Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[JBean]

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

Hi Lambchop. Do you find it intriguing that she did not say pre-mortem? or do you think she could not determine that?

 

[gamom]

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?

Sorry to quote myself, but right after I saw that, I saw this direct link from the same site:

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

"HOMICIDE

If a manner of death is not natural, suicidal, accidental, undetermined, or unclassified, then it is homicide, in the sense of vital statistics. And a homicide is the killing of one human by (1) the actions or (2) negligent inactions of another human, whether in criminal or non-criminal ways. There is a spectrum of legally determined categories within this "homicide" manner of death. From a legal-justice standpoint, (1) "murder" and (2) "manslaughter" are designations reserved for deaths caused in criminal (laws were broken) ways by another as part of a (1)malicious act or (2) a non-malicious but illegal act. "

So I guess it can't be accidental.

 

[magic-cat]

I think the pig had a little help from the animals, but I did not see anything actually fall. OMG, these videos were awesome, thank you.

Caylee had some "help" from the animals too...:banghead:

IMO, I don't think questioning interpretation of the autopsy or accompanying reports ahould be read as accusations of a conspiracy theory, so let's get away from that please.

If I could ask Dr G or Dr. S questions about the report I have 2 questions i would like answered.
1.if it can be ascertained with medical certainty that the tape was applied to the nose and mouth pre-mortem then why is that not the cause of death? The implication is that she could have had the tape applied pre mortem but actually died from something else.or is it that that the tape cannot be determined to be the cause of death because they cannot say for sure that it was applied tightly enough to stop her flow of O2 and she died of something else.
2. When Dr. G says the tape was applied prior to decomposition does that mean it was applied post mortem but prior to decomposition? or does it mean it was applied pre mortem and prior to decomposition? Why didn't the report stae that the tape was applied pre-mortem?

I do understand that decomposition begins immediately after death,but differentiating between pre decomposition and pre mortem is a very subtle but critical piece for me as it relates to premeditation and/or accidental death.

I would love to have those same questions answered, however, I have to say concerning the conspiracy theories and questioning the interpretation of the reports this: The interpretation of the reports was not the thing BEING question, the MOTIVES behind the final interpretation arrived at were actually what was being questioned...if I recall correctly it was pressure that motivated her interpretation, a thing I VERY seriously doubt.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

You do not know the position the skull was in, when it was inside the bag, so how could you possibly know the position of the mandible in relation to the maxilla and the rest of the skull . It rolled out when prodded and ended upright where it lay.

 

[logicalgirl]

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?

Gamon, I actually looked up US Law before I posted because of my Canuckness (?), and read that Homicide and Accidental Death are separate, but will look again.

 

[JBean]

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..?

I disagree. I think she will be able to give her opinion.
But,that was my question too. Are these terms used interchangeably? I fully expect to see a supplemental report or her expert opinion at court that will give the highest probability of cause of death and THAT is what will do it,imo.

 

[miss plum]

I'm supposing the reason for a cliched, generic, b-grade kidnapper to use duct tape would be to silence their captive. If this was a staged posthumous kidnapping, wouldn't one piece of tape be enough to 'silence' Caylee, since she was already silent? I can only see multiple pieces of tape being used if she was still alive and struggling. For me, the layers of tape don't suggest an amateur theatrical scenario, or an accident being covered up, they suggest cruel, callous, deliberate asphyxiation.

 

[LambChop]

The photos taken by LE at the remains site tell the story. We do not get to see them. What is written is all we have to consider. So the jury will see the reports, see the pictures and decide for themselves. Until that time we only have the written reports to go by and they are what they are. We can speculate all we want it just will not change the facts. JMO

 

[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.

Well of course LKB is going to challenge the report- she's trying to get Casey acquitted, so is biased to put it mildly... Not so with Dr Garavaglia, she meticulously reports the facts.

 

[OKaraMia]

I do not know of any official document that says the tape was placed on Caylee while she was alive. I do not know of any official document that says the tape was put on firmly and tightly. Is that just your opinion?

I was only responding to those that believe the tape was the reason that it could not be an accident. I think we should hold out for cross examination and defense expert testimony with cross to determine what purpose the duct tape was actually used for. This is no disrespect to the Dr J at all. I am sure she is looking forward to cross and a chance to explain her report. Most Dr's invite a second opinion.

The Dr said the manner of death was homicide, which includeds accident and the cause of death could not be determined.

I personally do not believe it was an accident, but I am not sure. IMO

I do believe I placed a lil' MOO on that post.

And I wasnt speaking to you directing until now :waitasec:

 

[logicalgirl]

I too am looking to Dr. G.'s opinion in court, but if she can't state a cause of death, she can't say with scientific or medical certainty that the duct tape actually killed Caylee.

But I'll take her "most likely" or "would not have survived" any day.

