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

[beccalecca1]

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?

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

What I read was that the tape was attached to the hair mat at the base of the skull and over-layed by the mouth/nose area. Nothing about being attached at both ends of anything.

 

[MissJames]

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?

Dr. G .The medical examiner for the county .She testified that after the tissue decomposes you would not expect the mandible to stay in place,but the duct tape held it in place.

That's why the mandible was mentioned in the first place.

 

[MissJames]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

What I read was that the tape was attached to the hair mat at the base of the skull and over-layed by the mouth/nose area. Nothing about being attached at both ends of anything.

You seem to be disagreeing with the medical examiner's testimony. Are you considering her testimony at all when coming to your NG conclusion?

 

[beccalecca1]

Dr. G .The medical examiner for the county .She testified that after the tissue decomposes you would not expect the mandible to stay in place,but the duct tape held it in place.

That's why the mandible was mentioned in the first place.

Dr. G wasn't part of the autopsy report you posted here.

Now that you answered the one question, can you please answer my second question in that post.

How would the duct tape hold the mandible in place if it wasn't attached to the skull, but only to the hair mat?


And, in regards to your previous conspiracy question.... in order for there to be a conspiracy here, there would have to have been INTENT to be against something. I don't feel that anyone of the people involved with the autopsy had intent to be malicious in any sense. Just like I don't feel the jury conspired to acquit to go home quicker.

 

[RANCH]

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.

I won't take it as being rude . But I ask simple questions some times because I want a simple answer. You don't have to answer any of my questions if you don't won't to.Would it be better for you if I posed a long drawn out complicated scenario for you to ponder?

 

[beccalecca1]

You seem to be disagreeing with the medical examiner's testimony. Are you considering her testimony at all when coming to your NG conclusion?

Yes, I considered her testimony. I can see how a Medical Examiner would look at the crime scene and come to that conclusion. I completely understand her position. I work in the medical field myself, so I do not discredit her one bit.


But... she only viewed through the body. She wasn't involved in the environment surrounding the rest of this case. She didn't see Casey's behaviors. She didn't see the family dynamics. She didn't see the scientific chemical analysis of the air samples. She didn't see the lack of staining in the trunk. She didn't see the lack of the first colonizers in the trunk. She didn't see a lot of the outside evidence. She saw the crime scene, and that alone. She based her opinion on that, and I don't blame her for doing that.

I, on the other hand, not only heard testimony of the crime scene, but heard testimony of all the evidence presented to the jury. I got a bigger picture than Dr. G did.

 

[Nova]

Here's how I view circumstantial evidence and how I'd have approached it if I'd been on this jury:

I would consider each piece of evidence as testimony about it was presented and then refuted by the other side. Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretaton, so I'd decide whether I thought the evidence favored Position A (prosecutor) or Position B (defendant). If I could go 50/50 on a piece of evidence, then I'd have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that piece, given that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and hadn't tipped the scales in their direction on that piece.

In this case, my common sense and the way I view circumstantial evidence led me to believe, as the jurors did, that I wouldn't be able to convict on Murder One.

A few examples:

Body in the trunk? I thought the evidence showed there was a body in there, so prosecution gets that one.
Chloroform? I didn't think any of that testimony proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Casey leading a 'normal' life for a month after anyone last sees Caylee? I didn't think that proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Duct tape? This is a 50/50 one for me; could have been over nose & mouth but just as easily might not have been. Defense gets that one.

Even on just those few things, the prosecution would have already failed for me as a juror. And yes, I have common sense and a rational approach to evidence. I've even seen trials where one of the jury's instructions specifically says that if one piece of circumstantial evidence can have two equally reasonable interpretations, the jury should remember the prosecutor's burden of proof and can tip the scales in favor of the defense. I don't think that instruction was given in this trial, but it's one that makes sense to me when analyzing evidence.

The problem with that system is that it assumes all points have equal value.

I could certainly construct a hypothetical case for you where all the "points" went to the defense except one: you saw the defendant commit the crime with your own eyes.

Once you've given "body in the trunk" to the prosecution, most of the other points become meaningless. There is only one missing body associated with this case. There is no reasonable explanation for carting it around in the trunk unless you are covering up a crime.

 

[MissJames]

Dr. G wasn't part of the autopsy report you posted here.

Now that you answered the one question, can you please answer my second question in that post.

How would the duct tape hold the mandible in place if it wasn't attached to the skull, but only to the hair mat?


And, in regards to your previous conspiracy question.... in order for there to be a conspiracy here, there would have to have been INTENT to be against something. I don't feel that anyone of the people involved with the autopsy had intent to be malicious in any sense. Just like I don't feel the jury conspired to acquit to go home quicker.

Did I post the autopsy report? You'll have to ask the Medical Examiner who did Caylee's autopsy.Jan Garavalia aka Dr. G Since she's the expert and the death certificate she fills out is official ,I'll take her word for it.

