"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #3

[notthatsmart]

I have plenty of respect for LE. More than most. Although I do have all this respect for LE, I will be the first one to admit that they are human beings and can make huge mistakes. That is why we need courts. I must acknowledge this fact of life in order to get to the truth for Caylee.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I have plenty of respect for LE. More than most. Although I do have all this respect for LE, I will be the first one to admit that they are human beings and can make huge mistakes. That is why we need courts. I must acknowledge this fact of life in order to get to the truth for Caylee.

I agree...I have plenty of respect for LE also.

 

[RR0004]

I'm pretty sure that in the entomology report on page 10458 it says

this species can be found on decaying organic matter from other sources.
Depends on how you interpret it, some may think other animals, some may think bacon grease, some may think of plants as having decaying organic matter. Unfortunately the good dr. did not specify what he meant by decaying oraganic matter from other sources.

...and that is true by definition. They are also known to breed in carrion (eew!). I don't think we can mistake ANY trash as carrion IMO.

ETA: there weren't any fruits or vegetables in the trash were there?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I found this information just by Googling "coffin flies"......

Coffin flies - Family Phoridae


Coffin flies or scuttle flies, are minute flies that run in a jerky manner and appear to be 'hunchbacked'. They are most active at an exposed body after butyric fermentation has begun and when the corpse is starting to dry. Coffin flies are most common in buried human bodies after one year of burial and they also thrive in above ground mausoleums.

Coffin flies are able to dig their way through cracks in the soil above buried coffins. A coffin fly has been observed to dig to a depth of 0.5 m in four days, and once they have tunnelled down to a body, different individuals can move between the body and the surface quite freely.

They are also capable of completing their entire life cycle beneath the ground, so that several generations can occupy a corpse without coming to the surface. It has been calculated that with 98% survival, one pair of coffin flies in a protected place could produce 55 million flies in 60 days. Even with only 1% survival it would take only 7 months to produce 1 million flies.


While the good doctor did not specify which decaying matter he was referring to, I am assuming it was decaying HUMAN flesh since the butryic matter was found in the trunk of the car.

I actually read this awhile back when I was researching the entomology thread. It totally amazes me that just one pair of these little buggers can produce 55 million flies in 60 days.

It is one of the most common to appear on decomposed tissues in human cases as seen by numerous accounts of its presence in human case studies in the literatur. It should be noted that this species can also be found on decaying organic matter from other sources. page 10458 of entomology report.
my interpretation of this is although coffin flys are very common on human decomp they are also found on decaying organic matter from sources other than humans. Opinion only now I think that could include rotting cheese or rotting salami even in very small quantities.

 

[Bittiness39]

Thank you for disagreeing. I respect that. I guess we will have to get these folks on the stand ask them how they know that.

Ps, I really dont believe there is a human nose human decomp expert out there. Just my opinion.

Can I ask what your theory is as to why KC abandoned the car where she did? I am just curious. Incidentally, am happy you are posting here. At the very least, it is a challenge...

Back to guilt = KC knows very much what happened to Caylee. Whether it was accidental or intentional. No one else had access to Caylee in that time frame.

 

[notthatsmart]

[/U]

Here we go again....can you direct me to the link of the document that states that "the smell in the trunk came from a decompositional event, that being food."

No, I just stated that as my opinion upon reading docs and coming to the conclusion that there was no human decompositional event.

Can you direct me to a doc or link that states it as fact that it was a human decompositional event?

If you can, that would help me to come over to the majority side.

 

[cecybeans]

Thank you for disagreeing. I respect that. I guess we will have to get these folks on the stand ask them how they know that.

Ps, I really dont believe there is a human nose human decomp expert out there. Just my opinion.

I don't think that every observation made needs to be made by an expert. If several witnesses say it was raining when they observed a crime, I doubt a meteorologist would be called in to confirm their testimony. But in this case, the fact that cadaver dogs and air sample technology corroborate the witnesses, it simply strenghthens their observations.

 

[okiedokietoo]

This is another reason for my conclusion of NG.

Maggots are the proof that food was in the bag.

Where there are maggots, there is food. Just like where there is smoke there is fire.

There were food containers in the bag (cheese, salami and a tv dinner tray) I would expect the food to be mostly consumed by the maggots after two weeks in the trunk. The bag had also been contaminated in another dumpster for several hours. In Henry Lee's own words. A contaminated sample is just that, a contaminated sample.

