Casey Anthony Grand Jury Indictment, a Closer Look

[RR0004]

The use of tape, it's self, is the sign of child abuse. IT's right there with the use of cough meds to put a child asleep, etc. Some folks do it, think nothing of it. But if something horrible happens, it will be considered child abuse. And the person who did it, guilty.

It doesn't have to be proven that Caylee died because of the placement of the tape. We do know that Caylee died while her face was taped. Hence, we know she died while she was being abused (face taped).

There will be no way to excuse the tape use to the jury, without admitting KC was the one to put it there. How else would they know the "story."

Death during child abuse makes it DP eligible.
It's rare that Women actually get DP in FL. If found guilty, she most likely will get LWOP, not the DP. It can happen, but statisticly... she has a real low chance of DP.

Oh, Spangle...sorry I didn't see your post. Yes, the presence of the tape is IMO what put the DP back on the table. If there is more...all the better. I'm thankful that Florida has this statute. When are we going to say ENOUGH! Our children are our most precious commodity and we as a nation do not do enough to protect them. JMO

 

[RR0004]

BBM

I don't know the books name, but the pages that KC highlighted and bookmarked were "Holding the line on tantrums". Starting on #20

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/19105250/detail.html

Thanks! I'm sure the book gave some pretty good advice...that obviously Casey ignored.

 

[Balthazar]

Didn't open.

But, a number of people were falsely convicted BEFORE we had the technology that we have now. And, that tech is increasing exponentially every, single, day.

Aside from that, the FBI labs were used for a lot fo the forensics. They are thought to be among the best in the world. Some of the material was sent to three different labs, to ensure consistency.

Stick a pitchfork in her, folks! She's done.

Even her lawyer said, "Anyone who thinks this case is a slam-dunk is far from wrong!" (another fine JBism) ;-)

The case I cited did not require any new forensic techniques. From the crime scene photos alone, it was blatantly obvious that there were 2 assailants who used a key to enter the house, disarmed the burglar alarm, left their muddy footprints on the floor and carpet from the kitchen door all the way up the stairs to the master bedroom, where their footprints were again visible because they kicked in the locked bedroom door leaving behind clear footprints (in shoe sizes the victims did not wear and shoe types they did not posess), left fingerprints on the alarm system, bloody fingerprints on doorknobs, and door moldings and beat the heck out of both victims with a tire iron from BEHIND, then slashed both victim's throats from behind. Then they left muddy tire tracks from their vehicle in the road behind the house. All of this was present and obvious at the crime scene and in the photos of the crime scene and still one of the two victims was indicted by a Grand Jury for his own attempted murder - never mind that his throat was slashed to the jungular vein - another 100th cm more and he would have died. Never mind he had been beaten about the head until he was unconscious. A Grand Jury willl indict on almost anything. That's a fact. What's the old saying? "A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich." That's the truth. It is no measure of the defendants guilt whatsoever.

 

[RR0004]

Maybe that was the 48 hours show?

I must be getting awfully hard to impress...cause that also bores me! LOL

 

[Balthazar]

The Grand Jury happened before they found Caylee. It does convince me that there is overwhelming evidence. Yes, innocent people have been indicted, convicted of crimes and sent to prison but that does not convince me that every time a person is indicted of a crime they are being framed by the police.

I don't believe that it happens every time, however, I know it does happen that some innocent people are indicted. Therefore, I don't consider a Grand Jury indictment any proof of guilt whatsoever. It's just an indictment. The trial is meant to determine guilt or innocence.

