Sidebar Discussion

[BellaVita]

Ok, so the only thing that matters is the facts, and I agree with you there.

In this case, in regards to the duct tape, the only fact is that it was found, adhered to a hair mass, in the vicinity of the skull. Everything else is speculation in regards to the duct tape. It is not a fact that the duct tape was placed on the mouth and nose area, that was speculation made by the ME, and the prosecution.
Where do you think it was placed? And if it wasn't placed there by human hands, how did it get there? Do you understand that the tape formed a sling and that is the mechanism by which the mandible was attached? How do you reconcile the testimony of the anthropologist who has examined thousands of skeketal remains and only seen this occur ONE OTHER TIME? And duct tape was present that time too. In order for a person to believe that the duct tape was not placed there by human hands, they would have to believe that an animal happened along and accomplished this feat before total decomp and separation of Caylee's face occurred. Likewise, the big tropical storm and the belief by some that the tape could have floated there. It is not reasonable to believe that a totally decomposed skull would hold together during that unless secured by the tape. Tape that was there BEFORE decomp.It is not a fact that KC placed the duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose, that was speculation by the ME and the prosecution. It is not a fact that the duct tape suffocated Caylee and caused her death, that was speculation by the ME and the prosecution.Do you think someone besides KC placed it there? If she did place it somewhere on Caylee, where and why would it have been placed on her at all? Only nefarious, abusive actions by an adult would cause that tape to be there. Whether it was actually the tape that killed her or something else-like chloroform- does not matter. PT does not have to prove a cause of death. There is no benevolent, benign, reasonable explanation that I have heard presented by anyone. The presence of the tape makes the chloroform evidence irrelevant because the duct tape alone would have killed her. I have heard some speculate that the tape was there to hold in fluids after her death by drowning. Really? What person does that? It's not reasonable thinking. What I would call an imaginary or forced doubt with zero fact to support it.

It is not a fact that KC placed first one, then two, then three strips of duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose, thus premeditating the murder of Caylee, that was speculation by JA.
All the speculation by the ME and the prosecution is irrelevant because it is not fact. Correct?Again, please see above. What is the reasonable explanation for three pieces of tape being "in the vicinity" and holding Caylee's skull together? Did someone other than KC put it there and if so, who? JA did not speculate that three strips of tape were placed over Caylee's airways. It was a well-reasoned conclusion based on fact and intelligent deduction. He only hoped that the chloroform knocked her out before she felt the terror of being duct-taped and unable to breathe. According to your perspective, every single thing is irrelevant unless there is video to prove it. Even then, there would be debate as proven by the video of KC in jail that was just released.

Since we both agree that opinions and inferences and speculation are not fact, and thus irrelevant, then the only fact that can be considered by the jury is that the duct tape was adhered to a hair mass in the vicinity of the skull. Inferences and speculation are not at all the same. As defined by Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary, infer means this: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises. From the same dictionary a definition of inference: the act or process of inferring; specifically : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow logically from that of the former.

How the same dictionary defines speculate: to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence
NOTE: A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has been presented in reaching its verdict.

Whether one believes the conclusion reached by JA is certainly an individual matter, but it can certainly be said that there are many, many threads that make up the fabric of his conclusion. Threads that lead to a logical conclusion, IMO. On the other hand, when it comes to discounting the duct tape evidence, I have not heard any rebuttals based on facts which follow to a logical conclusion for what else may have happened there. Just very non-specific stuff or the animals or the water brought the tape to Caylee. Was there any evidence or facts presented at trial that would support those ideas? To support an alternative reason as to why her skull was still intact? Because without such evidence, it is complete speculation and not allowed to be considered. They also theorized without sufficient evidence that Caylee may have drowned. Yes, the A's have a pool. So what? The DT could have shown a picture of Caylee next to a pill bottle or cleaning products and said she was poisoned. But there would be nothing to infer from that. It would only be a snapshot of a point in time and part of Jose Baez' non-evidentiary opening and closing statements.

