Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[Eidetic]

10:55 they go over COD's
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sEjnQ6BIqU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sEjnQ6BIqU[/ame]

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

LE asked Casey at Universal if this was an accident. LE gave Casey many outs to admit to there having been an accident. If it was an accident why wouldn't Casey have said so by now? And where would the duct tape fit in?

Was it an innocent accident or a irresponsible accident? i.e. Leaving the gate open. Or something to do with giving Caylee medicine, etc. to make her sleep or leaving her somewhere.

If we say accident, then we have to ask why Casey won't say that, reason could be Cindy. LE was asking that stuff, was she worried about disappointing mom? I think it is a little bit of worried what they would think, but more that she wouldn't want this to be a feather for Cindy's cap. Cindy would forever get to throw it in Casey's face that Caylee had died in her care, proving Cindy's point that she would have been the better mother to Caylee. If Casey said she had to get a nanny because Cindy wouldn't bend to whatever Casey had wanted(babysitter at her convenience in Cindy)then she had to get a nanny and it was that nanny that had taken Caylee, and killed her. So that makes it Cindy's fault.

Casey being so stubborn, and egotistical( just think Cindy jr. plus ten) she could never admit she had allowed something to happen to Caylee.

Her smugness might come from the fact that she has known it was an accident all along. Sure she made up the Zanny the nanny stuff, but if LE was good enough they should be able to find out what happened and they would find out it was an accident.

Why duct tape? If after deciding she could not let Cindy and George know she had messed up, she could have applied the duct tape in an attempt to make it look like Caylee had been kidnapped. Casey would have had to come up with this after the accident as a way to cover it up, making the tape for "show" and having nothing to do with Caylee's demise.

Q: Does the evidence of when the duct tape was applied support a accident?

CASEY ANTHONY: The horrible thing that happened is -- this is the honest-to-God`s truth of everything that I`ve said, I do not know where she is. The last person that I saw her with is Zenaida. She`s the last person that I`ve seen my daughter with.

Summary in my mind: If it was an accident, it could still be that Casey refuses to admit that, just as much as she would refuse to admit if she had killed her. Meaning: To Casey, each option is the same. She would have to be overlooking the fact that both might be admitting that she is not perfect but only one option carried the DP. Or maybe she is not overlooking that fact, she just doesn't think she will be convicted and so she's not worried about any of it anyway. With the way Cindy has shown herself to be?

All of this is just me thinking out loud about this. IMO, this was not an accident. If this was an accident, Casey has still acted very cold about losing Caylee. If the letters Casey passed to Robyn show me anything it is that Casey is doing just fine without her daughter. :crazy:

ETA: I feel the State must have more evidence than we know of to prove this was not an accident. Or I don't think they would be trying to give Casey the DP. I have to fix that: I think a jury would find Casey guilty(unless there really is some evidence this was an accident) just on the circumstantial evidence. When I say they must have more evidence, I mean in my unprofessional way to say: they know what they are doing. MOO.

...JS...

 

[LinasK]

logicalgirl, I do not want to muddy the waters further here but... I'm gonna. Because we (and Doc G) have options here:

1 - the tape was placed pre-mortem and actually caused suffocation/death
2 - the tape was placed pre-mortem but some other mechanism actually caused the death {think an OD'd Caylee who seems not to be breathing but is still alive while tape is applied}
3 - the tape was placed post-mortem fairly soon after Caylee had died of other means (an OD for example)
4 - the tape was placed post-mortem long after Caylee had died and after significant decomp had begun.

Option 4 is the only one that Dr. G's analysis so far has precluded.

I vote for Option #1, but probably more likely, Option #2, after she Chloroformed her with a rag.

 

[notthatsmart]

HI LB35. I hear you and don't disagree. i think what is really bothering me is that the report does not say the tape was applied pre mortem.(AFASIK and I could have totally missed it)
If Dr G clarifies that and says that the tape was definitely applied pre mortem I would take that at face value and that would answer my question about that once and for all. If it is standard protocol to refer to pre mortem as pre decomposition in an ME report, that too would be satisfactory to me.

My other question is why they cannot call that as the COD if there is no chance it was anything else. KWIM? To me the implication is it could have been something else, but perhaps not very likely. If Dr.G testifies that while she cannot state that the COD was caused from the tape application, but that her medical opinion is that it did, that would also be enough for me to believe that the tape was the "murder weapon".
If she puts out a supplemental report or testifies to those things, all doubts will be gone for me.

Calling it premortem would be speculation. I am sure she does not speculate.

