Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[ExpectingUnicorns]

See this is what is confusing me so much. If the tape were applied to the skin and hair and the decomposition took place how does it still hold bones in place. I can see it sticking to hair as thats pretty simple. But I just dont see it stuck on the skin and then skin goes away and it sticks to the bones enough to hold them in place. Maybe she was taped in the early stages of decomp, with some bone exposed to adhere the tape to, after someone saw her mouth hanging open. I'm really trying I even read the report again but it does not really explain how tape lost the surface it was stuck to and then attached itself to a bone to hold it in place. If I wrapped a gift in paper and the paper dissolved the tape surely would not adhere itself to the gift under the paper. Dont yell I'm trying really....I know the report does not say the tape was stuck to the bones but how would it hold a bone in place if it was not.

I don't find anywhere that Dr G says the tape was stuck to any bones. She only says it was adhered to the hair (info in parentheses are mine):

"The mat of hair which was initially found beneath the skull with strands of hair extending across the calvarium (skullcap or roof of skull) and face consists of medium brown hair. Some strands of hair could be teased from the mat and were at least 6 to 7 inches in length. There were various small defects within this mat of hair, presumably from insect activity, and there are multiple small roots growing through the mat of hair. . . ."

"The calvarium (skullcap) is totally exposed and there is only a very small adherent of soil and leaf litter. No soft tissue remains. Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium (skullcap) in the sagittal (vertical plane passing through the body from front to back) and coronal (vertical plane that divides the body into front and back) planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar (base) and lower posterior (back or rear portion) skull, including inferior (below or bottom) portions of the mandible (lower jaw). Plant roots have grown into and over the surface of the hair mat. Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior (back) mandible (lower jaw) and maxilla (upper jaw) are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating (splitting into layers). The tape is removed and allowed to dry. The matted hair is removed from the skull. Plant roots permeate the mat and there are multiple small roughly circular, irregular defects in the mat, suggestive of insect predation artifact. The hair is permitted to dry pending additional examination. Preliminary examination of the skull reveals no evidence of trauma."

This describes, to me, a complete tangle of duct tape and matted hair that is interwoven with plant roots covering a great portion of the skull ~ mostly the bottom. It sounds like the matted hair was so entangled with the jaws that it helped keep both the tape and lower jaw in place. But maybe this helps give us a better idea of where and how the duct tape came to be still attached?

(On page 11 of the autopsy report we read that pictures and x-rays have been taken of the skull. These will sadly explain it all at trial, I'm sure.)

 

[Macushla]

Does anyone know if the terms pre decomposition and pre mortem are used interchangeably in an ME report?
That would be important to know.TIA

Ok, I asked someone who works for a ME and here is what they said: They are two different terms and they would not be used interchangeably. It would be like saying pre gas and pre water to put it in very simple terms. Pre mortem mean before death. Pre decomposition means before decomposition started.

 

[Harmony 2]

I don't find anywhere that Dr G says the tape was stuck to any bones. She only says it was adhered to the hair (info in parentheses are mine):

"The mat of hair which was initially found beneath the skull with strands of hair extending across the calvarium (skullcap or roof of skull) and face consists of medium brown hair. Some strands of hair could be teased from the mat and were at least 6 to 7 inches in length. There were various small defects within this mat of hair, presumably from insect activity, and there are multiple small roots growing through the mat of hair. . . ."

"The calvarium (skullcap) is totally exposed and there is only a very small adherent of soil and leaf litter. No soft tissue remains. Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium (skullcap) in the sagittal (vertical plane passing through the body from front to back) and coronal (vertical plane that divides the body into front and back) planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar (base) and lower posterior (back or rear portion) skull, including inferior (below or bottom) portions of the mandible (lower jaw). Plant roots have grown into and over the surface of the hair mat. Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior (back) mandible (lower jaw) and maxilla (upper jaw) are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating (splitting into layers). The tape is removed and allowed to dry. The matted hair is removed from the skull. Plant roots permeate the mat and there are multiple small roughly circular, irregular defects in the mat, suggestive of insect predation artifact. The hair is permitted to dry pending additional examination. Preliminary examination of the skull reveals no evidence of trauma."

This describes, to me, a complete tangle of duct tape and matted hair that is interwoven with plant roots covering a great portion of the skull ~ mostly the bottom. It sounds like the matted hair was so entangled with the jaws that it helped keep both the tape and lower jaw in place. But maybe this helps give us a better idea of where and how the duct tape came to be still attached?

