Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"#2

[Tulessa]

But it implies that a more meaningful conclusion could have been hoped for. We are back to the "suitable known head hair" debate.

Oops, I am out of here, I wasn't going to mention that again. Sorry LOL!

What is it about Science that you don't understand? :waitasec:

 

[debs]

But George didn't call 911 at the tow yard; he paid the hundreds of dollars........nee, he had to go and get more money to pay the hundreds of dollars, to retrieve this car. My question is why George wanted that car so badly that he would do that instead of calling 911 right from the jump, being all ex-coppy.

 

[Marina2]

Inspector Gadget, as reflected in the report, it is clear,specimen Q12 did indeed have characteristics of apparent decomposition. The hair that exhibited apparent changes came from a deceased person.

page 2/3329 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

But it implies that a more meaningful conclusion could have been hoped for. We are back to the "suitable known head hair" debate.

Oops, I am out of here, I wasn't going to mentionthat again. Sorry LOL!

InspectorGadget, it appears that you've taken the "meaningful conclusion" statement out of context.

Results of examinations:
"A Caucasian head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal (root) end." The Q12 hair absolutely exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition. The meaningful conclusion is that the hair came from a dead body. "This hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion can not be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample." The statement regarding a meaningful conclusion here refers to the similarities between the Q12 hair and the Q15 hair not whether or not the Q12 hair had characteristics of apparent decomposition.


I don't think the characteristics of decomposition at the proximal end will be easily disputed by defense experts.
A meaningful conclusion will be made by the jury when that Q12 hair is shown to be microscopically different to all hair it is compared to except Caylee's. It is Caylee's hair and she was dead when she lost it in the trunk.

 

[notthatsmart]

Hi NTS

They said consistent with. Just because it is consistent with decomposition, it doesn't mean it isn't consistent with a whole combination of other chemicals.

Casey had quite a cocktail there including the remains of drinks in cans, including Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Cherry Coke Zero, Milwaukee Best Light, Coke classic, salami, cheese, empty chewing tobacco container and last but not least possible urine. Most of them were empty but there is always a little residue left over in the cans and packaging, and anyone who dislikes smoking will tell you how foul tobacco smells. Not to mention possibly rancid cheese, butter, olive oil etc. etc.

Three week old urine sitting in the sun would knock anybody over.

I wonder why OCSO decided not to worry about testing the possible urine?

Just to add. There were food containers. The big black one. There was a stoufers bag. There were bags at the end of the table that you could not tell what were in them. (Dr Lee said bags of food). There should be up close pictures of each item, there should be bench notes. There is so much missing from discovery, it makes me sick.

I think this whole thing is based on Dr Vass only being given a couple chapters out of a whole book to make a determination. He deserved the right to know about everything in that trunk. As a matter of fact, he email Yuri asking for the inventory. Dr Vass or the fbi need to come clean with the adipocere. We all need to know if it is or isn't.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

In regards to the scientific evidence in this case about the trunk. I'm kinda reminded about a t-shirt I saw. It had a picture of the Virgin Mary and said abstinence is only 99.999% effective. Now with out getting into any kind of religious debate and I use this example not to offend anyone but because I thought it was pertinent to this discussion.

Science has very few "laws", or things that can be repeated by experimentation with 100% percent surety. That being said there is also a very big distinction between science in the lab and practical application in a real world setting.

No scientist is ever going to speak in absolutes...period. They are always going to use words like "consistent with" or other open ended speech. I think what is happening in this discussion is to much weight has been placed in the open-endedness (new word) of this type of scientific speech.

Meaning that some are seeing "consistent with" and thinking well they didn't say it was with a definitive "yes" and then go on about how it could be something else because the "report" was not definitive.

Which leads me back to that t-shirt. Yeah it isn't 100% but the likely hood of there not being a body in the car and that body not being Caylee is so astronomically slim that no other answer really seems feasible unless someone is just trying to play devil's advocate just to do so.

