A Pre Meditated Murder? or Accidental?

[Jolynna]

Wow, when you put them all together, it sure looks overwhelming.

What I don't get is that she had just come into all of AH's money. She took a couple hundred in CASH from BoA. Why wouldn't she have gotten on Craigslist and found herself a sitter for that night, and then ran?

Yes, she wouldn't be able to be with Tony, but I've never gotten the vibe that he was the trigger for all this. Their communications weren't very Romeo and Juliet. I never sensed desperation.

Running off to find a job as an escort, changing her appearance, escaping the reprecussions of the thefts...that potentially could have seemed very exciting and romanticized.

She could have faked her OWN abduction. Staged her own disappearance. She wouldn't have a murder charge hanging over her head.

It leaves, to me, one of two scenarios.

She was desperately in love with Tony and he was pretty much the sole motivation for everything

or

This was more about punishing CA and getting back at her for custody threats, etc.

Either way, she still had to know that she'd get busted for grand theft. Lies were crashing down. Killing Caylee doesn't solve that problem. Why didn't she run?

This case is eating my soul.

I think Casey was obsessed with Tony AND getting back at Cindy for the custody threats.

She didn't get the checks from Amy until Amy left for PR. She knew she wouldn't have to face Amy until Amy got back from PR on July 15. I think in Casey-time a couple of weeks away is FOREVER. (She'd think about it tomorrow...or whenever.)

I think the reason she didn't run sooner is because she always thought she could get the "one more day" she begged Cindy for. I think she would have liked to have had more money than what she got from the BOA check. Despite Tony being the love of her life on June 16, to save herself, I think she would have robbed him if necessary.

Maybe while Casey was setting things up with Mark H. she WAS looking for Tony's checkbook...just in case...for backup. Only Tony hid his checkbook better than Amy did.

IMO

 

[indicat]

ITA... Maybe they did not think the house was the crime scene? I await your analysis!!

I agree, I await JWG's analysis too. The computer downloades made sense to me and I think JWG nailed it when he said she has internet ADD and I no longer put much into the searches from March. I still think at the least it was rage that lead her to it, I'm just not sure how much pre-planning went into it.

 

[nostoneunturned]

IMO if it were an accident Casey watched CSI, she knew there would ba an autopsy. She knew she had had Caylee around "pot smoking" and it would show in her hair.
Casey watched CSI she knew "the accident" would be investigated and she didn't want the hassle.

 

[Jolynna]

I agree, I await JWG's analysis too. The computer downloades made sense to me and I think JWG nailed it when he said she has internet ADD and I no longer put much into the searches from March. I still think at the least it was rage that lead her to it, I'm just not sure how much pre-planning went into it.

Where did Casey intend for Caylee to be when SHE moved in with Tony?

Remember the duct-tape around Caylee's mouth.

Would Casey have taken the time AFTER Caylee was dead to duct tape her mouth shut when she was in a hurry to bring all her clothes to Tony's apartment? George saw Caylee at 1 p.m. Jesse may have heard Caylee at 2:52 p.m. According to JWG the computer was being used from 2 to 3. Casey tried to call Tony at 3:35. Casey started pinging away from the Anthony house by 4:18. By 4:30 Casey is unpacking HER stuff in Tony's apartment.

Why would Casey duct-tape Caylee's mouth shut while Caylee was alive unless she was planning to do something that might make Caylee scream?

 

[Devon]

According to Tony Casey was on the phone with him all of the night of June 15 and into the early morning hours of June 16.

Tony said he told Casey that CAsey could stay with him but that Caylee couldn't. Casey was texting Jesse G. that night too.

Casey told Jesse either then or during the 2:52 p.m. phone call that she was leaving the Anthony home on June 16.

According to Tony's, Cindy's and Lee's statements NOTHING was packed for Caylee.

Tony's roommates and Tony say Casey DID bring her stuff over and move in June 16.

I can see no mention in either of TL's statements about the content of his conversations with KC on the night of the 15/16 June and although KC's cell records show they were texting/calling each other throughout the night, the conversations have not yet been released. I have also found no mention in his statements that he told KC that Caylee could not stay over, so in which document did you find this?

