*REVISIT* Dead Body in the Trunk Statement: True or Bait?

[TURBOTHINK]

For the car trunk curious--It was a Sunfire. I have the same car but mine is a convertible--Casey's is not but the trunk on both models is the same.

Here are pics I have posted before of the trunk of MY car. This is not Casey's actual car. Hope it helps-

http://s456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/gigi2009_photos/?albumview=slideshow

That is a convertible and wasn't Casey's a sedan?

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Check, In almost all of the cases that I have heard about,the tapes are usually played over. Alot of places do a 24 hour loop, and it had been a month since Casey said she dropped Caylee off,and I just have a hard time thinking that the apartment complex had a tape from that far back. I hope I'm wrong.

Most new one don't even use tape anymore. Most record directly to a central computer station and then may or may not be put on discs or back up tape.
Many companies keep theirs 1 year because of the liability issues. (slip & fall incidents)

 

[CHICANA]

Awwwwwwwwwwww Elley no it was not There is a tape too.

They didn't know if there was video of that day. They were bluffing. I heard the det. stumble as he realized his error when he said that there was video at Sawgrass and they keep that for several days. At that time she gave the date she was there as June 9th and he was talking to her in mid July, more than a month later.

 

[not_my_kids]

I personally think the tape from Sawgrass was a bait.
But, I am on the fence about the rest of it.
LE may be serious about the evidence that they have. LE may be bluffing, it wouldn't be the first time. Or they may be fence sitting themselves as there may be a lot of inconclusive results. It wouldn't be the first time for that either.
I really don't know.

 

[kwmred]

They didn't know if there was video of that day. They were bluffing. I heard the det. stumble as he realized his error when he said that there was video at Sawgrass and they keep that for several days. At that time she gave the date she was there as June 9th and he was talking to her in mid July, more than a month later.

He actually said "by law they have to keep them" and not that Sawgrass only kept them for that long.

 

[CHICANA]

He actually said "by law they have to keep them" and not that Sawgrass only kept them for that long.

I could be wrong, but I thought he said a few days.
I don't think there is a law that requires an apartment complex to have surveillance cameras on their property. I've thought about calling to ask but I'm sure they've been bombarded by questions on this.

 

[Chilly Willy]

They didn't know if there was video of that day. They were bluffing. I heard the det. stumble as he realized his error when he said that there was video at Sawgrass and they keep that for several days. At that time she gave the date she was there as June 9th and he was talking to her in mid July, more than a month later.

I agree, the detective made up the video tape thing and he was caught at it because he's not a good liar.

 

[notthatsmart]

I agree, the detective made up the video tape thing and he was caught at it because he's not a good liar.

I agree with this. I thought it was obvious he was making that up. IMO. Also, Ja never brought up the trunk in his theory. I wish there was some clue that would allow me to believe that Sa is actually going to use the trunk. IMO. I think they just followed up on it as a clue and it did not pan out enough to believe there was ever a body in there. IMO

 

[sleutherontheside]

I agree with this. I thought it was obvious he was making that up. IMO. Also, Ja never brought up the trunk in his theory. I wish there was some clue that would allow me to believe that Sa is actually going to use the trunk. IMO. I think they just followed up on it as a clue and it did not pan out enough to believe there was ever a body in there. IMO

A clue??

 

[Trapshooter]

A clue??

BBM:

If I recall correctly, didn't they prove that a decompositional event took place in the trunk of the car??? Human decomp even?

I was just curious why this thread was bumped up after almost 2 years???:waitasec:

 

[Tsunami]

I've also noticed many threads have been bumped up lately that are ages old!

 

[Nore]

BBM:

If I recall correctly, didn't they prove that a decompositional event took place in the trunk of the car??? Human decomp even?

I was just curious why this thread was bumped up after almost 2 years???:waitasec:

------------------------------
Trapshooter, me too! this is "old news",hash and rehash.:banghead:

 

[Mamabear1963]

Just a bit like the defense...It was interesting though and somewhat chilling to read these posts from 2 years ago.

 

[JBean]

------------------------------
Trapshooter, me too! this is "old news",hash and rehash.:banghead:

I've also noticed many threads have been bumped up lately that are ages old!

BBM:

If I recall correctly, didn't they prove that a decompositional event took place in the trunk of the car??? Human decomp even?

I was just curious why this thread was bumped up after almost 2 years???:waitasec:

It is better to resurrect old discussion by bumping old threads rather starting new ones.

But this does become a problem when many,many old threads are bumped at once. It becomes confusing as to what is new information and what is old information being bumped for discussion.

This issue of high volume old thread bumping has been brought to the attention of admin.

This problem has been discussed directly with the well intentioned posters that have been bumping an unusual amount of old threads.

so if you don't want to discuss or rehash old information just ignore the thread and find more current information that is of more interest to you.

 

[notthatsmart]

I guess the thing is, is that it has been hashed and rehashed. It seems to be assumed that the Sa is going to use this trunk theory. I call it theory because I do not believe anything has been proven. IMO It is only proven to be possible. IMO The one thing depends on the other IMO. If they can prove the body was moved, that might make the trunk theory unbelievable by a jury. IMO. Its like a house of cards to me, the foundation built on a bunch of theories and possibities, but nothing for sure. IMO. Remove one card (like the dead body in the trunk) and the house starts to falls down. I enjoy these evidence threads and do not really wish to talk about home foreclosures, gum chewing and green shirts. IMO That is why I bumped it, hoping there was something we missed that we could sleuth, but just something that would indicate that they are indeed going to use this trunk theory. Hoping to find posters that are willing to discuss what isn't there in the trunk that should be there. IMO

Do the pathologist really believe that in leaking human decompositional fluid on to a carpet, that only one compound of natural human decomposition will be left to scrape up? Would that be normal? How many natural compounds are normally found in human decompositional fluids? I don't believe that this subject has really been hashed out. IMO

 

[BondJamesBond]

Do the pathologist really believe that in leaking human decompositional fluid on to a carpet, that only one compound of natural human decomposition will be left to scrape up? Would that be normal? How many natural compounds are normally found in human decompositional fluids? I don't believe that this subject has really been hashed out. IMO

*snipped*

I'm not a pathologist. "Pathological", maybe :waitasec:

Anyway.

• There is an excellent thread where this topic has been discussed specifically, [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73752"]here[/ame]
  
  
• Post#20 on that thread, linked [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2861850&postcount=20"]here[/ame], does a nice job of highlighting the air sample results in addition to the carpet (i.e. fluid) results.
  
• A search of that thread for poster "Bev", linked here, also yields some good reading if one doesn't have time for the entire thread. Note that the LIBS test utilizes the mineral content of the carpet sample (e.g. magnesium & calcium), hence, chloroform isn't the only species from the carpet (i.e. fluid) being utilized in the forensic analysis.

HTH.

 

[RainyGirl]

In my personal, non-medico-legal opinion......

'Methinks' the defense and pro-Casey crowd are a wee bit worried about that trunk evidence and the impact it 'may' have in a jury trial. I disagree that it is like the base of a house of cards that could tumble without its foundation. Rather, I see the trunk evidence (powerful both circumstantially AND forensically) like a nice layer of concrete and rebar (steel reinforcing bars)!!!

JMO......

 

[Tuffy]

The question the OP is asking is this: is LE being truthful when stating they have evidence of a dead body being in Casey's car trunk? The statement was made back in September of 2008. The poster asked the question before the lab reports were made public. Some people on this forum believed that LE might have been bluffing, and saying they had evidence that they did not.

We know now that they did have evidence from the trunk when the statement was made, so maybe this thread is pointless now.

 

[notthatsmart]

Dead body in the trunk statement. I am not aware of any Le that have said those words. I wonder where this came from? Did someone from Le way back when make that statement? I have seen no evidence that the Sa is going to use the trunk at trial. It is my opinion that they were just investigating the trunk and it didn't pan out. The thread is not about evidence from the trunk, The thread is titled Dead body in the trunk statement, True or bait? I believe the Sa has used the sunshine law to bait casey into a confession and it has not worked. It is just opinion, but I do not believe the thread is pointless. IMO

 

[Trapshooter]

Dead body in the trunk statement. I am not aware of any Le that have said those words. I wonder where this came from? Did someone from Le way back when make that statement? I have seen no evidence that the Sa is going to use the trunk at trial. It is my opinion that they were just investigating the trunk and it didn't pan out. The thread is not about evidence from the trunk, The thread is titled Dead body in the trunk statement, True or bait? I believe the Sa has used the sunshine law to bait casey into a confession and it has not worked. It is just opinion, but I do not believe the thread is pointless. IMO

BBM Respectfully:

NTS what makes you say the SA has used the Sunshine Law to bait Casey into a confession? I thought the Sunshine Law is every document, etc. is made public once the document has reached the intended person? :waitasec: So I'm confused how this Sunshine Law would be baiting ICA?

One more thing about the SA not going to use the trunk evidence at trial....IMO the SA absolutely intends to use this information from Oak Ridge Laboratory. This evidence is huge evidence for the SA.....IMO.