The evidence is pretty clear and the "experts" have pretty much given the best scientific answer they can....with out stating it is absolute 100% undeniable truth. Which no scientist will.

So yeah it could in the farthest reaches of imagination be lunch meat that caused the smell and all the evidence is just a major coincidence, but the reality is that based on the evidence thus far there was in fact a dead body in that car and it was Caylee....with 99.999% surety.

moo

So far the public does not have all the information, in fact we may not even have all the information on the trunk evidence. No matter how intelligent we are, no matter how much what we do know points in one direction, without all the facts that are going to be presented we cannot know the correct answer.

To demonstrate in this thread

A = forensic evidence for trunk = 1
+
B = 99% believe evidence = 1
=
1+1= 2 2 equals KC is guilty

This is part is simple and basic, but if you add intangibles it changes everything, and at trial these intangibles will be presented.

C = possible evidence from defense, cross examination by defense = ?

Until a value of 0 is attached to C, it is impossible to say that 1 + 1 + ? = 2 KC is guilty

We certainly can and most likely will discuss even the tiniest of details, but we cannot with any kind of certainty say that KC is guilty until we see what the defense presents at trial. We certainly can assume that the value C will be 0 and KC is guilty, but until the value of C is proven to be 0, guilty is speculation and based on incomplete data.

At trials end this will be the formula,
A= prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B =Jury believes A is 100% correct = 1
C= defense is unbelievable =0
1 + 1 + 0 = 2 = KC is guilty
OR
A= prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B = Jury believes A is possible but has
reasonable doubt =1
C = Defense successfully raises
reasonable doubt in jury’s mind = 1
1 + 1 + 1 = 3 equals KC is found not guilty
OR
A = prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B =Jury believes 90% of A is correct =.9
C= Defense is somewhat believable = .3
1 + .9 + .3 = 2.2 equals a hung jury

Hypothetical Bombshell after trial. KC Acquitted! KC admits to murdering her child, but never had her in the trunk. She walks free today because the trunk evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the child was in the trunk.

 

[Tulessa]

Just to add. There were food containers. The big black one. There was a stoufers bag. There were bags at the end of the table that you could not tell what were in them. (Dr Lee said bags of food). There should be up close pictures of each item, there should be bench notes. There is so much missing from discovery, it makes me sick.

I think this whole thing is based on Dr Vass only being given a couple chapters out of a whole book to make a determination. He deserved the right to know about everything in that trunk. As a matter of fact, he email Yuri asking for the inventory. Dr Vass or the fbi need to come clean with the adipocere. We all need to know if it is or isn't.

BBM, and he never returned.

 

[LambChop]

KC's child is dead. KC is ultimately responsible. The trunk, a gift from Caylee to State.

 

[Marina2]

So far the public does not have all the information, in fact we may not even have all the information on the trunk evidence. No matter how intelligent we are, no matter how much what we do know points in one direction, without all the facts that are going to be presented we cannot know the correct answer.

To demonstrate in this thread

A = forensic evidence for trunk = 1
+
B = 99% believe evidence = 1
=
1+1= 2 2 equals KC is guilty

This is part is simple and basic, but if you add intangibles it changes everything, and at trial these intangibles will be presented.

C = possible evidence from defense, cross examination by defense = ?

Until a value of 0 is attached to C, it is impossible to say that 1 + 1 + ? = 2 KC is guilty

We certainly can and most likely will discuss even the tiniest of details, but we cannot with any kind of certainty say that KC is guilty until we see what the defense presents at trial. We certainly can assume that the value C will be 0 and KC is guilty, but until the value of C is proven to be 0, guilty is speculation and based on incomplete data.

At trials end this will be the formula,
A= prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B =Jury believes A is 100% correct = 1
C= defense is unbelievable =0
1 + 1 + 0 = 2 = KC is guilty
OR
A= prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B = Jury believes A is possible but has
reasonable doubt =1
C = Defense successfully raises
reasonable doubt in jury’s mind = 1
1 + 1 + 1 = 3 equals KC is found not guilty
OR
A = prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B =Jury believes 90% of A is correct =.9
C= Defense is somewhat believable = .3
1 + .9 + .3 = 2.2 equals a hung jury

Hypothetical Bombshell after trial. KC Acquitted! KC admits to murdering her child, but never had her in the trunk. She walks free today because the trunk evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the child was in the trunk.

