Casey Anthony Grand Jury Indictment, a Closer Look

[celticthyme]

Unfortunately, we have not seen the photos of the duct tape, but the mere idea of it, is just horrific. the jury will see the photos of the layers of tape with her hair stuck to it, the rest just skull & jaw bone, a tooth here and there, and scattered about the bag & crime scene area. What we do not know is what the condition of Caylee was, when the tape was applied. Had she been beaten, hit black & blue, drowned, drugged into a coma? It was applied shortly before or shortly after her death. All I can say, is that I hope that child of God did not have to look in terror, into the eyes of HER MOTHER, as tape was being wrapped about her airways. Age alone = capital murder. then there are the 31Days! Two pieces of evidence , that we know about, that will do her in. There is plenty more we do not know

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Thanks, lin. You're right; I haven't seen this before . . . It's much more detailed.

 

[Balthazar]

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?

Just out of curiosity, what possible evidence could the state have shown to indict Jack Koslow? The ONLY evidence they had was that Jack was present at his own attempted murder. If a US citizen can get indicted for that, then it's possible to get indicted for almost anything.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to indict Casey, but no direct evidence. We still don't know:

1. How Caylee died.
2. When Caylee died.
3. Where Caylee died.

And there is no proven motive so far. No real evidence of Casey committing child abuse previously, no absolute proof of the fight between Casey and her mother the night of July 15th has been seen yet. I don't believe we've even seen the interview with the neighbor who reportedly heard the fight - just heard rumors of it - so how do we know that's even true?

At this point I would estimate we have seen about 35% of the evidence in this case and yes, it makes Casey look guilty. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. So over 65% of the evidence is still unseen. What if the evidence we have not seen is in favor of Casey? What if LKB proves that the odor signature in the trunk was not human decomp like the original U of Florida report stated? What if she proves the hair with the deathband was not a deathband at all but came from Casey? What if they can't prove the duct tape or trash bags came from the Anthony home? Then what?

I won't make up my mind about this case until I have seen the majority of the evidence from both sides. I don't know why that is so hard for you and others to understand and accept. I support your right to make up your mind now and I won't attempt to change your mind. But for me, it is very premature to make a decision, no matter what the evidence we have seen so far shows.

 

[lin]

Just out of curiosity, what possible evidence could the state have shown to indict Jack Koslow? The ONLY evidence they had was that Jack was present at his own attempted murder. If a US citizen can get indicted for that, then it's possible to get indicted for almost anything.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to indict Casey, but no direct evidence. We still don't know:

1. How Caylee died.
2. When Caylee died.
3. Where Caylee died.

And there is no proven motive so far. No real evidence of Casey committing child abuse previously, no absolute proof of the fight between Casey and her mother the night of July 15th has been seen yet. I don't believe we've even seen the interview with the neighbor who reportedly heard the fight - just heard rumors of it - so how do we know that's even true?

At this point I would estimate we have seen about 35% of the evidence in this case and yes, it makes Casey look guilty. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. So over 65% of the evidence is still unseen. What if the evidence we have not seen is in favor of Casey? What if LKB proves that the odor signature in the trunk was not human decomp like the original U of Florida report stated? What if she proves the hair with the deathband was not a deathband at all but came from Casey? What if they can't prove the duct tape or trash bags came from the Anthony home? Then what?

I won't make up my mind about this case until I have seen the majority of the evidence from both sides. I don't know why that is so hard for you and others to understand and accept. I support your right to make up your mind now and I won't attempt to change your mind. But for me, it is very premature to make a decision, no matter what the evidence we have seen so far shows.

I wasn't at the GJ hearing nor I have researched this case as it is totally unrelated to the case at bar. What went on then is not related to what is happening now, in this case. I mean, really, we could be discussing Nifong and malicious prosecution for political gain but that doesn't relate here either, despite the defense's attempt to drag it in.

I'm not asking you to make up your mind on anything. The thread and discussion topic is the Grand Jury Indictment. Thank you for conceding that the evidence released thusfar tends to incrimate KC. What I'm not clear on is your opinion whether that amount of evidence presented to the GJ without challenge by the defense justified the indictment?

