For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[beccalecca1]

Wow. I'm sorry I missed this post. Your dead on. I would like some one to look at the testimony from both sides and help me understand the juries verdict.Not just the defense angle.Why should it be that hard?

Exactly, it shouldn't be that hard. It would just be a lot easier for you to take the look instead of having someone explain it to you. There has been many posters here with their reasons for believing what the jury had to say; yet it is still a debate.

The biggest challenge is to put yourself in someone else's shoes. But, when you can successfully do that it is more meaningful to you. If, after doing so, you still don't agree with their verdict, then you'll just have to agree to disagree.

I have posted many logical reasons for agreeing with them, along with many others here. If throughout those posts there still isn't an understanding of why we agree, then it's probably best to either agree to disagree or re-watch the trial yourself with a different mindset.

 

[RANCH]

When the skull was discovered, the tape was only sticking to the hair mat. When the skull was discovered, the mandible was still in place. The only part of the tape that was sticky still was the area that was in the hair mat (and I want to believe that it wasn't really even sticky, but the 2 had just molded together through the heat of FL, etc.).

Being that the mandible was still in place (after Roy testified to slightly moving it with his reader stick), I would be left to assume that something other then the duct tape was holding the skull and mandible together. My impression is with this level of decomposition, the mandible always falls off. And, we're talking about it staying together throughout all weather conditions, animal activity, etc. I don't feel comfortable with believing the duct tape had to be there when it wasn't sticking to the mandible at the time of her being discovered. Something else was holding it together in my opinion.

I thought that the testimony was that the mandible was in an anatomical position. Not that it was held together by something. What I mean is that at the time of discovery the tape wasn't holding anything.Why would it be after all that time in water?

 

[RANCH]

The point is, no one know what it ever was sticking to. No one knows.

Oh .Come on. It had to be sticking to something. People don't just rip off three or four pieces of tape and throw it to the wind. These pieces of tape went on to something.

 

[beccalecca1]

I thought that the testimony was that the mandible was in an anatomical position. Not that it was held together by something. What I mean is that at the time of discovery the tape wasn't holding anything.Why would it be after all that time in water?

Yes, the tape wasn't holding anything; but the term "anatomical position" equates to the mandible still being attached to the skull.

 

[RANCH]

Exactly, it shouldn't be that hard. It would just be a lot easier for you to take the look instead of having someone explain it to you. There has been many posters here with their reasons for believing what the jury had to say; yet it is still a debate.

The biggest challenge is to put yourself in someone else's shoes. But, when you can successfully do that it is more meaningful to you. If, after doing so, you still don't agree with their verdict, then you'll just have to agree to disagree.

I have posted many logical reasons for agreeing with them, along with many others here. If throughout those posts there still isn't an understanding of why we agree, then it's probably best to either agree to disagree or re-watch the trial yourself with a different mindset.

I don't have to agree with this jury's verdict. But I do respect it. All I asked for was help in understanding the verdict.

 

[RANCH]

Yes, the tape wasn't holding anything; but the term "anatomical position" equates to the mandible still being attached to the skull.

Why would the mandible be attached at all?

 

[beccalecca1]

Why would the mandible be attached at all?

My point exactly... yet it was attached. :waitasec:

 

[RANCH]

My point exactly... yet it was attached. :waitasec:

How was it attached at this point?

 

[logicalgirl]

In all honesty, and this is not meant to be rude at all, it have a lot more meaning to you if you were to take a look at the defense experts testimony again, and try to figure out why the jury voted that way.

It is quite clear at this point that no matter what the people who agree with the jury say, no one is here to understand why we agree. We're all disputing the evidence all over again.... my interpretation vs. your interpretation; etc. I don't think the point of this thread was to open the door for a debate on evidence, testimony, facts, etc.

I really think the easiest thing for everyone who is REALLY trying to understand why they voted that way, would be to truly try to look at what was presented in court, and only what was presented in court. Look at both JA and JB (and the rest) with equal eyes. See if you can reach the same verdict as the jury.

Nothing I can say will convince anyone to think the way I think. Nothing you can say will convince me that she should've been found guilty. :twocents:

LOL - I watched every second of the trial and every second of the jury selection and every second of the Frye hearings.

