"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Smelling the decomp cans

[thedeviledadvocate]

Will the Jury be allowed to smell the cans? It looked as though JA was going that direction today and then stopped right in the middle. I know the cans were admitted into evidence, but what exactly does that mean? In Session was saying that if the jury does smell the cans, the SA better hope it still smells or we could have another OJ scenario. Curious as to what you guys think about that and also what tag line do you think the DA team will come up with? I was thinking they would use:

"If the can don't stink, you have to think" or "If the can doesn't smell, the state has failed" :floorlaugh:

I personally think the smell of the cans is pointless to the jury anyways. There is more than enough people testifying that it smelt like decomp. Including Vass today who has 20 years of experience. I thought his testimony was a home run for the state today.

I don't think the jury should be allowed (forced) to smell the contents of the cans. It would really be a big mistake for the prosecution if the cans didn't smell really bad.

I think AV did well on the stand today. I think JB raised some pretty good points as well. I think the state has to win bigger everyday while they are presenting their side of the case because,

If the jury thinks,
that the evidence stinks,
and It's all junk in the trunk,
then the states case is sunk.

as always my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Just Jayla]

I don't think the jury should be allowed (forced) to smell the contents of the cans. It would really be a big mistake for the prosecution if the cans didn't smell really bad.

I think AV did well on the stand today. I think JB raised some pretty good points as well. I think the state has to win bigger everyday while they are presenting their side of the case because,

If the jury thinks,
that the evidence stinks,
and It's all junk in the trunk,
then the states case is sunk.

as always my entire post is my opinion only.

Pretty good

I would agree with you in the sense that I believe the state must, must, must continue to point out things such as absolutely no food products were in the trunk/trash and if presented in theory, absolutely no chlorine in the A's pool. These are the two most misreported items.
I have noticed, though it's so nuanced that only people like those of us here would know, JB is inserting these debunked theories slyly, and sometimes the prosecution is addressing it, sometimes they aren't. Everytime JB brought up the trash, JA should have objected that what he is referring to is NOT in evidence, because no food was in evidence. Another example is when JB inferred in his opening statements (not evidence, I know) that Lee/GA were DNA tested for paternity because somehow LE or the FBI suspected they were Caylee's father. He is totally glossing over the HUGE fact that it was we, the public, that made the (stupid) error of bombarding LE with questions about LA/GA possily being the father and they followed up on it. The public was very loud about those accusations, not LE.

The state has got to nip each little insinuation in the bud. No food in the trash, no chlorine in the pool, no suspicion by LE alone that LA/GA were the father, IMO, no credible witness that will say that Suburban was not underwater when searched.
They had better be quick on their toes, because JB is slipping them in every chance he gets-if the officer that packed up the evidence for trial had a hot date that night and overdid the Drakkar, leaving some lovestank on the air sample cans, JB would harp on that, too.

If it smells slightly dank
With a hint of lovestank
Then get over it
And just acquit

???

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't think the jury should be allowed (forced) to smell the contents of the cans. It would really be a big mistake for the prosecution if the cans didn't smell really bad.

I think AV did well on the stand today. I think JB raised some pretty good points as well. I think the state has to win bigger everyday while they are presenting their side of the case because,

If the jury thinks,
that the evidence stinks,
and It's all junk in the trunk,
then the states case is sunk.

as always my entire post is my opinion only.

Wow. Like what?

 

[aeneas1]

I don't think the jury should be allowed (forced) to smell the contents of the cans. It would really be a big mistake for the prosecution if the cans didn't smell really bad.

i can't imagine the state asking the jury to smell the cans if the odor wasn't painfully obvious - sort of falls under the heading of "don't ask a witness a question if you don't know what the answer will be", if you know what i mean...

 

[Bathbuddys]

Will the Jury be allowed to smell the cans? It looked as though JA was going that direction today and then stopped right in the middle. I know the cans were admitted into evidence, but what exactly does that mean? In Session was saying that if the jury does smell the cans, the SA better hope it still smells or we could have another OJ scenario. Curious as to what you guys think about that and also what tag line do you think the DA team will come up with? I was thinking they would use:

"If the can don't stink, you have to think" or "If the can doesn't smell, the state has failed" :floorlaugh:

I personally think the smell of the cans is pointless to the jury anyways. There is more than enough people testifying that it smelt like decomp. Including Vass today who has 20 years of experience. I thought his testimony was a home run for the state today.

why can't they just smell the trunk liner and or the car trunk and the inside? and they can have the cans there at the time. I just don't think they shoud risk no smell in the cans though it is probably not the case but don't do that to Caylee, too risky.

 

[azwriter]

Keep the lid on the can. Next thing you know they will want the jury to sniff some cholorphorm. jmo

 

[lynxofsd]

I think sniffing the cans and the car is a really bad idea. It's been years, and who knows how the odor has been altered since 2008.

I think the defense has legitimate grounds to disallow this. What if the smell is more like decomp now than originally? Maybe somebody tainted the evidence while it was in custody, perhaps?

I'll be very surprised if this is allowed, but depending on which side wants to take a risk and hope their gamble pays off...it could happen.

 

[Silmarion]

I wouldn't want to smell that can. NO WAY! But I think the idea of a trained cadaver dog, maybe more than one, wouldn't be a bad idea. After all the dog has no interest in the trial one way or the other.

 

[sumbunny]

Simply having the trunk liner in the courtroom (which noone in the court could smell)
would alert a trained cadaver dog.

Bring in the pooches

 

[magic-cat]

I don't think a jury should be expected to smell those cans, it's simply asking TOO MUCH of them.

The jury, unfortunately, is expected to examine and to consider ALL of the evidence. The actual evidence is inside the can-not the can in and of itsself. The jury is going to have to open that can, or those if there are more than one, and the smell of death will greet them as surely as the sun will rise. It is a sealed can, and has contained and likely still contains (as they did not destroy the sample) a sample of human decomposition soaked carpeting. There is no getting around these folks will be smelling this smell. No way out from it because that smell in a sealed environment will linger ever-after.

 

[Serjen]

Personally, if I was on the jury, I wouldn't want to smell the cans. I get queasy just hearing the testimony about it. I hope the state doesn't risk the case by opening the cans...UNLESS they open the cans to show the carpet piece and in the meantime the jury and courtroom 'happen' to get a whiff of the smell....
Before the trial, I was not a big follower of this case for the past 3 years...I've just recently become obsessed with it (watch the entire trial online each day and have read and watched tons of the evidence online). With that said, I felt that the state has done a magnificent job in proving that there was/is the smell of human decomposition in the car. Not only did they have regular people testify to the smell, but also expert witnesses who have smelled dozens or hundreds of dead bodies throughout their career. If I was a juror, that would be enough to convince me. Of course the defense will try to discredit this...that's their job! And maybe if it was just one or two people who said they smelled it, maybe I'd side with JB, but this is at least 8 or more people so far who have mentioned the smell. Dr. Vass's testimony yesterday that he 'jumped back a foot or two' from the smell was really great- I watched on youtube that he made that same comment during the Frye hearings and I am sure the State made sure he said that again in front of a jury because that is powerful.
But for me the 'smoking gun' of it all was when Cindy was on that 911 call and she was in that moment of panic where you speak the truth without thinking and she clearly screamed that is smelled like a 'damn dead body' in the car. Yah, later she could try to take it back and say she just said it to make the police come faster, but I don't buy that for one second. I think saying your granddaughter was kidnapped will make them come fast enough. She didn't have enough time to think in that moment to suddenly come up with the 'dead body smell'. She thought of it because it was most likely something she and George talked about after picking up the car...

 

[uklaw]

That would be a brilliant move.

With respect, it wouldn't. They don't need yet another first in this case. The post you were replying to would involve conducting an experiment in the middle of the court room with no controls or safeguards in place. A court room is not a science lab.

 

[The Farm]

I can't see any of the juror really wanting to smell the can. How many people really know what "death" smells like? I'm sure it smells nothing like rotting pizza.

I agree as I have no idea what human decomposition smells like and we do not know if in fact if any of the jurors do either. The number of experts that have been on the stand should speak volumes as to what the smell is that they smelled.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I don't think it is neccessary to smell the gas cans. I can see where some of the jurors may be curious, but I would think the majority would NOT be interested in smelling the smell of a decomposing two-year-old baby. That is a little excessive, if you ask me? We haven't even gotten to the remains site yet.

While I do believe that the trunk is extremely important in this case... we have numerous people and cadaver dogs stating that the trunk of Casey's car smelled of human decomposition. We have air samples that, according to Dr. Vass, gives no other plausible explanation for what was in the trunk of that car. We have the hair with the post mortem death banding. We have the stain... where I can only hope that someone will be able to see what we have been seeing for many years. I believe we still have the bugs (coffin flies) that will be presented to the jury.

While all these things seperately may not be enough to convict someone of 1st degree murder... I believe all of these things added together will leave the jury with no doubt that Caylee was decomposing in that back of that car.

I don't have a problem either way. Smell it... don't smell it? I think we have enough.

 

[ami]

What qualifies any on this jury to KNOW the smell of decomp? How would they know what they are smelling to compare it to?

But that's just the point - the jury isn't expected to be qualified experts on ANYthing. Yet they are still shown each piece of evidence. Are they experts on chromatograms? No, but they were shown one yesterday as proof or example of what the expert witness was telling them. Are they experts in hair root banding? No, but they were still shown pictures of root banding as example of what the expert was telling them.

The jury isn't meant to critically evaluate any of the physical evidence as if they are experts - they are still shown and played this evidence. Why? Why not just have an expert testify that a video was made in which ICA was angry, and the jurors should just take his word for it. That certainly didn't happen - they were shown the video so they could experience this anger for themselves. Why didn't that "make them witnesses"? They were allowed to listen the the 911 calls and witness CA's grief - rather than just hear expert testimony that "Cindy called 911 and was upset".

The logical part of my mind tells me that there should not be discrimination in the physical senses the jury is allowed to use to experience the evidence. Some evidence folks are testifying about is visual - movies, pictures, surveillance tapes, graphs and charts, all allowed in - and some evidence testified about his auditory (recorded phone calls, 911 tapes also allowed in) - and some evidence testified about is olfactory (the car trunk - not allowed in). I think it's odd to draw the line in a court of law that X and Y senses are allowed for the jury but not Z sense.

Pros of letting them experience this evidence:

- It's fair and in line with the rest of their exposure to evidence they've heard testimony about.

- Part of the defense strategy is in dismissing this very smell as pizza, chicken or banana - part of the State's strategy is in pointing out that someone called 911 because of this smell, because they could not dismiss it as trash.

- The smell does indeed "stick in your nose and throat" for days. Each piece of testimony presented after that would have the background of decomposing flesh to it. Each moment they would be reminded that the trial is not about boob touching or wikipedia pages, but about a child that died and was treated abominably. (this is also in the "con" column for the exact same reasons...) When they hear about the dogs "hitting" on a scent in the yard, when they are shown the stain in the trunk (that JB will tell them is a pizza outline) they will have evidence in their own nose and throat that tells them differently (again, making this a "con" as well)

Cons:

- It would affect each of them forever, perhaps make some of them unable to serve, certainly unable to eat for a few days, perhaps unable to sleep - and none of the jurors deserve that. Caylee (and I suppose even KC) deserve jurors who can be fair minded and alert when they evaluate the evidence.

- Because of the nature of the evidence and the potential for the harm to the jurors wellbeing, and the potential for this to emotionally sway them rather than making choices based on ALL the evidence, I think this would be a completely valid argument for an appeal and retrial, therefore making it completely unacceptable.

- With all the evidence, they don't need this additional link in the chain. I don't think the jurors disbelieve the smell, the chemicals of the smell, or the linking of the smell to human decomp. They are probably already convinced and likely to become more so.

All told I think the Cons far outweigh the Pros and they should not be required to smell the evidence.

I still believe attorneys should have the right to introduce smells into evidence in the general sense, but in this case I think they'd be smart to read the jury, understand whether they need what is in effect a physical/emotional atomic bomb, and keep it to themselves if they don't absolutely need it. Which IMO they do not.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The jury, unfortunately, is expected to examine and to consider ALL of the evidence. The actual evidence is inside the can-not the can in and of itsself. The jury is going to have to open that can, or those if there are more than one, and the smell of death will greet them as surely as the sun will rise. It is a sealed can, and has contained and likely still contains (as they did not destroy the sample) a sample of human decomposition soaked carpeting. There is no getting around these folks will be smelling this smell. No way out from it because that smell in a sealed environment will linger ever-after.

I'd bet my last dollar the jury will NOT be smelling that car

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO Why beat a dead horse? The prosecution has already, even without the dogs, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed a body decomposing in that trunk.

Jose is a FOOL to argue there wasn't.

 

[Marple]

I agree. I don't understand the point of the cans. People have said the car smelled like decomp and the jury is not full of experts on decomp smell. So what's the point? They smell the cans - what does that mean as far as Casey Anthony's guilt? I think there are plenty of other things that point to her guilt. I would hate to be on a jury and have to do this. I can look at gruesome pictures, but having to smell something like a dead body will make me sick.

IIRC, during the Frye hearing, HHJP expressed concern that by letting jurors smell the cans, the SA's would be basically asking the jurors to be witnesses. Jeff Ashton explained that the reason they wanted the jurors to smell the cans was not to prove that it was "decomp" but to prove that contrary to what the DT is saying, it is not the smell of regular household garbage.

Ashton's reasoning was that we have ALL smelled garbage at some point in our daily lives. We know what it smells like when you don't take the trash out for a few days, leave a bag in a hot environment, etc. So, his thought was that if the jurors smelled the cans, he wouldn't be asking them "does this smell like human decomp?" He will be asking "Does this smell like trash to you?"

I don't know if they will actually introduce the sealed cans but I remember this from the Frye hearing.

 

[uklaw]

Just a point guys: It seems that the cans got mixed up (this has been corrected minutes ago). But it is amazing how close the State could have come to falling into this trap.

(I can't think of a catch phrase, however).

 

[watchinginky]

I haven't read this entire thread so please excuse this if it's already been asked and answered. :angel:

Why not take the jury to the garage where the car is being stored and let them see the car and smell it for themselves instead of smelling the cans? The car is a huge piece of evidence and IMO, the jury should see it and smell it for themselves to really get a true feeling for what is being discussed in the courtroom. Hasn't this type of thing been done with other cases?