KC defense team.What now?

[Macushla]

First, please understand that in most localities LE and the M.E. are joined at the hip.

Now, the M.E. comes up with homicide from an undetermined cause. Unless the M.E. was able to totally cancel out death by accident or death from misfortune, they cannot logically move to homicide without some evidence to support that finding (except as a guess). However, from what the M.E. has said, there does not seem to be any such evidence and toxicology reports seem not to yet be available.

My suspicion is that the M.E. simply tried to lay down some cover fire for LE's screw-up by issuing a finding of "undetermined homicide". My further suspicion is that on the witness stand, the M.E. will reveal that they used reduction (it was likely not this, it was likley not that) or fuzzy logic to back into their "undetermined homicide" position.

As regards what evidence at the scene might support the M.E's position, is it possible that they found a chloroform bottle in the area? Yes. Is it possible that the clothing was blood stained? Yes. Is it possible that there was a rope found around the neck? Yes. Is it possible that there was a blood stained knife in the area? Yes.

It's possible the M.E, has more evidence to support their position than they are revealing. However, if they had any such evidence, the best way to protect LE would be to reveal it. But that did not happen.

During cross-examination, my expectation is that the M.E. will watch a defense attorney slowly pick their bones clean. It's a price an expert pays for "guessing".

Ok, I am fighting a losing battle here, I know, but I keep charging in. What you seem to be saying is any time there is no clear definitive cause of death - such as a knife sticking out of someone's back or a visible gunshot wound, than an ME is only 'guessing' as to the cause of death? Does this also count for any Doctor who makes a diagnosis based on his observations when there is no HUGE tumor present in an x-ray? I am strugging to understand what you are trying to get at.

What would you have needed to be found at the scene to convince you that this was, indeed, a homicide? Would you EVER say this was a homicide, given these same exact circumstances, but having something be found at the scene - perhaps some rope that was in the bag, which still had tissue on it - which might have been wrapped around the victim's throat. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE - I have no idea what was found at the crime scene. You are stating your opinion with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene. I am stating my own opinion also with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene.

Have you looked up Dr. Garavaglia, by the way. I am not talking about her TV show. I am talking about all the cases she has done and all the testimony she has given in hundreds of cases over the years. Would you say this about any Medical Examiner who was in this situation or are you doubting Dr. Garavaglia's expertise in particular. Just curious

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

Dr G said " The cause of death will be listed as homicide by unknown reasons

Read further: "Should other information become available, the cause of death may be revisted". THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TRIAL AND PROSECUTING HER ON THAT STATEMENT OR FINDING ALONE!!!!

"More test results are coming in from Botanists, anthropologists, and toxicology." Ah-hah!!

The ME only has so much in terms of equipment, technology and resources to determine cause of death.

Thats why the FBI with the backing of Quantico has evidence to test as well.

Just hold on, the only thing we have been told so far and know without doubt is that it is Caylee.

Defense trial experts OR pro-prosecution advocates cannot claim any victory or defeat just yet.

Personally, with the extremely weak story of the nanny, I think once defense has the discovery and see the evidence that is forthcoming, they will claim accidential. There have been excellent points supporting that.

And agreed, the LE, with the evidence shown so far, if no other blockbuster evidence is developed, may have an extremely hard time proving it. I base that on they don't have proof no one else used the car, or computer...............

However...that is IMO "accidential" is only slightly easier defense than the Nanny story to sell to a jury because she showed a Mothers lack of concern in not reporting it...she displayed no fear of LE or prosecution for accidential death for 31 days...so she can't say she was afraid of going to prison or being blamed...and she still hasn't admitted it...and never led investigators to the body like someone wanting to prove it was an accident. Her "not coming clean" despite numerous chances shoots holes in that. That is a huge obstacle for them to convince a jury why then, she didn't tell her parents, priest, lawyer, police, anyone....that she died an accidential death.