(On page 11 of the autopsy report we read that pictures and x-rays have been taken of the skull. These will sadly explain it all at trial, I'm sure.)

I agree with the part I bolded:

Here is a description of the hair mat and duct tape from the remains' site during initial processing:

http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740668/detail.html

page 2

page 74

 

[JBean]

Ok, I asked someone who works for a ME and here is what they said: They are two different terms and they would not be used interchangeably. It would be like saying pre gas and pre water to put it in very simple terms. Pre mortem mean before death. Pre decomposition means before decomposition started.

As I suspected
Thank you and everyone else for answering me. I was certain this was the case, and I appreciate the confirmation from others . Joypath took it one step further with additional information and so it all comes together for me.

The only missing piece "for me" is Dr. G's expert opinion and then I will feel like I have all the info I need.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Ummmm, how many times and in how many conflicting ways did the accused, straight from her own mouth, say this was not an accident?

Have all of her documented lies made her specific claims of "no accident" worthless?

 

[MasonJunior]

<<< Cindys 911 call...and "what have you done !" and "George we lost her, Caylee". >>>

A mother knows what a daughter is capable of doing. Cindy has encounter Casey's temper & anger during her lifetime. Caylee was gone & Cindy knew it!

 

[nort]

That she searched websites on how to murder someone and within months it happens to be her daughter. Then clearly acting happy that it happened, almost celebratory.

 

[panthera]

This confuses me as well, you are not alone. This is why I tend to believe Caylee was taped later, after death, after decomp had begun.

I cannot envision Casey, or anyone short of a serial killer who keeps body parts as trophies (for example), touching a decomposing body. MOO

 

[OKaraMia]

When does decomp start? Couple hours maybe? After rigor leaves?
:waitasec:

So then within hours at least, after an ACCIDENTAL death mind you... KC smothers her own babys face in duct tape?

nunt uh :snooty:

 

[joypath]

When does decomp start? Couple hours maybe? After rigor leaves?
:waitasec:

So then within hours at least, after an ACCIDENTAL death mind you... KC smothers her own babys face in duct tape?

nunt uh :snooty:

The entire process is totally Dependant on the environment but routinely speaking the markers of death occur as follows:
immediately within minutes: post cardiac perfusion (the heart stops beating, passing oxygenated blood thru the system) brain cells die, blood flow ceases and the blood pools (drains to the lowest surface level) producing liver mortis/lividity.
SURPRISE....the entire body is not "dead", internally there are cells who have reverted to primitive survival using a method of respiration called anaerobic or the ability to exist without O2. Unfortunately a by-product is lactic acid, the same by-product that occurs when one is alive and partakes as an athlete in long distance running, but when alive your blood stream clears it or moves it along to the kidneys for excretion, now that the body is dead, it produces a condition called rigor mortis. This occurs within 3 hrs and may last upto 36 hrs when it dissipates. At this point, the natural bacteria and fungi are taking over and definitely producing offensive odors & fluids.
Rather than get more graphic, let me just state that the decedent's body becomes a host for a new population of critters most of us would prefer not to meet! Given a warm temperature and increased humidity, it happens sooner rather than later.

 

[JBean]

Joypath, in your opinion when the ME says the "tape was applied prior to decomp" are they saying :
a)prior to the moment of death where the process of decomp actually begins?
b)sometime prior to the taped areas actually starting to decompose?
c)Open to debate?

IOW, based only on what the report says, could the tape have been applied post mortem but prior to decomposition or does the statement "prior to decomposition" make that an unreasonable possibility?

 

[OKaraMia]

Dr G says tape is applied before decomp.

That would mean before stage ONE of decomposition, I would assume.
Seems Dr G wouldve specified if she felt the tape was applied mid-decomp.

So that leaves me to think that the tape is applied during the FRESH stage.
Within hours of death or before.


moo
I want a tshirt that reads...Accident, my a$$!

 

[Bittiness39]

Joypath, in your opinion when the ME says the "tape was applied prior to decomp" are they saying :
a)prior to the moment of death where the process of decomp actually begins?
b)sometime prior to the taped areas actually starting to decompose?
c)Open to debate?

IOW, based only on what the report says, could the tape have been applied post mortem but prior to decomposition or does the statement "prior to decomposition" make that an unreasonable possibility?

I would imagine that there are few people that can answer that specific question. Having said that, given the preponderance of the evidence (circumstantial though it may be, though recently it seems like unless someone was caught on video tape actually committing the act of murder in the presence of a score of witnesses then you are innocent) that everything points to not an accident. Taping up a dead child is just illogical and I will leave it at that.