 

[RR0004]

The case I cited did not require any new forensic techniques. From the crime scene photos alone, it was blatantly obvious that there were 2 assailants who used a key to enter the house, disarmed the burglar alarm, left their muddy footprints on the floor and carpet from the kitchen door all the way up the stairs to the master bedroom, where their footprints were again visible because they kicked in the locked bedroom door leaving behind clear footprints (in shoe sizes the victims did not wear and shoe types they did not posess), left fingerprints on the alarm system, bloody fingerprints on doorknobs, and door moldings and beat the heck out of both victims with a tire iron from BEHIND, then slashed both victim's throats from behind. Then they left muddy tire tracks from their vehicle in the road behind the house. All of this was present and obvious at the crime scene and in the photos of the crime scene and still one of the two victims was indicted by a Grand Jury for his own attempted murder - never mind that his throat was slashed to the jungular vein - another 100th cm more and he would have died. Never mind he had been beaten about the head until he was unconscious. A Grand Jury willl indict on almost anything. That's a fact. What's the old saying? "A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich." That's the truth. It is no measure of the defendants guilt whatsoever.

...but as we are not privy to what was presented to the Grand Jury we don't know what piece of information got the indictment. That's why there are trials. Grand juries are made up of responsible citizens. I don't think it's fair to give them so little credit.

 

[Balthazar]

Do you have any idea what the percentages are relative to how many innocents are indicted as opposed to how many guilty? On what do you base your assertion that, "Getting a Grand Jury indictment is actually pretty easy"? How do you define "easy" in that assertion? I would assume the opposite; that there must be a lot of evidence to cause an indictment, particularly on a capital charge. That isn't to suggest a conviction by a GJ just that they have to be convinced the state has presented enough evidence to show a trial is warranted where the defense can present their explanations for whatever evidence the state used to get an indictment. Do you believe the defense will be able to explain away the evidence that caused KC's indictment? Even the 31 days?

Please review this case - which was equally as infamous as Casey Anthony's case in it's time with massive press coverage and thousands of citizens who were pressing for an arrest and then you tell me if you think it was hard to get a Grand Jury indictment on Jack Koslow:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

As to Casey, anything is possible. I NEVER make my mind up on any of these cases until the trial. As I've said before the prosecution's case looks damning - but then it also looked damning in the Koslow case - until the truth came out.

 

[Bakersmom]

Pictures were taken! Page 11 of the autopsy report says pictures and x-rays of the skull were obtained. But I couldn't find, in the autopsy report, anywhere that Dr G said explicitly that the tape covered both nostrils and mouth. Maybe she said it somewhere else.

In trying to get a better idea of the placement of the duct tape I used the following excerpts from multiple pages from here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

"Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair.

Dr Goldberger and Dr Garavaglia removed specimens for toxicologic examination, including strands of head hair measuring approximately six inches in length which were tied at the proximal end (near the beginning or point of attachment). These were teased from the mat of head hair which was present initially underneath the skull. . . ."

"The mat of hair which was initially found beneath the skull with strands of hair extending across the calvarium (skullcap or roof of skull) and face consists of medium brown hair. Some strands of hair could be teased from the mat and were at least 6 to 7 inches in length. There were various small defects within this mat of hair, presumably from insect activity, and there are multiple small roots growing through the mat of hair. . . ."

"The calvarium (skullcap) is totally exposed and there is only a very small adherent of soil and leaf litter. No soft tissue remains. Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium (skullcap) in the sagittal (vertical plane passing through the body from front to back) and coronal (vertical plane that divides the body into front and back) planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar (base) and lower posterior (back or rear portion) skull, including inferior (below or bottom) portions of the mandible (lower jaw). Plant roots have grown into and over the surface of the hair mat. Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior (back) mandible (lower jaw) and maxilla (upper jaw) are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating (splitting into layers). The tape is removed and allowed to dry. The matted hair is removed from the skull. Plant roots permeate the mat and there are multiple small roughly circular, irregular defects in the mat, suggestive of insect predation artifact. The hair is permitted to dry pending additional examination. Preliminary examination of the skull reveals no evidence of trauma."

This describes to me a complete tangle of duct tape and matted hair that is interwoven with plant roots covering a great portion of the skull ~ mostly the bottom. It sounds like the matted hair was so entangled with the jaws that it helped keep both the tape and lower jaw in place. But maybe this helps give us a better idea of where and how the duct tape came to be still attached?