I don't think this case hinges on whether or when a fight between KC and CA occurred. IF and that's a huge IF imo LKB is able to undermine the credibility of the air sample tests, there is a lot more evidence of human decomposition in that car trunk including the tow yard worker; GA; CA; various detectives; cadaver dogs and that's just off the top of my head without researching other indicators. The rare henkel duct tape cannot be proven to have come from the A home, iirc. However, that it's a rare type is certainly suggestive and the jury will draw their own conclusions regarding it, along with the other evidence. Same with the trash bags, imo.

Without going into the very, very long lists of other incriminating evidence/circumstances, here's one in addition to the 31 days that I don't think ANY jurist will be able to get around:

We're not talking about an adult who could disappear under unknown circumstances. We're not talking about a teen who could disappear on their own or even a young child, say 8 or 10 years old that could disappear perhaps unnoticed and under their own steam. (Not likely, imo, but possible.) We're talking about a 2 year old that to whom no one had access but through her mother. KC is the last known person to be with Caylee. Until she points a credible finger at anyone else, even someone unknown to her, the logical conclusion remains the same.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I wasn't at the GJ hearing nor I have researched this case as it is totally unrelated to the case at bar. What went on then is not related to what is happening now, in this case. I mean, really, we could be discussing Nifong and malicious prosecution for political gain but that doesn't relate here either, despite the defense's attempt to drag it in.

I'm not asking you to make up your mind on anything. The thread and discussion topic is the Grand Jury Indictment. Thank you for conceding that the evidence released thusfar tends to incrimate KC. What I'm not clear on is your opinion whether that amount of evidence presented to the GJ without challenge by the defense justified the indictment?

I don't think this case hinges on whether or when a fight between KC and CA occurred. IF and that's a huge IF imo LKB is able to undermine the credibility of the air sample tests, there is a lot more evidence of human decomposition in that car trunk including the tow yard worker; GA; CA; various detectives; cadaver dogs and that's just off the top of my head without researching other indicators. The rare henkel duct tape cannot be proven to have come from the A home, iirc. However, that it's a rare type is certainly suggestive and the jury will draw their own conclusions regarding it, along with the other evidence. Same with the trash bags, imo.

Without going into the very, very long lists of other incriminating evidence/circumstances, here's one in addition to the 31 days that I don't think ANY jurist will be able to get around:

We're not talking about an adult who could disappear under unknown circumstances. We're not talking about a teen who could disappear on their own or even a young child, say 8 or 10 years old that could disappear perhaps unnoticed and under their own steam. (Not likely, imo, but possible.) We're talking about a 2 year old that to whom no one had access but through her mother. KC is the last known person to be with Caylee. Until she points a credible finger at anyone else, even someone unknown to her, the logical conclusion remains the same.

:clap: and BBM

I don't mean to sound offensive in any way to those who don't have a clear, strong opinion that KC murdered Caylee,... but I often wonder if it has been considered that all on its own, the 31 days and the conduct that followed it is, IMO, the colossal fact that will keep coming back to the jury. What was the reaction of the majority of us here before even hearing and reading the rest of the evidence? I'll speak for myself.....I instantly and unwaveringly concluded that she had killed her child. I think JB and Co. will try and keep as many mothers off the jury for that reason. B/c we know, no mother who had her baby abducted would keep silent for 31 seconds, let alone 31 days. You'd toss the "script" (if there was one, snort) and call 911 immediately. Ugly coping will not explain that away to the jury. Nothing can. If one was to undergo such a sudden, inexplicable turn of events such as a trusted "nanny" abducting your child and was warned to keep quiet, you would still have to deal w/ the trauma and would be an emotional and physical wreck. It would not be possible to go dancing in a dress that was meant to be a top, groping another girl, and having your photo taken at every opportunity. Could your trembling fingers even type out a text message? Would you eat? Sleep? No. The jury knows that, just as we know that. 31 Days

Sorry to wax dramatic, but I've been away for several days, and just wanted to put it out there that it all comes down to the 31 days.