The smell in the trunk came from a decompositional event. That being food. Since we had food containers and we did not have a human body, I have to assume the smell came from decomposing food. This is just my opinion upon reading the docs.

(bolded by me)
I hear what you are saying. Based evidence to date I'm going with guilty.
(small OT) Once I burnt a steak in the oven, took it out of the oven, turned off the oven but the steak continued to smoke and set of my smoke detector.

 

[notthatsmart]

Can I ask what your theory is as to why KC abandoned the car where she did? I am just curious. Incidentally, am happy you are posting here. At the very least, it is a challenge...

Back to guilt = KC knows very much what happened to Caylee. Whether it was accidental or intentional. No one else had access to Caylee in that time frame.

I think she ran out of gas. At the impound lot, the car wouldn't start. The attendant noted that the gauge said empty. George said thats okay, I brought gas. He put the gas in the car and it started right up according to the impound lot attendant. Further, Casey and Amy went and bought a gas can. (Later Amy gave it to police) Further, Tony had to go pick her up. Further, she had ran out of gas before.

Back to not guilty. Kc story makes the most sense. I wish I knew what SA story will be after all this evidence didn't pan out.
Thank you for being kind.

 

[BeanE]

A troll is a troll is a troll. I can't believe this is still going on.

 

[flourish]

I never proclaimed Casey was innocent.
I never said Casey lied.
I did say I have no respect for Mark Klass. I could care less if he has respect for me.

This thread was titled G or NG. The title didn't include innocent did it?

Please see earlier post in this thread regarding use of the term "innocent," for more information.

This is another reason for my conclusion of NG.

Maggots are the proof that food was in the bag.

Where there are maggots, there is food. Just like where there is smoke there is fire.

There were food containers in the bag (cheese, salami and a tv dinner tray) I would expect the food to be mostly consumed by the maggots after two weeks in the trunk. The bag had also been contaminated in another dumpster for several hours. In Henry Lee's own words. A contaminated sample is just that, a contaminated sample.

The smell in the trunk came from a decompositional event. That being food. Since we had food containers and we did not have a human body, I have to assume the smell came from decomposing food. This is just my opinion upon reading the docs.

b&ibm

Maggots' definition of "food" may vary greatly from your definition of "food."

 

[Trapshooter]

I think she ran out of gas. At the impound lot, the car wouldn't start. The attendant noted that the gauge said empty. George said thats okay, I brought gas. He put the gas in the car and it started right up according to the impound lot attendant. Further, Casey and Amy went and bought a gas can. (Later Amy gave it to police) Further, Tony had to go pick her up. Further, she had ran out of gas before.

Back to not guilty. Kc story makes the most sense. I wish I knew what SA story will be after all this evidence didn't pan out.
Thank you for being kind.

BUT.....the evidence DID pan out or else the SA would be dropping the charges! The SA's believe they DO have enough evidence to be brought to trial, they also believe the evidence is sufficient enough for a guilty charge!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I don't think that every observation made needs to be made by an expert. If several witnesses say it was raining when they observed a crime, I doubt a meteorologist would be called in to confirm their testimony. But in this case, the fact that cadaver dogs and air sample technology corroborate the witnesses, it simply strenghthens their observations.

I know air sample technology is somewhat new. Has it been used in any court cases yet? Although I think it will come into wide spread use in the future I'm not sure it has made its way into the mainstream yet, although I could definately be wrong about this. Does anyone know? TIA

 

[flourish]

Another topic I feel I have to interject with:

I think one thing that needs to be immediately cleared up is contrary to public opinion, the law doesn't say you are "innocent until proven guilty" - really, it says you are NOT GUILTY until proven guilty. Saying the accused is "innocent" implies a moral judgment, that the person has done no wrong. The law doesn't say that. The law does not make moral judgments. It sets rules and precedents against which behavior is judged. The "presumption of innocence" is legalese, establishing the burden of proof. It means the default rule is a blank slate- the defendant goes in without any presumptions against him, and the state builds its case from the bottom. It DOESN'T mean EVERYONE must "presume" the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.


OneLostGrl just gave me the perfect example of this. She said she is "not yet convinced of Casey's guilt." NOT that Casey is "innocent." And this is the point I think the defense in this case, and some of the defense-supporting-posts, are missing.