In the 2.52pm/June 16 conversation with JG, KC tells him her mother is no longer getting another house and so she will have to move out, but she does not say when, or that it would be without Caylee. She also told another friend (Iassen - as per his statement) that she was going to look for a place for her AND Caylee. TL also mentions that she talked about her parents marital problems/possible divorce and says she can no longer stay living there with Caylee, but she didn't say when she planned to move herself and Caylee out.

Of course we know she did not take any clothes/equipment for Caylee the 2nd time she left the house, because by then Caylee was dead, but there is no evidence as to what her initial plans were for that night or even if the rendezvous with TL that evening was pre-arranged or if she just pitched up there as a place to hide after putting Caylee's body in the trunk, knowing that she would have to avoid her parents and hide the truth (whatever that was) from them.

 

[MomofBoys]

I guess I just don't get how JWG's [well-thought out] analysis shows that the web searches were meaningless. I read and reread.

KC had to physically type those words into Google. This wasn't like she followed a link from a page of icons containing a chloroform mention to a page listing chloroform recipes.

She had to stop and type it in. Why on earth? She didn't chuckle and say "Heh. That's funny" and send it to her friends. She decided to see a reference and then figure out how to make a controlled substance. She had to Google "household weapons" (could be related) and "neck break." How was that related?

It's not as stream-as-consciousness as some people make it out to be. Especially considering they found chloroform where Caylee's poor little body decayed.

 

[Devon]

Where did Casey intend for Caylee to be when SHE moved in with Tony?

Where is the evidence that she actually 'intended' to move in with TL? She certainly spent a few nights with him prior to June 16, but IMO she only moved in with him full-time after Caylee died because she was avoiding her family.

 

[Devon]

I guess I just don't get how JWG's [well-thought out] analysis shows that the web searches were meaningless. I read and reread.

KC had to physically type those words into Google. This wasn't like she followed a link from a page of icons containing a chloroform mention to a page listing chloroform recipes.

She had to stop and type it in. Why on earth? She didn't chuckle and say "Heh. That's funny" and send it to her friends. She decided to see a reference and then figure out how to make a controlled substance. She had to Google "household weapons" (could be related) and "neck break." How was that related?

It's not as stream-as-consciousness as some people make it out to be. Especially considering they found chloroform where Caylee's poor little body decayed.

Bolded by me

They would have found chloroform in any case as it is one of the chemicals produced during the process of decomposition. It is the higher than normal levels of chloroform found in the analysis that has raised questions, but there are some possible alternative explanations for this discovery, including the use of any cleaning chemicals or pesticides containing chloroform, or even possibly a reaction caused by chlorinated water from a wet swimsuit and/or Caylee's lungs (if she drowned) mixing with the normal levels found in decomposition.

 

[indicat]

Where did Casey intend for Caylee to be when SHE moved in with Tony?

Remember the duct-tape around Caylee's mouth.

Would Casey have taken the time AFTER Caylee was dead to duct tape her mouth shut when she was in a hurry to bring all her clothes to Tony's apartment? George saw Caylee at 1 p.m. Jesse may have heard Caylee at 2:52 p.m. According to JWG the computer was being used from 2 to 3. Casey tried to call Tony at 3:35. Casey started pinging away from the Anthony house by 4:18. By 4:30 Casey is unpacking HER stuff in Tony's apartment.

Why would Casey duct-tape Caylee's mouth shut while Caylee was alive unless she was planning to do something that might make Caylee scream?

I'm not sure I believe no planning took place, but I do believe it was the fight between the two that took place the 15th that was the end. I am interested in what JWG comes up with for the insectiside. I just can see what is being said about the computer searches because I myself have noticed that I have jumped around from topic to topic, and in the context of RM's chloroform avitar I can see the chain of searches. It makes sense, chloroform, neck breaking, self defense. She very well could have been worried about RM's intentions with it. There are patterns involved in all of this and there is value in disecting them.

 

[MomofBoys]

but there are some possible alternative explanations for this discovery, including the use of any cleaning chemicals or pesticides containing chloroform, or even possibly a reaction caused by chlorinated water from a wet swimsuit and/or Caylee's lungs (if she drowned) mixing with the normal levels found in decomposition.