For fun you might want to read the depo she did with the defense. CM asked her how the mandible got there. Her answer "God"

 

[Nova]

Juror # 2 believed she was guilty and was the last holdout.Juror # 3 says she was sick to her stomach over the NG verdict. Juror #11 said he cried ?
One of the Scott Peterson Jurors suggested that if they felt that way ,that she was probably guilty,why didn't they spend more time digging through the evidence and discussing situations at length.Why not ask to have some testimony read back to them?....

I was on a jury in New York City back when jurors weren't allowed to take notes (mid-80s). I served on a case where the victim was mentally impaired in some way that was never explained to us, so it was difficult to make sense of what she was saying. (The judge finally stipulated that the lawyers couldn't ask her how long it took her to do anything because her sense of time was so flawed: she just said everything took "an hour.")

Her testimony was most of the evidence against the defendant, but we were uncomfortable convicting someone on the testimony of someone who couldn't make rational calculations such as time of day. On the other hand, we didn't want to dismiss a victim who might have problems through no fault of her own.

SO WE HAD HER ENTIRE TESTIMONY READ BACK TO US THREE TIMES!

Then with great sadness we acquitted the defendant because if the victim couldn't make certain rational connections, how could we trust other connections she made? There was simply no way to believe anything she said beyond a reasonable doubt.

Total deliberation time was 8 or 9 hours. This was all over the armed robbery of $20.

 

[MissJames]

Yes, I considered her testimony. I can see how a Medical Examiner would look at the crime scene and come to that conclusion. I completely understand her position. I work in the medical field myself, so I do not discredit her one bit.


But... she only viewed through the body. She wasn't involved in the environment surrounding the rest of this case. She didn't see Casey's behaviors. She didn't see the family dynamics. She didn't see the scientific chemical analysis of the air samples. She didn't see the lack of staining in the trunk. She didn't see the lack of the first colonizers in the trunk. She didn't see a lot of the outside evidence. She saw the crime scene, and that alone. She based her opinion on that, and I don't blame her for doing that.

I, on the other hand, not only heard testimony of the crime scene, but heard testimony of all the evidence presented to the jury. I got a bigger picture than Dr. G did.

My point was : Dr. G said the mandible was held in place by the duct tape. You have disputed that point ,which is why I asked if you were considering her testimony . Lack of staining in the trunk? So the FBI were lying,too.
This is really pointless.
Good night.

 

[beccalecca1]

My point was : Dr. G said the mandible was held in place by the duct tape. You have disputed that point ,which is why I asked if you were considering her testimony . Lack of staining in the trunk? So the FBI were lying,too.
This is really pointless.
Good night.

I don't recall anyone from the FBI testifying there was a stain in the trunk. In fact, besides JA mentioning it, the only time I really remember it being scrutinized in trial was when JB asked Lee and Dr. Furton if they saw a stain that resembled a basketball or decomposition.

And, again, I'm going to ask you how does duct tape hold the mandible in place when it's not attached to the skull or mandible?

 

[MissJames]

Yes, I considered her testimony. I can see how a Medical Examiner would look at the crime scene and come to that conclusion. I completely understand her position. I work in the medical field myself, so I do not discredit her one bit.


But... she only viewed through the body. She wasn't involved in the environment surrounding the rest of this case. She didn't see Casey's behaviors. She didn't see the family dynamics. She didn't see the scientific chemical analysis of the air samples. She didn't see the lack of staining in the trunk. She didn't see the lack of the first colonizers in the trunk. She didn't see a lot of the outside evidence. She saw the crime scene, and that alone. She based her opinion on that, and I don't blame her for doing that.

I, on the other hand, not only heard testimony of the crime scene, but heard testimony of all the evidence presented to the jury. I got a bigger picture than Dr. G did.

BBM

I didn't think of that. Thank you for putting it all into perspective.

 

[PeteyGirl]

<<snipped>>

I, on the other hand, not only heard testimony of the crime scene, but heard testimony of all the evidence presented to the jury. I got a bigger picture than Dr. G did.

Dr G. is the Chief Medical Examiner for Orange and Osceola counties in FL, and has worked in the capacity of a medical examiner since 1988.

It sounds odd to assume any WS member could possibly get a bigger picture for a cause of death than a medical examiner who has been practicing for the last 23 plus years.

Dr G.'s expertise and professional abilities are not a matter of opinion, they are facts. Sure, she's human and can make mistakes. What you are suggesting is that she made a huge mistake, which is very, very unlikely.

I know that as many times as I've read posters who agree with the verdict, and listened or watched the jurors explain their decision, nothing I've read, heard or seen has made me find common ground with the acquittal.

I'm one of the posters here who felt very BADLY after the not guilty verdict but did not get angry with the jurors. I only began to feel outrage when the jurors started speaking up. I have a very open mind, in fact I can be gullable and easily swayed by a persuasive person . . . as long as they rely upon LOGIC and REASON.

