2011.06.23 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-six)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
this is probably off topic. i am new here and cannot start threads, i think. if i can i haven't figured out how anyway. so, my comment is this. baez is losing quite badly and it is apparently the consensus here that he is a poor attorney. i am not as convinced of that; look at what he has to work with. his task is not really possible. if ever there was a case that was indefensible this is it. so, i am up to day 22 in my trial viewing and i am seeing this lawyer consistently fail to make any headway in the pursuit of establishing reasonable doubt as to the guilt of his client. what happened, happened. i will say to his credit that he has showed up every day.

LOL...he had no choice but to show up every day...he's in this till the bitter end...

Well, I believe he complicated this by adding GA/RK as the ones who hide Caylee's body...the morally bankrupt RK, will probably be a witness as will KH...I only hope GA doesn't come off as incredible. She had a text messge from him the night he threatened to committ suicide...or has that been debunked? She also had some photos of GA...and what he did say to KH was an off the cuff remark. What's he supposed to say, yeah, my own daughter took her own daughters life? He was hoping for it to be an accident that snowballed...but not to put him in this as he hide Caylee's body and set his daughter up for a felonly murder??? It just is so bizarre, it shouldn't be believed...JMHO

Justice for Caylee
 
The analysis on the "Today" show this morning is that the jurors may end up disregarding the dueling forensic witnesses since firm conclusions can't be drawn from their combined testimony. The hypothesis was that this will help the prosecution, because the jury will then focus on the all the testimony about the smell of death in the trunk, the 31 days, the lies, etc.
 
Good Morning Everyone!

I just saw a story on Today show about a federal ruling declaring FL death penalty unconstitutional. Did anyone else see that?

Wonder what's in store for us today?

wm

Its only on a certain case. This was talked about yesterday I forgot the name of the defendant it is on.
 
'Morning. I'd like one egg, over-medium, with whole grain French toast and a couple slices of smoky bacon :)

Once again, good peeps, I have to be out for a few hours this morning but will join you for the afternoon proceedings. DH and I are getting ready to head to Mackinac Island for a long (anniversary) weekend, so I've been running errands and indulging in manicure, pedicure, haircut. Chatted with nail tech yesterday about the Casey case (she expects LWOP).

Later.
 
I've heard a buzz that Cindy is supposed to take the stand today.... Has anyone else heard this?

Morning all! I heard that too - but, last night I also heard that Stephen Shaw (hair and fiber analyst with the FBI) was waiting yesterday. So.... I'm getting really tired of all these scientific guys - let's get on with it:banghead:

Off to dry my hair and do a load of laundry before the drama begins.

P.S. - I was watching "The Glades", a crime drama last night - and the story line was about a man who was murdered and his baby had disappeared. I kept finding my mind wandering away - and realized that "truth is really stranger than fiction" and that the show was just not able to hold my attention anymore.
 
this is probably off topic. i am new here and cannot start threads, i think. if i can i haven't figured out how anyway. so, my comment is this. baez is losing quite badly and it is apparently the consensus here that he is a poor attorney. i am not as convinced of that; look at what he has to work with. his task is not really possible. if ever there was a case that was indefensible this is it. so, i am up to day 22 in my trial viewing and i am seeing this lawyer consistently fail to make any headway in the pursuit of establishing reasonable doubt as to the guilt of his client. what happened, happened. i will say to his credit that he has showed up every day.

welcome.gif
barbtries!

...just one question: Are you familiar with Baez's work, other than this case? IMO, he's not a good lawyer stuck with an undefensable case.
 
Good morning all!
Got all my housework done, just wish I had a flat screen in my yard, so I can get to my neglected garden!
 
I think they have to tie up a few loose ends especially with Dr. G. She will have to explain why there was no need to open up the skull versus what Dr. Spitz said. The chloroform issue also needs to be addressed. Why some experts testified to low levels versus Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise showing high peaks. I think these are crucial to the case. The duct tape with no DNA also needs to be addressed so it sticks (no pun intended) in the jurors minds that there was no DNA due to environmental elements.