Bold is mine.
Regarding the intangibles you speak of I agree that we will not hear the defense cross examination until trial. But, the evidence that will be presented should not be considered an intangible.

KC's defense team have elected to participate in the discovery process which means they too are obligated, before the trial, to turn over any evidence they will present at trial. So far, nothing has been turned over. Their cross examination will likely mirror many arguments presented here. For this reason, I have already assigned a 0 to your unknown value "C". For me, the equation is 1+1+0=2, Casey is guilty.

 

[Tulessa]

Bold is mine.
Regarding the intangibles you speak of I agree that we will not hear the defense cross examination until trial. But, the evidence that will be presented should not be considered an intangible.

KC's defense team have elected to participate in the discovery process which means they too are obligated, before the trial, to turn over any evidence they will present at trial. So far, nothing has been turned over. Their cross examination will likely mirror many arguments presented here. For this reason, I have already assigned a 0 to your unknown value "C". For me, the equation is 1+1+0=2, Casey is guilty.

Post of the day.:bow:

 

[RainyGirl]

But George didn't call 911 at the tow yard; he paid the hundreds of dollars........nee, he had to go and get more money to pay the hundreds of dollars, to retrieve this car. My question is why George wanted that car so badly that he would do that instead of calling 911 right from the jump, being all ex-coppy.

To add to your thoughtful post---
Isn't it curious (suspicious, imo) that George drove the smelly car straight into his family's garage and then closed the garage door?? He has admitted that the car smelled so bad he could hardly stand the drive home (I'm paraphrasing). You would think that the best place to air out a super-smelly car would be the outdoors, don't you think?? Why keep the car (even with windows down) in the garage--sequestered away behind a closed garage door? Was George already trying to keep things "in the family", so to speak? Personally, I sure would not want my garage smelling anything like decomp!!!
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm". Remember Lee's description of how bad the garage smelled with the car inside??
JMO....

 

[LambChop]

To add to your thoughtful post---
Isn't it curious (suspicious, imo) that George drove the smelly car straight into his family's garage and then closed the garage door?? He has admitted that the car smelled so bad he could hardly stand the drive home (I'm paraphrasing). You would think that the best place to air out a super-smelly car would be the outdoors, don't you think?? Why keep the car (even with windows down) in the garage--sequestered away behind a closed garage door? Was George already trying to keep things "in the family", so to speak? Personally, I sure would not want my garage smelling anything like decomp!!!
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm". Remember Lee's description of how bad the garage smelled with the car inside??
JMO....

Very good point. And then we have CA, the ultra-clean person that she is. I would imagine if it was just garbage she would have told GA to move the car outside so the house would not smell. They could have still taken out the battery and left the car outside. Definitely reeks of coverup. No pun intended.

 

[MissJames]

The science can be picked at all day long .It's never going to change the fact that Caylee was last seen in that car and was later found dead. Twelve people ,collectively, will never be convinced that something other than Caylee's dead body created the smell and the evidence that was retrieved from the trunk.
GA knew the smell of decomposition.He was scared. He hid the car in the garage ,trying to air it out.I could point out many things GA said that proves he knew,but how about the time he yelled at a protester " the dead body in the trunk is not my grandaughter".
We could do an entirely different thread on all the things George and Cindy said that shows they knew.

 

[MissJames]

Bold is mine.
Regarding the intangibles you speak of I agree that we will not hear the defense cross examination until trial. But, the evidence that will be presented should not be considered an intangible.

KC's defense team have elected to participate in the discovery process which means they too are obligated, before the trial, to turn over any evidence they will present at trial. So far, nothing has been turned over. Their cross examination will likely mirror many arguments presented here. For this reason, I have already assigned a 0 to your unknown value "C". For me, the equation is 1+1+0=2, Casey is guilty.