I was fascinated by the scientific evidence and amused at the likes of Dr. Spitz, Dr. Huntington, and the plant lady who suggested a coyote buried the hip bone under the leaves. I was amused also by the Grief expert who was so schtook faced I thought on one of her arm waves she would topple right off of her witness stand. I loved Dr. Vass, Dr. Neil Haskell and many of the others who were true professionals in their work, and I particularly loved that every single one of the Defense experts agreed with the SA's evidence experts. I am also aware no true scientist can ever give a definitive answer to a scientific question. And I was in awe of Dr. G - and shocked Dr. Spitz was so clumsy he actually cracked little Caylee's skull after the bones sat in a box on a shelf in the funeral home for several months before he got himself down to Orlando to do the "autopsy" durinng which he didn't even bother wearing gloves. And horrified he took the trouble to expound on "brain decomp" on a sandy material he took out of the brain and didn't bother testing. He was quite something when he actually dropped the mandible from his human display skull as he fumbled with it on the stand.

I listened as Baez was overruled time and time again, and I was aware he came very close to receiving a sanction mid trial and awaits at HHJP's leisure, a hearing on full sanctions and contempt of court charges now this trial has finished. I believe he will also receive sanctions for taking a case to trial he declared was a homicide by SODDI when he "knew" it was an accidental drowning.

I'm okay with you not agreeing with me and seeing the "evidence" another way. The problem with that is the evidence you are discussing is primarily scientific fact that could not be disputed or was not disproven by the Defense at trial. I keep waiting for you to bring up facts to disuade me but I see now it isn't possible because there just aren't any.

The jurors can expound at their leisure at the hows and why's but they will have to live with their own miscarriage of justice - there is no way getting around it.

 

[beccalecca1]

How was it attached at this point?

I'm not sure I understand your question, or I know the answer to your question.

It was attached, but I don't know how/why. I can only speculate that roots held it together, or some sort of vegetation.

 

[beccalecca1]

LOL - I watched every second of the trial and every second of the jury selection and every second of the Frye hearings.

I was fascinated by the scientific evidence and amused at the likes of Dr. Spitz, Dr. Huntington, and the plant lady who suggested a coyote buried the hip bone under the leaves. I was amused also by the Grief expert who was so schtook faced I thought on one of her arm waves she would topple right off of her witness stand. I loved Dr. Vass, Dr. Neil Haskell and many of the others who were true professionals in their work, and I particularly loved that every single one of the Defense experts agreed with the SA's evidence experts. I am also aware no true scientist can ever give a definitive answer to a scientific question. And I was in awe of Dr. G - and shocked Dr. Spitz was so clumsy he actually cracked little Caylee's skull after the bones sat in a box on a shelf in the funeral home for several months before he got himself down to Orlando to do the "autopsy" durinng which he didn't even bother wearing gloves. And horrified he took the trouble to expound on "brain decomp" on a sandy material he took out of the brain and didn't bother testing. He was quite something when he actually dropped the mandible from his human display skull as he fumbled with it on the stand.

I listened as Baez was overruled time and time again, and I was aware he came very close to receiving a sanction mid trial and awaits at HHJP's leisure, a hearing on full sanctions and contempt of court charges now this trial has finished. I believe he will also receive sanctions for taking a case to trial he declared was a homicide by SODDI when he "knew" it was an accidental drowning.

I'm okay with you not agreeing with me and seeing the "evidence" another way. The problem with that is the evidence you are discussing is primarily scientific fact that could not be disputed or was not disproven by the Defense at trial. I keep waiting for you to bring up facts to disuade me but I see now it isn't possible because there just aren't any.

The jurors can expound at their leisure at the hows and why's but they will have to live with their own miscarriage of justice - there is no way getting around it.

Dr. Spitz didn't testify to fracturing the skull. I'm not sure how that's "fact".


And, I'm confused on this scientific fact that you talk about that can't be disputed. I do agree, but I'm confused on how the one's who disagree with the jury conclude there was a dead body in the trunk. According to Dr. Vass' studies alone, there was a 3/30 chance that there was a dead body. Deduce that to 1/10th of a probability. Science would have to agree at that point that the chemicals could've been related to some other decompositional event in the trunk. None of the chemicals found in the trunk are directly related to human decomposition only. And, the 3 (or even 5 as Vass wanted to refer to on the stand) can also be derived from food products. Cheeses, garlic, and vinegar are just some sources of those chemicals. That is science.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm not sure I understand your question, or I know the answer to your question.

It was attached, but I don't know how/why. I can only speculate that roots held it together, or some sort of vegetation.

I posted that part of the autopsy report up thread. Why not have a look and get your answer?

 

[RANCH]

I'm not sure I understand your question, or I know the answer to your question.

It was attached, but I don't know how/why. I can only speculate that roots held it together, or some sort of vegetation.

So your saying that since the tape wasn't on Caylees face, roots or something else held the mandible in place?

