Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[cyberborg]

Lee's inspection was cursory and sloppy. He claimed to have found a hair or two in an item that OCSO had not yet inspected. After Lee left, OCSO went back and inspected the item and found over a dozen additional hairs.

Is Lee really that bad?

The item: the Pontiac trash bag. When: Before Caylee's remains were located.

Lee also mentioned on Nancy Grace a piece of meat, or even ham, was found (or implied he had found) upon his inspection.

Yet there is no such mention in any record from either side. IMO Lee was speculating at best, acting sloppy at worst.

At the end of the day, I believe both Lee (and Koby) told the defense that KC was screwed. Their work was done.

Similarly with the anthropology "expert" they consulted with. I do not recall her name but I do recall her saying that she would render an unbiased opinion for the defense. Then we never heard from the dear lady again.

All of the above need to be able to survive cross-examination. It appears right now none can.

Exactly!!

The Defense have done a lot of 'creative talking' while on TV but little to nothing substantiative in terms of credible expert analysis, testing and, documentation.

The first Defense 'means-test' is due quite soon, where Judge S requested that the Defense provide discovery to backup those claims from TM.

We shall see soon if there is any meat on that bone before we go looking for fictional meat in the trunk.

We also look forward to the Check Fraud Trial which will provide a perfect dry-run and preview.

 

[notthatsmart]

Exactly!!

The Defense have done a lot of 'creative talking' while on TV but little to nothing substantiative in terms of credible expert analysis, testing and, documentation.

The first Defense 'means-test' is due quite soon, where Judge S requested that the Defense provide discovery to backup those claims from TM.

We shall see soon if there is any meat on that bone before we go looking for fictional meat in the trunk.

We also look forward to the Check Fraud Trial which will provide a perfect dry-run and preview.

Do you know of any examples of what the defense should be testing or examining?

 

[Imbackon]

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo

The implication regarding the food items by lee, was that this may have been the cause of the stink and such in the car. I don't think microscopic food items would leave a car smelling like death for months. This characterization of what/how Lee was thinking when he said this does not jive with the context.

 

[cyberborg]

Do you know of any examples of what the defense should be testing or examining?

To be fair .... I think that the problem is that they don't have access to a Lab :waitasec:, wasn't that the problem for the examination of the skeletal remains? As well as the experts are nationally distributed and cannot travel easily :waitasec:. They cannot access autopsy and forensic results online since they are apparently technologically challenged :waitasec: and so resort to reviewing the discovery documents and WS. Just like us sleuthers. They are following your lead NTS.

As to what to test or examine..... It'd be a good start if they completed what they started, e.g., the examination of the trunk and associated candidate evidence since that is very pertinent to this thread. It seems from the recent SA motion that nothing has been done for months.

 

[notthatsmart]

To be fair .... I think that the problem is that they don't have access to a Lab :waitasec:, wasn't that the problem for the examination of the skeletal remains? As well as the experts are nationally distributed and cannot travel easily :waitasec:. They cannot access autopsy and forensic results online since they are apparently technologically challenged :waitasec: and so resort to reviewing the discovery documents and WS. Just like us sleuthers. They are following your lead NTS.

As to what to test or examine..... It'd be a good start if they completed what they started, e.g., the examination of the trunk and associated candidate evidence since that is very pertinent to this thread. It seems from the recent SA motion that nothing has been done for months.

They were finished with the car and trash bag. Why would they come back? Not being snarky, just looking for something for them to examine or inspect. Certainly they are not going to come back to inspect the car frame over some silly speculation from Kc about squirrles.

I am not sure if the defense performed an autopsy

 

[Trapshooter]

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo

BBM

NTS you stated in this post that you believe he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo

Explain how you know that tiny little pieces of cheese or meat are huge amounts of evidence to him. What does that even mean? moo

 

[cyberborg]

[/B]

They were finished with the car and trash bag. Why would they come back? Not being snarky, just looking for something for them to examine or inspect. Certainly they are not going to come back to inspect the car frame over some silly speculation from Kc about squirrles.

I am not sure if the defense performed an autopsy

BBM.

NTS you state that the Defense were finished with the car and trash bag. Do you have a link to support that?

In the attached SA motion the SA actually contend in item #9 that HL examined the car on Nov 14, 2008 at OCSO stating he would need to return to finish the exam at a later date and -- has yet to do so.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html

BTW. The Defense did not perform an autopsy per se but as noted upthread the skeletal remains were reviewed but HL was not present.

 

[cyberborg]

Do you know of any examples of what the defense should be testing or examining?

I can advise the Defense as a paid professional, I don't do pro bono -- cannot afford to. It seems they do need some help.....

 

[RR0004]

Do you know of any examples of what the defense should be testing or examining?

How can they refute that which they have not examined?

 

[RR0004]

Explain how you know that tiny little pieces of cheese or meat are huge amounts of evidence to him. What does that even mean? moo

Besides which...where are the reports to back this up?

 

[RR0004]

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo

So if there was such food/drink in the car that was observed microscopically, then where is the report? That would be evidence of food in the trunk and could go a long way in the defense's claim (not really, but heck, let's say for argument's sake) that the odor was nothing but smelly 'ole garbage.