Yes, but why don't the reports indicate they found evidence of cleaning chemicals, etc? If you take the FBI report at face value, it seems that they really only found chloroform in its "pure" form. They didn't find chloroform in part of the trunk next to chemicals that hadn't combined.

Maybe KC just has incredibly bad luck, but it's logical that they'd find some other component that COULD have combined with other components to make the chloroform.

Even fluid from decomposition would have to combine with something else to make chloroform. Chloroform is a compound. Where is the evidence of other chemicals?

 

[Jolynna]

It was in one of the later dumps.

Tony said Casey wanted to stay with him because of the fighting in her family. He said he told Casey SHE could stay, but that Caylee couldn't. He didn't think a child should be staying overnight in his apartment because of the environment.

Why the duct tape over Caylee's mouth?

It is not like Casey had a lot of time to be messing around hunting for duct tape AFTER the fact. Or like she would be thinking ohhh....my daughter accidently died, I better go hunt for duct tape and tape her mouth shut.

How did Casey just happen to have THAT around ready to use? From what I hear, George and Cindy don't have duct tape in their house now.
JMO

 

[indicat]

My personal thoughts on the duct tape are that it could have been left in the car, therefore already in the car when she left after fight, and she had taken it from AH, as was mentioned in a facebook chat. Where ever this duct tape was, KC had it and that's what she used.

 

[Jolynna]

My personal thoughts on the duct tape are that it could have been left in the car, therefore already in the car when she left after fight, and she had taken it from AH, as was mentioned in a facebook chat. Where ever this duct tape was, KC had it and that's what she used.

That is very possible.

The bottom line is, if Casey went out in the garage and got it or had it in her car...she preplanned (with malice) when she got the duct tape and deliberately wrapped it around Caylee's mouth.

The only reason to put duct tape over a child's mouth is to keep them quiet so people won't hear them scream.

 

[Devon]

Yes, but why don't the reports indicate they found evidence of cleaning chemicals, etc? If you take the FBI report at face value, it seems that they really only found chloroform in its "pure" form. They didn't find chloroform in part of the trunk next to chemicals that hadn't combined.

Maybe KC just has incredibly bad luck, but it's logical that they'd find some other component that COULD have combined with other components to make the chloroform.

Even fluid from decomposition would have to combine with something else to make chloroform. Chloroform is a compound. Where is the evidence of other chemicals?

The following is snipped from the odour analysis performed on the trunk carpet samples:

Of the 51 chemicals identified from the florida trunk sample, (many gasoline components detected are not listed in the table), 41 (80%) are consistant with decompositional events. Only 17 of those overlap with known or possible gasoline consituents leaving 24 compounds (59%) found in the decompositional odor analysis database potentially unaccounted for................

................Out of 24 compounds detected in the florida trunk sample which did not overlap with known or possible gasoline constituents, 16 (67 %) known to be associated with human decompositional events were detected in the odor signature from the florida trunk carpet sample whose source could not be potentially linked to any of the controls which were analyzed. these included 2-methyl furan, acetic acid methyl ester, butanoic acid methyl ester, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, cloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, decanal, dichloroethane, dichloromethane, dimethyltrisulfide, dimethyl disulfide,hexanol, methanethiol, and trichloroethane. Of these 16 compounds, seven were significant human decomposition chemicals listed in the database.


Note that it states 51 chemicals were identified in total. It states the proportion of these which are consistent with decomposition and also those that are known possible gasoline constituents. I am no chemist, but it's likely that many of these chemicals, including those found in decomposition, might also be found in other products/processes, but the report only focuses on those relevant to decomposition and those that may be found in gasoline.

 

[ibyoungr]

The following is snipped from the odour analysis performed on the trunk carpet samples:

Of the 51 chemicals identified from the florida trunk sample, (many gasoline components detected are not listed in the table), 41 (80%) are consistant with decompositional events. Only 17 of those overlap with known or possible gasoline consituents leaving 24 compounds (59%) found in the decompositional odor analysis database potentially unaccounted for................