Pre decomposition was an easy one for her, she had evidence of decomposition. I do not believe you can mix the two premortem and predecompisition terms. Thats just my opinion

 

[nort]

I have a question about the duct tape, if it was on her face tight enough to sufficate her how did it adhere itself so tightly to the bones after the fluid from decomp, decaying skin and being under water. I mean it wouldnt just shrink to tightly adhere to the bones right. If there is a report thae makes this clear please direct me. Thanks

 

[Chiquita71]

The accident theory plus duct tape looks like this to me in my head.

Accident happens. Casey panics and thinks of covering for self so she does not look like a bad mother. Casey likes to seem perfect to the world just like her mother Cindy, will defend that image to the end. Casey decides to put duct tape on a dead Caylee for this reason. Kidnapping being the best "reason"/story.

I have never thought of another "innocent for Casey" reason for duct tape. I really have never once seen any other theory regarding the duct tape other than: kidnapping. Whether that be because it is true or because Casey used it for whatever reason. I need to read the duct tape threads again. That was a while ago...

I just need one innocent explanation for the duct tape other than faked kidnapping. If this is true, so much after that does not make sense nor go along with that theory. IMO.

:twocents:
Regarding Casey's Zanny story changing in her letters. I know I want to hear what everyone has to say about that.

...JS...

 

[logicalgirl]

No. But unfortunately some segment of the population would believe a flurry of phone calls to tell CA/GA that there was an accident, and then when no one answered, KC was backed in a corner and got all artsy craftsy with the duct tape and stickers.

And yet another segment of the population would think that the flurry of phone calls happened while Caylee was still alive and KC was looking for a babysitter for the night--and when no one answered, well... KC got all artsy craftsy with the duct tape and the stickers.

Two very different possible stories there. :frown:

How soon after death does decomp begin in the temperature and conditions in Orlando Florida that day? I need to go back to the files but I believe that batch of calls went on for a bit. Doesn't decomp start very quickly - within minutes? Where are the experts when we (I) need them!

 

[notthatsmart]

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.

I respectfully disagree. It is open to challenge and expert opinion. Most Dr's welcome a second opinion. Other Dr's will be able to view the pictures and make their determinations. She is also reporting from the office not the crime scene. The mandible could not have fallen to the bottom of the container it was in, because it was sitting on the ground with no containor. I am confused where you are getting your information. I believe again this is just a matter of interpretation of the docs. I am all for the truth here and it does not mean it will fit the defenses soddi theory. IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

I vote for Option #1, but probably more likely, Option #2, after she Chloroformed her with a rag.

As do I Linask - but I'm speaking here of what can be said factually from Dr. G. She is unable to prove with facts it was put on before death.

I think it was but I sure can't prove it either. TRUST ME I THINK IT WAS SEDATION AND THE DUCT TAPE!

 

[notthatsmart]

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.

Where does it say it rolled out? Rk made it clear that it did not roll out and did not fall out. He just simply picked up the bag with his stick. Moo

 

[joypath]

HI LB35. I hear you and don't disagree. i think what is really bothering me is that the report does not say the tape was applied pre mortem.(AFASIK and I could have totally missed it)
If Dr G clarifies that and says that the tape was definitely applied pre mortem I would take that at face value and that would answer my question about that once and for all. If it is standard protocol to refer to pre mortem as pre decomposition in an ME report, that too would be satisfactory to me.

My other question is why they cannot call that as the COD if there is no chance it was anything else. KWIM? To me the implication is it could have been something else, but perhaps not very likely. If Dr.G testifies that while she cannot state that the COD was caused from the tape application, but that her medical opinion is that it did, that would also be enough for me to believe that the tape was the "murder weapon".
If she puts out a supplemental report or testifies to those things, all doubts will be gone for me.

Gee. wish I could highlight the quote in your statement! "My other question is why they cannot call that as the COD if there is no chance it was anything else."
To identify & document it on the DC the COD, one must be able to PROVE and justify it, not "guestimate" it or "randomize" it. Before anybody yells, "but what about SIDS", that's a completely differing paradigm.

HOWEVER, on the stand, her opinion and the reasons behind that opinion are applicable to the case as she will be sworn in as a bona fide expert in forensic pathology.
THEN the entire picture/thought process will be presented as to her homicide decision: think responsible parent last seen with child under the age of 12 and the Fl. state laws regarding "eligibility" for the DP.

 

[notthatsmart]

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.

I think there is a little confusion here. Reports from the medical examiners office may very well be different than the reports at the crime scene. How am I to know the hair was not placed in the paper bag first and then the skull and mandible? How do I know these items didn't move around during transportation? I am not sure I have seen a report from the crime scene saying the hair was under the skull. I know I have heard it was piled up around the skull.

We must examine both places. IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

No. But unfortunately some segment of the population would believe a flurry of phone calls to tell CA/GA that there was an accident, and then when no one answered, KC was backed in a corner and got all artsy craftsy with the duct tape and stickers.