So far, I have not read, heard or seen revealed a logical, reasonable argument to help me understand why the jury acquitted this woman.

I'm sorry, but claiming that you see MORE than Dr. Garavaglia in this case as far as evidence is absurd. I apologize if this hurts your feelings. I am sure you are a perfectly fine person, but you are not weaving reason into your arguments, and yes, I'll be the judge of that. Again, no offense to you as a person, I just have a big problem with your claim.

 

[Nova]

I don't recall anyone from the FBI testifying there was a stain in the trunk. In fact, besides JA mentioning it, the only time I really remember it being scrutinized in trial was when JB asked Lee and Dr. Furton if they saw a stain that resembled a basketball or decomposition.

And, again, I'm going to ask you how does duct tape hold the mandible in place when it's not attached to the skull or mandible?

I'm sure you know the answer: the tape holds the mandible in place because the tape is stuck to the skin that covers the jaw. But if you dump your kid's dead body in a swamp, there may not be much skin left six months later.

 

[RANCH]

I don't recall anyone from the FBI testifying there was a stain in the trunk. In fact, besides JA mentioning it, the only time I really remember it being scrutinized in trial was when JB asked Lee and Dr. Furton if they saw a stain that resembled a basketball or decomposition.

And, again, I'm going to ask you how does duct tape hold the mandible in place when it's not attached to the skull or mandible?

What was the tape attached to in your opinion?
<mod snip>

 

[MissJames]

Yes, I considered her testimony. I can see how a Medical Examiner would look at the crime scene and come to that conclusion. I completely understand her position. I work in the medical field myself, so I do not discredit her one bit.


But... she only viewed through the body. She wasn't involved in the environment surrounding the rest of this case. She didn't see Casey's behaviors. She didn't see the family dynamics. She didn't see the scientific chemical analysis of the air samples. She didn't see the lack of staining in the trunk. She didn't see the lack of the first colonizers in the trunk. She didn't see a lot of the outside evidence. She saw the crime scene, and that alone. She based her opinion on that, and I don't blame her for doing that.

I, on the other hand, not only heard testimony of the crime scene, but heard testimony of all the evidence presented to the jury. I got a bigger picture than Dr. G did.

If you go back and look at Dr. G's testimony again you will hear her describe the extent of the investigation they did . The scene ,interviewing the family (remember Dr. Spitz only remembered SOME PEOPLE), reading reports,etc....
Her testimony revolved around all of this. I just assumed you knew.

 

[pcrum12]

Actually, isn't RK's testimony part of evidence? This is something he testified to in front of the jury.

And, if the skull were moved, the mandible is still in place and the tape is overlaying the area of the mandible, but not stuck to it... it wouldn't mean to me that the tape actually was holding it in place. The tape wasn't stuck there, so how would it be holding the mandible there while it was moved? I would conclude that something else was holding the mandible there. Roots maybe?

thank you thank you thank you

 

[pcrum12]

Yes, I considered her testimony. I can see how a Medical Examiner would look at the crime scene and come to that conclusion. I completely understand her position. I work in the medical field myself, so I do not discredit her one bit.


But... she only viewed through the body. She wasn't involved in the environment surrounding the rest of this case. She didn't see Casey's behaviors. She didn't see the family dynamics. She didn't see the scientific chemical analysis of the air samples. She didn't see the lack of staining in the trunk. She didn't see the lack of the first colonizers in the trunk. She didn't see a lot of the outside evidence. She saw the crime scene, and that alone. She based her opinion on that, and I don't blame her for doing that.

I, on the other hand, not only heard testimony of the crime scene, but heard testimony of all the evidence presented to the jury. I got a bigger picture than Dr. G did.

Wasn't the remains already removed from the scene and examined by Dr Utz before Dr G even got back to Orlando?

 

[pcrum12]

The problem with that system is that it assumes all points have equal value.

I could certainly construct a hypothetical case for you where all the "points" went to the defense except one: you saw the defendant commit the crime with your own eyes.

Once you've given "body in the trunk" to the prosecution, most of the other points become meaningless. There is only one missing body associated with this case. There is no reasonable explanation for carting it around in the trunk unless you are covering up a crime.

Unless you are covering up an accident.

 

[AnaTeresa]

This question is for those that agree with the not guilty verdicts. Please help me understand.

In your opinion, how did the state not convince you? What other info would you need to convict? Do you believe the drowning theory? What do you think really happened? Do you believe Casey did it and just that the State did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? How to you explain away the 31 days? The lying? The partying? What was the reason for the duct tape?

I am just trying to understand. I hear the defense talking heads saying simply that the state did not prove their case, but they have no explained how or why or what they think really happened.

BBM.

Reposting the topic of this thread. We've had plenty of posters who have tried to answer these questions, but for me, it's hard to have a discussion of the verdict when every single sentence of a support post is picked apart. We keep going round and round and round. It doesn't seem like there's really any understanding being fostered, because we keep getting derailed by nitpicking.