I disagree that discounting the air sample would not bring doubt as to whether or not there was a body in the trunk. I do agree that it would be absurd to believe that if only the air sample is discounted that there was not a body in the trunk.
So let me expound....
Now our favorite subject, the smell of death. Who testified to the smell of human decomposition? GB when answering the prosecution called it human decomposition, but when answering the defense called it decomposition. Dog handler Forgey. AV. MV. CA in her third 911 call in an effort to get the police to get there faster. SB who did not call 911 immediately after smelling human decomposition in the trunk. GA who did not call 911 immediately after smelling human decomposition in the trunk. Dr. Haskell. Who did not testify that they smelled human decomposition? Karen Sanchez from Amscot smelled garbage. TL who was standing near the trunk with KC. CB who picked up the car and took it to the towyard. MK who sat in the backseat. CH who also sat in the backseat. LE sargent smelled something, but it wasn't anything alarming enough to call csi. Deputy RE, didn't smell a thing. YM still did nothing even after being advised by GA about the odor in the trunk. Cpl BF didn't smell anything and he was in and out of the garage several times while the trunk was open. LE AA said she did not smell anything. This is not proof BARD that the odor from the car came from human decomposition.
I understand that one needs to look at the totality of circumstantial evidence. I also understand that you have to look at the evidence as a whole, however, when every single piece of the evidence that came from the trunk has reasonable doubt attached to it, how can the totality of this evidence prove anything at all BARD? It cannot.
The verdict in this case was correct.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
Absence of evidence, is not by itself, evidence of absence. Yes some in the garage and in the back seat did not smell decomposition, but those with most expertise and who examined the trunk carefully did.
It is NOT true that every single piece of evidence from the trunk has reasonable doubt.
Even if you discount George and Cindy's testimony, which I do not, the others are pieces of evidence that are not subject to reasonable doubt.
Why is the trained dog's observation subject to reasonable doubt? Dogs don't lie and are not biased.
Why is Forgey's testimony subject to reasonable doubt?
Why is SB's testimony subject to reasonable doubt?
Why is Dr. Vass examination of the smell subject to reasonable doubt?
Why is Dr. Haskell's testimony on the smell subject to reasonable doubt?
It is NOT reasonable IMO to dismiss these four witnesses, and the dog (plus George and Cindy) because others who did not examine the trunk carefully did not smell decomposition.
What reasonable explanation can you provide for all these witnesses to be mistaken?
Is it really reasonable to assume that all the experienced experts, particularly the dog would confuse rotting trash (call it garbage if you will) for human decomposition. I am sorry but that IMO is not reasonable.
Even Dr. Huntington, the defense witness, had to admit in cross-examination that the car smelled two years after the trash had been removed.
Is it reasonable to assume that the lingering smell after two years was a result of trash or garbage. That, IMO, is not reasonable. That, IMO, is wild speculation.
The totality of the evidence of the smell in the car establishes, IMO, way beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a decomposing body in the trunk.
And even if a single strand of banded hair could be explained away, it cannot be explained away with the overwhelming evidence for the smell in the trunk.
The evidence for Caylee's decomposing body being in Casey's trunk is overwhelming.
illowfight2: I am conflicted about the Anthony's .I wish them peace and hope they can move forward,but I do not want to see them rewarded for their bad behavior in trying to cover up for Casey.
