they'll be chewing on during lunch.

 

[darnudes]

I could claim the that anyone raped me or molested me. It doesn't make it so. The State tested the DNA for parentage to eliminate moments just like the one we just saw. Casey was claiming Lee touched her. Anthony Lazzaro told them that. So in order to properly investigate they tested. It doesn't mean they believed Casey's claim it means they were thorough in their investigation.

That and also Nick Savage had a problem with it or Lee, Lee refused to give a polly, refused to give his dna until ordered and confronted Lee about the allegations made by ICA and Lee said "he will deal with at the right time". I always thought that Lee knew damn well what a liar his sister was and he would deal with it in court if it came up. Lee isn't stupid, when he heard this stuff from Jesse and the jail letters he knew what was coming.

btw - I don't blame Lee for not wanting to give his dna or do the polly, Lee was completely innocent of any thing to do with Caylee's death and I'm sure he resented being asked, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

I don't know Starch. It would be heresay unless someone else testified first hand I believe. But I'm not sure.

My worry is that Lee is going to throw a Hail Mary Pass and admit to trying to grope her when they were younger.

Even if he did, the jury will not excuse her duct taping her baby's mouth and tossing her in the swamp. Least, I'm praying they won't. :innocent:

 

[LCoastMom]

If Caylees and Caseys DNA was ruined..we don't know for sure if it was ruined or never there in the first place..why wasn't the DNA that was present on the tape ruined? This does not make sense. I don;t think the duct tape was ever on Caylee's face.

Caylee's and ICA's DNA washed away by being left out in a tropical storm for a week and the aftermath for 4 more months. I'm pretty sure the DNA marker found on the tape was a contaminate from processing (in house).

I'm 110% sure the tape was on Caylee's little face. How else did it end up stuck to/in her hair?

 

[grandmaj]

SA should have asked and cleared up Lee not being Caylee's dad.Makes me wonder why it was not addressed.

Probably because the State was not sure they could trust his answer to be the truth.

 

[Soulmagent]

The "possible" blood that came up, and it was only possible, was probably Caylee's or what was left of her blood, that the water and decomp didn't destroy. To me it means nothing and it does not constitute a get out of jail free card for the murderer.

I thought it was more implictive then expulsionary. It will murder without a doubt the drowning story ,which is why I think it had to be possible to come from decomp or the state would have worked hard at showing signs of trama.

 

[Salem]

The "possible" blood that came up, and it was only possible, was probably Caylee's or what was left of her blood, that the water and decomp didn't destroy. To me it means nothing and it does not constitute a get out of jail free card for the murderer.

I didn't see it as a point for the DT. I saw it as even more sinster acts by ICA in the murder of Caylee. If Caylee was smothered or poisoned by cholroform, why was there blood? I'm not sure I understood the point that JB was trying to make, except if there was blood, then the State is wrong about cause of death?

Did I miss something in between about what JB was hoping to accomplish?

Salem

 

[bonjoviblonde]

Ok, I fell asleep and only heard bits and pieces. Can someone lay it all out for me please?

All I heard was Casey and Caylee had a 14/15 (whatever that means)??
Then I heard 17 was found. Is that correct? Where was it found? On the tape or on the shovel or blanket? And from what? Blood? I'm sorry, I'm just totally confused. Also how did that testimony end? Did it reach a conclusion or did JA object and it was overruled? What happened? Thanks.

And didn't the witness confirm the DNA on the tape was left by another FBI tech and that's why JB kept talking about contamination? So the "17" thing is something different? Correct? LOL. See I'm confused.

 

[strach304]

It seems to me he is trying to prove a negative by saying since Casey and Caylee's dna couldn't be detected who else's dna could have been there that we don't know about. Also add to that a fbi tech shed a hair so he wants them to look sloppy.