 

[beccalecca1]

"

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collectionbagbytearingthecomersofthebagtoexposetheskull. Ahairmatwasnoted on the base ofthe skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair ofthe skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base ofthe cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary dentition that was approximately between 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion: Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull."

snipped

I don't understand this opinion. It is common to find the skull with the mandible detached because nothing is holding it to the skull after the tissue decomposes.

In this case, you have duct tape "over-laying" the mouth/nose area, but attached to the hair.

The mandible is still intact with skull, but the tape is not adhering to any part of the skull, just the hair mat.

So, the conclusion of the opinion part of your quote is that the tape had to have been applied over the mouth/nose before decomposition in order for this to happen.

How would you explain that after the tape is no longer sticking to the skull, and is only sticking to the hair mat, that the mandible would still be in place?

Especially after RK testifies to moving the skull upwards with his reader stick.

The only way I could see the tape being related to the reasoning for the mandible still being in place, is if the tape's glue had molded itself into the grooves of the jawline, like a ligament (I guess).

 

[MissJames]

The tape wasn't sticking to anything besides the hair mat... so how could it be holding the mandible in place?

You didn't believe the Medical Examiner?

 

[beccalecca1]

You didn't believe the Medical Examiner?

Which Medical Examiner?


My question was if the tape wasn't attached to the skull, how could the tape be holding the mandible in place?

 

[Nova24]

All the evidence needs to be considered together. not separately. The body in the truck with Caylee's hair with banding shows that Caylee's body was in Casey's car.

If Caylee's body was in Casey's car who put her there and why? There is no evidence that anyone in the Anthony family had access to the car or the trunk other than Casey. Therefore the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt indicates that Casey put Caylee's body in the trunk.

If this was an innocent accident why did Casey hide the body in the truck? If George was somehow involved without Casey being blameless why did she lead the converup? IMO neither of these scenarios makes sense.

If it was not an an innocent accident, there are three possibilities: (1) accident due to negligence, (2) intentional attempt to control Caylee through duct tape, chloroform or other means, or (3) premeditated murder. Two or three would lead to first degree murder. one would lead to a lesser charge but not to a not guilty murder.

If this was an accident due to negligence (say she left her in the car but with no intent to actually harm Caylee) why did Casey panic and tried to hide the body? Given Casey's modus operandi it would have been a lot easier for her to lie and claim that she had nothing to do with it than to get involved in an elaborate coverup. IMO the elaborate coverup under this scenario does not make sense. And even if you disagree, this would be criminally negligent manslaughter although not murder.

But even if you believe that she panicked after criminally negligent behavior, I don't believe this fits with the other evidence of the case. For example,
three pieces of duct tape close to the body- one with hair and the mandible tied to the skull are clear evidence that the duct tape was put shortly after Casey's death, consistent with Dr. G. and not Dr. Spitz, or that Kronk somehow did it. You cannot just look at one aspect of the duct tape evidence but at all the aspect of the duct tape evidence. And why would a panicked mother (ore a grandfather for that matter) put duct tape on the dead child? The logical explanation, and this is what circumstantial evidence is all about is that it was done on purpose, hence it was murder. And given the body was in Casey's car, it was Casey and not anyone else who committed that murder. The tape came from the Anthony household and only Casey had access to both the tape and the car.

All the aspects of the duct tape evidence are IMO evidence of felony murder or premeditated murder.

All the other pieces of evidence are consistent with this first degree murder, including Casey's behavior, not just for 31 days but perhaps most crucially for the day of Caylee's death. Is going to Blocbuster's with your boyfriend consistent with a panicked mother who loves her child? IMO, not.

IMO the jury needs to connect the dots.

Nice post. TY.

 

[RANCH]

snipped









The only way I could see the tape being related to the reasoning for the mandible still being in place, is if the tape's glue had molded itself into the grooves of the jawline, like a ligament (I guess).

How could this take place?Glue molded into the grooves of the jaw?

 

[beccalecca1]

How could this take place?Glue molded into the grooves of the jaw?

Again, I'm not trying to be rude; but I do think that it's not that difficult to understand what I am saying. I'm having a real hard time taking your one liner questions seriously; especially after each answer I give you there is another one liner question.

 

[MissJames]

Actually, the tape was attached to the hair mat and extended to the mouth/nose area. It wasn't wrapped around the skull. And, yes, my point exactly, Caylee had completely decomposed, the tape was no longer sticky, but it still held the mandible in place? I think not. I'm sorry we can't seem to get on the same page with the same pieces of evidence. I don't understand how people can see the same things and be on the complete opposite sides of what they mean.

It was attached to her hair on both sides around to the back,with the tape going across her face.Not wrapped all the way around.I never said that .I said it was attached at each end .

So the medical examiner was not truthful in your opinion? Like ,a conspiracy or something?