Regardless of the air sample and hair, there was very convincing evidence besides that there was a body in the trunk. You have to look at all the evidence. It's absurd to say that if you discount the air evidence, that then means there is doubt about the body in the trunk.
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. The theory of the prosecution is that Caylee's body was in the trunk for roughly 3 days. The garbage removed from the white trash bag was changed, altered, whatever evidence that could have been used to exculpate KC was destroyed, put intentionally into a dry room, this is not justice, we will never know what food was in that bag, Since the evidence in that bag was altered, or destroyed we have reasonable doubt about the states claim NO FOOD was in the white trash bag. Since we have reasonable doubt about the states claim of NO FOOD, we can make a reasonable assumption that a white trash bag from a kitchen where several 20 something persons resided, most likely had food in it. That is not stretching the imagination. Nearly every home has a kitchen, and in many homes even when they have a garbage disposal, foodstuffs end up in the kitchen garbage. This does not take a giant leap of faith, especially when you add that there were hundreds if not thousands of maggots in that same trash bag that had to be eating something.
The fatty substance like adipocere was on paper towelling found in the white trash bag. The state could have had further testing done on this substance to determine beyond any doubt whatsoever that it was indeed adipocere. This test was not run, and there was a reason they did not run this test, it was NOT adipocere.
The single fly leg found in the white trash bag, was the entire basis for Dr. Haskell's report. The white trash bag sat in a dumpster for nearly a whole day and night. There was an opening in the white trash bag that any insects (quite likely flies that were the same as the single fly leg) in that dumpster prior to the white trash bag being thrown in that dumpster, could, would and most likely did enter that bag filled with maggots and likely rotting food. The state also did not test the maggots for dna, which they could have done.The phantom stain in the trunk of the car. Personally, I can't see any stain but in evidence, there was no blood in the trunk of the car, no dna, no dark colored staining.
The single hair with apparent decomp. Both FBI agents that testified could not say this hair came from a dead body. Neither could they testify as to how long that hair was in the trunk of that car. Reasonable doubt.
The chloroform. The sniffer machine will someday be part of LE just as DNA is, however, it is not ready yet. A qualitative analysis was done, not a quantitative analysis. There are no levels in a qualitative analysis, so it could not have resulted in shockingly high levels of chloroform. The FBI chemist that followed Dr. Vass testified that they were low levels of chloroform, normal and consistant with possible use of cleaning products. The FBI guy did his testing in a scientific laboratory with the highest of protocols, whereas Dr. Vass used a research lab, with little to no protocols.
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.
