Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[lin]

Interesting. I had thought the mouth would be the most significant cause of leakage and the area Casey would want to cover to prevent anyone knowing she had Caylee's body in the car. Okay so if Casey didn't place the duct tape on poor Caylee's mouth (and around her head) to prevent leaking decomp fluids, why did she do it? Was the duct tape the murder weapon and cause of death (she used tape for the mouth and held her nose? I HATE THINKING OF THIS)? Or did Casey somehow stick the duct tape on to make it look like a kidnapping and that plan went awry?

N/A
Yes
No

 

[magic-cat]

The fact that Casey told the police she was searching for Caylee day one, when she claimed she had vanished with imaginanny, when she was, in fact, at the local Blockbuster hunting for movies with her boyfriend tells me this was no accident. Who goes to the video store for movies when their baby has JUST died in an accident? Casey Anthony would have to be the first one.

The fact that Casey had NEVER been away from home for more than a couple of days at the most and the very day that Caylee vanished she began a month long stay away from home tells me this was no accident. Perhaps her friends did not know her quite as well as her parents and perhaps they, her parents, would have been able to "read" her well enough to determine that the police needed to be called...oh wait, that is exactly what DID happen once she was tracked down. The lies that were working with everyone else did not work with Cindy once she was actually face to face with Casey. Those lies only worked with her casual acquaintances, new found friends and by text message with her mother. Once in person, those lies did not last out the evening before the police were called in. If it were an accident, she could have and in all likelihood would have immediately called the police her own self. It would not have been 31 days later and by her mothers hand-she would have called them her own self. A TRUE REAL accident would hold no fear of the police and would likely have involved an ambulance and life restoring measures. None of this happened.

Accidental deaths do not require layer upon layer of duct tape over the face. What accident have you ever heard of that required the face to be taped over with duct tape?

The entire imaginanny scenario tells us there was no accident. Who would invent an imaginary nanny to cover up an honest accident? All of Casey's lies from day one and right up to this very day belies the entire accident theory. One does not lie cheat and steal to hide an accident.

Sneaking in and out of the house avoiding any face to face contact with her parents says there was something Casey was hiding and her parents would know it if they SAW her. Who hides like that from an accident?

Casey never once claimed there was an accident. She claimed there was a kidnapping, so where does the accident fit into that scenario? It was an accident but I decided to pretend a kidnapping instead, because the accident was that I overdosed her and hear death was the result of a negligent act on my part, then, yeah, that would certainly be grounds to "hide" the accident, which would not BE an accident at all, but a negligent act that resulted in death.

There is no evidence that suggests accident to me. All the evidence suggests foul play of one sort or another.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-07/48369792.pdf
page 49 of 100

Cindy states her own self that if she had seen Casey face to face she would have been able to tell that her story was full of holes. She talks about how well her friends may have known her and that although they may have not seen the signs she, knowing Casey as she did, would have. (paraphrased).

So Cindy tells us that Casey's avoidance of being seen by her parents is a clue that she had something to hide...

 

[Brini]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-07/48369792.pdf
page 49 of 100

Cindy states her own self that if she had seen Casey face to face she would have been able to tell that her story was full of holes. She talks about how well her friends may have known her and that although they may have not seen the signs she, knowing Casey as she did, would have. (paraphrased).

So Cindy tells us that Casey's avoidance of being seen by her parents is a clue that she had something to hide...

KC has no use for her parents. They couldn't get her out.

 

[lin]

I agree. This case is clearly not justifiable homicide -- like self defense, defense of another or defending your home. It also is not excusable homicide because the "ordinary standard of care" was not met. Leaving a child with unsupervised access to a pool or in a hot car is way beyond the ordinary standard of care. So, that's out the door too. Not an accident. People usually say it was an accident when they mean the don't think there was premeditation. I suggest people study the legal concept of premeditation. Premeditation can take six months or six seconds. It doesn't take much. Proving premeditation is often based on circumstantial evidence because we can never get inside the mind of another person and know their thoughts for sure. Still, the prosecutors prove it up all the time based on evidence just like what is before us in this case.

Only usually it's done with a whole lot less evidence, imo.

 

[lin]

you guys have so many evidence threads going. Please do not post the same information in more than one thread. the end result is duplicate conversation generated from duplicate posts in different threads.

this topic is evidence that does not support an accident.

IMO, accidental death is only even an issue if KC admits to it. otherwise there is zero possibility that accidental death will be argued by anyone.

BBM and I agree with all of the above. I just don't see how the defense can argue an accident without her testimony. Even if they find a way, I don't see a reasonable jurist buying it without her testimony.

Also agree and have opined repeatedly in the jury thread that the accidental death scenario is better argued here, so I don't feel compelled to keep repeating and citing this thread.

 

[lin]

Transcript page 52 of pdf file, L. 22-25

 

[coco puff]

Transcript page 52 of pdf file, L. 22-25

So if KC specifically said that there was no accident and Cindy said there was no accident, the jury should not even have the theory as an option to consider. Hopefully even if the they did consider it, the duct tape, body disposal and all the remorse/sadness we have seen from her mother (NOT), would disperse any doubt in their minds about an accident.

You do good work lin.

 

[Tuffy]

So if KC specifically said that there was no accident and Cindy said there was no accident, the jury should not even have the theory as an option to consider. Hopefully even if the they did consider it, the duct tape, body disposal and all the remorse/sadness we have seen from her mother (NOT), would disperse any doubt in their minds about an accident.

You do good work lin.

Agreed! My answer to this thread title: ALL of it!

 

[JBean]

Subtle distinction.

I don't think there is any remote chance that accident will even be a discussion in a trial. Even if it was an accident,which is possible, unless KC offers that information it would make no sense to even discuss this by either the defense or the prosecution.

Accident is a moot point unless KC dishes it up.
But in reality it could have been an accident. So imo this thread is to discuss the possibility this actually was accidental; not if it will be argued in court- because it won't be.

jmho

 

[coco puff]

Jbean.

If they don't discuss the accident theory at all (which I believe they will not), will the jury STILL have the option to vote for a "guilty but we think it is an accident" verdict? Or are the options just "she did it or she didn't do it".

 

[JBean]

Jbean.

If they don't discuss the accident theory at all (which I believe they will not), will the jury STILL have the option to vote for a "guilty but we think it is an accident" verdict? Or are the options just "she did it or she didn't do it".

Howdy Coco
I think it would be a gross miscarriage of justice if they considered facts not in evidence.

The options are more complex than she did do it and she didn't do it, so it cannot be simplified down to those 2 options.

But since the defense at this point is not saying that she did it under any circumstances, she cannot explain away any justifiable reason for doing it,so that whole defense is out the window.
She, at this point, is saying she did not do it..period.
That leaves the burden on the state to show that she did do it and how she did it will closely resemble whatever evidence they can provide.
The defense can do nothing and hope that the state does not prove their case or they can refute each piece of evidence and try to show why this evidence or that evidence is not reliable or concrete or conclusive, whatever the case may be.

KC has only left one door open a this point. 100% Innocent as opposed to guilty with an explanation or accidental.
But she has left a very suspicious trail of deceit along the way, so it is going to be a tough sell.

 

[MissJames]

Subtle distinction.

I don't think there is any remote chance that accident will even be a discussion in a trial. Even if it was an accident,which is possible, unless KC offers that information it would make no sense to even discuss this by either the defense or the prosecution.

Accident is a moot point unless KC dishes it up.
But in reality it could have been an accident. So imo this thread is to discuss the possibility this actually was accidental; not if it will be argued in court- because it won't be.

jmho

Okay,I'm confused ,because the thread title is evidence that is incompatable with an accident theory ,so aren't we supposed to be discussing why we think it's not an accident,not that it was? :waitasec:

 

[Marina2]

We really do have a thread for most any subject and different aspects of it.

For instance, if you want to discuss whether or not the defense can put forth an accident theory, it's probably best done on a thread we have that discusses "defense strategy". If you want to discuss the theory that it was an accident, we have the "Theories" thread. If you want to discuss evidence incompatible with an accident, it goes here. If you want to discuss jury instructions and the definition (or lack thereof) of reasonable doubt and how they'll impact the case or be applied to the case, it's best done in the "Jury instructions/reasonable doubt" thread.

It is a subtle distinction as jbean said and what happens is, because the words "reasonable doubt" are included in the jury instructions thread, we have ongoing discussion of the accident theory and theories of murder in the "jury instructions.." thread. So, much discussion of these theories will never been seen by those who go to the "Theories" thread. Similarly, great discussion of whether or not the defense can use an accident theory and how they may go about it, will never be found in the "defense strategy" thread because it will all take place in the "evidence incompatible with accident" or the "theories" thread. Again, this happens because one word of the thread title matches what we want to discuss.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I think we tend to forget the real purpose of a thread and go off on tangents because of a word or two that fits the title. It's real easy to find yourself arguing why you don't feel it's an accident in the "defense strategy" thread or a thread addressing legal standards when great discussion on that topic should be found in the "Theories" thread. We have to think about the topic at hand and cite posts from other threads to support it or refute it. If you're discussing defense strategy, you may find that there's evidence (cite source from evidence thread) that won't be allowed into the trial (cite source from legal thread) so that the defense strategy being discussed won't work.

I know that many times I'm involved in a long, drawn out discussion and I have to scroll up because I don't even remember what thread I'm on. It's not hard for that to happen but if we put some thought into it, we can compartmentalize all this information so that we can reference it easily in the future.
__________________

 

[butwhatif?]

BBM and I agree with all of the above. I just don't see how the defense can argue an accident without her testimony. Even if they find a way, I don't see a reasonable jurist buying it without her testimony.