 

[JBean]

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.
snipped.

Hi LG. I did not see 'tightly applied" in the autopsy or supplemental reports. It is a subtle distinction but an important distinction nonetheless. the supplemental reports does make inferences, but that is not one of them.

Probably of no conesquence but it is worth noting.

 

[LambChop]

Hi Lambchop. Do you find it intriguing that she did not say pre-mortem? or do you think she could not determine that?

Yes, you're right. She did not say pre-mortem or before death because she can't prove that. But JA seems to have it nailed down as to what happened and from KC's reaction in court it appears SA may know exactly how it happened. Should be interesting when SA's discovery deadline gets here. JMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

I disagree. I think she will be able to give her opinion.
But,that was my question too. Are these terms used interchangeably? I fully expect to see a supplemental report or her expert opinion at court that will give the highest probability of cause of death and THAT is what will do it,imo.

Yes, I should have said that she will not express in the exact terms that would seal the deal for you- pre mortem as opposed to pre decomposition, and I expect she will expound on the reason for that at trial. Very often it's a matter of semantics..

 

[JBean]

I too am looking to Dr. G.'s opinion in court, but if she can't state a cause of death, she can't say with scientific or medical certainty that the duct tape actually killed Caylee.

But I'll take her "most likely" or "would not have survived" any day.

I concur. i will take that as 100% proof when she says it.

 

[Bittiness39]

Yes, you're right. She did not say pre-mortem or before death because she can't prove that. But JA seems to have it nailed down as to what happened and from KC's reaction in court it appears SA may know exactly how it happened. Should be interesting when SA's discovery deadline gets here. JMO

My thoughts too. She, KC, did appear to be visibly angry when he was talking about certain things. Sincerely ticked. At one point it appeared that AL was restraining her. She knows what happened. I am all for the Bill of Rights but there are times that I just want to strap people like her to a chair, inject them with sodium pentothal and make her talk. She knows what totally happened and it angers me and should anger her parents that she won't talk. She never gave that child to a nanny. She knows what happened. And she won't be in Miami this summer so she might as well fess up. That is why I hate defense attorneys they refuse to punish their clients for bs lies.

 

[JBean]

Yes, you're right. She did not say pre-mortem or before death because she can't prove that. But JA seems to have it nailed down as to what happened and from KC's reaction in court it appears SA may know exactly how it happened. Should be interesting when SA's discovery deadline gets here. JMO

That is what I am trying to find out. Do you know for sure she cannot determine pre or post mortem regarding the tape? That would answer my question as to why she chose the term pre-decomp.

 

[JBean]

Yes, I should have said that she will not express in the exact terms that would seal the deal for you- pre mortem as opposed to pre decomposition, and I expect she will expound on the reason for that at trial. Very often it's a matter of semantics..

LOL. i don;t know how else to say it.
All I look forward to is Dr G giving her opinion as to the cause of death in her opinion.
She can say" most likely", "high probability",or anything remotely close to that for me to take it as 100% proof that the tape was instrumental in killing caylee.
The reason this is even important to me, is that to me it is the difference between murder 1 and perhaps aggravated manslaughter.
But I am not looking for exact terms to 'seal the deal" nor have I posted as such.

 

[LambChop]

I have jury duty coming up...not FL. But here is the way I would look at it if I were on this jury. If the defense claimed it was an accident, KC was scared and tried to make it look like a kidnapping......okay, but why three pieces of duct tape when one piece across the mouth would get the point across that maybe this was from a kidnapping. Three pieces separately placed...one by one, across her mouth, across her nose and a third that could have been for her eyes or just an anchor for the other two. This is an overkill and certainly not what you would do to a child you loved who died on your watch..no way. It speaks, no it screams anger at it's highest level. The possibility of the heart shaped sticker is just another indignity this mother put on her poor baby's beautiful face. And I have not seen the pictures yet!!!!! Either way, KC comes off appearing not to have cared about how her child died, one way or the other.

I think what Dr. G. was trying to tell us is that the time between death and the taping was relatively short or prior to and the cause of death. It's not as if your child has an accident and you just happen to have a roll of duct tape on you to make it look like a kidnapping. An accident would put a normal mother into shock. By the time she would think about covering it up....it would not be seconds it would be well after the child died. Caylee was not a hamster and even then it takes awhile to find a shoebox. JMO

 

[joypath]

WOW! Many points to address! Will take a few on if you folks would like starting with the death certificate manner of death as homicide.

From the "choices of manner of death", homicide is applied in this case as it appears to meet the definition of " homicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm or death." BTW: INTENT to cause death is NOT required, therefore a death from an accident per se might be classified as a homicide (oh an example traditionally used: hunting rifle discharge incident). REMEMBER: classifying the LEVEL of homicide/murder is the duty of the legal branch of justice, not the Medical Examiner's Office!