 

[Just2Cents]

IMO. I am not lawyer but I think the "nanny" defense is out the door. KC is the only person who has met this nanny and therefore wouldn't she have to tale the stand? I don't think JB would put her on the stw d because of the lies he has told in the past. No one else has first hand knowedge..... Any legal experts want to confirm?

 

[janice]

No one knows what caused her death. So lay out the premises that force chloroform searches to equal premeditation.

(no one else has been able to do this)

I think it would be called circumstantial evidence. She did chloroform searches on her computer, chloroform was found in the trunk along with a dead body smell, and then Caylee is found dead. If they find chloroform in the toxicology tests then they will have some forensic evidence to back up the circumstantial evidence. I think they could win this case purely on circumstantial evidence. Apparently, many people are convicted on circumstantial evidence only.

 

[janice]

Ok, I am fighting a losing battle here, I know, but I keep charging in. What you seem to be saying is any time there is no clear definitive cause of death - such as a knife sticking out of someone's back or a visible gunshot wound, than an ME is only 'guessing' as to the cause of death? Does this also count for any Doctor who makes a diagnosis based on his observations when there is no HUGE tumor present in an x-ray? I am strugging to understand what you are trying to get at.

What would you have needed to be found at the scene to convince you that this was, indeed, a homicide? Would you EVER say this was a homicide, given these same exact circumstances, but having something be found at the scene - perhaps some rope that was in the bag, which still had tissue on it - which might have been wrapped around the victim's throat. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE - I have no idea what was found at the crime scene. You are stating your opinion with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene. I am stating my own opinion also with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene.

Have you looked up Dr. Garavaglia, by the way. I am not talking about her TV show. I am talking about all the cases she has done and all the testimony she has given in hundreds of cases over the years. Would you say this about any Medical Examiner who was in this situation or are you doubting Dr. Garavaglia's expertise in particular. Just curious

I think the ME only has to determine the "manner of death" to rule a death a homocide. The "cause of death" may not be apparent, but prosecutors don't absolutely have to know the cause. They never really knew the cause of Lacy Peterson's death.

 

[suspicious1]

I think JB was upset about not being the one to tell KC about Caylee's remains being found because he wanted to be there to see her first reaction. Her first reaction would have told him a lot about his client

 

[Wudge]

Ok, I am fighting a losing battle here, I know, but I keep charging in. What you seem to be saying is any time there is no clear definitive cause of death - such as a knife sticking out of someone's back or a visible gunshot wound, than an ME is only 'guessing' as to the cause of death? Does this also count for any Doctor who makes a diagnosis based on his observations when there is no HUGE tumor present in an x-ray? I am strugging to understand what you are trying to get at.

What would you have needed to be found at the scene to convince you that this was, indeed, a homicide? Would you EVER say this was a homicide, given these same exact circumstances, but having something be found at the scene - perhaps some rope that was in the bag, which still had tissue on it - which might have been wrapped around the victim's throat. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE - I have no idea what was found at the crime scene. You are stating your opinion with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene. I am stating my own opinion also with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene.

Have you looked up Dr. Garavaglia, by the way. I am not talking about her TV show. I am talking about all the cases she has done and all the testimony she has given in hundreds of cases over the years. Would you say this about any Medical Examiner who was in this situation or are you doubting Dr. Garavaglia's expertise in particular. Just curious

My advice to any expert would be to stay within their area of expertise.

 

[eddeva]

My advice to any expert would be to stay within their area of expertise.

i'm an expert in two year olds, with years of field experience, and i've yet to see one walk itself off into a swamp, climb into a trash bag and then duct tape it shut. i hope you don't think me argumentative in feeling there are darker forces at play here

 

[Devon]

My advice to any expert would be to stay within their area of expertise.

Am I correct in taking your comment above to mean that Dr G may have placed more reliance on 'other' evidence than she should have? The way I see it is that she has stated that her 'opinion' is based on the totality of the available evidence, including her examination of the body, but since she has confirmed that the autopsy did not reveal a cause of death, and that any tests still to be completed are unlikely to assist her in a determination, then it must follow that her opinion is actually based only on the 'other' evidence, which is not within her 'area of expertise'.