Also agree and have opined repeatedly in the jury thread that the accidental death scenario is better argued here, so I don't feel compelled to keep repeating and citing this thread.

Could an accident theory be brought in by GA and CA's statements that the pool box/ladder had been moved and they theorised they Caylee may have accidently drowned?
Not sayin anyone would buy it, but just wondering if the A's statements could be used to introduce the accident defense.

 

[Marina2]

Evidence that goes against an accidental drowning would be the fact that the duct tape was so firmly stuck to Caylee's hair. Her hair would be wet after drowning and duct tape won't stick to wet hair. Further, Caylee was found in plastic bags which would keep the hair wet for a longer period of time making the time of duct tape placement incompatible with the ME's opinion that the tape was "clearly placed before decomposition."

 

[lin]

Subtle distinction.

I don't think there is any remote chance that accident will even be a discussion in a trial. Even if it was an accident,which is possible, unless KC offers that information it would make no sense to even discuss this by either the defense or the prosecution.

Accident is a moot point unless KC dishes it up.
But in reality it could have been an accident. So imo this thread is to discuss the possibility this actually was accidental; not if it will be argued in court- because it won't be.

jmho

I seem to be agreeing with you a lot today. And here I go again.

 

[MissJames]

Evidence that goes against an accidental drowning would be the fact that the duct tape was so firmly stuck to Caylee's hair. Her hair would be wet after drowning and duct tape won't stick to wet hair. Further, Caylee was found in plastic bags which would keep the hair wet for a longer period of time making the time of duct tape placement incompatible with the ME's opinion that the tape was "clearly placed before decomposition."

Circumstantial evidence that shows it was not an accident is the way Caylee was disposed of.She was put in garbage bags and thrown into the woods.To me this shows a lack of caring for the child.
Had KC just lost a beloved child to an accident I think she would have found a way to bury her in a special place.
Actually I think she would have called 911,but that's another argument.

 

[lin]

Okay,I'm confused ,because the thread title is evidence that is incompatable with an accident theory ,so aren't we supposed to be discussing why we think it's not an accident,not that it was? :waitasec:

I think part of the process of determining whether evidence disproves an accident is to have it challenged by those who either strongly believe or are otherwise willing to strenuously test the evidence interpretations in this thread. But that's jmo; I'm not the OP and there may have been other threads merged here over time. Hopefully a mod will clarify for all of us.

 

[Brini]

Circumstantial evidence that shows it was not an accident is the way Caylee was disposed of.She was put in garbage bags and thrown into the woods.To me this shows a lack of caring for the child.
Had KC just lost a beloved child to an accident I think she would have found a way to bury her in a special place.
Actually I think she would have called 911,but that's another argument.

Many people wouldn't even bag up and discard a dead PET.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

The fact that Casey told the police she was searching for Caylee day one, when she claimed she had vanished with imaginanny, when she was, in fact, at the local Blockbuster hunting for movies with her boyfriend tells me this was no accident. Who goes to the video store for movies when their baby has JUST died in an accident? Casey Anthony would have to be the first one.

The fact that Casey had NEVER been away from home for more than a couple of days at the most and the very day that Caylee vanished she began a month long stay away from home tells me this was no accident. Perhaps her friends did not know her quite as well as her parents and perhaps they, her parents, would have been able to "read" her well enough to determine that the police needed to be called...oh wait, that is exactly what DID happen once she was tracked down. The lies that were working with everyone else did not work with Cindy once she was actually face to face with Casey. Those lies only worked with her casual acquaintances, new found friends and by text message with her mother. Once in person, those lies did not last out the evening before the police were called in. If it were an accident, she could have and in all likelihood would have immediately called the police her own self. It would not have been 31 days later and by her mothers hand-she would have called them her own self. A TRUE REAL accident would hold no fear of the police and would likely have involved an ambulance and life restoring measures. None of this happened.

Accidental deaths do not require layer upon layer of duct tape over the face. What accident have you ever heard of that required the face to be taped over with duct tape?

The entire imaginanny scenario tells us there was no accident. Who would invent an imaginary nanny to cover up an honest accident? All of Casey's lies from day one and right up to this very day belies the entire accident theory. One does not lie cheat and steal to hide an accident.

Sneaking in and out of the house avoiding any face to face contact with her parents says there was something Casey was hiding and her parents would know it if they SAW her. Who hides like that from an accident?

Casey never once claimed there was an accident. She claimed there was a kidnapping, so where does the accident fit into that scenario? It was an accident but I decided to pretend a kidnapping instead, because the accident was that I overdosed her and hear death was the result of a negligent act on my part, then, yeah, that would certainly be grounds to "hide" the accident, which would not BE an accident at all, but a negligent act that resulted in death.

There is no evidence that suggests accident to me. All the evidence suggests foul play of one sort or another.

Definatly deserves more than just my thanks button!
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: