Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[katydid23]

I guess we'll just have to shake our heads and wonder why the medical examiner didn't look for diatoms.

Two botched autopsies?

NO< because the state was never under the allusion there was a drowning. That was a fairy tale set forth by the DT. So if they wanted to prove this defense theory they could have. Why didn't they?

 

[RANCH]

for real!
maybe she had been dead so long she was stiff...(maybe)
way too late...

ICA and wasn't watching her.
maybe ICA on facebook?
GA wasn't there when he should have been perhaps? up to no good so ICA adds him in the mix cause he was supposed to be.. doesn't wanna answer to CA?
they cover for each other?
or Ica killed caylee!
I'm reaching...
moo

Well,with my limited experience with dead bodies, I don't think they get stiff really quick.

 

[gngr~snap]

I'm new to this forum so please excuse this if it is common knowledge.
1) Did cadaver dogs search the area around the Anthony home let's say at least a mile or more radius? If so, no hits I assume?
2) Duct tape, that was over the mouth and nose of Caylee, nothing but bones and some hair remained when the body was discovered, how can they be sure that the tape was ever over the mouth and nose? After all tissue is gone the duct tape would be released to move, wherever any forces acted on it. It would not re-stick to the bones after all the tissue was gone. And the length's of the duct tape were to short to wrap around the head of Caylee? I guess the tape could have been longer if pieces were stuck end to end, were they?

I believeit was testified they did not.
LE sure did not do a lot of stuff at them time...
because ICA said she'd been kidnapped
at first they believed her...
for instance
didn't check the car or the trunk at the A's on the 15th
didn't ever walk the dogs throught the A's home.
when they checked the back yard..

didn'r respond to RK 3 times!
didn't pfotograph the sticker residue.

there's more I can't remember

but in their defense it supposedlyhad been 31 days
I wonder if the's even true!

 

[emyr]

The defense said: If she was guilty why didn't she run? Why did she stick around? Why did she drive around with a body in her car?

I think it's clear that she stole gas because she didn't even have enough money to buy gas. (and then the gas cans were taken back just a few hours later). Maybe the plan was to drive far away, but when she kept on running out of gas all over the place, so she just gave up. In addition, how was she going to come up with enough money to flee and live far away? I think she would have run if she had two pennies to rub together. She just didn't.

 

[gitana1]

I'm new to this forum so please excuse this if it is common knowledge.
1) Did cadaver dogs search the area around the Anthony home let's say at least a mile or more radius? If so, no hits I assume?
2) Duct tape, that was over the mouth and nose of Caylee, nothing but bones and some hair remained when the body was discovered, how can they be sure that the tape was ever over the mouth and nose? After all tissue is gone the duct tape would be released to move, wherever any forces acted on it. It would not re-stick to the bones after all the tissue was gone. And the length's of the duct tape were to short to wrap around the head of Caylee? I guess the tape could have been longer if pieces were stuck end to end, were they?

1. To my knowledge, the dogs only searched the premises of the home.
2. They were layered, IIRC, one on top of the other but overlapping. They could tell that the duct tape had been over the mouth area because the mandible was still attached to the skull. The experts explained that the mandible is the first bone to detach and is always found detached from the skull at the level of decomposition that Caylee's skeleton was at when found, but here, the mandible was found attached, held in placed by the duct tape. The tape was still attached to the hair and around the skull.

 

[Nova24]

If DT was so certain she drowned they would have done this test. They didn't because they know she didn't drown and with evidence of that their lame theory went out the window. Furthermore who sits in jail for 3 years over an accident? No one.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I believe the circumstantial evidence in this case is very strong, even without the chloroform. JB said little to cause me to really take serious pause about the evidence presented by the state. Just a few points:
- I found the State's expert testimony to be credible
- I believe her behavior is consistent with guilt, especially, but not limited to, not reporting Caylee missing or dead, misleading (lying) to LE in regard to finding her daughter; of course the 31 days. Borrowing a shovel from the neighbor just days after Caylee was last seen alive.
- She had access to all the incriminating evidence
- She admitted herself to a smell in her car that she described as a dead animal
- hair with PMD banding was very compelling to me - even though it was one hair; I did believe the FBI analyst to be very credible.
- I found Dr. G to be credible and reasonable in her conclusions, and no matter how renowned, Dr. Spitz's testimony was not compelling for me and didn't contribute anything significant to me.
- The air testing re the chemicals of decomp was believable to me as well as the chloroform evidence (but I am putting less weight on the Chloroform evidence).

Regarding the chloroform: I don't believe that the Chloroform searches, which were IMO clearly shown to have been done by her, was an indication of premeditated murder. The level of Chloroform found to be in her trunk was clearly more than just trace and what would naturally be found in the environment. I don't think these are coincidences by any means. However, on this point specifically, without more physical evidence, I couldn't convict of 1st degree murder.
The most damning evidence to me is the duct tape and the reason I would convict of 1st degree murder. I can't explain away 3 pieces of duct tape ranging in size from 7.5 to 9.5 inches being applied to her little face.
This is a very interesting piece, see pg 13

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf

Respectfully, the decision in this case was based on the fact that the defendant claimed that the victim liked having her entire face covered with duct tape because of her, ahem, unusual bedroom preferences, and died of natural causes during their "playtime". The defendant never claimed that the victim was kidnapped or that duct tape was placed as a staging attempt, so we don't know if they even considered that when they said there was no logical reason for the tape to have been placed after that. Granted, Casey's DT never theorized that either, just pointing out how the ruling might have applied if they had.

The section that refers to what an ME can testify is also a very interesting read...

 

[RANCH]

I don't feel the evidence proves that Casey is the only person who could have done it. I think Casey did it, don't get me wrong. I just don't think the evidence says she and she alone did it.

You think Casey did what?And someone helped her do what? I'm curious to know.

 

[emyr]

I believe the circumstantial evidence in this case is very strong, even without the chloroform. JB said little to cause me to really take serious pause about the evidence presented by the state. Just a few points:
- I found the State's expert testimony to be credible
- I believe her behavior is consistent with guilt, especially, but not limited to, not reporting Caylee missing or dead, misleading (lying) to LE in regard to finding her daughter; of course the 31 days. Borrowing a shovel from the neighbor just days after Caylee was last seen alive.
- She had access to all the incriminating evidence
- She admitted herself to a smell in her car that she described as a dead animal
- hair with PMD banding was very compelling to me - even though it was one hair; I did believe the FBI analyst to be very credible.
- I found Dr. G to be credible and reasonable in her conclusions, and no matter how renowned, Dr. Spitz's testimony was not compelling for me and didn't contribute anything significant to me.
- The air testing re the chemicals of decomp was believable to me as well as the chloroform evidence (but I am putting less weight on the Chloroform evidence).

Regarding the chloroform: I don't believe that the Chloroform searches, which were IMO clearly shown to have been done by her, was an indication of premeditated murder. The level of Chloroform found to be in her trunk was clearly more than just trace and what would naturally be found in the environment. I don't think these are coincidences by any means. However, on this point specifically, without more physical evidence, I couldn't convict of 1st degree murder.
The most damning evidence to me is the duct tape and the reason I would convict of 1st degree murder. I can't explain away 3 pieces of duct tape ranging in size from 7.5 to 9.5 inches being applied to her little face.
This is a very interesting piece, see pg 13

http://www.5dca.org/opinions/opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf

Her text about the dead squirrel on the 25th was one of the most damaging pieces of evidence to me, and I'm sad they didn't introduce it. She referenced her dad as perhaps having something to do with the smell, so perhaps that's why they didn't use it, but it still definitively placed the body in the car to me. I felt the "forensic smell" was a little hokey.

There's an outside chance I could have believed the duct tape was placed to fake a kidnapping, or MAYBE that the duct tape was used to tape the blanket over her and drifted... but it doesn't sound like the defense showed anything to make me believe that might be true. Of course, I didn't really follow the trial, just heard the highlights, so... I guess we'll see.

 

[Just Jayla]

I guess we'll just have to shake our heads and wonder why the medical examiner didn't look for diatoms.

Two botched autopsies?

Yeppers...or we can just figure that no one, especially a girl that couldn't manage to stay in high school for her final year, could manage to sit patiently in jail for three years, just a'waiting to tell us this was all an accident...huh?

No way-as Dr. G said, never happens. Miss thang knew she would be so busted if she had to show LE her handywork and present the body to Dr. G, so she stayed mum.

Sick, but she must have been elated to find out that Caylee's body would no longer tell the full story of how she was murdered.

 

[GeekyGirl]

NO< because the state was never under the allusion there was a drowning. That was a fairy tale set forth by the DT. So if they wanted to prove this defense theory they could have. Why didn't they?

In all fairness, it would have been a gamble for them. Even if Caylee had drowned the chances are good that because the pool was treated, there wouldn't have been diatoms present.

 

[katydid23]

ITA, and if her "drowning" assertion is to be believed, why didn't she tell LE that when they first approached her, instead of sitting in jail for 3 years, and then going through this trial?

Especially because her excuse for not calling 911 was she did not want her mom to know about the child dying. So once her mom finds out the kid is 'missing' and Casey is up on MURDER ONE charges, wouldn't her mom be relieved to hear that it was a simple tragic accident? Why play it out for 3 more years, torturing her family, accusing innocent people of kidnap/murder, and rotting in jail? She does all that, then opens the trial with the accident story.

 

[cluciano63]

It's important to remember that reasonable doubt is subjective, and just because you don't find someone else's doubt to be reasonable, doesn't mean that it's not reasonable to them. This is why our juries have more than person.

I think it is very possible that one juror could have a person in their family tree who reacted weirdly to grief (as I do) or is close to someone with a mental illness that reminds them of Casey (even if they are not supposed to consider that) or any number of things that could sway a verdict. Jurors decide their verdict on many factors, and often those factors have nothing to do with the law or instructions, IMO.

I know that in a recent case, where a man was tried 3 times for killing his wife (can't recall his name at the moment-her swas Sarah) the jury verdict was "guilty" and several of the jurors said later that it was because the defense "did not prove him innocent." There may be an appeal pending on this, in fact, or the lawyers are trying anyway.

So I absolutely agree, that all of our various doubts could also occur to a juror or two. I'd love to be as confident as many are about guilt and degree, if I was on this jury, because that is the way you should feel if you vote for guilty. I don't think anyone will be swayed to a capital crime if they are not positive.

JMO-JMO

 

[katydid23]

In all fairness, it would have been a gamble for them. Even if Caylee had drowned the chances are good that because the pool was treated, there wouldn't have been diatoms present.

Exactly. So doesn't it seem like 'dirty tricks' to have Dr Baden, speaking for the DT, hitting all the media and calling out the state for NOT doing the test, when the DT could have done it themselves?

Baden is clearly sending out misinformation. We had a couple of posters just here saying their reasonable doubt comes from the state NOT doing this test. That is coming from BS that Baden is purposely flooding the airwaves with.

It is similar to the way Baez tried to insinuate that George tried to commit suicide because he felt guilty over being involved in the tragedy somehow. And when Baez was thwarted then today he accuses George of faking the suicide as a way to cover up his guilt.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Especially because her excuse for not calling 911 was she did not want her mom to know about the child dying. So once her mom finds out the kid is 'missing' and Casey is up on MURDER ONE charges, wouldn't her mom be relieved to hear that it was a simple tragic accident? Why play it out for 3 more years, torturing her family, accusing innocent people of kidnap/murder, and rotting in jail? She does all that, then opens the trial with the accident story.

Because she thought she still had a chance to get off completely on the homicide charges? After the 31 days, there was no way she was going to be able to get out of a negligent homicide charge. Besides, she didn't know then that it was going to take three years to go to trial. Impulsive decision, without thinking about the long term consequences... Isn't pretty much her style? Again, I don't buy the DT's story, but this isn't proof of murder to me. MOO

 

[GeekyGirl]

Exactly. So doesn't it seem like 'dirty tricks' to have Dr Baden, speaking for the DT, hitting all the media and calling out the state for NOT doing the test, when the DT could have done it themselves?

Baden is clearly sending out misinformation. We had a couple of posters just here saying their reasonable doubt comes from the state NOT doing this test. That is coming from BS that Baden is purposely flooding the airwaves with.

It is similar to the way Baez tried to insinuate that George tried to commit suicide because he felt guilty over being involved in the tragedy somehow. And when Baez was thwarted then today he accuses George of faking the suicide as a way to cover up his guilt.

That's a very good point. Hopefully the jurors were honest when they were asked how much media exposure to the case they had prior to their selection.

 

[gngr~snap]

Well,with my limited experience with dead bodies, I don't think they get stiff really quick.

10 min to several hours. depends on temperature, body fat if there was a struggle etc...
:seeya: in my professional opinion...

 

[GeekyGirl]

I am surprised that the DT did not tell us EXACTLY what happened. If I were innocent of murder, and my child drowned by accident, even if it was because I was on the phone or in the shower, I WOULD DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT. Even IF I didn't take the stand because of previous lies in the cover up, I would expect my attorneys to give some kind of hypothetical scenario for the jury to ponder.

(Respectfully snipped)

However, you are not a narcissistic sociopath.

 

[froginTtown]

I know I sure wouldn't sit in jail for 3 yrs. only to tell the public that my father had his **** in my mouth before school, and that my daughter accidently drowned in an above ground pool...and that same dad hid my baby and was setting me up for murder..!!!

 

[RANCH]

10 min to several hours.

What can cause stiffness in only 10 mins? Seems kind of a short period of time to me.