Oh, sweet Caylee, I am so sorry . . .

Thanks so much for pulling that over!

 

[countzero]

Oh my ..... I haven't posted for a while. Needed the break, and lately have been just reading.

I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but haggling over what the GJ did or did have isn't important to me and shouldn't be important to anyone else.

The GJ indicated KC for a reason. I don't think or feel it was given over a ham and cheese sandwich mentality or whatever. It was done with evidence; clear and concise evidence. KC was put into custody. Fine - enough for me. The DP was re-instated for the same reason. Evidence.

As to all the other issues being tossed about in this thread and others. I am a firm believer in that LE/FBI/SA have the necessary evidence to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt what happened to Caylee and have the evidence proving which individual or individuals are responsible.

As long as KC stays where she is, JB and crew can continue to throw all the motions they want to upon the courts. It isn't gonna help KC's cause. I also have complete faith in the jury pool of Florida citizens who will be part of this trial. For they will be the voice for Caylee along with Dr G. LE/FBI will fill in the blanks that we have been clamoring for. All in due time.

If this were a stare down contest, KC would lose. If this was a poker game, LE/FBI/SA hold the winning hand. I can and will wait by the side lines giving my support to those who honor Caylee and give her the justice she so deserves. All the other players in this who stand on and by the murder's side are the losers. Not only in this case, but in life.

 

[Brini]

The case I cited did not require any new forensic techniques. From the crime scene photos alone, it was blatantly obvious that there were 2 assailants who used a key to enter the house, disarmed the burglar alarm, left their muddy footprints on the floor and carpet from the kitchen door all the way up the stairs to the master bedroom, where their footprints were again visible because they kicked in the locked bedroom door leaving behind clear footprints (in shoe sizes the victims did not wear and shoe types they did not posess), left fingerprints on the alarm system, bloody fingerprints on doorknobs, and door moldings and beat the heck out of both victims with a tire iron from BEHIND, then slashed both victim's throats from behind. Then they left muddy tire tracks from their vehicle in the road behind the house. All of this was present and obvious at the crime scene and in the photos of the crime scene and still one of the two victims was indicted by a Grand Jury for his own attempted murder - never mind that his throat was slashed to the jungular vein - another 100th cm more and he would have died. Never mind he had been beaten about the head until he was unconscious. A Grand Jury willl indict on almost anything. That's a fact. What's the old saying? "A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich." That's the truth. It is no measure of the defendants guilt whatsoever.

OK, let's say that KC was indicted by the JG, because she's a ham sandwich, and for no other reason.;-)

This case evidence has had the benefit of some of the finest forensic labs in the world. FBI labs, and other labs in multiple runs for consistency.

This case has also benefitted from the investigative resources of the county AND federal govts. TWO LE agencies, in full cooperation. Also private investigators on at least the defense side.

As the result of THOSE forensic studies, and investigative techs, KC is now up for Murder I, and the DP is back on the table (not that I think she'll get the DP-- MHO).

So, we can say that the GJ showed excellent judgement, based on the evidence that they had at the time .

Or, we can say the GJ accidently indicted the right ham sandwich. ;-)

In any case, there's is a great deal of evidence to support the JG's indictment.

 

[Reagan]

Umm.. all I'm concerned about now is getting a ham sandwich. Thanks a lot you guys. *opens empty fridge with NO ham and sighs*...:snooty:

 

[Brini]

I don't believe that it happens every time, however, I know it does happen that some innocent people are indicted. Therefore, I don't consider a Grand Jury indictment any proof of guilt whatsoever. It's just an indictment. The trial is meant to determine guilt or innocence.

That's fine, Princess!

Most of us have made up our minds, based on the evidence.

Some of us choose to wait for the trial.

It's all good!