And yet another segment of the population would think that the flurry of phone calls happened while Caylee was still alive and KC was looking for a babysitter for the night--and when no one answered, well... KC got all artsy craftsy with the duct tape and the stickers.

Two very different possible stories there. :frown:

I think Casey's callous attitude regarding Caylee missing, her behavior from Day 1, the tattoo, Fusion, the jail phone calls, not mentioning Caylee when she was out on bond, the list is too long is added information re no accident.

I say - show me one fact proving it was an accident. And that does not mean the phone calls since they can't be proven as distress call.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think there is a little confusion here. Reports from the medical examiners office may very well be different than the reports at the crime scene. How am I to know the hair was not placed in the paper bag first and then the skull and mandible? How do I know these items didn't move around during transportation? I am not sure I have seen a report from the crime scene saying the hair was under the skull. I know I have heard it was piled up around the skull.

We must examine both places. IMO

Surely the Medical Examiner attended the crime scene also.

 

[ynotdivein]

I have a question about the duct tape, if it was on her face tight enough to sufficate her how did it adhere itself so tightly to the bones after the fluid from decomp, decaying skin and being under water. I mean it wouldnt just shrink to tightly adhere to the bones right. If there is a report thae makes this clear please direct me. Thanks

nort, whether or not it was applied to her face tightly enough to suffocate her, it was certainly applied with enough force that it adhered to the hair on both sides of her head. Dr. G's statement does not indicate that the tape was still adhering to the skull itself nor to any fleshly remains, but that it was adhered to the hair mat that was left after Caylee's scalp decomposed and the hair fell down around the skull. Whatever the logistics, that tape was adhered/tangled tightly enough with the hair that despite flooding and animal activity, the mandible remained near to its normal placement as to the skull.

 

[Nore]

I think there is a little confusion here. Reports from the medical examiners office may very well be different than the reports at the crime scene. How am I to know the hair was not placed in the paper bag first and then the skull and mandible? How do I know these items didn't move around during transportation? I am not sure I have seen a report from the crime scene saying the hair was under the skull. I know I have heard it was piled up around the skull.

We must examine both places. IMO

--------------------------------
REad the autopsy report. It is all offical on those pages.
I do not remember hearing or reading of the matting of the hair or the tape when the remains were found.Go into the Doc Dumps and read,you will find it.
They did not divulge much of anything the first day at the site.

 

[JBean]

Gee. wish I could highlight the quote in your statement! "My other question is why they cannot call that as the COD if there is no chance it was anything else."
To identify & document it on the DC the COD, one must be able to PROVE and justify it, not "guestimate" it or "randomize" it. Before anybody yells, "but what about SIDS", that's a completely differing paradigm.

HOWEVER, on the stand, her opinion and the reasons behind that opinion are applicable to the case as she will be sworn in as a bona fide expert in forensic pathology.
THEN the entire picture/thought process will be presented as to her homicide decision: think responsible parent last seen with child under the age of 12 and the Fl. state laws regarding "eligibility" for the DP.

Exactly right.
I am waiting for expert opinion either by way of a supplemental report or in the form of her testimony.
She has already reported what she can with medical certainty.
Her opinion is all I am after and the last piece for me. No more, no less.

(ETA: I am waiting for it only so I can draw my own conclusion as to murder 1 or a lesser charge.)

 

[Spangle]

Surely the Medical Examiner attended the crime scene also.

I recall that she did go there. Before the remains were removed. I remember seeing her in some news clips.

Not sure if they interviewed her or anything. Just that the media was there, filming everything, from the side lines, out of the way. And commenting on what they seen, who they seen, etc.

 

[Nore]

I recall that she did go there. Before the remains were removed. I remember seeing her in some news clips.

Not sure if they interviewed her or anything. Just that the media was there, filming everything, from the side lines, out of the way. And commenting on what they seen, who they seen, etc.

-----------------
I remember seeing her also.She did not speak.I have watched her program for years,hoped she would speak but she didn't.Most everything said that day by the media was speculation on their part. The tape made that day was the one where TM. said they weren't able to search there earlier because of water and loss of a 4 wheeler.:angel:

 

[Nore]

Exactly right.
I am waiting for expert opinion either by way of a supplemental report or in the form of her testimony.
She has already reported what she can with medical certainty.
Her opinion is all I am after and the last piece for me. No more, no less.

(ETA: I am waiting for it only so I can draw my own conclusion as to murder 1 or a lesser charge.)

------------------------------
Hi JBean, a bit off topic ~ on one of Dr. G's.programs she autopsied a small boy.He'd been murdered by his stepfather.On the stand she said she speaks for the children~brought tears to my eyes.when questioned about pay for appearing,she appears for the children on her own time. She does not accept pay for it.What a beautiful person.:angel: