KC defense team.What now?

[Macushla]

Ok, perhaps this will help me say what I having been trying to say in regards to Dr. Garavaglia determining the manner of death as homicide and in response to the post about experts staying 'within' their area of expertise. for those of you who are interested check out the following link:

http://thename.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=42

this is the National Association of Medical Examiners and it talks about what they look at when they are trying to determine cause and manner of death.

 

[Devon]

Ok, perhaps this will help me say what I having been trying to say in regards to Dr. Garavaglia determining the manner of death as homicide and in response to the post about experts staying 'within' their area of expertise. for those of you who are interested check out the following link:

http://thename.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=42

this is the National Association of Medical Examiners and it talks about what they look at when they are trying to determine cause and manner of death.

Yes, this link explains quote clearly what the ME does, but the issue here is that since the remains revealed no evident manner of death, Dr G's determination must have been based on other evidence, such as something found at the scene or the body of evidence already compiled by LE. I think the problem is that since she is apparently enable or unwilling to specify the actual manner of death, her opinion, being not based on her own area of expertise (forensic pathology) is open to challenge.

 

[Devon]

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!

The site itself is probably of no evidential value to them now as it has effectively been stripped of all original features and evidence. They wanted to view it in it's original state.

 

[Macushla]

Yes, this link explains quote clearly what the ME does, but the issue here is that since the remains revealed no evident manner of death, Dr G's determination must have been based on other evidence, such as something found at the scene or the body of evidence already compiled by LE. I think the problem is that since she is apparently enable or unwilling to specify the actual manner of death, her opinion, being not based on her own area of expertise (forensic pathology) is open to challenge.

Just a little correction - she did specify manner of death, but she left the cause of death undetermined. The only reason I am making this correction is because DH has been involved in LE and taught college classes in death investigations for a long time. He drummed into my head a long time ago (because I typed up his course exams ) that cause is what killed someone and manner is how that someone was killed.

When I read the article, I could have sworn they went into the fact that when there is no immediate evidence of manner of death, they take into account everything surrounding the death, including the 'history' - which in this case would be what LE had uncovered, so far, in their investigation.

 

[impatientredhead]

The site itself is probably of no evidential value to them now as it has effectively been stripped of all original features and evidence. They wanted to view it in it's original state.

They had no right to be there before hand and OCSO is extending one the professional courtesies to the defense that Baez claim are nonexistent. They had no obligation to hold the scene for his viewing.

If I was a defendant in a murder case and my attorney declined the opportunity to view the scene, photograph and video tape just in case there was a one in a million chance there was something visible there that would help my defense I would be livid.

That is just me though, and I would have already fired him when he was jumping up and down insisting he had a right to be there when the ID hadn't come in yet. Only the murderer would know the identity of that body prior to DNA testing coming back, so if I am innocent why would my defense attorney being in court demanding access?

 

[Devon]

Just a little correction - she did specify manner of death, but she left the cause of death undetermined. The only reason I am making this correction is because DH has been involved in LE and taught college classes in death investigations for a long time. He drummed into my head a long time ago (because I typed up his course exams ) that cause is what killed someone and manner is how that someone was killed.

When I read the article, I could have sworn they went into the fact that when there is no immediate evidence of manner of death, they take into account everything surrounding the death, including the 'history' - which in this case would be what LE had uncovered, so far, in their investigation.

Okay yes, I stand corrected - the manner of death was determined as homicide by undermined means. However, this doesn't change the fact that her opinion can't have been based on the autopsy itself, since this revealed no clues.

As I understood it, the article stated that the history of a case is used by the ME to assist with the medical examination, e..g what to look for and how to interpret the findings. In this case, apparently nothing was revealed during the autopsy that linked back to the history, no trauma to the bones, no soft tissue to examine and reportedly no assistance to be gleaned from the related forensic tests still outstanding (they probably have preliminary results for these).

I am just a bit baffled as to how she is so sure it was homicide. I am guessing that there must have been something found at the scene that supports this, but if so I don't understand why she has gone with 'undetermined means'. :waitasec:

 

[impatientredhead]

Just a little correction - she did specify manner of death, but she left the cause of death undetermined. The only reason I am making this correction is because DH has been involved in LE and taught college classes in death investigations for a long time. He drummed into my head a long time ago (because I typed up his course exams ) that cause is what killed someone and manner is how that someone was killed.

When I read the article, I could have sworn they went into the fact that when there is no immediate evidence of manner of death, they take into account everything surrounding the death, including the 'history' - which in this case would be what LE had uncovered, so far, in their investigation.

Excellent post. And of course the ME takes into consideration the surroundings and history and does not have pure tunnel vision on the remains.

For example:

a. long term drug user found dead surrounded by paraphernalia, no signs of foul play

b. deceased has history of depression, found dead, suicide note present, used syringe located, no signs of foul play

c. deceased has no known history of drug use, found dead, surroundings show struggle ensued, injection point not in keeping with being self administered

At a chemical level all three died of the same thing, drug overdose. All three would have different findings on their death certificate. Accidental overdose, suicide, homicide. The ME cannot exclude data taken from the scene. They need to be able to evaluate whether the scene matches what the body is showing them, but they have to include in the data they process.

 

[impatientredhead]

Okay yes, I stand corrected - the manner of death was determined as homicide by undermined means. However, this doesn't change the fact that her opinion can't have been based on the autopsy itself, since this revealed no clues.