 

[okiedokietoo]

The case I cited did not require any new forensic techniques. From the crime scene photos alone, it was blatantly obvious that there were 2 assailants who used a key to enter the house, disarmed the burglar alarm, left their muddy footprints on the floor and carpet from the kitchen door all the way up the stairs to the master bedroom, where their footprints were again visible because they kicked in the locked bedroom door leaving behind clear footprints (in shoe sizes the victims did not wear and shoe types they did not posess), left fingerprints on the alarm system, bloody fingerprints on doorknobs, and door moldings and beat the heck out of both victims with a tire iron from BEHIND, then slashed both victim's throats from behind. Then they left muddy tire tracks from their vehicle in the road behind the house. All of this was present and obvious at the crime scene and in the photos of the crime scene and still one of the two victims was indicted by a Grand Jury for his own attempted murder - never mind that his throat was slashed to the jungular vein - another 100th cm more and he would have died. Never mind he had been beaten about the head until he was unconscious. A Grand Jury willl indict on almost anything. That's a fact. What's the old saying? "A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich." That's the truth. It is no measure of the defendants guilt whatsoever.

This is your opinion and I respect your right to voice it Although if you want to convince, for instance me, to even give this a thought I would need some statistics that overwhelming suggest this as a possibility re: Grand Jury and Ham Sandwiches

 

[lin]

The case I cited did not require any new forensic techniques. From the crime scene photos alone, it was blatantly obvious that there were 2 assailants who used a key to enter the house, disarmed the burglar alarm, left their muddy footprints on the floor and carpet from the kitchen door all the way up the stairs to the master bedroom, where their footprints were again visible because they kicked in the locked bedroom door leaving behind clear footprints (in shoe sizes the victims did not wear and shoe types they did not posess), left fingerprints on the alarm system, bloody fingerprints on doorknobs, and door moldings and beat the heck out of both victims with a tire iron from BEHIND, then slashed both victim's throats from behind. Then they left muddy tire tracks from their vehicle in the road behind the house. All of this was present and obvious at the crime scene and in the photos of the crime scene and still one of the two victims was indicted by a Grand Jury for his own attempted murder - never mind that his throat was slashed to the jungular vein - another 100th cm more and he would have died. Never mind he had been beaten about the head until he was unconscious. A Grand Jury willl indict on almost anything. That's a fact. What's the old saying? "A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich." That's the truth. It is no measure of the defendants guilt whatsoever.

That doesn't remotely resemble the facts of this case, imo. Quite the opposite, in fact, imo. I've seen more than enough evidence to convince me the indictment is very well founded. I've only heard of defense attorneys using the ham sandwich expression. Have you ever known of anyone in law enforcement to agree? I mean, you make it sound as if the state doesn't even have to show any evidence to be able to get an indictment but in all my years I've never heard of a ham sandwich actually being indicted.

Are you seriously suggesting there was not enough evidence presented or at least available to be presented to justify an indictment in this case?

 

[lin]

I don't believe that it happens every time, however, I know it does happen that some innocent people are indicted. Therefore, I don't consider a Grand Jury indictment any proof of guilt whatsoever. It's just an indictment. The trial is meant to determine guilt or innocence.

When was the most recent wrongful indictment on a capital case of which you are aware?

 

[lin]

...but as we are not privy to what was presented to the Grand Jury we don't know what piece of information got the indictment. That's why there are trials. Grand juries are made up of responsible citizens. I don't think it's fair to give them so little credit.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Very well said. I agree it's unfair to give honest citizens using their best efforts to follow the law and the instructions given to them so little credit. I believe in our legal system and it saddens me to see it so disparaged.

 

[lin]

Please review this case - which was equally as infamous as Casey Anthony's case in it's time with massive press coverage and thousands of citizens who were pressing for an arrest and then you tell me if you think it was hard to get a Grand Jury indictment on Jack Koslow:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

As to Casey, anything is possible. I NEVER make my mind up on any of these cases until the trial. As I've said before the prosecution's case looks damning - but then it also looked damning in the Koslow case - until the truth came out.