The jury only sees the evidence that is admitted in court. Because of certain Constitutional protections and "best practices" developed by courts, some evidence will be ruled inadmissible and the jury will never see it. If evidence was obtained illegally it can be suppressed, if scientific evidence doesn't mean certain standards it can be excluded. This is done to protect the integrity (don't roll your eyes!) of the justice system. I've read cases where the defendant really was deplorable, but the evidence just couldn't be admitted. Judges usually end those opinions with a very old Supreme Court quote saying something like, "it is unfortunate that often the most undesirable elements in society benefit most from America's reverence for liberty and freedom, but each 'exception' we grant to the protections of the Constitution leads us one more step towards tyranny." Even prosecutors will agree deep down the law has to apply to everyone equally.

So if you are the defense in a case where honestly the evidence only points to your client, you focus on getting as much evidence as possible excluded. You want to limit the amount of evidence that the jury actually sees. You go to your office, and don't leave until you find cases in Florida where judges have excluded the type of evidence you want excluded. You literally PILE UP CASE LAW. JB, if you are reading, I know this concept is foreign to you. But you do legal research. You want to convince the judge, basically, "see, everyone else is excluding this."

And then you pray that some of your motions are granted, and maybe the Prosecution gets nervous and will offer a plea. And then you take it. Is this lawyering on technicalities? Pretty much. But its a hell of a lot better for your client to be morally guilty and legally not guilty than dead.

Bumping for a refresher, and bolded by me for emphasis.

 

[BeanE]

Notthatsmart, you crack me up. :floorlaugh: I can see you now, gazing thoughtfully at your monitor, drumming your fingers, trying to decide what you can say next to really rile everybody up. And it works every time! :floorlaugh:

I, however, have raised 7 grown children, and I know how to tell when someone is yanking my chain. LOL Furthermore, although your avi is a nice touch, it's also a dead giveaway that you want to create an illusion of stupidity. People who truly believe they aren't smart do not announce it to the world; they do the opposite. But what really gives you away is that you tend to use a very nice, intelligent turn of phrase right in the midst of an otherwise utterly incongruous statement.

I have to hand it to you, though--there are a lot of extremely smart people here and you're smart enough to keep them running around in the same circles, banging their heads against the walls, trying to understand you and help you understand them. LOL The truth is, you have such a genius for it, I almost hate to out you. :blowkiss:

If I've totally, completely, thoroughly guessed wrong about you, then all I can say is, "Well, nuts." And, "Okay, you vote Not Guilty. I get it. I respect it. No further explanation necessary, no argument forthcoming."

Regards--

Excellent post, Friday. Thank you.

 

[notthatsmart]

BUT.....the evidence DID pan out or else the SA would be dropping the charges! The SA's believe they DO have enough evidence to be brought to trial, they also believe the evidence is sufficient enough for a guilty charge!

I sure wish I knew what that evidence is. It might help me see things differently.

Well, maybe something will come out in the next set of docs.

 

[RR0004]

I actually read this awhile back when I was researching the entomology thread. It totally amazes me that just one pair of these little buggers can produce 55 million flies in 60 days.

It is one of the most common to appear on decomposed tissues in human cases as seen by numerous accounts of its presence in human case studies in the literatur. It should be noted that this species can also be found on decaying organic matter from other sources. page 10458 of entomology report.
my interpretation of this is although coffin flys are very common on human decomp they are also found on decaying organic matter from sources other than humans. Opinion only now I think that could include rotting cheese or rotting salami even in very small quantities.

From what I read...mostly fruit and vegetables. Haven't found where it said anything about cheese. Wouldn't there have to be remnants of these products? Is there a link stating they found this?

 

[cecybeans]

I know air sample technology is somewhat new. Has it been used in any court cases yet? Although I think it will come into wide spread use in the future I'm not sure it has made its way into the mainstream yet, although I could definately be wrong about this. Does anyone know? TIA

From what I have read it is a highly accurate and reliable form of chemical analysis, but has not been used for this application (criminal court case) yet or often for it to be deemed typical. The fact this is a new application should not affect its efficacy.

 

[RR0004]

A troll is a troll is a troll. I can't believe this is still going on.

Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Trapshooter]

I sure wish I knew what that evidence is. It might help me see things differently.

Well, maybe something will come out in the next set of docs.

I sure would like to know too notthatsmart. I am sure the SA is holding this evidence "close to the vest" until the trial draws near.