Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[Bittiness39]

But if the ME can ascertain that the tape was applied pre-decomp can she not determine if it was applied pre-mortem? If she cannot determine it was applied pre-mortem then why are we saying it was? KWIM? Again, if she can state that it is her opinion that it was applied pre death, but cannot say it on an autopsy, that would be enough for me. her opinion is really all I would need.
My father was also a doctor LB and I miss him too While he probably could not help us answer this specific question, he could make us look better while we are figuring it out;he was a plastic surgeon :floorlaugh:

I would imagine that the only way to truly suss this out would be if you had a real corpse not a skeletonized one to examine. There would be certain epipeheals (spelling probably wrong) I am sure...lip tissue, skin, etc...but that would be under the most optimum circumstance. I just can't see the point in applying duct tape to an already dead person. It makes no sense. None that I can see...but I do understand the LE's office will have to present something to prove that say, Caylee didn't drown in the pool and KC panicked and duct taped her mouth shut after death. But I think, JMO, they already have that. The rest is just mitigation for KC. JMO.

 

[JBean]

I would imagine that the only way to truly suss this out would be if you had a real corpse not a skeletonized one to examine. There would be certain epipeheals (spelling probably wrong) I am sure...lip tissue, skin, etc...but that would be under the most optimum circumstance. I just can't see the point in applying duct tape to an already dead person. It makes no sense. None that I can see...but I do understand the LE's office will have to present something to prove that say, Caylee didn't drown in the pool and KC panicked and duct taped her mouth shut after death. But I think, JMO, they already have that. The rest is just mitigation for KC. JMO.

All it would take to prove it to me, would be Dr G. saying that in her medical opinion the duct tape was applied in such a way as to kill her and that it was most likely applied before death. I totally understand that she cannot say with medical certainty and I am not looking for that, but she can give her opinion and that will be everything to me.
I kind of go back and forth as to thinking that calling out the application as being pre decompositional as opposed to calling it out as being pre-death or pre mortem was a very deliberate statement.

But again, if any verified ME states that these 2 terms are used interchangeably or that it is impossible to determine if it was applied prior to death but only possible to determine prior to decomp I would go with that to.(meaning out side of court here on this board)

What I am trying to say is, I am not sure if Dr.G was making a distinction by calling it pre-decomp or if that is just as good as it can get. If it is the latter, then that too would satisfy me that the most likely scenario is that the tape was applied before Caylee died.

IOW, I am not challenging anything you say, I just want to make sure that Dr.G was not intentionally saying something else.

hope that makes sense.

 

[logicalgirl]

I have to jump in here and put my two cents in also because I have seen this subject go on and on and stop at this exact point a number of times, only to start up and go through it all again.

IMO

Dr. G. is a scientist and can only report the facts of her findings. Clearly she has facts to support the fact that the duct tape was applied either just before Caylee's death or very shortly afterwards.

The issue is - she cannot state what the cause of death is. There wasn't enough tissue or skeletal matter left to state with certainty that the cause of death was this or that. Or was the duct tape.

However, she has said the duct tape was tightly applied over both the nose and mouth. To me that implies it could have been the cause of death.

She must have scientific fact to support the time it was applied. Caylee was either alive or newly dead. She does not have scientific fact to state Caylee was still alive.

Dr. G. also said this death is a homicide. Is accidental death a homicide? No I don't think so.

The final decision will probably be up to the jury to decide. But who could decide it was an accident after hearing about the duct tape when Casey will continue to say nothing? From my perspective, there is nothing the defense can say that will convince anyone on the jury this was an accident. It defies logic.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Not trying to be frivolous but to me it is glaringly obvious that the duct tape which obstructs respiration,caused her death.
If I have a skeletonized corpse and a knife that is found approximately where the heart would have been, she cannot say with certainty that the knife killed the person...or when it was placed there, but can you think of any other logical explanation?

 

[azwriter]

In all the document dumps, we read about laundry bags, stickers, etc. at the burial site that match those at the Anthony home. And other evidence, such as Casey's car trunk, linking Casey to a Caylee that was no longer alive. But this evidence really serves to suggest that Casey BURIED Caylee and defense could still argue, "it was an accident". Below are 2 posts of mine that flesh this issue out. What I'd like to do is keep this thread for discussing events, evidence, etc. that are INCOMPATIBLE with the theory that Caylee's death was an accident. Especially since the addition of TM as Casey's new attorney, I think keeping on eye on such evidence will be important.