Thank you but just from your post I see this is not a recent case because "in its day" implies as much. I suggest these wrongful indictments are a fraction of the actual indictments handed down and as our methods and technology improve, those cases are becoming fewer and fewer. I do not expect perfection from the system; that is an unattainable goal, imo. I do, however, expect the system to make every attempt to protect society as a whole from criminals and to protect society as a whole from wrongful convictions. It is my understanding the system is getting better at accomplishing both of those goals all of the time.

The accused will have the opportunity to refute the evidence presented without challenge to the grand jury. If the trial jury "gets it wrong" there are appellate panels. This is our system and how it has worked all these years.

In responding, maybe you also missed this question: Do you believe the defense will be able to offer reasonable explanations for the evidence used to indict KC? Even the 31 days?

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

It really depends upon if they use it (computer searches). They cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who searched it and for that exact reason. It could have been she googled after watching American Psycho on how to break necks to see if the movies really portrayed it right. How many people watch "Mythbusters"? They occasionally do shows based upon movies and debunk the things they do. Focus on what tangible items casey was in control of. There is plenty to convict her of her being responsible for caylee death but the premediataion is what I question right now.
Ok, just to clarify... I am a Mom and my son had colic as a baby and severe ear infections which would make him howl and cry. Now, duct tape never entered my mind to quiet him but gosh there were times when I just wish he would stop screaming for 5 minutes. I got through it and now is a wonderful 16 year old, but if I were a 22 year old who was a narcissic sociopath who wanted to have a party life then possibly drugging my child to sleep and duct taping her so that when she woke up she didn't scream and freak people out may have been an option. Now with that vision in your mind how do you prove premeditation?? You prove responsibility but not malicious intent to do permanent harm or death. That is the only problem I have with this case and the prosecution may already have that one figured out. Which I really hope they do.

Bold is mine...I just can not believe a jury would even consider this. One most children by the age of near 3 have outgrown colic. There is never ever a reasonable explanation to put duct tape on another human being other than to do harm to that person. Period. I think a jury will come to that same conclusion. It only takes 2 seconds to premeditate a murder. KC could have at anytime stopped. KC continued to get the tape, rip, tear or cut a piece off, then put it across Caylee's face and part of her hair. At any point KC could have stopped but she continued. It is premeditated. KC knew what she was going to do when she picked the roll of tape up. JMO of course.

 

[lin]

Pictures were taken! Page 11 of the autopsy report says pictures and x-rays of the skull were obtained. But I couldn't find, in the autopsy report, anywhere that Dr G said explicitly that the tape covered both nostrils and mouth. Maybe she said it somewhere else.

(respectfully snipped). . .

See page 3, paragraph 3 of this portion of the autopsy reports.

"...grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas..."

ETA: This analysis was done by John J. Schultz, Ph.D., an anthropologist and his report was submitted to Dr. G. This may be why you didn't recognize it as part of the report or missed this part of it because it wasn't done by Dr. G herself.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

3 good questions...however I might answer them a bit differently than you.

1. No, she only killed her daughter, and she's fresh out of children. Society at large is safe as long as they are not under her care and control.
KC stole from her grandmothers assisted living fund, stole from her parents and stole and forged her "friend's" checks, society is not safe as KC thinks nothing of taking someone elses identity.
2. There's nothing to rehabilitate, as long as she doesn't have more kids she won't kill again.
Again, I have followed this case from about day 32 and although I do not have any supporting evidence, I do not feel GA and CA would be safe from KC.
3. I would venture to say that 80-90% of those in society don't contribute much, if anything. If nothing else, she'll serve as a bad example for others not to follow.
I don't understand this statement,


I think she needs LWOP so she can actually spend her days thinking about what she did, not waiting to die. YMMV, of course!

Red is mine. I do not think for one second that KC "thinks" about what she did to Caylee. Only that KC has been really inconvienenced.