Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[nort]

IIRC According to Lkb whom has already seen the crime scene photos, the location/placement of the duct tape will be challenged.

From what I read in the medical examiners report, the duct tape was attached to the hair mat at the bottom of the skull. The hair had to be cut away to remove the tape. I am curious about this hair mass that apparently fell off of her skull with duct tape attached. Filled up with 14 inches of water and did not float. I just don't get it. Did the duct tape float up to the skull? Was it actually adhered to the hair? I don't believe it was ever wrapped around the skull as so many do.

Because the defense is going to challenge the duct tape placement, then the accident theory is still possible. However, when Jb stated to Kb that kc was not in those woods, you in lala land, then I feel he is ruling out the accident theory.

On the other hand, Kc seems to be sticking to the nanny or nany story.

IMO Accident is still possible, but barely.

I'm not convinced she is sticking with the Nanny story we have heard nothing about what they plan on doing. I have not heard anything from them about strategy. In fact it makes me crazy to not know what they are up to. Its obvious she lies so to change her story is not going to surprise anyone.

 

[ZsaZsa]

IIRC According to Lkb whom has already seen the crime scene photos, the location/placement of the duct tape will be challenged.

From what I read in the medical examiners report, the duct tape was attached to the hair mat at the bottom of the skull. The hair had to be cut away to remove the tape. I am curious about this hair mass that apparently fell off of her skull with duct tape attached. Filled up with 14 inches of water and did not float. I just don't get it. Did the duct tape float up to the skull? Was it actually adhered to the hair? I don't believe it was ever wrapped around the skull as so many do.

Because the defense is going to challenge the duct tape placement, then the accident theory is still possible. However, when Jb stated to Kb that kc was not in those woods, you in lala land, then I feel he is ruling out the accident theory.

On the other hand, Kc seems to be sticking to the nanny or nany story.

IMO Accident is still possible, but barely.

They can challenge all they want, but facts cannot be changed. The tape was over the lower portion of the face , with tape still attached to some of the scalp hair. That tells me it was wrapped around her face, around the back of her head to secure it. It must have been applied pretty vigorously.. So firmly was it attached to her mandible that it was still in its anatomical location despite complete skeletonization.
Why does it seem odd to you that a skull would not float? It weighs a few pounds and is solid bone. Do you seriously propose that duct tape would 'float' up to the skull and attach itself as described by the Medical Examiner? You must have a very vivid imagination, but that would be stretching the credulity of a Jury beyond belief.

 

[Tinsel]

I believe the jury will see the videos of KC and her BF at video store and hear about the activity immediately following the disappearance (date, sex, and sleep over with BF) and conclude it was premeditated murder. There was no panic or change of plans with boyfriend. A sudden change in behavior might indicate an accident had happened. Does the girl in the video store seem upset because of accidental death of her child? What will the BF say on the stand?

Also, why was the body discarded so near home? She didn't have gas to drive much further away. Even if there was very little planning done, it would still be premeditation, as opposed to 2nd degree murder, or accident.

They say that juries make decisions based on attitude, even more than evidence. The video store tape and BF testimony will be hard to explain.

:twocents:

 

[Pensfan]

The party photos of KC after the disappearance of Caylee say it ALL!
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obj275geo249pg3p36.jpg

 

[cyberborg]

Even after the 31 days of ugly coping KC had many chances, LE opened the door to her, to admit to an accident and it would have been believed because -- at that time -- everyone expected accident. Every day up until Caylee's remains were found KC had an opportunity to volunteer that it was an accident. She chose not to.

KC has walked this all the way down the corridor, just like in Universal to the point of reaching the end, i.e., DP charge. Why?

This has gone way beyond the embarassment and scars of admitting an inattentive Mother who allowed her daughter to accidently die and then covered it up. Way beyond.

Even if KC was found not guilty based on some technicality or sympathetic Juror her life will never be the same. KC would have got more sympathy if it had been an accident, once the dust settled. KC's life would never be the same and she have to take off and runaway from this?

What is KC's goal? KC killed Caylee to punish her parents (CA) as things escalated and spiralled out of control and her web of lies entangled her more and more. KC wants to punish her parents.