 

[Brini]

Just out of curiosity, what possible evidence could the state have shown to indict Jack Koslow? The ONLY evidence they had was that Jack was present at his own attempted murder. If a US citizen can get indicted for that, then it's possible to get indicted for almost anything.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to indict Casey, but no direct evidence. We still don't know:

1. How Caylee died.
2. When Caylee died.
3. Where Caylee died.

And there is no proven motive so far. No real evidence of Casey committing child abuse previously, no absolute proof of the fight between Casey and her mother the night of July 15th has been seen yet. I don't believe we've even seen the interview with the neighbor who reportedly heard the fight - just heard rumors of it - so how do we know that's even true?

At this point I would estimate we have seen about 35% of the evidence in this case and yes, it makes Casey look guilty. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. So over 65% of the evidence is still unseen. What if the evidence we have not seen is in favor of Casey? What if LKB proves that the odor signature in the trunk was not human decomp like the original U of Florida report stated? What if she proves the hair with the deathband was not a deathband at all but came from Casey? What if they can't prove the duct tape or trash bags came from the Anthony home? Then what?

I won't make up my mind about this case until I have seen the majority of the evidence from both sides. I don't know why that is so hard for you and others to understand and accept. I support your right to make up your mind now and I won't attempt to change your mind. But for me, it is very premature to make a decision, no matter what the evidence we have seen so far shows.

Well,

1) MOST people are convicted with circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is too unrelieble.

2) The FBI is still involved. The feds tend not to mess with cases this far, unless they are almost 100% sure of a win.

But, in the extremely unlikely event that all the incriminating evidence turned to cow pies, KC would STILL have a very serious problem with any jury.

This because NO parent would blow off a helpless toddler's disappearance for over a month. It defies logic. The parents and grandparents on the jury will NOT be able to compute.

And, no INNOCENT mother would ever cover for the murderer of her child. Period.

In fact, I'm betting that if any parent on these threads (or anywhere else) got wind of the location of any person who chose to hurt his/her child in any way, the perp would be LUCKY if the cops got him first! (Which is why two deputies had to physically restrain Mark Claas, at one point).

That's why KC is toast.

And, it's OK if you want to see the trial first.

But, most of us see the small inconsistencies in testimony of a bunch of ditzy kids as trivial. Try as we might, we have never found anything substantively suspicious in anyone else's testimony.

So, if KC really wanted to be believed, she would have to truthfully explain:

1) Why she did not report her child missing-- ever?

2) Who took her child?

And, that's just for starters.

Thanks!XXXXOOOO

 

[lin]

:clap: and BBM

I don't mean to sound offensive in any way to those who don't have a clear, strong opinion that KC murdered Caylee,... but I often wonder if it has been considered that all on its own, the 31 days and the conduct that followed it is, IMO, the colossal fact that will keep coming back to the jury. What was the reaction of the majority of us here before even hearing and reading the rest of the evidence? I'll speak for myself.....I instantly and unwaveringly concluded that she had killed her child. I think JB and Co. will try and keep as many mothers off the jury for that reason. B/c we know, no mother who had her baby abducted would keep silent for 31 seconds, let alone 31 days. You'd toss the "script" (if there was one, snort) and call 911 immediately. Ugly coping will not explain that away to the jury. Nothing can. If one was to undergo such a sudden, inexplicable turn of events such as a trusted "nanny" abducting your child and was warned to keep quiet, you would still have to deal w/ the trauma and would be an emotional and physical wreck. It would not be possible to go dancing in a dress that was meant to be a top, groping another girl, and having your photo taken at every opportunity. Could your trembling fingers even type out a text message? Would you eat? Sleep? No. The jury knows that, just as we know that. 31 Days

Sorry to wax dramatic, but I've been away for several days, and just wanted to put it out there that it all comes down to the 31 days.

And posts like this one are one of the BIG reasons you were missed! ​

 

[The Eunice Burns]

lin......:blowkiss:

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Years ago I worked Grand Jury for our District Attorney (State not Federal). I was GJ coordinator and sat in on all GJ hearings, indictments, etc. I would agree that if the DA wanted the ham sandwich to be indicted, it would be. The process is by design weighted for the prosecution, because there is no defense testimony, evidence, etc. But the hearings are very thorough in that information is provided to the GJ to get that indictment. Info is more or less "admitted" that might not be in a trial due to the discovery process.
FWIW

 

[AnotherGladysKravitz]

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.

