Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[nort]

I don't have a link because I think I read it on a blog that defense was suggesting that. JMO

Thats just ridiculous IMO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

If it did not hold the mandible in place I would still believe she put it there. I think as far as timing (again pretty obvious) we know it had to be right before or after because the body with the roots and all had to have been there the entire time. So you dont need it to prove that. I personally dont think floating duct tape would have affixed itself so tightly to the hair had it not been placed there, (they had to cut it out and all) especially after being in the water so long. So the whole floating thing to me is ridiculous especially because the tape was around not just stuck to a part of but around. Difficult for the that to happen naturally. JMO

Yes, the great majority believe that she deliberately put it there, for one purpose, to kill, and I believe it was still in the same position because she applied it with such vehemence, that even after all the underlying flesh, ligaments, muscles decayed, it was still in the same position 6 months later....
But, the defense will try to say that she did not apply it to the face, it was just happenstance that it floated from ? where and landed in the position it was found, obstructing the nose and mouth.... believe it or not.

 

[LambChop]

Thats just ridiculous IMO.

Well, of course it is but how will defense explain tape wrapped around the child's face in multiple layers. So accident is out, some other person yet to be determined will have had to do the taping, other than her own mother. JMO

 

[Astraea]

Perfect. Sounds very logical.

Many of us, including the experts, look at what is in the reports as "logical". Other only see what a "skeptic" would see needing the information right down to 100% certainty. Life is not like that. Nothing is 100% certain except death. No one will live forever on this plane of existence. Let's hope the jury has people who use their logic and keep an open mind instead of insisting on perfection in a not so perfect crime. SA will say the most logical person is the mother. Defense will say the most logical person is from "fairyland" or mom and it was an accident. JMO

When sending someone to their death for a premeditated crime, "beyond reasonable doubt" is not "skepticism" in my personal opinion.

 

[Astraea]

Well, of course it is but how will defense explain tape wrapped around the child's face in multiple layers. So accident is out, some other person yet to be determined will have had to do the taping, other than her own mother. JMO

Unless the tape was placed AFTER death to cover up the accident.

 

[Harmony 2]

There were some E-mails stating that the ME did not take scale measurements of the duct tape and expected the FBI to handle the measurements. The length of the duct tape was measured after they were unglued from each other. IIRC the width of the three overlapping tapes was not measured. The SA needed the measurements to make a 3D model depicting placement. This oversight is the avenue I expect the defense to attack. I do not recall scale measurements being taken, does anyone else recall if they were?

I don't know how they will use that information to their benefit but may cast doubt on whether it covered both airways. Hopefully X-rays and evidence photos will be enough to uphold this evidence.

I can post the documentation if anyone wants to review it...

ETA the Email about scaled measurements -page 23

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/GASTANK-DUCTTAPEEVIDENCE.pdf

 

[logicalgirl]

What would be the benefit of covering up an accident? If Casey has admitted an accident and called 911 immediately she would have been facing no charges and not sitting in jail for the last two years. But instead, she or someone (she hasn't been convicted yet) chose to bind Caylee's face with duct tape very shortly after her death. Remember, the experts say this was applied pre-decomp and to a layperson like me that means pretty darn quickly after the child died.

Even if she had admitted it when the LE were questioning her at her place of "work" the charges would probably have been lessor or minor. Casey has had many opportunities to declare this an accident, but if it was - she has instead chosen to sit in PC for two years waiting for a trial that may very well cost her her life.

Does that make sense to anyone? Covering up an Accident?

 

[Harmony 2]

Unless the tape was placed AFTER death to cover up the accident.

If an accident was being covered up and duct tape placed to indicate a kidnapping occurred, it would not make sense since items linked to the Anthony home were left at the crime scene (blanket, laundry bag, Henkel duct tape, trash bags with yellow ties similar to the ones Cindy gave investigators on July 16th.)

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

There were some E-mails stating that the ME did not take scale measurements of the duct tape and expected the FBI to handle the measurements. The length of the duct tape was measured after they were unglued from each other. IIRC the width of the three overlapping tapes was not measured. The SA needed the measurements to make a 3D model depicting placement. This oversight is the avenue I expect the defense to attack. I do not recall scale measurements being taken, does anyone else recall if they were?

I don't know how they will use that information to their benefit but may cast doubt on whether it covered both airways. Hopefully X-rays and evidence photos will be enough to uphold this evidence.

I can post the documentation if anyone wants to review it...

I hadn't heard of this situation before now. I'm pretty sure it would come up at trial as I believe the major defense will be to try to poke holes in every single test, procedure, analysis, chain of custody, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. And this omission sounds like it makes the oversight a prime candidate for attack.

Hopefully, there will be suitable photos to demonstrate by size, angle and relative comparisons to make it obvious enough to the jury that the placement of the tape was wide enough (even without precise measurement). :yow:

 

[notthatsmart]

I don't have a link because I think I read it on a blog that defense was suggesting that. JMO

I have read this on a few blogs before as theory. I suppose it is possible. If the laminant and glue was gone, I don't know how it was stuck to the hair. Maybe blood?