KC also wants to maintain control. By killing Caylee but never ever admitting to it and telling the truth she can not only punish her parents for an eternity she can hold it over everyone else who wants to know what happened to Caylee.

To KC the price is right. It was no accident. She will take her chances at trial in order to exact revenge over ever coming clean. Diary of Days.

 

[Baznme]

IIRC According to Lkb whom has already seen the crime scene photos, the location/placement of the duct tape will be challenged.

From what I read in the medical examiners report, the duct tape was attached to the hair mat at the bottom of the skull. The hair had to be cut away to remove the tape. I am curious about this hair mass that apparently fell off of her skull with duct tape attached. Filled up with 14 inches of water and did not float. I just don't get it. Did the duct tape float up to the skull? Was it actually adhered to the hair? I don't believe it was ever wrapped around the skull as so many do.

Because the defense is going to challenge the duct tape placement, then the accident theory is still possible. However, when Jb stated to Kb that kc was not in those woods, you in lala land, then I feel he is ruling out the accident theory.

On the other hand, Kc seems to be sticking to the nanny or nany story.

IMO Accident is still possible, but barely.

The hair mass, to my knowledge did not "fall off" the skull. From what I read out of it, it was still attached and the tape was the only thing still holding the mandible TO the skull. Also, the skull was not in water at the time of recovery. It may have been loose but from what I read, Kronk kicked the bag and the skull fell out of the bag, so we I don't know how it matters whether it had or hadn't floated. That had nothing to do with it since the water had receded at the time of recovery.

Oh, and by the way, since this was not the Medical Examiner's first time around the block, I'll take their word for it long before I'll take LKB's expert opinion.

 

[notthatsmart]

They can challenge all they want, but facts cannot be changed. The tape was over the lower portion of the face , with tape still attached to some of the scalp hair. That tells me it was wrapped around her face, around the back of her head to secure it. It must have been applied pretty vigorously.. So firmly was it attached to her mandible that it was still in its anatomical location despite complete skeletonization.
Why does it seem odd to you that a skull would not float? It weighs a few pounds and is solid bone. Do you seriously propose that duct tape would 'float' up to the skull and attach itself as described by the Medical Examiner? You must have a very vivid imagination, but that would be stretching the credulity of a Jury beyond belief.

I don't feel the skull would float. I feel the hair would float. I see it everyday in the toilet. Lol The duct tape was attached to the hair, the hair was not attached to the skull. I believe the mandible was held in place because the skull was sitting upright and facing North West. I believe the pictures will speak for themselves, what I am not sure of though is Le's description of things. I am not convinced at all that any thing was wrapped tightly or appeared to be placed there purposefully and it is all challengable. Given the conflicting reports at the crime scene, the jury will prolly have to view the pictures. So , The duct tape does not seal it for me not being an accident. As far as I know, the tape could have floated up to the skull and just rested there. I am not proposing that, I am saying that there are conflicting reports and things are not making sense to me, so therefore i will hold out for the cross examination. So i can not write off the accident theory completely. IMO

 

[Eidetic]

The tape was holding the mandible in place nts.
Let's not forget what Dr. G would have had to experience, holding those bones and removing that duct tape. She filed Caylee's death a homicide then stated she did so for a reason.
She would not have signed the death certificate as such if she did not have just cause.

 

[Eidetic]

ITA. While I don't believe at all this was an accident, KC is dumb because she probably could have pulled it off when she had the opportunity to. Too late now. JMO.

Imagine trying to get duct tape out of hair. :snooty:

Seems like someone was a little more than deliberate as well as frustrated when they applied the tape.
Even if it were a cover up, what kind of person could bear to see it across her face and in her hair? Pick her up to put her in and out of the trunk, then proceed to throw her into the woods and whatever else may have been done with her corpse along the way.

There should be honor, respect and integrity for the dead. They still have rights. It is clear this horrendous act came from someone who doesn't have much respect for the living either.

Maybe someone could try to convince me of a reason or scenario why one would try to cover an accident up?

 

[notthatsmart]

The tape was holding the mandible in place nts.
Let's not forget what Dr. G would have had to experience, holding those bones and removing that duct tape. She filed Caylee's death a homicide then stated she did so for a reason.
She would not have signed the death certificate as such if she did not have just cause.

I respectfully somewhat disagree. First of all, I feel the tape is part of this topic because it is the main reason people do not believe it was an accident. I think Dr G was under an extreme amount of pressure to produce a report. She states the tape was holding the mandible in place, however the defense may disagree and probably will. So I will hold out for the other sides expert. It is not cut and dry because the skull was sitting upright. I looked at a skeleton at the school I work at and I can see that the mandible would naturally disarticulate if the the skull was facing up, but it does not appear that it would disarticulate if the skull is sitting upright. I need it demonstrated to me. I am not sure I understand the matting at the bottom of the skull either. Does not make sense to me. If the hair fell off the skull and landed on the ground, then why did it not just up and float away? Rk describes it as though, and this is his second descreption that he lifted the bag and the skull was there. Never saying the body or skull was actually inside the bag. You would think by his interview the bag was laying on top of the skull. The last interview that is. Why can we not get a report from Steve hanson the actual person that collected the body? IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

Imagine trying to get duct tape out of hair. :snooty:

Seems like someone was a little more than deliberate as well as frustrated when they applied the tape.
Even if it were a cover up, what kind of person could bear to see it across her face and in her hair? Pick her up to put her in and out of the trunk, then proceed to throw her into the woods and whatever else may have been done with her corpse along the way.

There should be honor, respect and integrity for the dead. They still have rights. It is clear this horrendous act came from someone who doesn't have much respect for the living either.

Maybe someone could try to convince me of a reason or scenario why one would try to cover an accident up?

Bolded by me. Answer: CA

 

[TrialAddict]

i thought the tape was wrapped and still attached around and under her jaw when the skull was found

 

[ynotdivein]

I looked at a skeleton at the school I work at and I can see that the mandible would naturally disarticulate if the the skull was facing up, but it does not appear that it would disarticulate if the skull is sitting upright. I need it demonstrated to me.

Respectfully snipped for focus.

NTS, disarticulation simply means the connective tissues decay away around the joints or the hinges of the jaw in this case. Once that process is complete, the mandible would typically fall away from the skull and move separate from it during flooding, animal activity, etc. This would be true whether the skull were laying on its rear ("facing the sky") or were upright ("sitting on its neck").

Instead we find that the mandible was still in its approximate original position, held there by the duct tape which was wrapped around the lower face and adhered to the hair so tightly that, even after the scalp decomposed under the hair, and even despite flooding and scavenger activity that spread other body parts/bones over a wide range, the mandible stayed with the skull. The hair, sans scalp, fell down in a mat around the skull/over the tape. Mandibles sans duct tape do not behave this way. I am not sure why this should still be an issue, or what the defense is going to say to refute it? Three strips of duct tape with a heart shaped sticker similar to those KC used were found adhered to the decomposing skull and jaw of her child...

Granted, still doesn't 100% mean not an accident, as the duct tape and sure even that heart sticker could have been added after an accidental death as a cover up. But there was a reason for that homicide ruling.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Imagine trying to get duct tape out of hair. :snooty:

Seems like someone was a little more than deliberate as well as frustrated when they applied the tape.
Even if it were a cover up, what kind of person could bear to see it across her face and in her hair? Pick her up to put her in and out of the trunk, then proceed to throw her into the woods and whatever else may have been done with her corpse along the way.

There should be honor, respect and integrity for the dead. They still have rights. It is clear this horrendous act came from someone who doesn't have much respect for the living either.

Maybe someone could try to convince me of a reason or scenario why one would try to cover an accident up?

And dignity. Great post, BTW.

 

[sleutherontheside]

For the life of me I can't find any rational explanation for duct tape to be affixed to Caylee's face. One could argue accident....but where would duct tape fall into an accident scenario?

Occam's razor...."entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

[/B]


Bolded by me. Answer: CA

That makes no logical sense for Casey whatsoever.

If Casey really loved Caylee, her first and foremost action would have been to rush that baby to the nearest hospital if she had suffered an accident.