As I understood it, the article stated that the history of a case is used by the ME to assist with the medical examination, e..g what to look for and how to interpret the findings. In this case, apparently nothing was revealed during the autopsy that linked back to the history, no trauma to the bones, no soft tissue to examine and reportedly no assistance to be gleaned from the related forensic tests still outstanding (they probably have preliminary results for these).

I am just a bit baffled as to how she is so sure it was homicide. I am guessing that there must have been something found at the scene that supports this, but if so I don't understand why she has gone with 'undetermined means'. :waitasec:

She hasn't explained why she ruled it a homicide. IF the duct tape around the head turns out to be true that would be an excellent reason to presume whomever was with her when she died wasn't trying to help her. That would be homicide, but because there is no tissue for her to examine she can not scientifically support a claim that she suffocated. There is not enough data available, at this time anyway, to determine how she died.

 

[cfromcanada]

The cause of death is not known. The mechanics of death is not known. The M.E. listed the manner of death as an undetermined homocide.

No statute in Florida establishes an undetermined homocide to be a felony.

SP was given the death penalty for undermined homicide....

 

[Wudge]

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?

Correct.

However, I think the M.E. is likley headed for a rough cross examination, because I suspect that they more likely cited homicide based on well publicized case circumstances moreso than anything else.

 

[impatientredhead]

SP was given the death penalty for undermined homicide....

And many others before him and after him have been convicted as well. Fortunately our system does not allow an automatic award for managing to let the body decompose prior to being located.

 

[RR0004]

Okay yes, I stand corrected - the manner of death was determined as homicide by undermined means. However, this doesn't change the fact that her opinion can't have been based on the autopsy itself, since this revealed no clues.

As I understood it, the article stated that the history of a case is used by the ME to assist with the medical examination, e..g what to look for and how to interpret the findings. In this case, apparently nothing was revealed during the autopsy that linked back to the history, no trauma to the bones, no soft tissue to examine and reportedly no assistance to be gleaned from the related forensic tests still outstanding (they probably have preliminary results for these).

I am just a bit baffled as to how she is so sure it was homicide. I am guessing that there must have been something found at the scene that supports this, but if so I don't understand why she has gone with 'undetermined means'. :waitasec:

She repeated twice if I'm not mistaken that it was her medical opinion. When there are no organs to check, no blood, no obvious injury to the bones, how could she specifically say how Casey killed her. The fact that it was ruled a homicide took all she knew to be true/fact and based her opinion on that. I don't suppose many people discard their children in garbage bags when they die of natural causes nor would they if the child's death was truly accidental. JMO

 

[RR0004]

Correct.

However, I think the M.E. is likley headed for a rough cross examination, because I suspect that they more likely cited homicide based on well publicized case circumstances moreso than anything else.

IMO, no...she based it on what she found and what she knows to be true.

 

[impatientredhead]

Correct.

However, I think the M.E. is likley headed for a rough cross examination, because I suspect that they more likely cited homicide based on well publicized case circumstances moreso than anything else.

She is far from new at testifying about her findings. The Dream Team should probably be basing their defense on something other than an alleged incompetency and/or lack of professionalism by the ME.

 

[sharpar]

At first I was thinking Alford Plea. But now with Attorney Badden, I don't know what they will do. I don't think DP will be a result, but LWOP if trial and enough evidence with the remains.

Alford Plea would be the smart thing to do but I seriously doubt either
ego could stand that.

Would be very surprised if they arent going to try the SODDI defense

 

[norr]

Correct.

However, I think the M.E. is likley headed for a rough cross examination, because I suspect that they more likely cited homicide based on well publicized case circumstances moreso than anything else.

Wudge,

I agree it is going to be tough for her because the defense is using the forensic anthropologist (as should be) to testify about the bones. She was on LKL and seemed shocked that a Pathologist was doing the bone work. (shrug)

 

[manatee]

Wudge,

I agree it is going to be tough for her because the defense is using the forensic anthropologist (as should be) to testify about the bones. She was on LKL and seemed shocked that a Pathologist was doing the bone work. (shrug)

I'm pretty sure LE is also using an anthropologist... I heard about someone from UCF has been used.

 

[Macushla]

Alford Plea would be the smart thing to do but I seriously doubt either
ego could stand that.

Would be very surprised if they arent going to try the SODDI defense

I posted a comment on another thread about the SODDI defense. If they go that route, can they not 'stipulate' to the murder. Saying, ok, we agree, she was murdered but the defendant didn't do it. Someone with more legal knowledge, help me out here - if they 'stipulate' to the murder - doesn't that mean they can keep a lot of the medical testimony, and perhaps photos of the 'remains' from being introduced as evidence? Or do they still have to let those in even if they admit that a murder occurred?

 

[Capri]

Alford plea would be a good choice for the defense, but the obvious problems with that is that KC would never agree to it, and the judge and prosecution have to both agree to it. I just don't see that happening.

 

[yolorado]

She repeated twice if I'm not mistaken that it was her medical opinion. When there are no organs to check, no blood, no obvious injury to the bones, how could she specifically say how Casey killed her. The fact that it was ruled a homicide took all she knew to be true/fact and based her opinion on that. I don't suppose many people discard their children in garbage bags when they die of natural causes nor would they if the child's death was truly accidental. JMO

Good point and probably even fewer deposit them in their car drunk and drive around with them for several days until the car reeks of human decomposition.