Here are the 2 posts:
***********************
Sounds like defense may try to go with an "accident" theory. But I don't think it would attempt such a defense without Casey testifying that it was an accident. Jurors aren't going to be sympathetic to some lawyer showing jurors how it "could" have been an accident when Casey has NEVER said it's an accident and is sitting right there in the courtroom watching the "accident reenactment" without saying whether it's accurate. Even though Casey doesn't HAVE to testify at trial, for the "accident" theory to work I think her testimony would be needed.

In that regard, I think it would be easier than one thinks. Casey testifies that an accident happened (drowning, whatever) and that she became distraught and scared, calling her parents at every number for over an hour straight. She throws in a sob story about how she held her dead baby crying for the rest of the afternoon. After that, she's in shock and denial and comes up with the "kidnapping" story b/c she's ashamed of what happened and feels guilty about the accident and doesn't want anyone to know Caylee is dead, for fear of breaking everyone's heart (and for getting in trouble herself). Instead, she goes on acting like she is still alive for the sake of those who love Caylee and also b/c she is in denial herself about it. When she disposed of Caylee's body, her mouth was leaking nasty fluids and there were flies in it and it broke her heart to see it. Or maybe Caylee's lip was torn off at this point - who knows. So she covered her daughter's mouth with duct tape and put a heart on it. She buried her close to home b/c she wanted 2 be able 2 visit her easily. As for the rest - she lied to everyone about everything (Zanny; etc.) simply b/c she didn't want anyone to know Caylee was dead because (1) she didn't want to get in trouble and thought it was "too late" to report it; and (2) she didn't want the Anthonys to know their poor grandbaby was dead. Arguably, none of the "evidence" (decomp in the car, same laundry bag at the burial site) contradicts this story. Casey - "Yes, she was with me when she died (accident) and yes, I buried her and yes I lied to everyone b/c I didn't want anyone to know. And there was nothing I could do to bring her back so I went back to living my life and tried not to think about it. Part of me was in denial."

I'm concerned that a jury could "buy" the above. That's why I'm interested to know when Casey wrote the journal entry saying "I'm happy with the decision I made. I hope the end justifies the means." If she wrote that a few days after Caylee's death, I think it goes against an accident theory. Maybe doesn't disprove it, but really calls it into question. Presumably, she wasn't talking about some innocuous decision, like changing the color of her hair highlights. Also, I hope they are able to tell whether the duct tape was placed on Caylee before or after her death. If prosecutors can show duct tape was placed on Caylee's mouth while she was still alive (Dear Lord Help Us All), then the accident theory goes out the window.

***********************
I hope and pray evidence will show whether the duct tape was placed there pre or post mortem. And I've many times noted that there could be evidence of tears on the duct tape which would point to the tape being placed there while she was alive (but it breaks my heart to think of this). As if we don't have enough tragedies in this case, it would be terrible if persons who murder could (successfully) wait it out long enough for the body to decay so that cause of death is not determinable and then at the last minute in a murder trial, trot out an "accident" defense. At this point, I'm only interested in reading about evidence that is incompatible with an "accident" theory. Everytime I read about clothing and laundry bags at the burial scene matching those at the Anthony house, I think, "So what? She can still say it was an accident and all those things only show that Casey BURIED Caylee, not murdered her on purpose." Of course, events before and after Caylee's death can be viewed as arguably conflicting with an "accident" theory, so prosecutors have that as well. But I am really keeping my eye out for things such as the duct tape and that diary entry.

Thoughtful and compelling post NJ Lawyer.
I can see where an accident testimony might interest a few jurors. But, if Casey is giving this testimony herself, I doubt all the jurors would buy this. Especially when she is cross examined. How does she explain the tattoo? The lies about having a job at Universal and her physically leading detectives there before admitting she didn't work there. And why did she leave the car in that parking lot? Why not have the car detailed and cleaned up?
No matter how good Casey could perform on direct or cross examination, that question still will linger in a juror's mind - if it was an accident, why go to all the trouble to cover it up.
I certainly enjoyed your post and it really has me thinking. But, I still think there's always a common sense vein running through jurors' minds. JMO

 

[Bittiness39]

Not trying to be frivolous but to me it is glaringly obvious that the duct tape which obstructs respiration,caused her death.
If I have a skeletonized corpse and a knife that is found approximately where the heart would have been, she cannot say with certainty that the knife killed the person...or when it was placed there, but can you think of any other logical explanation?

Perfect analogy. Perfect. :blushing:

 

[JBean]

LOL, you guys are missing my point. Dr.G can and will give an opinion at some point. An opinion won;t be the same as her report that contains medical certainty. Her opinion is the only thing that i am waiting for.
What I am trying to determine is if she said pre decomp on purpose as opposed to pre mortem? or if she said pre decomp because she is unable to determine pre mortem?

Those would be my two questions and i would accept her answers and opinion as 100% proof.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

Don't take my word for it- you need to read the Post Mortem report by Dr Garavaglia. The hair did not float, because it was found UNDER the skull, which as I explained, did not float due to it's own weight. The hair was also anchored by small roots growing through it.
The report regarding the position of the mandible is not open to opinion, nor challenge, it is what it is. She recorded exactly what she saw. The skull was disarticulated, that in laymens terms means they were all separated - if not for the tape holding it , the mandible would have fallen to the bottom of the container it was in.

 

[JBean]

Here is an example of what I mean. This was from the Huck case. The ME cannot say with 100% medical certainty but he CAN say that in his educated opinion what he thinks were possible causes of death. So, all I am saying is I am waiting for that last piece from Dr.G which I suspect may fully support many of the theories here. The only reason I need her opinion is because she specifically did not say pre-mortem in her report when I would have expected her too and perhaps it was because she could not say it with medical certainty. If that is the case she will clarify that in her opinion and that will be the proof. Hopefully that clarifies what i mean.
From the Huck case:
At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose
and mouth or from drowning. The medical examiner found no fractures, entrance or exit
wounds, or injuries from a sharp object, but could not rule out blunt force trauma. He found no
evidence of organ injury or disease in the lungs, and found no drugs, poisons or heavy metals.
According to the doctor, the victim looked to be a normal 22-year old woman. He concluded
that the manner of death was homicide.
http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions2/5D03-1906.op.html

 

[Bittiness39]

LOL, you guys are missing my point. Dr.G can and will give an opinion at some point. An opinion won;t be the same as her report that contains medical certainty. Her opinion is the only thing that i am waiting for.
What I am trying to determine is if she said pre decomp on purpose as opposed to pre mortem? or if she said pre decomp because she is unable to determine pre mortem?

Those would be my two questions and i would accept her answers and opinion as 100% proof.

I would imagine that under oath she could not say so with certainty either way. I just think application of duct tape after death is bizarre. Makes no sense. And since KC has a lazy pathology I could imagine that was how she did away with her. I still have theories on the one missing tooth and latents on the tape...but even still, I can understand why you or any of us, let alone a jury would be confused. I still am. About the tape, I mean. But there is a lot of evidence, circumstantial, nonetheless, that can support an outright murder of Caylee. I just don't believe that a child dies accidentally and the mother would rather it look like an abduction. Mother freaks. Mother decides to place duct tape on said child's mouth. Makes no sense to me. Factor in the fact that our favorite liar in the pants KC, said initially that Zanny the Nanny kidnapped Caylee because KC was not a good mother and she, Zanny, had more to offer her (paraphrasing). Why kill the kid if the only reason you took her to begin with was to teach her mother a lesson? Makes no sense not one shred. KC is cooked. I just don't know apart from the many friendships I have made on this board why her attorneys won't just let her go. It is not like KC is going to be some functioning hard working member of society. Waste of space if you ask me, jmo.

 

[azwriter]

Caylee's death was clearly an accident.

CMA was teaching Caylee how to mix homemade chloroform when a gust of wind accidentally tore a piece of duct tape off the roll that was sitting there and blew it over to Caylee where it accidentally wrapped itself tightly around her mouth & hair, causing her to accidentally fall into the trunk where another strong wind gust accidentally blew a heart sticker onto the duct tape directly over her mouth. Caylee wanted to finish making the chloroform so CMA put the fresh batch in the trunk with her but then Caylee accidentally crawled into not one but two black garbage bags and then a third white bag before CMA realized she couldn't get her out of the trunk with all of those bags on her. CMA was in a hurry to go rent movies with her boyfriend so she accidentally forgot to call 911 for help or tell anyone what had happened. Then after accidentally forgetting Caylee was in the trunk for a few days, she decided to take her back to G & C's but accidentally made a wrong turn onto Suburban and then by accident left Caylee in the woods where she went as a kid, accidentally hiding her under the thick entangled plant-life.

Bluebelle, great post.
Now, please explain how the heck you got this story from the defense team? It's what they have planned to present, huh? :boohoo:

 

[logicalgirl]

I understand your point clearly JBean, but is she not saying it was applied at the point of death? Give or take a couple of minutes? There must be something - some fact telling her it wasn't applied well past the point of death and into decomp or she would have said so - would she not? I think she would have. We do know with air passages covered, Caylee wouldn't have survived more than mere minutes.

IMO,I honestly don't know if the duct tape caused Caylee's death, but everything sure points that way - just as Laci Peterson could have jumped in the Bay herself. And until someone can, who is a medical professional can give me something factual, and not just their own opinion, I like any juror will use logic. Casey may have drugged Caylee and she OD'd, but that duct tape was not placed there as a sweet goodbye. Duct tape covering airways implies murder.

