bananarama
Seeking Justice for the little ones without a voic
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't recall that and I'm not sure they could know.
Didn't the ME state it in her autopsy report?
I don't recall that and I'm not sure they could know.
So does a death by drowning accident which was later staged to be a kidnap murder rise to the level of a DP case?
Didn't the ME state it in her autopsy report?
Spitz particularly takes issue with Garavaglia's saying: "Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair. This duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible [jaw] in place."
Many and I think MOST are simple things, a bar fight gone wrong, domestic abuse, etc. I can only go on what I know but with the exception of Robert Manwill, I believe all of our local cases have had witnesses.
Even in cases where there aren't any witnesses, we usually have someone who can come forward and say someone was threatening the victim, or someone had a problem with the victim. A timeline of the victims last movements can be traced and LE can find someone who saw or heard something.. anything...
That makes it easy.
Which is what causes the problems for this case..
Sweet Caylee was just gone.. we can prove what her mom was doing and where her mom was.. but does that prove that she was involved?
Some people need to see something definitive.. (echoes of the OJ case going through my head)
So does a death by drowning accident which was later staged to be a kidnap murder rise to the level of a DP case?
This is where I stand also, right now she is innocent and can the state prove she is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? I dont think they can and I have all the evidence that one is able to see without being part of the case itself.
I think the duct tape is actually a very good point of discussion.
Most of you seem to be saying this:
Because the same brand of duct tape that was wrapped around the childs mouth was found in the Anthony home Casey must have wrapped the duct tape around the child's mouth.
But that isnt what the duct tape says ACCORDING TO THE LAW. According to the law, as a fair and impartial juror, this is what the duct tape says:
Caylee had duct tape wrapped around her mouth, that same brand of duct tape was also found in the Anthony home. THAT is ALL the duct tape says, for you to take the giant LEAP and says because it was found in the Anthony home Casey MUST have used to to wrap her daughters mouth. Those are the kind of leaps bad jurors make and the very kind of leaps that get innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit. Any number of people could be using that same duct tape within the Anthony home, there is NO EVIDENCE that PROVES it was Casey who used it as such, to say there is, is a leap, a guess, a gut feeling, all of which do not belong in the jury deliberation room.
If you're saying that you want the duct tape evidence excluded I have to disagree. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Juries misinterpreting circumstantial evidence is no different than a Jury that is presented bad physical evidence or bad jury instructions. As for the rest, I agree, there should not be an automatic presumption that because I skull found with duct tape on it, that the duct tape was automatically the cause of death and that the defendant placed the duct tape on the victim.