I'd be perfectly fine with the state clearing up those things definitively, but I think most of the jurors have pretty much connected the dots wrt alot of those things. I know I have.

1). There is no formal protocol that states the head must be opened during an autopsy. Dr. Spitz said so himself. So all he was really saying was that Dr.G didn't do things the way HE would have done them. Meh. Furthermore, he never tested this sediment in the skull...could have been saline residue, could have been dirt, could have been anything. Again, meh.

2). With respect to the chloroform, some experts tested low levels because they were testing for chloroform residue, not levels present in air samples. The chemist who collected the air samples at Dr. Vass' suggestion didn't have a triple trap filter (or whatever they are called) and originally used tedlar bags for collection. He readily stated yesterday that this was not the optimum way to collect these samples. My understanding is that Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise took air samples from carpet retrieved from the trunk of the vehicle and ran them through this triple trap filter. Thus the reason they were able to better concentrate the air samples. At least, that was my understanding.

3). No DNA recovered from the duct tape is a no-brainer, imo. It had been exposed to the elements for 5 months or more, and subjected to flooding. Any DNA present would have degraded to the point that testing would yeild nothing.

So...like I said, I think the jury has probably already connected the dots. But you're right, it doesn't hurt for the state to reinforce things. Refresh the jury's memory, in case JB has turned their brains to jello this week. :)
 
Good morning everyone. Thanks for the French Toast Beach, it sure is yummy!
 
Morning all

Why do I not believe this..

Lawyer: Casey's Parents Don't Think She's Innocent

Anthony Lawyer Talks Casey Case On CNN


http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28329375/detail.html

They kind of left out the part about not believing she is innocent. I sure don't see where that quote says that. Of course they don't want her to get the death penalty, but that doesn't mean they think she's guilty.
I hate how the media sensationalizes things... did anyone hear Lippman actually saying that?
 
Its only on a certain case. This was talked about yesterday I forgot the name of the defendant it is on.

Thanks QueenD! I didn't hear the whole segment and was worried:crazy:.and I took yesterday afternoon off from following the case.

I feel better now:)

wm
 
I'd be perfectly fine with the state clearing up those things definitively, but I think most of the jurors have pretty much connected the dots wrt alot of those things. I know I have.

1). There is no formal protocol that states the head must be opened during an autopsy. Dr. Spitz said so himself. So all he was really saying was that Dr.G didn't do things the way HE would have done them. Meh. Furthermore, he never tested this sediment in the skull...could have been saline residue, could have been dirt, could have been anything. Again, meh.

2). With respect to the chloroform, some experts tested low levels because they were testing for chloroform residue, not levels present in air samples. The chemist who collected the air samples at Dr. Vass' suggestion didn't have a triple trap filter (or whatever they are called) and originally used tedlar bags for collection. He readily stated yesterday that this was not the optimum way to collect these samples. My understanding is that Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise took air samples from carpet retrieved from the trunk of the vehicle and ran them through this triple trap filter. Thus the reason they were able to better concentrate the air samples. At least, that was my understanding.

3). No DNA recovered from the duct tape is a no-brainer, imo. It had been exposed to the elements for 5 months or more, and subjected to flooding. Any DNA present would have degraded to the point that testing would yeild nothing.

So...like I said, I think the jury has probably already connected the dots. But you're right, it doesn't hurt for the state to reinforce things. Refresh the jury's memory, in case JB has turned their brains to jello this week. :)

This Post should be a "sticky" Great summary M_K
 
George and Cindy are testifiying in an on going court case. I highly doubt the judge will be happy witnesses are issuing statements on if they think the defendant is guilty or not. I'm pretty sure witnesses aren't allowed to discuss the case. Otherwise would't ALL the witnesses be on TV? I wonder if this will derail the trail at all
 
This was posted on yesterday's sidebar thread, thought I would bring it over.

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/10374903/44382327/Caseys_Roommate_Tells_All/1

In her first interview, the woman who lived with Anthony after her 2-year-old was reported missing tells Diane Dimond about her “crazy” eruptions, romantic interests—and quest for fame.