 

[JBean]

What would be the benefit of covering up an accident? If Casey has admitted an accident and called 911 immediately she would have been facing no charges and not sitting in jail for the last two years. But instead, she or someone (she hasn't been convicted yet) chose to bind Caylee's face with duct tape very shortly after her death. Remember, the experts say this was applied pre-decomp and to a layperson like me that means pretty darn quickly after the child died.

Even if she had admitted it when the LE were questioning her at her place of "work" the charges would probably have been lessor or minor. Casey has had many opportunities to declare this an accident, but if it was - she has instead chosen to sit in PC for two years waiting for a trial that may very well cost her her life.

Does that make sense to anyone? Covering up an Accident?

Sure it would make sense to cover an accident. If the accident was the result of negligence. JMHO.
Not only would it make sense to cover an accident, it isn't even that far fetched imo. Important distinction is that just because it was a negligent accident doesn't mean she would be out of jail. Her carelessness could and probably would be considered a crime.I think you are giving KC credit as being reasonable and she isn't.
As always she thought she could just talk her way out of it and once she committed to her story she probably thought this is my story and I am sticking to it.
While I don't think it was an accident myself I don't think it is unreasonable to think that it may have been one.I don't mean a common household accident, but one that occurred because of KC's negligent behavior. For example if she suffocated in the trunk. That is still criminal and in a major way! She can't call the police and say I put my baby down for the night in the trunk and she died!

This is part of the reason I am trying to determine when the tape was applied. I think taping after death could have been a kidnapping cover very easily. Joypath's opinion about the tape being applied before the face started falling apart has kind of re=energized that for me, because it could have then been applied post mortem.

ETA: My last paragraph is another big reason I am anxious to hear Dr G's opinion as to cause of death and that is why I have spent time on it. If she feels that IN HER OPINION it was applied pre mortem then all bets are off. Just to clarify again, I am not looking for Dr. G to testify to that with medical certainty.I am only looking for her expert opinion.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I have read this on a few blogs before as theory. I suppose it is possible. If the laminant and glue was gone, I don't know how it was stuck to the hair. Maybe blood?

The report just states that it was still attached to the hair. There is no mention of blood.
The report states-" Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior mandible and maxilla are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating". To me, that description applies to the tape over the maxilla, where they could see the backing, as the tape that was removed from the hair is not described, as the next sentence states "The tape is removed and allowed to dry". Those descriptions are written in the sequence that they happened.

 

[LambChop]

Unless the tape was placed AFTER death to cover up the accident.

For an accidential death KC sure did a very good job of covering up. Three pieces layered one on top of the other. And not just to cover the mouth. Your child has just died accidentially and your first thought is to tear off three LONG pieces of duct tape and place that tape from one side of the child's head to the other. Piece by piece. First the mouth, then the nose and last (possibly) the eyes or worst on top of the other two to make sure it is anchored. Can you see a mother who loves her child doing that because the child died from an accident? Then decide to blame some poor soul who KC did not really know existed, whether there was a real person out there fitting her description.

Jury will see the tape on the skull and that is what they will remember for the rest of the trial and the rest of their lives. The pictures must be very revealing as you could hear the emotion in Mr. Ashton's voice when he describes how they feel Caylee died. JMO

 

[belle3]

For an accidential death KC sure did a very good job of covering up. Three pieces layered one on top of the other. And not just to cover the mouth. Your child has just died accidentially and your first thought is to tear off three LONG pieces of duct tape and place that tape from one side of the child's head to the other. Piece by piece. First the mouth, then the nose and last (possibly) the eyes or worst on top of the other two to make sure it is anchored. Can you see a mother who loves her child doing that because the child died from an accident? Then decide to blame some poor soul who KC did not really know existed, whether there was a real person out there fitting her description.

Jury will see the tape on the skull and that is what they will remember for the rest of the trial and the rest of their lives. The pictures must be very revealing as you could hear the emotion in Mr. Ashton's voice when he describes how they feel Caylee died. JMO

its the three pieces of tape that do it for me. that takes a certain amount of time and planning and calmness. if in a rage wouldnt you just wrap and wrap around the head. she took the time to cut three pieces and apply firmly enough for it to stay in place. i can see her calmly placing each piece of tape one by one. that screams murder to me. no rage. calculation. all imo.

 

[logicalgirl]

Sure it would make sense to cover an accident. If the accident was the result of negligence. JMHO.
Not only would it make sense to cover an accident, it isn't even that far fetched imo. Important distinction is that just because it was a negligent accident doesn't mean she would be out of jail. Her carelessness could and probably would be considered a crime.I think you are giving KC credit as being reasonable and she isn't.
As always she thought she could just talk her way out of it and once she committed to her story she probably thought this is my story and I am sticking to it.
While I don't think it was an accident myself I don't think it is unreasonable to think that it may have been one.I don't mean a common household accident, but one that occurred because of KC's negligent behavior. For example if she suffocated in the trunk. That is still criminal and in a major way! She can't call the police and say I put my baby down for the night in the trunk and she died!