 

[ZsaZsa]

LOL, you guys are missing my point. Dr.G can and will give an opinion at some point. An opinion won;t be the same as her report that contains medical certainty. Her opinion is the only thing that i am waiting for.
What I am trying to determine is if she said pre decomp on purpose as opposed to pre mortem? or if she said pre decomp because she is unable to determine pre mortem?

Those would be my two questions and i would accept her answers and opinion as 100% proof.

I don't think she is ever going to be able to say what you want to hear, but decomposition does start at the instant of death. It may just be the Pathologists termiinology she is required to use..?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Here is an example of what I mean. This was from the Huck case. The ME cannot say with 100% medical certainty but he CAN say that in his educated opinion what he thinks were possible causes of death. So, all I am saying is I am waiting for that last piece from Dr.G which I suspect may fully support many of the theories here. The only reason I need her opinion is because she specifically did not say pre-mortem when I would have expected her too and perhaps it was because she could not say it with medical certainty. If that is the case she will clarify that in her opinion and that will be the proof. Hopefully that clarifies what i mean.
From the Huck case:
At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose
and mouth or from drowning. The medical examiner found no fractures, entrance or exit
wounds, or injuries from a sharp object, but could not rule out blunt force trauma. He found no
evidence of organ injury or disease in the lungs, and found no drugs, poisons or heavy metals.
According to the doctor, the victim looked to be a normal 22-year old woman. He concluded
that the manner of death was homicide.
http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions2/5D03-1906.op.html

I think when she is in court she will be able to expand on her findings and render an opinion. When she does, I think it will sound just like this one..

 

[Bittiness39]

I don't think she is ever going to be able to say what you want to hear, but decomposition does start at the instant of death. It may just be the Pathologists termiinology she is required to use..?

If the tape was applied post mortem it would have to be after rigor mortis set in...I think the tape was applied to kill her. But then that is just my humble opinion. Sorry, didn't feel like abbreviating. There is no reason that makes logical sense to duct tape the mouth of an already dead person. Unless it was symbolic. But I still maintain that it makes no sense. But again, I could be wrong.

 

[LambChop]

I think Dr. G. said three very important things in her report. Predecomp + duct tape + homocide. Interesting, too, that KC searched for the making of chloroform around the time (March) when General Hospital had episodes involving someone using chloroform to another person out and duct tape. KC states in her letter how much she misses her GH. JMO

 

[gamom]

I have to jump in here and put my two cents in also because I have seen this subject go on and on and stop at this exact point a number of times, only to start up and go through it all again.

IMO

Dr. G. is a scientist and can only report the facts of her findings. Clearly she has facts to support the fact that the duct tape was applied either just before Caylee's death or very shortly afterwards.

The issue is - she cannot state what the cause of death is. There wasn't enough tissue or skeletal matter left to state with certainty that the cause of death was this or that. Or was the duct tape.

However, she has said the duct tape was tightly applied over both the nose and mouth. To me that implies it could have been the cause of death.

She must have scientific fact to support the time it was applied. Caylee was either alive or newly dead. She does not have scientific fact to state Caylee was still alive.

Dr. G. also said this death is a homicide. Is accidental death a homicide? No I don't think so.

The final decision will probably be up to the jury to decide. But who could decide it was an accident after hearing about the duct tape when Casey will continue to say nothing? From my perspective, there is nothing the defense can say that will convince anyone on the jury this was an accident. It defies logic.

BBM...I might be wrong here, but it is my understanding that homicide just means the act of killing another person. If that is the case, I believe a homicide could be accidental. I saw this great site explaining the various types of death...

http://www.theeffectivetruth.info/homchart.html

When I look at this, Caylee's death could very well fall in the category of manslaughter. What are your thoughts?

 

[JBean]

I would imagine that under oath she could not say so with certainty either way. snipped for emphasis

Under oath she can defintiely give her expert opinion. Happens all day long and that is an important piece for me which is what I am trying to say.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

You keep asking the same question as if the answer were going to change with repetition. The hair did not float because it was under the skull. It was also intertwined with small roots, therefore anchored.

 

[JBean]

BBM...I might be wrong here, but it is my impression that homicide just means the act of killing another person. If that is the case, I believe a homicide could be accidental. I saw this great site explaining the various types of death...

http://www.theeffectivetruth.info/homchart.html

When I look at this, Caylee's death could very well fall in the category of manslaughter. What are your thoughts?

Homicide and accidental are 2 disticnt classifications as to manner of death. It has to be one or the other. But you are correct that homicide is death at the hands of another.
however all murders are homicides but not all homicides are murder.