I know some people would like to believe that KC is somehow innocent and that a tragic accident somehow befell Caylee and that KC panicked and covered that up. That is the right of those posters to believe and think that. Most of the posters on here...and perhaps across the country don't believe that KC is and I doubt that has to do with bad press. I am just speculating. I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself.

I just don't believe that is truly the case and there is not one scintilla of evidence pointing towards a SODDI defense. Some would want to believe if they can prove KC innocent they can solve problems within their own lives. Doubtful, you can't solve your own problems by dissecting someone else's.

That is like saying, "If there is a white dog there must be a zanny." If KC is proven innocent...then my kid, relative, friend couldn't have done what they are accused of. Nope. Not proof positive of anything except desperation to prove a + b = 10. It doesn't and it never will.

I would like to ask, if possible, other than people who are so obviously clammoring for some press...I can think of a blogger who recently tasked us with doing his dirty work for him and then bragged about it on his own blog: How is KC NOT guilty? What real evidence actually points to anyone other than her?

I am understanding as always that this could have been an accident...I don't have solid proof of anything...but really, who else really created this situation other than her? No one. And if it was truly an accident, I will eat all of my shoes. Yuck.

 

[cecybeans]

ITA and thank you for putting it so nicely, particularly in the title line. At this point in this case, with such an overwhelming majority of folks siding with the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, I have to wonder why we are so concerned about the cause of death and the possible impact it could have on this case - which is only at the mitigation stage because both an accidental death and premeditated murder have both been shown here to have the exact same sentencing parameters, either DP or LWOP.

Since we are primarily a victim's advocacy forum (and posted an extremely eloquent argument I wish I had a copy of about that) - and therefore not as concerned as a jury with whether an accused murderer has the benefit of of presumption of innocence, I sometimes wonder why in our journey for justice for Caylee we are all that concerned whether or not her killer accidentally did it or on purpose?

For instance, if the defendant was a suspected chimo, would anyone here be worried whether her death was an accident or premeditated? Is it possible we are simply because the accused is a female relative? I don't understand there should be a difference if our loyalty in this instance is justice for a little girl whose life was taken from her before her time - whether due to accident or by design.

We have established beyond any reasonable doubt this defendant has very little character or remorse and is a recidivist criminal in other areas. Why are we so worried about creating sympathy or mitigation at the very moment of death when both immediately before and immediately after Caylee's death KC did and said nothing to anyone that indicated she cared whatsoever?

We may never know cause of death because the defendant and her family have lied. that would make me think they don't want us to know. The defendant had an opportunity to plea to accidental death and refused to take it. That indicates to the public the defendant denies this it was an accidental death. Regardless of cause of death or the charge it propogates, a jury will be asked to decide between death and life without parole. I am just not understanding where the relevance of accidental death plays into the entire jurisprudence process at this juncture.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Even if we could get a definitive answer to the "could the tape have been applied post mortem but prior to decomposition or does the statement 'prior to decomposition' make that an unreasonable possibility" question ~ Doesn't that just beg the next question about how can we be sure exactly where the tape was applied? Did it or did it not cover both her mouth and nose?

I don't feel very confident that all our questions will ever be fully answered. Different people require different levels of proof in order to feel fully justified in judging guilt. And this is good, especially when considering the DP. We want to make sure we get it right! I guess that's why no one can ever predict a jury's outcome.

 

[miss plum]

The two truth options seem to be:

a) KC deliberately murdered Caylee;

OR

b) Caylee, who died accidentally, coincidentally had one of a tiny handful of mothers in the entire history of this world who could lose a child, immediately roughly tape her up with layers of duct tape, stuff her in a trash bag, have a pleasant evening, drive around for days with the odour of her decomposing in her car, party and look happy and blithe, and then toss her into thick undergrowth. Respect for the bodies of the dead is one of the most consistent values held by cultures and civilisations across human history. Almost no one, ever, who wasn't a murderer, could throw a loved one out like trash. So, what are the odds that a mother could a) accidentally lose her child (since very few children accidentally die) and then b) get over it within minutes?

 

[JBean]

Heck, I am just trying to come up with my own analysis as to how KC killed her child. I am not looking for defintive answers by any means. I am looking the most likely scenario and am doing so by asking questions that I find significant.