 

[Wudge]

Am I correct in taking your comment above to mean that Dr G may have placed more reliance on 'other' evidence than she should have? The way I see it is that she has stated that her 'opinion' is based on the totality of the available evidence, including her examination of the body, but since she has confirmed that the autopsy did not reveal a cause of death, and that any tests still to be completed are unlikely to assist her in a determination, then it must follow that her opinion is actually based only on the 'other' evidence, which is not within her 'area of expertise'.

The manner of death does not appear to be based on a medical examination.

 

[Devon]

The manner of death does not appear to be based on a medical examination.

Right, so unless she has knowledge of some other piece of potentially damning evidence that supports her 'opinion' then she may be skating on thin ice. Correct? This makes me wonder what they have found?

 

[yolorado]

i'm an expert in two year olds, with years of field experience, and i've yet to see one walk itself off into a swamp, climb into a trash bag and then duct tape it shut. i hope you don't think me argumentative in feeling there are darker forces at play here

What else could I say? You've said it all.:flashbak::sothere:

 

[yolorado]

OK, I will say something else. When a mother 'loses' her child and doesn't cry out for help or report it, when she actively obstructs efforts to find a place to start looking for the child and the search itself and, later, the baby can't be found or is found dead-duct-taped and double-bagged, THAT is all anyone should have to prove to send Mom up the river forever.

If KC wants to claim this is an accident, which she never has, even though Allen and Yuri asked her as much...on tape, then she'll have to get on the stand and explain that to the jury...because that's never been her position before. If she tries it, we'll see how that goes. Babe should take a plea, beg for it. Or let her testify and change her story on the stand and hope the jury hasn't already heard enough.

 

[trac]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-home-crime-scene-122008,0,6774428.story

Crime scene van goes to the house for additional evidence - okay, expected AND in the same article it states:

Also, deputies released the crime scene, and the public had access to the site. Casey Anthony's defense team was notified before the scene was released, but members of the team notified deputies they would not inspect the site.

So NOW the defense does not want to go to the site where the remains were found???? After all the belly aching and bad mouthing the investigators - geez the darn defense are keystone cops! I'm waiting for Charlie Chaplin to come out in trial!

 

[janice]

No one knows what caused her death. So lay out the premises that force chloroform searches to equal premeditation.

(no one else has been able to do this)

It's called circumstantial evidence. She has chloroform searches on her computer, there was chloroform found in her trunk, then they find a dead Caylee. Is there "forensic" evidence to prove this is how the child died? No, but it might make jurors say....Hmmmm..... by the way, remember the Lacy Peterson case? How did she die? We still don't know, but Scott Peterson is sitting on death row.

 

[yolorado]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-home-crime-scene-122008,0,6774428.story

Crime scene van goes to the house for additional evidence - okay, expected AND in the same article it states:

Also, deputies released the crime scene, and the public had access to the site. Casey Anthony's defense team was notified before the scene was released, but members of the team notified deputies they would not inspect the site.

So NOW the defense does not want to go to the site where the remains were found???? After all the belly aching and bad mouthing the investigators - geez the darn defense are keystone cops! I'm waiting for Charlie Chaplin to come out in trial!

Something seems to have changed since the defense group was whining, standing outside the police tape separating them from the scene. Perhaps the dispersion of bones over, what are we up to now, an acre was enough proof that Zannie didn't just place the bag there herself two weeks ago. Perhaps they already got enough mileage out of excoriating LE for being such meanies and not sharing their 'excavation.' Who knows? Perhaps the clues found at the scene of the disposal (unlike the clues Casey was sending to her family) can actually be decyphered and were when connected to the a crime scene at the A's. Perhaps some of the more legitimate experts bought a clue. Hopefully but possibly not. Maybe KC's conscience has finally gotten the better of her and she's about ready to cave. Almost certainly not. Who knows? Someday we may understand...or not.

 

[Gma Kat]

It's called circumstantial evidence. She has chloroform searches on her computer, there was chloroform found in her trunk, then they find a dead Caylee. Is there "forensic" evidence to prove this is how the child died? No, but it might make jurors say....Hmmmm..... by the way, remember the Lacy Peterson case? How did she die? We still don't know, but Scott Peterson is sitting on death row.

Thank goodness common sense prevailed in the Peterson case. His family is still claiming he's innocent too!

 

[suspicious1]

Ok, I am fighting a losing battle here, I know, but I keep charging in. What you seem to be saying is any time there is no clear definitive cause of death - such as a knife sticking out of someone's back or a visible gunshot wound, than an ME is only 'guessing' as to the cause of death? Does this also count for any Doctor who makes a diagnosis based on his observations when there is no HUGE tumor present in an x-ray? I am strugging to understand what you are trying to get at.

What would you have needed to be found at the scene to convince you that this was, indeed, a homicide? Would you EVER say this was a homicide, given these same exact circumstances, but having something be found at the scene - perhaps some rope that was in the bag, which still had tissue on it - which might have been wrapped around the victim's throat. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE - I have no idea what was found at the crime scene. You are stating your opinion with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene. I am stating my own opinion also with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene.

Have you looked up Dr. Garavaglia, by the way. I am not talking about her TV show. I am talking about all the cases she has done and all the testimony she has given in hundreds of cases over the years. Would you say this about any Medical Examiner who was in this situation or are you doubting Dr. Garavaglia's expertise in particular. Just curious

Some people just don't understand that Dr. G is very good at what she does and you better believe she have seen more evidence than we have about this case. Maybe during the autopsy she brought up something that LE had not paid close attention to. Dr. G is extremely talented in what she does and if she ruled it to be a homocide then baby guess what....IT IS A HOMOCIDE!

 

[Macushla]

My advice to any expert would be to stay within their area of expertise.

And a Medical Examiner's area of expertise is cause and manner of death, right? Isn't that what they do, isn't that their job? I am really confused by this post.

 

[Devon]

OK, I will say something else. When a mother 'loses' her child and doesn't cry out for help or report it, when she actively obstructs efforts to find a place to start looking for the child and the search itself and, later, the baby can't be found or is found dead-duct-taped and double-bagged, THAT is all anyone should have to prove to send Mom up the river forever.

If KC wants to claim this is an accident, which she never has, even though Allen and Yuri asked her as much...on tape, then she'll have to get on the stand and explain that to the jury...because that's never been her position before. If she tries it, we'll see how that goes. Babe should take a plea, beg for it. Or let her testify and change her story on the stand and hope the jury hasn't already heard enough.

I don't think anyone here believes anything other than that the kidnapping story was a total lie. Evidence exists that shows that Caylee's body was at one time in the trunk of KC's car and that it was eventually found very close to the family home. It is also alleged that there is evidence that links back to that house. KC appears to have covered up knowledge of the death of her child, has allegedly disposed of the body herself and apparently has shown no remorse (at least not in front of any one else). However there is still no proof (that we know of) that Caylee was intentionally murdered, or that it was KC that did it. The ME's determination is her own opinion, but it is not based on the medical examination itself, because that revealed no manner or cause of death. Further, she has stated that the outstanding test results are unlikely to change this finding. Her opinion is therefore open to challenge, unless some other strong evidence exists to support it. If that is so, I wonder why the determination was homicide by 'undetermined means'?

As to the double-bagging and duct tape issue, this shows that someone (probably KC) has made efforts to contain and conceal a decomposing body. There is no evidence as yet that there was duct tape around the skull. I don't see how the manner of wrapping can be viewed as callous after the event. There are only a few ways a body can be disposed of - buried, in water or otherwise hidden. We do not yet know if the body was initially buried in some way, and we do not know if it was 'tossed' into the woods or 'placed' there. We also don't know what else was in the bag. It is just as conceivable that Caylee's body may have been wrapped in some sort of shroud and placed together with some of her favourite things into a double wrapping of plastic that was intended to keep bugs and animals out. At this stage, we just don't know the facts and so can only speculate.