And IIRC Judge Strickland has given them a deadline for turning over some of that discovery.February ,I believe? Something about having evidence that PROVES Caylee's body was placed in the woods after KC was in jail. Can't wait to here it! :dance: Sorry,O/T

 

[notthatsmart]

To add to your thoughtful post---
Isn't it curious (suspicious, imo) that George drove the smelly car straight into his family's garage and then closed the garage door?? He has admitted that the car smelled so bad he could hardly stand the drive home (I'm paraphrasing). You would think that the best place to air out a super-smelly car would be the outdoors, don't you think?? Why keep the car (even with windows down) in the garage--sequestered away behind a closed garage door? Was George already trying to keep things "in the family", so to speak? Personally, I sure would not want my garage smelling anything like decomp!!!
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm". Remember Lee's description of how bad the garage smelled with the car inside??
JMO....

If neighbors smelled, it would hurt his image. Mr clean. Mr organize. Its all about him.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

To add to your thoughtful post---
Isn't it curious (suspicious, imo) that George drove the smelly car straight into his family's garage and then closed the garage door?? He has admitted that the car smelled so bad he could hardly stand the drive home (I'm paraphrasing). You would think that the best place to air out a super-smelly car would be the outdoors, don't you think?? Why keep the car (even with windows down) in the garage--sequestered away behind a closed garage door? Was George already trying to keep things "in the family", so to speak? Personally, I sure would not want my garage smelling anything like decomp!!!
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm". Remember Lee's description of how bad the garage smelled with the car inside??
JMO....

I agree with you on this point. GA and CA being neatniks, leaving the smelly car in an enclosed garage seems out of character for both of them, and although they tried to explain that they didn't want the neighbors asking questions about the smell, in the car, by letting it air out in the driveway or on the street, it does seem to be unusual behavior for the two of them.

 

[magnolia]

To add to your thoughtful post---
Isn't it curious (suspicious, imo) that George drove the smelly car straight into his family's garage and then closed the garage door?? He has admitted that the car smelled so bad he could hardly stand the drive home (I'm paraphrasing). You would think that the best place to air out a super-smelly car would be the outdoors, don't you think?? Why keep the car (even with windows down) in the garage--sequestered away behind a closed garage door? Was George already trying to keep things "in the family", so to speak? Personally, I sure would not want my garage smelling anything like decomp!!!
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm". Remember Lee's description of how bad the garage smelled with the car inside??
JMO....

Not to mention, each time the inside/door was opened, the strong odor drifted into the house.

 

[notthatsmart]

The science can be picked at all day long .It's never going to change the fact that Caylee was last seen in that car and was later found dead. Twelve people ,collectively, will never be convinced that something other than Caylee's dead body created the smell and the evidence that was retrieved from the trunk.
GA knew the smell of decomposition.He was scared. He hid the car in the garage ,trying to air it out.I could point out many things GA said that proves he knew,but how about the time he yelled at a protester " the dead body in the trunk is not my grandaughter".
We could do an entirely different thread on all the things George and Cindy said that shows they knew.

Why isn't the state charging them with obstruction of justice then? Who was he hiding it from? This makes no sense. I think the fact that Le didn't even take the smell seriously until late the next day, proves that they didn't think anything of it. If it trully smelled like a dead body in the trunk, they should have secured that vehicle immediatley.

I agree though, it would be a good thread. So far we have inconsistent statements threads , but do we have an obstruction of justice thread?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Bold is mine.
Regarding the intangibles you speak of I agree that we will not hear the defense cross examination until trial. But, the evidence that will be presented should not be considered an intangible.

KC's defense team have elected to participate in the discovery process which means they too are obligated, before the trial, to turn over any evidence they will present at trial. So far, nothing has been turned over. Their cross examination will likely mirror many arguments presented here. For this reason, I have already assigned a 0 to your unknown value "C". For me, the equation is 1+1+0=2, Casey is guilty.