This is part of the reason I am trying to determine when the tape was applied. I think taping after death could have been a kidnapping cover very easily. Joypath's opinion about the tape being applied before the face started falling apart has kind of re=energized that for me, because it could have then been applied post mortem.

ETA: My last paragraph is another big reason I am anxious to hear Dr G's opinion as to cause of death and that is why I have spent time on it. If she feels that IN HER OPINION it was applied pre mortem then all bets are off. Just to clarify again, I am not looking for Dr. G to testify to that with medical certainty.I am only looking for her expert opinion.

Whoa! You took what I said and went way way off into left field with it my friend! LOL! I realize Casey could have been charged with negligent homicide if she'd fessed up and explained what had happened - but did she know that? Right then as that baby's face was being taped? Right then when the body was chucked into the bush a block away from her home? Was she really thinking I'd better take care of this because I'll be charged with a felony homicide if I don't? So she chose kidnapping instead?

I don't think this girl has a logical brain in her head because if she did she would have followed that thought through and weighed the consequences- hmm - If they find out I actually did this accidently vs if LE finds out there was no kidnapping - which has the worst punishment? And she has had ample opportunity to consult with counsel after she was charged with murder and the other six counts.

My point is this case has been going on for two years. She's had time to weigh and balance - as her counsel has. There is no logic at all in coming back in what will be three years down the road and saying IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. Won't the whole judicial system rise up and say why have you been wasting our valuable time and the taxpayers money? What is the answer to that?

 

[LambChop]

SNIPPED
My point is this case has been going on for two years. She's had time to weigh and balance - as her counsel has. There is no logic at all in coming back in what will be three years down the road and saying IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. Won't the whole judicial system rise up and say why have you been wasting our valuable time and the taxpayers money? What is the answer to that?

BBM: So what you are saying is, AGAIN KC is walking all the way down the hall to only stop and say, "Oh, did I fail to mention...it was only an accident. I distinctly remember mentioning it to my boys." JMO and I'm losin it.

 

[ohiogirl]

Here's a thought. It's hard to do Casey thinking, but I'm going to try. Baby dies, from whatever accidental means, negligent or not(of course, negligent), Casey panics, doesn't tell anyone. 31 days later, she gets caught. What does she do? Lie, lie, lie. But, does she actually think, hmm, I wonder what my sentence will be for negligence as opposed to murder? (Don't think so) Then, along comes the defense attorney. "Of course they can't prove you did this, little one, I will save you!" She thinks, I didn't murder her so they can't prove it, my attorney said so! So, here we are. She is still clinging to the hope of complete acquittal because she knows it was not murder, how does she know that? Because she knows what happened.
I truly believe she loves all this attention. And I also don't think she is having such a horrible time in jail, she is very sheltered from the rest of the inmates. I don't think she will consider any type of plea until her attorneys all tell her to. jmo of course.

 

[ohiogirl]

BBM: So what you are saying is, AGAIN KC is walking all the way down the hall to only stop and say, "Oh, did I fail to mention...it was only an accident. I distinctly remember mentioning it to my boys." JMO and I'm losin it.

Too funny.

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM: So what you are saying is, AGAIN KC is walking all the way down the hall to only stop and say, "Oh, did I fail to mention...it was only an accident. I distinctly remember mentioning it to my boys." JMO and I'm losin it.

LOL - Lambchop - I am responding to JBean's comment to my comment re why not say it was an accident back then (if it was) rather than face a death penalty at trial. I don't believe Casey had the jam to think at the time - oh crap I'd better make this a kidnap so I won't be charged with felony homicide - hence taping and brush slinging.
My comment was re: a new defense strategy (think Zany in new letters) - if the defense can't come up with a SODDI that sticks, will they come up with accidental (see Baez saying we will all understand at trial).

In a nutshell, why didn't Casey say it was an accident (IF) it truly was one when it happened? Or anytime thereafter? Some say she was afraid of charges, I say she was acting like she is guilty of murder.

Please don't lose it Lambchop - we need you.

 

[LambChop]

Oh, I know logicalgirl. Just on a roll today. It's like you are the "straight man" and I just go off on que. The duct tape is the biggest red flag for it not being an accident. Sorry, you just do not do that to a child you love. Anyone who would want to harm a child would not wrap the child in her own blanket, that is a "Mommy Dearest" thing. It's a "marker" for it being the mother, that and water. It would be subconcscious not something a Mom would be aware that she is doing. This, I'm sure, will also be brought out in court by the experts. It is what it is.

Keep those great posts coming because there are some great points made here from you and many others. Thanks

JMO