Sidebar Discussion

[Murphismo]

That's interesting because for me - in the case of an accidental death, there is no room at all for either duct tape or chloroform. One or both were used in the chlld's death, and as the supreme court decided in a prior case, there is not rational reason to put duct tape on anyone's face except to prevent them from breathing. If there were massive amounts of chloroform in the trunk where the body was placed, and the body had duct tape over it's mouth and nose, what difference does it make which one came first? The death was not accidental because of these two factors alone.

Saying it creates reasonable doubt does not make it so - IMO of course.

Oh, I don't buy accidental for one red hot second. All I'm saying is this..... The duct tape "could" have been staged after the death to "look" like a kidnapping. I honesty wouldn't bet a paycheck on how that poor child died, I'm inclined to believe FCA either smothered her, or drugged her with chlolorform or some concoction she came up with while trying to make it, maybe it was even another drug. Point being, while I do believe there is "reasonable" doubt as to the two theories we are talking about, I do NOT believe there is reasonable ANY doubt, whatsoever, that FCA's actions, whatever they may be, led directly to that child's death. The "manner of death" was homicide... The "cause" is unknown....IMO. I think it was dangerous to point to an exact "cause". The didn't do that in the Lacy Peterson case, the "cause" was irrelevant and never proven, the "manner" was, just like I believe it was for poor Caylee.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I disagree, because everyone interprets facts differently. In this instance, you either believe the state proved it's case or you didn't. It's your opinion that they did, based on the facts presented. It's others that they did not, based on the facts presented.

Actually, there are only two ways to interpret a fact. The right way and the wrong way :crazy: You either approach truth with your interpretation of the facts, or you retreat from it. The "truth" stands on it's own, it is more important than "opinion".

And no, everyone does not interpret facts differently. They either recognize them as facts or refuse to.

What you are describing is an uber relativity that ends up dissolving logic into meaninglessness.

Do you agree that there is a "truth" that sits apart from individual opinion? There is still a Flat Earth Society. They have to discredit enormous quantities of fact to maintain their "opinion" that the Earth is a pancake. They certainly have a right to believe what they do. But don't confuse that "right to opinion" with "an opinion that is right". That's all I'm trying to say

 

[Murphismo]

Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder due largely to CE.

Anyone remember Wayne Williams, the Atlanta boy killer?

His case was the first case where a single fiber (from carpet) was used as direct evidence to convict a killer. Reference A&E and ID tv and a book written about WW that I can't find. )

imo

And you know, in the SP case, the CE was very little. The main "smoking gun" was a hair in his pliars which were in the boat (hair could have gotten in the pliars at any point in the marriage). And the missing anchor, it proved nothing "directly", the jurors had to infer it was used to weigh down lacy. It hinged heavily, I believe, on the fact that Scott was the last person with Lacy... Of course there was more evidence, but not nearly the amount as there was in the FCA trial.

 

[MarthaM]

Oh, I don't buy accidental for one red hot second. All I'm saying is this..... The duct tape "could" have been staged after the death to "look" like a kidnapping. I honesty wouldn't bet a paycheck on how that poor child died, I'm inclined to believe FCA either smothered her, or drugged her with chlolorform or some concoction she came up with while trying to make it, maybe it was even another drug. Point being, while I do believe there is "reasonable" doubt as to the two theories we are talking about, I do NOT believe there is reasonable ANY doubt, whatsoever, that FCA's actions, whatever they may be, led directly to that child's death. The "manner of death" was homicide... The "cause" is unknown....IMO. I think it was dangerous to point to an exact "cause". The didn't do that in the Lacy Peterson case, the "cause" was irrelevant and never proven, the "manner" was, just like I believe it was for poor Caylee.

I think your last couple sentences are very, very interesting. And if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're absolutely right.

I've been thinking lately that the prosecution muddied the waters and created all kinds of reasonable doubt by focusing too much on the duct tape and chloroform. They created more reasonable doubt than the defense did.

I actually think the prosecution could have won if they'd streamlined their case a bit, and left some of it out.

 

[MsMacGyver]

I seem to remember the state did prove the time Caylee died..am I wrong? As far as proving what she died from they couldn't but Dr. G stated from the evidence, in her professional opinion..it was homicide.
I think where the problem might have come in was it was possible that Caylee died accidently and FCA tried to cover it up, make it look like murder. FCA was so afaid of CA that even if Caylee had died accidently, she would have not been able to admit this to CA so she made it look like a murder. She could have applied the duct tape to keep fluids in. Plus it's much harder for people to believe that a mother would brutally kill her own child, especially when they look like FCA.
In my opinion there were so manys problems with this theory..where do I start?

FCA was the last person seen with Caylee.
Evidence collected came from the A home which points directly to someone in that family was responsible for Caylee death.
No one else had driven FCA car, she had physical ownership since the 16th which is when Caylee died.
Evidence in trunk along with smell tells me Caylee was in the trunk dead.
FCA NEVER reported her daughter missing, CA did after finding FCA 31 days later.
Chloroform search made by FCA....only takes one!..Plus neck braking, household weapons..etc...before the 16th
Chloroform found in trunk, gatorade bottle
31 days of partying after the 16th..FCA admitted she knew Caylee was dead for those 31 days
FCA lying to police to lead suspicion away from herself.
FCA lying to CA and friends as to her and Caylees location for 31 days after the 16th
Blaming a nanny for kidnapping..nanny didn't exist
Sitting in jail for 3 years...facing the death penalty
Duct tape stuck in Caylees hair. No reason for a mother to put duct tape in their childs HAIR..alive or dead, mandible in place with skull...never happens
Caylee wrapped in garbage bags

I know I'm leaving out alot more.

 

[Aedrys]

the thing that really startled me was her and her boyfriends behavior while the police were in the house examining the crime scene and looking at the girl's body. That was a bizarre as FCA's behavior. IMO. So while I have read her parents statements - I'm inclined to believe she is guilty.

The behavior got me, and I swear, she is smirking in every photo I have ever seen of her. That just hits me the wrong way. Why is she smirking so dang much like she's getting away with something? I just don't like her, period. I don't think she's a thrill killer, but she obviously was not bothered by someone losing their life in a horrible way. Either she participated and doesn't care, or at least was there and saw what happened and doesn't care. Either way, she did nothing to stop what happened or did it herself, so she's guilty. All IMO. And I don't know a heck of a lot about this case. These are just my general observations.

As for Casey, she got lucky. Plain and simple. She got lucky, and I bet it never happens again for her. I hope the next time she murders someone or does something stupid the entire book is thrown at her. She'll definitely deserve it.

 

[2goldfish]

I think your last couple sentences are very, very interesting. And if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're absolutely right.

I've been thinking lately that the prosecution muddied the waters and created all kinds of reasonable doubt by focusing too much on the duct tape and chloroform. They created more reasonable doubt than the defense did.

I actually think the prosecution could have won if they'd streamlined their case a bit, and left some of it out.

to that end, had the remains never been found and they went with charges as in the original indictment, no DP on the table, chloroform and trunk evidence as it was, I wonder how that might have turned out.

 

[Murphismo]

I think your last couple sentences are very, very interesting. And if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're absolutely right.

I've been thinking lately that the prosecution muddied the waters and created all kinds of reasonable doubt by focusing too much on the duct tape and chloroform. They created more reasonable doubt than the defense did.

I actually think the prosecution could have won if they'd streamlined their case a bit, and left some of it out.

I think they may have won had they left out "cause" of death. I think most people of average intelligence would be more inclined to believe whatever happened to her happened in "bad faith" vs. "good faith accident". I've said this before, I in no way would have voted as the jury did, I do, however, believe a critical problem was trying too hard to point to a direct cause of death. There are so many murders where all we have is skeletal remains and no "cause" of death, it never really comes in. It's logical to assume a dead human being left in a field, hidden, to rot could reasonably lead us to a conclusion of homocide. I really think we would have had a different outcome had the prosecuters left the chloroform search out, and used the duct tape to indicate staging... It's easy to be a monday morning quarterback on this one. I think they put on a heck of a case and delivered it elegantly and succinctly. But..... There is a woman free, who I firmly believe, had a direct hand in the death of another human being. Accident I will NEVER buy. Intentional? I think so... Unintentional while doing something to the child she should NOT have been doing and covering it up.... I could buy that as well.......

 

[MarthaM]

to that end, had the remains never been found and they went with charges as in the original indictment, no DP on the table, chloroform and trunk evidence as it was, I wonder how that might have turned out.

Ooh... now that's interesting! I hadn't thought of that, but now that I'm sitting here looking at the circumstantial evidence I'm thinking that there just might have been a conviction if there hadn't been a body. Some of what muddied the waters (like the duct tape) wouldn't have been part of the trial. And they wouldn't have had that 'can't determine the cause of death' hanging over them, either.

 

[Murphismo]

And I have to say one thing...... I think for most of us it is hard to imagine even the most hardened killer duct taping the mouth of a victim shut and smothering them, let alone a mother. Do I think FCA is capable, I sure as heck don't WANT to..... I think if you are going to ask someone to swallow and envision that you better have proof it was put on alive, solid proof. I think it, at least for me, would be a "survival mechanism" to try and say it didnt' happen because the image/reality is just so terribly sad....

 

[logicalgirl]

SO TELL! I am still a mere student of this case and eager to hear as much as possible!!

She was necking outside with her boyfriend, giggling and at one point turning cartwheels while she waited to talk to the police...:waitasec:
all said to calm her nerves....:innocent:

 

[2goldfish]

Ooh... now that's interesting! I hadn't thought of that, but now that I'm sitting here looking at the circumstantial evidence I'm thinking that there just might have been a conviction if there hadn't been a body. Some of what muddied the waters (like the duct tape) wouldn't have been part of the trial. And they wouldn't have had that 'can't determine the cause of death' hanging over them, either.

I agree it might have been more likely to result in a conviction. because if there is no duct tape, no one has to go there mentally to believe a mother would do THAT (chloroform is arguably a much softer kill) I think that was one of the hardest things for most people - even me.

also, the jury would have not had the ghost of the DP hanging over them, from the time of selection I didnt feel they jury was death qualified - I think that had a huge effect as well.

 

[logicalgirl]

And I have to say one thing...... I think for most of us it is hard to imagine even the most hardened killer duct taping the mouth of a victim shut and smothering them, let alone a mother. Do I think FCA is capable, I sure as heck don't WANT to..... I think if you are going to ask someone to swallow and envision that you better have proof it was put on alive, solid proof. I think it, at least for me, would be a "survival mechanism" to try and say it didnt' happen because the image/reality is just so terribly sad....

and of course no other reasonable explanation was there to suggest any other use or reason for those two very "large" items to be present.....

 

[Murphismo]

She was necking outside with her boyfriend, giggling and at one point turning cartwheels while she waited to talk to the police...:waitasec:
all said to calm her nerves....:innocent:

Her family said it was Yoga....:rocker:

 

[logicalgirl]

I agree it might have been more likely to result in a conviction. because if there is no duct tape, no one has to go there mentally to believe a mother would do THAT (chloroform is arguably a much softer kill) I think that was one of the hardest things for most people - even me.

also, the jury would have not had the ghost of the DP hanging over them, from the time of selection I didnt feel they jury was death qualified - I think that had a huge effect as well.

Good grief! It is common among mothers who kill their children - case histories abound....hard to also believe a mother would strap her two toddlers into their car seats and roll the car under water but...Susan Smith did. Hard to believe a mother walked out of the hospital with her disabled four month old baby and tossed him off the top of the car park garage three months ago and killed him in Orlando, but she did. Hard to believe a 26 year old mother would give birth at home to twins in the family bathroom and smother each one immediately after birth, but she did...the list goes on and on and on - what it it? More than 100 children per year killed by their mothers in the states? I think so...

 

[Murphismo]

and of course no other reasonable explanation was there to suggest any other use or reason for those two very "large" items to be present.....

I know, it's just such a cruel image..... Every ounce of my emotion fights to be blind to it......Pretend it was something else.... This case will always haunt me......

 

[Murphismo]

Good grief! It is common among mothers who kill their children - case histories abound....

Such a terrible, cruel, heart breaking truth..... Doesn't make it easy for us "normal" folks to envision it.... Not sure I'm completely normal though....

 

[logicalgirl]

I think your last couple sentences are very, very interesting. And if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're absolutely right.

I've been thinking lately that the prosecution muddied the waters and created all kinds of reasonable doubt by focusing too much on the duct tape and chloroform. They created more reasonable doubt than the defense did.

I actually think the prosecution could have won if they'd streamlined their case a bit, and left some of it out.

So a few posts ago it was too little circumstantial evidence and now there was too much? Which one was it again? :waitasec:

 

[2goldfish]

And I have to say one thing...... I think for most of us it is hard to imagine even the most hardened killer duct taping the mouth of a victim shut and smothering them, let alone a mother. Do I think FCA is capable, I sure as heck don't WANT to..... I think if you are going to ask someone to swallow and envision that you better have proof it was put on alive, solid proof. I think it, at least for me, would be a "survival mechanism" to try and say it didnt' happen because the image/reality is just so terribly sad....

all that up there is what I suspected immediately (well after I got over my shock and grief at the verdict anyways) that it had nothing to do with reasonable doubt - it was those people looking at the evidence and then looking at a (relatively) cute white woman sitting across from them and rejecting it outright. they just couldnt bring themselves to believe it so they didnt. that's why they pulled the "oh, we need cause of death" card. it wasnt because they legally had to, but because they emotionally had to.

still didnt do their job. moral of the story? white woman. deny deny deny. be acquitted.

 

[logicalgirl]

I know, it's just such a cruel image..... Every ounce of my emotion fights to be blind to it......Pretend it was something else.... This case will always haunt me......

Cindy's counting on you.....:banghead:

Sorry....:blowkiss: but therein lies the problem. It is what it is - we need to deal with the fact that mothers do terrible children to their own children sometimes.