................Out of 24 compounds detected in the florida trunk sample which did not overlap with known or possible gasoline constituents, 16 (67 %) known to be associated with human decompositional events were detected in the odor signature from the florida trunk carpet sample whose source could not be potentially linked to any of the controls which were analyzed. these included 2-methyl furan, acetic acid methyl ester, butanoic acid methyl ester, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, cloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, decanal, dichloroethane, dichloromethane, dimethyltrisulfide, dimethyl disulfide,hexanol, methanethiol, and trichloroethane. Of these 16 compounds, seven were significant human decomposition chemicals listed in the database.


Note that it states 51 chemicals were identified in total. It states the proportion of these which are consistent with decomposition and also those that are known possible gasoline constituents. I am no chemist, but it's likely that many of these chemicals, including those found in decomposition, might also be found in other products/processes, but the report only focuses on those relevant to decomposition and those that may be found in gasoline.

Thanks for bringing this to the thread!

 

[Lanie]

The following is snipped from the odour analysis performed on the trunk carpet samples:

Of the 51 chemicals identified from the florida trunk sample, (many gasoline components detected are not listed in the table), 41 (80%) are consistant with decompositional events. Only 17 of those overlap with known or possible gasoline consituents leaving 24 compounds (59%) found in the decompositional odor analysis database potentially unaccounted for................

................Out of 24 compounds detected in the florida trunk sample which did not overlap with known or possible gasoline constituents, 16 (67 %) known to be associated with human decompositional events were detected in the odor signature from the florida trunk carpet sample whose source could not be potentially linked to any of the controls which were analyzed. these included 2-methyl furan, acetic acid methyl ester, butanoic acid methyl ester, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, cloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, decanal, dichloroethane, dichloromethane, dimethyltrisulfide, dimethyl disulfide,hexanol, methanethiol, and trichloroethane. Of these 16 compounds, seven were significant human decomposition chemicals listed in the database.


Note that it states 51 chemicals were identified in total. It states the proportion of these which are consistent with decomposition and also those that are known possible gasoline constituents. I am no chemist, but it's likely that many of these chemicals, including those found in decomposition, might also be found in other products/processes, but the report only focuses on those relevant to decomposition and those that may be found in gasoline.

Yes, and if you look in the report prior to this, you will find lab results of actual physical specimens, and it states residue of chloroform was found, and residues consistent with chloroform was found, but no other chemicals were found.
Lanie

 

[JWG]

Around lunch time today I had a chance to re-read the trunk forensic report and do a little browsing. I focused on the portion of the report that dealt with the odor, meaning chemicals that were in the gaseous state at or above room temperature.

I quickly determined that the following chemicals listed as being found in the air sample are listed as pesticide ingredients:

4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Napthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylene
​

At this point I thought I was on the path to producing a BOMBSHELL showing that the chemicals found in the odor analysis could have come from pesticides and cleaners.

Next I tried to determine whether or not any of the chemicals listed appear as ingredients in household chemicals. This proved to be much more difficult. Rather than finding a lot of boring chemistry and regulatory websites that deal with specifics (as I did with pesticides), I found a bunch of "green" websites that dealt with generalities. I was able to determine that Napthalene and Toluene are popular ingredients, but could not prove or disprove anything else.

I decided to try a different approach and see how the five focus compounds are used. What I learned is that the first three - carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform - were used in pesticide and or household cleaning solvents as ingredients or manufacturing aids, but this use was discontinued about 20 years ago. Dimethyl trisulfide and dimethyl disulfide uses were unclear, but they a not allowed in fragrances. Thus, we can safely conclude that Febreeze does not use them.

My conclusion at this point is to agree with the body farm that there was a decomposing body in the trunk (I believed that anyway based on other circumstantial evidence, but this helps cement it). I can find no evidence that household or agricultural pesticides, or household cleaning products, have been manufactured with any of the five compounds in over 20 years.

As for the chloroform, I again see nothing in the report indicating purity...only that the concentration was unusually high (though no relative or absolute concentration is indicated). I suppose KC could have purchased or produced chloroform on her own, then used it as so many have theorized. I think she was too lazy to have manufactured it and too poor to buy it.

So, she either stole it, or it was produced as a result of other chemical reactions. I think the latter is what happened.

Think of it this way. You and I are not walking around with chloroform pulsing through our bodies. However, when we die and are stuffed into a hot trunk, the chemical processes that are decomposition will produce chloroform. So it is reasonable to expect that other chemical compounds thrown into the trunk of a car might produce chloroform (or the other chemicals) as well.

So here is perhaps a hypothetical bombshell...chloroform is produced as a byproduct of the reaction of chlorine with acetone. So let's suppose we threw about 1 liter of chlorinated swimming pool water into the trunk of the Pontiac, right on top of the nylon / rayon / polyester carpet, closed it up and let it roast in the sun for a few days. Would that be enough to cause a chemical reaction between the chlorine in the water and the acetone in the artificial fibers to produce chloroform?:waitasec:

If I were LE, I would sit Cindy down and get her to detail - to the best of her recollection - what she did to clean the trunk of that car on July 15th. Then I would try to duplicate it, and see what my odor analysis produced. I would also then try throwing chlorinated water into the sample and roasting that for a while. Compare those results with the original trunk sample.

IMHO

 

[Rumpole]

Around lunch time today I had a chance to re-read the trunk forensic report and do a little browsing. I focused on the portion of the report that dealt with the odor, meaning chemicals that were in the gaseous state at or above room temperature.

I quickly determined that the following chemicals listed as being found in the air sample are listed as pesticide ingredients:

4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Napthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylene
​

At this point I thought I was on the path to producing a BOMBSHELL showing that the chemicals found in the odor analysis could have come from pesticides and cleaners.

Next I tried to determine whether or not any of the chemicals listed appear as ingredients in household chemicals. This proved to be much more difficult. Rather than finding a lot of boring chemistry and regulatory websites that deal with specifics (as I did with pesticides), I found a bunch of "green" websites that dealt with generalities. I was able to determine that Napthalene and Toluene are popular ingredients, but could not prove or disprove anything else.

I decided to try a different approach and see how the five focus compounds are used. What I learned is that the first three - carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform - were used in pesticide and or household cleaning solvents as ingredients or manufacturing aids, but this use was discontinued about 20 years ago. Dimethyl trisulfide and dimethyl disulfide uses were unclear, but they a not allowed in fragrances. Thus, we can safely conclude that Febreeze does not use them.

My conclusion at this point is to agree with the body farm that there was a decomposing body in the trunk (I believed that anyway based on other circumstantial evidence, but this helps cement it). I can find no evidence that household or agricultural pesticides, or household cleaning products, have been manufactured with any of the five compounds in over 20 years.

As for the chloroform, I again see nothing in the report indicating purity...only that the concentration was unusually high (though no relative or absolute concentration is indicated). I suppose KC could have purchased or produced chloroform on her own, then used it as so many have theorized. I think she was too lazy to have manufactured it and too poor to buy it.

So, she either stole it, or it was produced as a result of other chemical reactions. I think the latter is what happened.

Think of it this way. You and I are not walking around with chloroform pulsing through our bodies. However, when we die and are stuffed into a hot trunk, the chemical processes that are decomposition will produce chloroform. So it is reasonable to expect that other chemical compounds thrown into the trunk of a car might produce chloroform (or the other chemicals) as well.

So here is perhaps a hypothetical bombshell...chloroform is produced as a byproduct of the reaction of chlorine with acetone. So let's suppose we threw about 1 liter of chlorinated swimming pool water into the trunk of the Pontiac, right on top of the nylon / rayon / polyester carpet, closed it up and let it roast in the sun for a few days. Would that be enough to cause a chemical reaction between the chlorine in the water and the acetone in the artificial fibers to produce chloroform?:waitasec:

If I were LE, I would sit Cindy down and get her to detail - to the best of her recollection - what she did to clean the trunk of that car on July 15th. Then I would try to duplicate it, and see what my odor analysis produced. I would also then try throwing chlorinated water into the sample and roasting that for a while. Compare those results with the original trunk sample.