Because in the moment between ripping off a hunk of duct tape and putting it on her child's airways, she KNEW it would kill her. She knew that what she was doing would result in death.

No malicious intent? No malicious intent when you cover your own child's airways with duct tape? Really? What other intent is there, if not malicious?

 

[RR0004]

Just out of curiosity, what possible evidence could the state have shown to indict Jack Koslow? The ONLY evidence they had was that Jack was present at his own attempted murder. If a US citizen can get indicted for that, then it's possible to get indicted for almost anything.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to indict Casey, but no direct evidence. We still don't know:

1. How Caylee died.
2. When Caylee died.
3. Where Caylee died.

And there is no proven motive so far. No real evidence of Casey committing child abuse previously, no absolute proof of the fight between Casey and her mother the night of July 15th has been seen yet. I don't believe we've even seen the interview with the neighbor who reportedly heard the fight - just heard rumors of it - so how do we know that's even true?

At this point I would estimate we have seen about 35% of the evidence in this case and yes, it makes Casey look guilty. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. So over 65% of the evidence is still unseen. What if the evidence we have not seen is in favor of Casey? What if LKB proves that the odor signature in the trunk was not human decomp like the original U of Florida report stated? What if she proves the hair with the deathband was not a deathband at all but came from Casey? What if they can't prove the duct tape or trash bags came from the Anthony home? Then what?

I won't make up my mind about this case until I have seen the majority of the evidence from both sides. I don't know why that is so hard for you and others to understand and accept. I support your right to make up your mind now and I won't attempt to change your mind. But for me, it is very premature to make a decision, no matter what the evidence we have seen so far shows.

I too am looking forward to seeing the "evidence" the defense has...to date they haven't turned over any in discovery. IMO if all they have is attacking the evidence that the prosecution has...how can you be sure that it's real even then?

 

[Searchfortruth]

As far as direct and circumstantial evidence goes, more people have had convictions overturned through DNA testing when the evidence at trial was based on direct evidence, eye witness testimony. Give me lots of circumstantial evidence any day of the week over one eye witness.

 

[tasylshari]

I too am looking forward to seeing the "evidence" the defense has...to date they haven't turned over any in discovery. IMO if all they have is attacking the evidence that the prosecution has...how can you be sure that it's real even then?

Here is the Defences' Evidence List: :bang::bang::bang::slap::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::silenced::silenced::doh::doh::liar::liar::liar::liar::liar::liar::liar::back:
:behindbar
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Well, at least we can grovel....

 

[suspicious1]

Well,

1) MOST people are convicted with circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is too unrelieble.

2) The FBI is still involved. The feds tend not to mess with cases this far, unless they are almost 100% sure of a win.

But, in the extremely unlikely event that all the incriminating evidence turned to cow pies, KC would STILL have a very serious problem with any jury.

This because NO parent would blow off a helpless toddler's disappearance for over a month. It defies logic. The parents and grandparents on the jury will NOT be able to compute.

And, no INNOCENT mother would ever cover for the murderer of her child. Period.

In fact, I'm betting that if any parent on these threads (or anywhere else) got wind of the location of any person who chose to hurt his/her child in any way, the perp would be LUCKY if the cops got him first! (Which is why two deputies had to physically restrain Mark Claas, at one point).

That's why KC is toast.

And, it's OK if you want to see the trial first.

But, most of us see the small inconsistencies in testimony of a bunch of ditzy kids as trivial. Try as we might, we have never found anything substantively suspicious in anyone else's testimony.

So, if KC really wanted to be believed, she would have to truthfully explain:

1) Why she did not report her child missing-- ever?

2) Who took her child?

And, that's just for starters.

Thanks!XXXXOOOO

absolutely!

 

[Boston]

The problem with the Grand Jury procedure is that the Defense isn't allowed to counter any of the evidence that the prosecutor presents. There's no rebuttal & it's completely one sided. If there's evidence pointing towards the accused innocence the GJ doesn't hear it. Also, an indictment only means that there's "probable cause" to take the case to trial. It really doesn't have any bearing on guilt or innocence at all.

None of this matters anyway.....Casey is guilty & she's going to hang!

 

[lin]

The problem with the Grand Jury procedure is that the Defense isn't allowed to counter any of the evidence that the prosecutor presents. There's no rebuttal & it's completely one sided. If there's evidence pointing towards the accused innocence the GJ doesn't hear it. Also, an indictment only means that there's "probable cause" to take the case to trial. It really doesn't have any bearing on guilt or innocence at all.

None of this matters anyway.....Casey is guilty & she's going to hang!

Wow! Glad to cyber-see you! I agree that the GJ is just to establish "probable cause" to take the case to trial; not determining guilt/innocence. In my opinion, there has been a lot more than "probable cause" established in this case.

 

[ThoughtElf]

How do we know they can't prove the computer searches were hers and hers alone? I would think they have everyone's schedule down to the second. I'm not sure if we ever compared records (jobs, car passes, etc), but I'm sure LE has. Have I missed something?
I can relate to a colicky baby...been there done that...and not in my wildest "mommy" dreams would I consider quieting a baby that way!! Especially colic...how does that relieve pain? I would think it would compound the problem. Anyway, Caylee was a toddler not a baby. How does tape make a child sleep? The thing is...regardless of the "reason" she put the tape on this poor child...it's abusive. IMO the DP isn't harsh enough...and I've never been a true proponent of it.

BBM - if they have even a 10th of the skills that I suspect they do, then between the county LE & the FBI, I do suspect they can cross-reference KC's phone/text activity, GA's work schedule, chat logs, uploads, and other phone records (JG, RM, etc.,) to clearly ascertain that KC was the user on the end of the keyboard at specific given search times.

It isn't hard to prove or disprove - you simply need to have the right logs in hand.

 

[ThoughtElf]

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:

Guess it is Peanut Butter Jelly Time then?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4"]YouTube - It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time!!![/ame]

 

[christee]

Just out of curiosity, what possible evidence could the state have shown to indict Jack Koslow? The ONLY evidence they had was that Jack was present at his own attempted murder. If a US citizen can get indicted for that, then it's possible to get indicted for almost anything.

There is enough circumstantial evidence to indict Casey, but no direct evidence. We still don't know:

1. How Caylee died.
2. When Caylee died.
3. Where Caylee died.

And there is no proven motive so far. No real evidence of Casey committing child abuse previously, no absolute proof of the fight between Casey and her mother the night of July 15th has been seen yet. I don't believe we've even seen the interview with the neighbor who reportedly heard the fight - just heard rumors of it - so how do we know that's even true?

At this point I would estimate we have seen about 35% of the evidence in this case and yes, it makes Casey look guilty. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but no direct evidence. So over 65% of the evidence is still unseen. What if the evidence we have not seen is in favor of Casey? What if LKB proves that the odor signature in the trunk was not human decomp like the original U of Florida report stated? What if she proves the hair with the deathband was not a deathband at all but came from Casey? What if they can't prove the duct tape or trash bags came from the Anthony home? Then what?

I won't make up my mind about this case until I have seen the majority of the evidence from both sides. I don't know why that is so hard for you and others to understand and accept. I support your right to make up your mind now and I won't attempt to change your mind. But for me, it is very premature to make a decision, no matter what the evidence we have seen so far shows.

The 65% we haven't seen probably includes evidence of KC's guilt and that's why she was indicted.

JMO

 

[snow_walker]

I started off as a KC supporter. I was once a young single mother myself, the same age as KC...when I heard about the 31 days, I put it down as a young Mom having let the baby drown, or choke or something, and giving way to panic instead of calling the authorities..I could see that happening to me when my child was little.. although I do believe I would have managed to do the right things, but I know I would have FELT like running away and living in a state of denial.

Then I wondered why she didn't fess up when the police gave her the opportunity to do so..then the partying pics.. the renting the videos pics.. and the stealing.. and those jail house visits.. what an obnoxious person!! where was the remorse, the sadness, the despair I know I would have felt? That any normal mother would have felt..

KC is just not innocent, and I came to realize it over time. The thing with KC is not only that she killed her own little child, but that she did it for selfish evil reasons, that she enjoyed the pain she inflicted on her own Mother in particular, and that she never regretted her actions.

She betrayed all that motherhood stands for.. compassion, kindness, devotion.. and she spit in the face of all of us who believe in those virtues.