 

[Just Jayla]

Since when do we need to see all the evidence to arrive at the truth? We may not know the particulars, but I think we know enough. Unless Casey is the victim of more coincidences and amazing circumstances beyond the imagination of Hollywood itself, it's a foregone conclusion that Casey is guilty.

I think we know enough, too-But no sooner will I post this than we will (myself included) start going back and forth again on the smallest of details and semantics on every little document.

It's difficult for anyone here with either opinion to present a whole, A-Z theory, because we do not have all the information yet (might not ever), and don't know what the state/defense will eventually submit as exhibits/evidence.

I am open to the defense showing me the errors of my ways, and would be glad to know that a young mother did not murder her child. Others don't feel KC killed Caylee and it is what makes this site great-we have differing POV's.
But we're not in the courtroom, we're on a true crime/sleuthing forum, so speculation can and does (thankfully) occur, within the TOS. (Sorry to break down the "fourth wall"!)

So all I can post, without rehashing every last sentence of every screenshot we have seen, is that I believe CA, GA Yuri, FBI, Oakridge, LA and KC know a dead body was in that car because they all gave me the indication through their actions and words. It's my gut feeling, peppered with quite a bit of established information from the key players, LEO and the defense themselves.

 

[Soju]

[/B]

They were finished with the car and trash bag. Why would they come back? Not being snarky, just looking for something for them to examine or inspect. Certainly they are not going to come back to inspect the car frame over some silly speculation from Kc about squirrles.

I am not sure if the defense performed an autopsy

BBM


wait a minute. NOW you're saying that the squirrel story was a lie, or at least "silly speculation" not worth inspecting the frame over? What changed your mind? :waitasec:

I think you've been provided with enough links to evidence that Henry Lee was indeed going to come back and finish inspecting the car, but has not done so, for whatever reason. So what would be the reason that he wouldn't come back, when it is a fact that he intended to return?

 

[InspectorGadget]

Relevant and very interesting post by Richard Hornsby here:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case

Hmm, but will the jury find George Credible?

 

[LambChop]

Hmm, but will the jury find George Credible?

I believe what GA said originally is considered an "utterance". You're first gut reaction which would be considered truthful in your mind at the time. He also gave LE statements to that fact that he knew what he smelled. If he is unwilling to confirm his statements I think they can use them as evidence in court. After a few years sometimes memories fade so their initial statement stands. JMO

 

[InspectorGadget]

CAVEAT:this is from memory: IIRC, the hairbrush submitted was a mixed sample shared brush, therefore would have hairs that were mircoscopically similar BUT the suitability as a prestine exemplar was not acceptable beyond that statement AT THAT TIME.


In the vernacular: "DARN, this hair looks like some on this brush but WTH? the GRANDMOTHER told us it was te victim's personal brush! HOW THE HECK did these weird, strange,unusual, differing, morphologically differing strands get onto the EXCLUSIVE BRUSH OF THE VICTIM per the good and sainted word of the granny?"

Yes Boys and Girls, GMOTY's sneaky trick of LYING about the hairbrush was going to be well-known, and while not an "obstruction of justice" it's a darn good thing she DIDN't go with her thought of giving up the CANINE toothbrush 'cause THAT sure would have been hard to explain as an "oops-see"

Not a sneaky trick on Cindy's part IMO. They asked her for Caylee's brush & she gave it to them. How was she to know it had Casey's hair in it? She had a full time job, she didn't have time to hang around the house being the hairbrush police. OCSO didn't ask her to swear on oath only Caylee had used it.

 

[InspectorGadget]

From Harmony2's post. I believe this connects hair mass Q59 to the hair found in the trunk. We know the remains belonged to Caylee. Sometimes it is hard to read these reports but I think this is very clear. Hope this helps.

Doesn't it say that Q12.1 could be from Caylee or Casey? I would think if Casey coloured her hair this could account for the dark root end. Does anybody know if it did have the root on it?

 

[Tulessa]

Not a sneaky trick on Cindy's part IMO. They asked her for Caylee's brush & she gave it to them. How was she to know it had Casey's hair in it? She had a full time job, she didn't have time to hang around the house being the hairbrush police. OCSO didn't ask her to swear on oath only Caylee had used it.

I think Cindy's email will verify that she gave the WRONG hairbrush on purpose............:hand:

 

[InspectorGadget]

NTS I would like to refer you to Cyberborg's post above where he/she posted "Role playing, as a member of the Jury, it is not so much the interpretation of the document but in reality the presentation at trial by the FBI experts (who know precisely what they mean/meant) so it all boils down to ..... do the Defense argue semantics and interpretation when the experts are directly presenting at trial or ...... do the Defense do some work and perform their own counter expert analysis?"


Has the Defense hired their own experts to refute the findings of the FBI experts? I don't think this will be argued "fiercely" at trial because there is nothing to argue....the FBI said (in their language) that the hairs were similar.

The defense may have their own experts but they won't be able to do their own testing because the hair from the trunk was used up in the FBI testing, it was only 2.5cm long.