IMHO

Good points, well argued as usual.
I favour the explanation of high? levels of chloroform being likely to be produced by chemical reactions between a cocktail of cleaners and possibly other things such as pool water. I just checked household cleaners to hand. They all warn about mixing with other cleaners. The warning on chlorine bleach being very prominant, spelling out in large friendly red letters "..... MAY PRODUCE TOXIC CHLORINE GAS" . Not only that but, my Mother (RIP) always stressed there would be dire consequences if cleaners were mixed! Seems she was right. It produces chlorine, a highly reactive gas, and in turn chloroform.
A further point I have made before is that even if this situation did not occur, chloroform from chemical reactions is a plausible arguement to make, and one I am sure the defence can easily use to refute any claim that chloroform was administered. I think it would be easy enough to argue to the standard of reasonable doubt.

 

[Lanie]

Good points, well argued as usual.
I favour the explanation of high? levels of chloroform being likely to be produced by chemical reactions between a cocktail of cleaners and possibly other things such as pool water. I just checked household cleaners to hand. They all warn about mixing with other cleaners. The warning on chlorine bleach being very prominant, spelling out in large friendly red letters "..... MAY PRODUCE TOXIC CHLORINE GAS" . Not only that but, my Mother (RIP) always stressed there would be dire consequences if cleaners were mixed! Seems she was right. It produces chlorine, a highly reactive gas, and in turn chloroform.
A further point I have made before is that even if this situation did not occur, chloroform from chemical reactions is a plausible arguement to make, and one I am sure the defence can easily use to refute any claim that chloroform was administered. I think it would be easy enough to argue to the standard of reasonable doubt.

I agree, if you mix A and B in a container, you could very well get C with no trace of A or B left over.
This was not a situation, though, where A and B are going to be thoroughly blended together.
I'm not saying I'm right, because I am beginning to lose the thread of this debate, lol, but I really get the feeling the theory here is Caylee drowned in the swimming pool by accident, so all instances of chloroform needs to be explained away for this theory to work.
I don't know how Caylee died, but my opinion is if she did drown in the swimming pool, it is because her mother held her under the water until she was sure she was dead. I really discount the swimming pool, though, unless the initial plan was to make it look like an accidental drowning, as it would have been so much easier for Casey to run a bath and drown Caylee in the bathtub.
As for the chloroform being in the trunk, I can think of a couple of reasons for it being in the trunk that have nothing to do with Caylee's death. I just don't buy the mixtures and cleaners and pesticides and decomp all mixing together to leave an actual residue of chloroform and nothing else. So technically, by the arguments I have seen, the standard of reasonable doubt has not been met.
Lanie

 

[Rumpole]

I agree, if you mix A and B in a container, you could very well get C with no trace of A or B left over.
This was not a situation, though, where A and B are going to be thoroughly blended together.
I'm not saying I'm right, because I am beginning to lose the thread of this debate, lol, but I really get the feeling the theory here is Caylee drowned in the swimming pool by accident, so all instances of chloroform needs to be explained away for this theory to work.
I don't know how Caylee died, but my opinion is if she did drown in the swimming pool, it is because her mother held her under the water until she was sure she was dead. I really discount the swimming pool, though, unless the initial plan was to make it look like an accidental drowning, as it would have been so much easier for Casey to run a bath and drown Caylee in the bathtub.
As for the chloroform being in the trunk, I can think of a couple of reasons for it being in the trunk that have nothing to do with Caylee's death. I just don't buy the mixtures and cleaners and pesticides and decomp all mixing together to leave an actual residue of chloroform and nothing else. So technically, by the arguments I have seen, the standard of reasonable doubt has not been met.
Lanie

The chemical analyses don't test for absolutely everything. Here we have primarily volatile compounds released into the trunk itself or released from liner samples etc. There will also be all maner of solids -eg dirt, ash, residues of all sorts. There have been occasions when I have tried cleaning something - first one product, then another and clearly there is a chemical reaction with fizzing and popping, perhaps even the smell of chlorine. (I didn't listen to what my Mother told me either). I do think that the defence could easily get an "expert" to testify to how chloroform can be produced from mixes of common chemicals, and so offer an explanation of why it might be in the trunk. That is as far as they need to go. As I have said all along, that arguement is not sufficient IF there is evidence with the remains such as chloroform absorbed in hair or bone marrow. I think it highly unlikely they will find a bottle labled "Pure Chlorofom! Caution do not administer to children under 3 "