 

[Bittiness39]

Heck, I am just trying to come up with my own analysis as to how KC killed her child. I am not looking for defintive answers by any means. I am looking the most likely scenario and am doing so by asking questions that I find significant.

How is very important. I don't know. I don't have the slightest clue. I would imagine...the ME is going to say given the facts on hand (child who was reasonably healthy; mother doesn't report said child missing) and whatever physical evidence is there (my guess would be epitheleals *spelled wrong* on the tape and possible prints of the victim or teeth marks from the victim) that it would lead her to the conclusion that if the *spelled wrong* epitheleals were there on the tape then she could deduce that either (a) it was placed on the mouth and possibly nostrils prior to death or (b) very close to death. I just don't think an answer can be determined as to whether it was applied prior to death or right after. But then I am not an ME.

 

[debbie0604]

I've went back and forth on whether it was an accident and the fact that there were three (3) layers of duct tape wrapped around poor Caylee's mouth and nose tells me that these layers were placed there in a state of anger or possibly rage. Three layers around her mouth and nose... I keep seeing that and.... having children myself.... there is no way I can make myself believe that this layering of duct tape was placed on Caylee after she had died. I keep asking myself this question "If Caylee's death was an accident, how could KC have placed three (3) layers of duct tape across the baby's mouth and nose?" Any caring, nurturing mother would be so freaked out about "the accident" there would be no way they would even consider placing any kind of "tape" over their childs face for any reason. The first thing any caring nurturing mother would do is try to call 911 for emergency assistance. But we all know that KC was not a caring and nurturing mother.

Also, KC picked the baby's body up and placed her in a "garbage bag" and drove her around, while poor Caylee was decomposing in KC's car. How can any mother (if it's an accident) do that? Then she threw her out in the garbage bag, in the woods - with other garbage. KC then goes out partying with her friends like nothing ever happened, and lies to her parents when they call asking her about Caylee. If it's an accident, how can she do that?

It then rains heavily, a hurricane comes through, floods the area where KC has left Caylee's body, and KC knows this in her heart. If it's an accident... how can she stand knowing this? All the while, she shows no remorse, no depression, she's just going on with her life, all the while lying to everyone about where Caylee is.

I have my opinion and supposed theories as to what I think may have happened to poor little Caylee by the hands of her mother, but in my humble opinion, it was NO ACCIDENT. :furious:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

ITA and thank you for putting it so nicely, particularly in the title line. At this point in this case, with such an overwhelming majority of folks siding with the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, I have to wonder why we are so concerned about the cause of death and the possible impact it could have on this case - which is only at the mitigation stage because both an accidental death and premeditated murder have both been shown here to have the exact same sentencing parameters, either DP or LWOP.

Since we are primarily a victim's advocacy forum (and posted an extremely eloquent argument I wish I had a copy of about that) - and therefore not as concerned as a jury with whether an accused murderer has the benefit of of presumption of innocence, I sometimes wonder why in our journey for justice for Caylee we are all that concerned whether or not her killer accidentally did it or on purpose?

For instance, if the defendant was a suspected chimo, would anyone here be worried whether her death was an accident or premeditated? Is it possible we are simply because the accused is a female relative? I don't understand there should be a difference if our loyalty in this instance is justice for a little girl whose life was taken from her before her time - whether due to accident or by design.

We have established beyond any reasonable doubt this defendant has very little character or remorse and is a recidivist criminal in other areas. Why are we so worried about creating sympathy or mitigation at the very moment of death when both immediately before and immediately after Caylee's death KC did and said nothing to anyone that indicated she cared whatsoever?

We may never know cause of death because the defendant and her family have lied. that would make me think they don't want us to know. The defendant had an opportunity to plea to accidental death and refused to take it. That indicates to the public the defendant denies this it was an accidental death. Regardless of cause of death or the charge it propogates, a jury will be asked to decide between death and life without parole. I am just not understanding where the relevance of accidental death plays into the entire jurisprudence process at this juncture.

I can't even tell you how profound your post is and how much I completely agree with it! Particularly the line that I have bolded, followed by the red bold which is the very crux of this issue.

Had Casey cared, showed remorse, or had ever shown any amount of extreme sadness that Caylee was deceased by means of an accidental death, this whole quest to separate "accidental" from "intentional" would take on an entirely new meaning and purpose.

But Casey didn't show sadness, in fact nothing even close to resembling the distraught heartache of a mother whose child has died.

In fact, Casey has shown nothing but a sickly deranged and twisted sense of glee that Caylee is no longer her burden.