Many, many people have already assigned a 0 to the value of C. This is why the motion for a COV came about.
If the defense did submit evidence through the discovery process, is there any evidence you can think of they might submit that could make you consider changing the value of C? Is there any evidence they could submit that could make you question the evidence in the trunk?

 

[marspiter]

So far the public does not have all the information, in fact we may not even have all the information on the trunk evidence. No matter how intelligent we are, no matter how much what we do know points in one direction, without all the facts that are going to be presented we cannot know the correct answer.

To demonstrate in this thread

A = forensic evidence for trunk = 1
+
B = 99% believe evidence = 1
=
1+1= 2 2 equals KC is guilty

This is part is simple and basic, but if you add intangibles it changes everything, and at trial these intangibles will be presented.

C = possible evidence from defense, cross examination by defense = ?

Until a value of 0 is attached to C, it is impossible to say that 1 + 1 + ? = 2 KC is guilty

We certainly can and most likely will discuss even the tiniest of details, but we cannot with any kind of certainty say that KC is guilty until we see what the defense presents at trial. We certainly can assume that the value C will be 0 and KC is guilty, but until the value of C is proven to be 0, guilty is speculation and based on incomplete data.

At trials end this will be the formula,
A= prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B =Jury believes A is 100% correct = 1
C= defense is unbelievable =0
1 + 1 + 0 = 2 = KC is guilty
OR
A= prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B = Jury believes A is possible but has
reasonable doubt =1
C = Defense successfully raises
reasonable doubt in jury’s mind = 1
1 + 1 + 1 = 3 equals KC is found not guilty
OR
A = prosecutions evidence and arguments = 1
B =Jury believes 90% of A is correct =.9
C= Defense is somewhat believable = .3
1 + .9 + .3 = 2.2 equals a hung jury

Hypothetical Bombshell after trial. KC Acquitted! KC admits to murdering her child, but never had her in the trunk. She walks free today because the trunk evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the child was in the trunk.

One problem with all this. Juries for the most part tend to react like human beings and not digital devices in which you plug in 1's and 0's.

The human part will be this:
Cadaver dogs hit on trunk, the scientific evidence of the trunk is consistent with a corpse being in the trunk, multiple witnesses saying the car smelled like a dead body, Caylee was found dead.

You see a 2 year girl is dead. Jurors are going to want answers for that. That's a normal human response. The state has provided those answers to a certain degree. In the case of this thread..Caylee was dead in the trunk. The defense has provided what exactly?

Thus far all the defense has done is jockeyed for media attention, and bogged down proceedings with motions as a stall tactic. Where are the statements from the defense experts and the the evidence from the defense. Oh that's right they had one opportunity already and claimed they derived that Casey was not guilty based on the states evidence.

Next month will pretty much be put up or shut up for the defense. I'll speculate that the defense has nothing, and that's why they are reluctant to release anything. Kinda interesting that the defense experts have been quite lately especially with the DP still on the table. Kobi for example has completely disappeared.

So sure the defense can sit back and try all the misdirection they want. The jury is going to want answers for why a two year old girl in the care of her mother died. That and why her car smelled like and had things consistent with decomp in it, and thus far the defense has provided 0 (well unless one counts a squirrel or lunch meat as believable answers...to which my rebuttal is the Chupacabra or aliens as being equally believable). That to me is the only numerical value the jury is going to be interested in on this issue (0 answers from the defense).

 

[Tulessa]

Why isn't the state charging them with obstruction of justice then? Who was he hiding it from? This makes no sense. I think the fact that Le didn't even take the smell seriously until late the next day, proves that they didn't think anything of it. If it trully smelled like a dead body in the trunk, they should have secured that vehicle immediatley.

I agree though, it would be a good thread. So far we have inconsistent statements threads , but do we have an obstruction of justice thread?

BBM. Because they have bigger fish to fry and I honestly think that they will. AFTER the murder trial is over.