Tracy Conroy, of Sacramento, California, is speaking out for the first time about her experience with Casey Anthony in the days immediately following news that her daughter, Caylee, was missing.
 
George and Cindy are testifiying in an on going court case. I highly doubt the judge will be happy witnesses are issuing statements on if they think the defendant is guilty or not. I'm pretty sure witnesses aren't allowed to discuss the case. Otherwise would't ALL the witnesses be on TV? I wonder if this will derail the trail at all
They can.
 
What do you suppose the jury made of Lisabeth Fryer and Cheney Mason sneaking out during Dr Wise's cross the other day?

If I was on the jury I would be thinking...

They had something better to do than try a death penalty case?
I have to sit here till the end of the day why don't they?
Do they only work 9-5?

If I was on the defense team I would have been so embarrassed by that as they looked so stupid trying to sneak out with their briefcases and bags.
 
Rain is liquid precipitation, as opposed to non-liquid kinds of precipitation such as.... I had a dream I was a Chemist. Woke up groggy and its storming here.
 
The analysis on the "Today" show this morning is that the jurors may end up disregarding the dueling forensic witnesses since firm conclusions can't be drawn from their combined testimony. The hypothesis was that this will help the prosecution, because the jury will then focus on the all the testimony about the smell of death in the trunk, the 31 days, the lies, etc.

I can only judge from how I'm viewing the evidence. Going soley on that, I'd say this analysis was spot on. I found every witness who stated they smelled decomp in the car to be credible. I find the cadaver dog hit in the trunk of the vehicle to be credible. And I found Dr. Haskell's testimony wrt entomological evidence to be VERY credible. I haven't a doubt in the world that Caylee's decomposing body was in the trunk of ICA's vehicle. Not a one.

I found Dr. Vass' and Dr. Wise's testimony about the choloroform air levels being shockingly high to be very credible. What reinforces their finding, for me, is the testimony with regard to ICA's computer searches. 84 times she accessed a site describing how to make chloroform. That is not a coincidence, imo.

And while I don't feel that I can say with any certainty where on the skull the duct tape was located, I think I can say with certainty that the duct tape was placed somewhere on the head of this child. There is no reason for anyone to duct tape a child's face post mortem.

So yes, I think that juror's will turn to credible evidence that reinforces what they THINK they already know, and many will come to the same conclusions that I have come to.

Of course, that's just my opinion.
 
I'd be perfectly fine with the state clearing up those things definitively, but I think most of the jurors have pretty much connected the dots wrt alot of those things. I know I have.

1). There is no formal protocol that states the head must be opened during an autopsy. Dr. Spitz said so himself. So all he was really saying was that Dr.G didn't do things the way HE would have done them. Meh. Furthermore, he never tested this sediment in the skull...could have been saline residue, could have been dirt, could have been anything. Again, meh.

2). With respect to the chloroform, some experts tested low levels because they were testing for chloroform residue, not levels present in air samples. The chemist who collected the air samples at Dr. Vass' suggestion didn't have a triple trap filter (or whatever they are called) and originally used tedlar bags for collection. He readily stated yesterday that this was not the optimum way to collect these samples. My understanding is that Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise took air samples from carpet retrieved from the trunk of the vehicle and ran them through this triple trap filter. Thus the reason they were able to better concentrate the air samples. At least, that was my understanding.

3). No DNA recovered from the duct tape is a no-brainer, imo. It had been exposed to the elements for 5 months or more, and subjected to flooding. Any DNA present would have degraded to the point that testing would yeild nothing.

So...like I said, I think the jury has probably already connected the dots. But you're right, it doesn't hurt for the state to reinforce things. Refresh the jury's memory, in case JB has turned their brains to jello this week. :)

Oh I totally agree with you. IMO, they have proven their case without a reasonable doubt. I just hope the jury thinks so too and if it means tying up a few loose ends just in case, they should so there will be NO reasonable doubt. Great post. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
1,998
Total visitors
2,128

Forum statistics

Threads
601,327
Messages
18,122,797
Members
231,018
Latest member
Macogle
Back
Top