And if Casey feared Cindy, which she didn't, based on her ease and frequency of horrible disrespect to Cindy, Casey would have all the more reason to admit that it was an accident and clear her name, rather than be seen as a baby killer.

Casey is all about Casey, self-preservation, primping and partying. She isn't about to spend 2 years of her life in jail, all to "save face" for Cindy.

There was no accident here, other than Casey getting pregnant with Caylee and regretting the day it happened.

 

[miss plum]

Respectfully, do 'feelings' about tape and hair and floating and whatnot have much relevance to a forensic investigation when there are reports written by qualified, experienced examiners available?

And if someone apparently presumes that every single aspect--whether tiny or large--of this investigation is geared--whether accidentally or deliberately--to make a defendant look bad, does that suggest that in the presumer's O a huge conspiracy, or a miscarriage of justice, is being played out here? I'm a bit baffled. A query here or there is one thing, but such skepticism over and over is something else entirely.

 

[Harmony 2]

This is the information from the autopsy...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...sIhLjw&sig=AHIEtbRF27GTHFEdvL3X7NOIJmpmourRYw

page 8

The skull was initially received in a separate paper bag with duct tape over the lower portion of the face, with the tape still attached to some of the scalp hair. A large portion of the scalp hair was in a mat under the skull. The mandible was still in its approximate location in spite of complete skeletonization.

page 9

The mat of hair which was initially found beneath the skull with strands of hair extending across the calvarian and face consists of medium brown hair.

page 11

Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium in the sagittal and coronal planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar and lower posterior skull, including inferior portions of the mandible.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img.../images?q=calvaria&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbs=isch:1

 

[notthatsmart]

Respectfully snipped for focus.

NTS, disarticulation simply means the connective tissues decay away around the joints or the hinges of the jaw in this case. Once that process is complete, the mandible would typically fall away from the skull and move separate from it during flooding, animal activity, etc. This would be true whether the skull were laying on its rear ("facing the sky") or were upright ("sitting on its neck").

Instead we find that the mandible was still in its approximate original position, held there by the duct tape which was wrapped around the lower face and adhered to the hair so tightly that, even after the scalp decomposed under the hair, and even despite flooding and scavenger activity that spread other body parts/bones over a wide range, the mandible stayed with the skull. The hair, sans scalp, fell down in a mat around the skull/over the tape. Mandibles sans duct tape do not behave this way. I am not sure why this should still be an issue, or what the defense is going to say to refute it? Three strips of duct tape with a heart shaped sticker similar to those KC used were found adhered to the decomposing skull and jaw of her child...

Granted, still doesn't 100% mean not an accident, as the duct tape and sure even that heart sticker could have been added after an accidental death as a cover up. But there was a reason for that homicide ruling.

Bolded by me: How can something fall if it is already sitting on the ground? If the defense said they are not going to refute it, then I would understand that it is just accepted. But they said they will challenge it and they have seen the actual photos. There was never any heart shaped sticker. Don't know where your getting that other than pure speculation of a so called image (not even residue) that an Fbi agent thought she saw and then was informed by her supervisor that the Fbi does not speculate. This is definately still an issue and will be challenged by the defense simply because it makes no sense at all.

The duct tape IMO was not wrapped around the lower face. I don't know where you are getting that. It certainly was not wrapped around the entire skull. It is too short. I feel bad for the jury because they will prolly have to view these photos to settle this matter. I don't know where your getting this wrapped tightly stuff. I have not seen anything in the documents that says that. The mandible may have stayed with the skull simply because the skull was sitting on top of the mandible on the ground. IMO

Some may think that Kc applied the duct tape to cover up an accident, that may be what happened, but you wouldn't know it from the defense.

Why would the defense dispute something that appears to be so obvious? They wouldn't. They have seen the pictures and it is not as obvious as many think. With the soddi theory, you would think they would be all for the duct tape being on there tightly. But theyr'e not. go figure. Moo

 

[sleutherontheside]

I value most.....posts that offer concepts for discussion that include substantive information. However, I still respect those posts that fall short of my personal standards.