I know, I know, you have to look at all the evidence, the totality of evidence, the preponderance of evidence, the entire mountain of circumstantial evidence.
But, you cannot count speculation, inferences, and opinions in this mountain of evidence. So when you throw out all the speculation, and look at only the hard core, simple facts, the mountain of evidence has shrunk considerably.That's right. Speculation cannot be considered. But the juror instructions specifically state that "you should use your common sense" which is defined as sound, practical judgement. Using common sense allows a person to make inferences using deductive and inductive reasoning. It has a basis in logic. This process eventually leads to a conclusion or opinion that is based on way more than mere speculation. And you do have to look at the totality of the evidence. By seeing how all the pieces fit into the big picture, it will result in reasoning that is more sound than facts looked at in isolation. Just as a doctor should evaluate many facets of a patient's health and symptoms before diagnosis.

The one fact that is indisputable, and most likely at this point irreversible, is that the verdict on counts 1 thru 3 was not guilty. The jurors unanimously agreed. I can speculate that the jurors believed that the state did not present enough facts to prove KC's guilt BARD on those first 3 counts, that is not a fact though simply my opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Bolded by me. My responses in green. All MOO.
.....

 

[BellaVita]

That amazing mandible, somehow managed to stay in an anatomically correct position, even after the remains had completely skeletonized, and the tape was only adhering to a hair mat (and at that point could not possibly have been holding the mandible in place), and then managed to stay in an anatomically correct position when the skull that was allegedly in a bag or three somehow found its way to the ground, and additionally stayed in anatomically correct position despite the animal activity (that scattered many bones but amazingly left the mandible alone in its anatomically correct position), not to mention, the fact that Tropical storm Faye flooded area A yet left the mandible in its anatomically correct position. It really is amazing that the mandible remained in its anatomically correct position.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Your own description of what Caylee's skull went through while still remaining intact only bolsters the testimony of the anthropologist. The tape acted as a sling. That's why the skull was intact. As Caylee's flesh melted away, the tape became slack, drooping downward and holding her skull together. So, did Roy Kronk put it back together or did someone at the ME's office put it together? Dr. Spitz certainly had a difficult time demonstrating how that would be done.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Bolded by me. My responses in green. All MOO.
.....

Excellent post.

Inferences and speculation are not at all the same. As defined by Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary, infer means this: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises. From the same dictionary a definition of inference: the act or process of inferring; specifically : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow logically from that of the former.

How the same dictionary defines speculate: to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence
NOTE: A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has been presented in reaching its verdict.

The ME made several inferences in forming her opinion that the manner of death was homicide. She also used some speculation. Dr. Spitz used several inferences in forming his opinions and some speculation, which in some cases did not mirror Dr. G's. Both were experts, both cannot be right on all points since they disagreed, so, the jury decides which testimony to consider, and which not to consider.

The dramatic scene described by JA, of KC placing one, two then three pieces of duct tape on Caylee's face was pure speculation.

The proven fact that Caylee's remains had been manipulated, first by animal activity, then by a tropical storm, and then by RK, makes area A a huge challenge for the prosecution, and a gold mine of reasonable doubt for the DT. Some inferences could be drawn from area A, however, the majority of input from area A was speculative, and the jury is not allowed to speculate. This is where the prosecution failed, and raised many questions to the jury, that were left unanswered, and could not have been answered through weeks of reviewing the evidence. The jury was unable to connect the dots because the dots could not be connected without speculation by the jury.

The saddest fact in this whole case, is that this case was not about justice for Caylee, it was about winning by any legal means possible for both the PT and the DT. It was about money, great soundbytes for the media, a money generating circus like atmosphere in Orlando during the trial, and the aftermath of books, interviews, and most likely movies.

While we wanted the truth to be found, the PT and the DT could care less about the truth, they wanted to win. The media could care less about the truth, they wanted controversy, mystery, and as much turmoil as they could generate to SELL SELL SELL.

Even if this case had not become a media sensation, the trial would not have been about finding the truth, it would have been about winning. The verdict may have been different because the DT would not have been able to draw information as quickly and easily from the social media, so it is possible their strategy may have been different. We will never know what the verdict would have been had this not become a media circus.

The debates over the evidence that we are still having are interesting. It is doubtful these debates will change anyone's mind, one way or the other, but still interesting nonetheless.

The verdict is what it is, and no amount of debate can change that. The use of semantics, legal mumbo jumbo, justification, inference, opinion, speculation, $64,000 words, circular arguments, interpretation, and basically fancy schmancy rigamaro, serves great purpose in fueling the debates, but we believe we arrived at our opinions using logic, research, and common sense, regardless of what the opposing side believes. In its simplest form, we could stand in the schoolyard and say I'm right and you're wrong, so there, and still arrive at the same destination our debates have taken us so far.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Aedrys]

Ok, so the only thing that matters is the facts, and I agree with you there.

In this case, in regards to the duct tape, the only fact is that it was found, adhered to a hair mass, in the vicinity of the skull. Everything else is speculation in regards to the duct tape. It is not a fact that the duct tape was placed on the mouth and nose area, that was speculation made by the ME, and the prosecution. It is not a fact that KC placed the duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose, that was speculation by the ME and the prosecution. It is not a fact that the duct tape suffocated Caylee and caused her death, that was speculation by the ME and the prosecution. It is not a fact that KC placed first one, then two, then three strips of duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose, thus premeditating the murder of Caylee, that was speculation by JA.

All the speculation by the ME and the prosecution is irrelevant because it is not fact. Correct?

Since we both agree that opinions and inferences and speculation are not fact, and thus irrelevant, then the only fact that can be considered by the jury is that the duct tape was adhered to a hair mass in the vicinity of the skull.

I know, I know, you have to look at all the evidence, the totality of evidence, the preponderance of evidence, the entire mountain of circumstantial evidence.
But, you cannot count speculation, inferences, and opinions in this mountain of evidence. So when you throw out all the speculation, and look at only the hard core, simple facts, the mountain of evidence has shrunk considerably.

The one fact that is indisputable, and most likely at this point irreversible, is that the verdict on counts 1 thru 3 was not guilty. The jurors unanimously agreed. I can speculate that the jurors believed that the state did not present enough facts to prove KC's guilt BARD on those first 3 counts, that is not a fact though simply my opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I would not play down what the ME said as just mere speculation. ME's go through medical school for years, and then have years of experience with dead bodies after the fact. I give ME's respect for their opinion because I don't have those years upon years of experience. I am not expert, and I don't think any of us have ever been ME's. Our opinion does not count over an ME's opinion. This is the problem. Saying that everything except what a person agrees with is just mere speculation is throwing out time tested, experience expert opinion like it's the same opinion of the average layperson. That is not fair at all. We might as well throw out Spitz's opinion too, the defense's opinion. After all, they're no better than us, and it's just mere speculation, right? How dare we act like we are more of an expert than the experts!

We can speculate off of the expert opinion of others, but to put their opinion on our level takes away from what they said. Ignoring scientific, expert opinion is not the way to settle this issue. Instead, we should respect it and put it where it belongs. All the scientific evidence (and honestly, I'm taking the word of people who actually saw the skull over the defense's experts who only saw pictures, which is the fault of the defense who only wanted paid mouthpieces and not any real expertise based on seeing the actual skull on their side) points to the duct tape holding the mandible in place. It was attached to the hair, which was attached to the skull and acted a sling. If not, the mandible would not have been there, PERIOD.

Just because some people choose to ignore scientific expert opinion doesn't make them right. Everyone has the right to their opinion. No one has the right to be right just because of their opinion. There is no automatic righteousness here. There is research, expert opinion, and science to back up the holding of the mandible of to the skull by the duct tape. There is no such evidence to suggest otherwise, no definitive proof that there is any other way that the mandible would still be where it was without the duct tape. That, the floating down the stream, etc, IS speculation because of none of it has yet to be proven.

I'm going with science, expert opinion, and reality as to the duct tape. I am not indulging in fantasy and unproven speculation. It was on her skull via the hair and kept the mandible in place. Until an expert can prove otherwise that something else is possible, it is the only explanation proven by science and experts. That's where I stand.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Excellent post.

Inferences and speculation are not at all the same. As defined by Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary, infer means this: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises. From the same dictionary a definition of inference: the act or process of inferring; specifically : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow logically from that of the former.

How the same dictionary defines speculate: to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence
NOTE: A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has been presented in reaching its verdict.

Excellent, thank you for pointing this out, I figured there was a subtle difference in their meanings and they weren't interchangeable. Too lazy to go look it up :crazy: so thanks again.

The ME made several inferences in forming her opinion that the manner of death was homicide. She also used some speculation. Dr. Spitz used several inferences in forming his opinions and some speculation, which in some cases did not mirror Dr. G's. Both were experts, both cannot be right on all points since they disagreed, so, the jury decides which testimony to consider, and which not to consider.

Yep. The jury (this and any other) were charged with passing from one premise which was considered TRUE to another who's truth is believed to logically follow.

Is it speculation or inference when Dr G stated to the court (I'm paraphrasing): "There is no other reason, besides homicide, for a child to be found hidden and bagged in a swamp with duct tape around/near the face".

I am going to vote inference. Based upon Dr G's education and extensive experience determining the cause of death, I expect her to hone in and snuggle right up next to the truth as clearly as she can come. She used statistical probability to reinforce her conclusion.

Where I see folks go sideways is they get lost between "something DID happen" and "anything COULD happen". We're talking about an act that resulted in a death, so, something DID happen, and a ME with years of experience and a reputation to uphold is going to conclude carefully.

Therefore, I trust Dr G's conclusion over anything that *I* could come up with myself. Heck, I could come up with pages of what COULD have happened. The reality is, the probability of a very FEW explanations happening versus all that COULD happen ought to give weight to just a few explanations.

Caylee died while in the care of her mother who then concealed her body and lied about what happened. Not even the defense denied that.

The dramatic scene described by JA, of KC placing one, two then three pieces of duct tape on Caylee's face was pure speculation.

No it wasn't, based upon the forensic findings of the duct tape in relation to the skull, the mandible still in place, and the breathing orifices that happened to be RIGHT THERE, on the corpse of a child hidden and lied about in a swamp. Regarding the definition of "speculation" given above, the logical connection between tape, orifices and dead child are good, solid inferences.

The proven fact that Caylee's remains had been manipulated, first by animal activity, then by a tropical storm, and then by RK, makes area A a huge challenge for the prosecution, and a gold mine of reasonable doubt for the DT. Some inferences could be drawn from area A, however, the majority of input from area A was speculative, and the jury is not allowed to speculate. This is where the prosecution failed, and raised many questions to the jury, that were left unanswered, and could not have been answered through weeks of reviewing the evidence. The jury was unable to connect the dots because the dots could not be connected without speculation by the jury.

The more I read of your post, the more clearly I see the jury's dilemma. They did not differentiate between inference and speculation. In fact, they REFUSED to. They refused to take the risk.

The saddest fact in this whole case, is that this case was not about justice for Caylee, it was about winning by any legal means possible for both the PT and the DT. It was about money, great soundbytes for the media, a money generating circus like atmosphere in Orlando during the trial, and the aftermath of books, interviews, and most likely movies.

While we wanted the truth to be found, the PT and the DT could care less about the truth, they wanted to win. The media could care less about the truth, they wanted controversy, mystery, and as much turmoil as they could generate to SELL SELL SELL.

Even if this case had not become a media sensation, the trial would not have been about finding the truth, it would have been about winning. The verdict may have been different because the DT would not have been able to draw information as quickly and easily from the social media, so it is possible their strategy may have been different. We will never know what the verdict would have been had this not become a media circus.

With all due respect, the previous three paragraphs in your post are fantastic examples of speculation

The debates over the evidence that we are still having are interesting. It is doubtful these debates will change anyone's mind, one way or the other, but still interesting nonetheless.

The verdict is what it is, and no amount of debate can change that. The use of semantics, legal mumbo jumbo, justification, inference, opinion, speculation, $64,000 words, circular arguments, interpretation, and basically fancy schmancy rigamaro, serves great purpose in fueling the debates, but we believe we arrived at our opinions using logic, research, and common sense, regardless of what the opposing side believes. In its simplest form, we could stand in the schoolyard and say I'm right and you're wrong, so there, and still arrive at the same destination our debates have taken us so far.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I look at what we are all doing here as debating, like the old Speech and Debate class in high school. In particular, I do not agree that a NG verdict on any of the counts 1 - 3 was reached by anything resembling logic or reason.

 

[PeteyGirl]

The picture painted by Chief Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Gary Utz is more than enough for me.



"The tape could have floated from the taped bag into that position"?

The same exceedingly rare brand of discontinued duct tape used on the gas can AND the missing posters at the tent FLOATED into that position?

Wow! Talk about AMAZING........

This is a great example of the "ANYTHING could have happened to Caylee" idea. In my mind, it rides pretty close to BIZARRE, a willful blindness on the part of the jury, a REFUSAL, on their part, to accept the obvious.

Many pro-verdict folks here have insisted "It wasn't obvious to ME."

Fine, but that does not mean it was not obvious. I sense an overly subjective, self-referential sort of "refusal" in these statements. A kind of denial of reality outside a person's own perception of it.

If it is not obvious to ME, therefore, it is not obvious.

Our subjective impressions are always limited by this or that . . . mood, anxiety, belief systems that deny the existence of, education (flat earth kind of stuff). The great challenge for any serious "thinker" is to allow objective information to impact your personal views.

This jury (and all juries) are charged with the responsibility to get their own personal crap out of the way, to weigh and judge evidence without contaminating it with subjective, personal agendas.

This is why I still want to bark out laughter when I hear or read that the evidence provided by the prosecution was "weak" or insufficient.

What personal agenda clouds the vision, here?

 

[vlpate]

Ok, so the only thing that matters is the facts, and I agree with you there.

In this case, in regards to the duct tape, the only fact is that it was found, adhered to a hair mass, in the vicinity of the skull. Everything else is speculation in regards to the duct tape. It is not a fact that the duct tape was placed on the mouth and nose area, that was speculation made by the ME, and the prosecution. It is not a fact that KC placed the duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose, that was speculation by the ME and the prosecution. It is not a fact that the duct tape suffocated Caylee and caused her death, that was speculation by the ME and the prosecution. It is not a fact that KC placed first one, then two, then three strips of duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose, thus premeditating the murder of Caylee, that was speculation by JA.

All the speculation by the ME and the prosecution is irrelevant because it is not fact. Correct?

Since we both agree that opinions and inferences and speculation are not fact, and thus irrelevant, then the only fact that can be considered by the jury is that the duct tape was adhered to a hair mass in the vicinity of the skull.

I know, I know, you have to look at all the evidence, the totality of evidence, the preponderance of evidence, the entire mountain of circumstantial evidence.
But, you cannot count speculation, inferences, and opinions in this mountain of evidence. So when you throw out all the speculation, and look at only the hard core, simple facts, the mountain of evidence has shrunk considerably.

The one fact that is indisputable, and most likely at this point irreversible, is that the verdict on counts 1 thru 3 was not guilty. The jurors unanimously agreed. I can speculate that the jurors believed that the state did not present enough facts to prove KC's guilt BARD on those first 3 counts, that is not a fact though simply my opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

When it comes to the ME, I would characterize her statements as educated opinions. It's what she is paid to do. Most trials don't have the luxury of undeniable facts, or there would be no need for a trial.

Caylee was found dead in a swamp, her mother never told anyone she was dead or missing, never. The fact that she was dead was "speculation" by your definition, but enough to charge KCA with murder. When Caylee was found triple bagged with her mandible in tact and duct tape in her hair, we all speculated she was murdered - was it a fact? She didn't stuff herself into those bags and grit her teeth for six months...so...common sense tells me it was not an accident.

If juries are now looking for video footage of homicides in order to vote "guilty", there are a lot of Casey Anthony verdicts in our future.

 

[LinTX]

In this case, in regards to the duct tape, the only fact is that it was found, adhered to a hair mass, in the vicinity of the skull. Everything else is speculation in regards to the duct tape. It is not a fact that the duct tape was placed on the mouth and nose area, that was speculation made by the ME, and the prosecution. <snip> All the speculation by the ME and the prosecution is irrelevant because it is not fact. Correct?

It is fact that they testified under oath to what they witnessed, and there were pictures that made the 'audience' in the courtroom gasp. There were three pieces not "in the vicinity" of the skull, but instead lying across it and attached to the hair. Those three pcs. matched the size of her nose/mouth area and even retained the curve of her lower jaw, IIRC. Those are facts.

The skull, unlike the other bones, was found inside the garbage bag, btw, so for this pc. of duct tape not to have not been placed there purposely, it would have to have been the exact shape and size to match her nose/mouth area, somehow find it's way into the garbage bag, land across her face and somehow attach itself to the wet hair mass. And be the exact brand tape found in the Anthony home. That goes way beyond speculation, IMO...Do you believe all these experts (many with children of their own) lied about what they saw and manipulated the pictures? If so, was that just so they could pin this on FCA and let the real killer lose on society?

From Yuri Melich:

There was a piece of silver duct tape over the mouth area of the skull. The skull, bag, and loose bones were collected and taken to the Orange County Medical Examiner's office for further examination. Orange County Sheriff's Office Crime Scene Investigators along the with FBI Evidence Response Team began processing the crime scene.

Once at the medical examiners office, Dr. Utz (Deputy Chief Medical Examiner), Dr. Schultz (UCF forensic anthropologist/consultant to the medical examiners office), Karen Cowan (FBI Evidence Response Team), and I better examined what was collected. When Dr. Utz went to remove the duct tape, he noticed that the tape was attached on both ends to the child's hair. The hair had to be cut in order for the duct tape to be removed.

 

[vlpate]

I think it is ironic that people who think that Caylee drowned and that the duct tape was not on her face also feel it's possible because it was GA's duct tape that maybe he did it. jmo

The fact that the duct tape was still in the house and being used to put up posters tells me that GA was not involved. He would have gotten rid of the roll and the trash bags. I think Casey knew she was going to blame GA and left those things to be found. Maybe even leaving the car where she did was part of the plan - knowing GA would probably pick the car up, fingerprints on the steering wheel, the trunk, etc.,. Casey is conniving....but like most sociopaths, she doesn't think things through.

 

[Concerned Papa]

When Dr. Utz went to remove the duct tape, he noticed that the tape was attached on both ends to the child's hair. The hair had to be cut in order for the duct tape to be removed.

I don't care if the earth's flat or round and every Eskimo in Arizona thinks it's hot, THEY HAD TO CUT THIS BABY'S HAIR TO GET BOTH ENDS OF THE TAPE REMOVED!

That's not opinion, that's FACT!

 

[Tink]

Every time I read about the duct tape it just makes me physically ill. It is just unbearable to think of this poor baby's death.

If the duct tape had "floated" onto Caylee's face, it would have been wet. Her hair would have been wet. The tape would not have stuck to her hair so securely that it had to be cut off to separate it. (Just try sticking wet duct tape to a wet surface and you'll see.)

Tink

 

[RANCH]

The fact that the duct tape was still in the house and being used to put up posters tells me that GA was not involved. He would have gotten rid of the roll and the trash bags. I think Casey knew she was going to blame GA and left those things to be found. Maybe even leaving the car where she did was part of the plan - knowing GA would probably pick the car up, fingerprints on the steering wheel, the trunk, etc.,. Casey is conniving....but like most sociopaths, she doesn't think things through.

You could very well be right. But in my opinion KC isn't smart enough to try to frame someone else. If she was, she would have done a better job of pointing to someone who didn't have access to items from her own house. You know,draw attention away from yourself. She did a feeble attempt with the nanny story, but that didn't work too well did it. Using unique tape and laundry bags from your own home doesn't do a very good job of deflecting attention away from yourself. If there was evidence pointing to another family member who had equal access to these items, than maybe so. I didn't see that however. IMO.

 

[NocturnalLady]

We do actually know that stuff - and the experts touched on it in their testimonies - there was just no other explanation for it. And when we eliminate the impossible, the probable is likely the truth.

I realize they presented some studies I just question the relevance of those studies. They were not conducted under conditions similar enough to be relevant in my opinion. And regardless of anything else, they should have presented studies where they mixed all the elements present in the car with the cleaning agents admitted to have been used by her parents. Not doing so left the door open for reasonable doubt for the jury. They could easily imagine that the chloroform levels were a result of the mixture of cleaning agents.

I know that Dr Vass presented his evidence regarding the chloroform & his "sniffer machine". I just think that the science there doesn't have enough of a body of work to compare to that would make me believe 100% in it's accuracy. I think that it probably IS accurate but that "probably" would not be enough for me to convict on that evidence alone. Especially when the levels were not able to be quantified.

We have absolutely zero direct evidence of Casey buying, making or handling chloroform. All we have is Dr Vass and his machine. Like I said I do think that the "sniffer machine" is a valid tool and will be a valuable aid in future investigations. I just think that the science in it's present state is too incomplete to have been such a major part of the states case. I think relying so heavily on a new science is just asking for problems with juries.

I just think the duct tape was a much much more solid piece of evidence. I'll bet the state could have presented plenty of cases where duct tape was used to murder small children. The duct tape was proven to have come from Casey's own home, was a rare brand and was found in situ over Caylee's little mouth and nose. Casey could be easily directly connected with that evidence - not so with the chloroform.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Actually no, smothering is not the way most mothers kill their children. Statistically mothers who kill their children do so in water.


http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/1578

I've found different studies and statistics that support my previous statement.

"Most homicides of young children are committed by family members through beatings or suffocation. Although victims include approximately equal numbers of boys and girls, offenders include a disproportionate number of women. Homicides of young children may be seriously undercounted."

"Researchers also have highlighted differences between young, unmarried females who commit infanticide (often by suffocation or strangulation) and older, married females who beat children to death in child maltreatment homicides (Silverman and Kennedy, 1988)."

BBM

These quotes above are from a US Department of Justice study from 2001. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187239.pdf

 

[RANCH]

I realize they presented some studies I just question the relevance of those studies. They were not conducted under conditions similar enough to be relevant in my opinion. And regardless of anything else, they should have presented studies where they mixed all the elements present in the car with the cleaning agents admitted to have been used by her parents. Not doing so left the door open for reasonable doubt for the jury. They could easily imagine that the chloroform levels were a result of the mixture of cleaning agents.

I know that Dr Vass presented his evidence regarding the chloroform & his "sniffer machine". I just think that the science there doesn't have enough of a body of work to compare to that would make me believe 100% in it's accuracy. I think that it probably IS accurate but that "probably" would not be enough for me to convict on that evidence alone. Especially when the levels were not able to be quantified.

We have absolutely zero direct evidence of Casey buying, making or handling chloroform. All we have is Dr Vass and his machine. Like I said I do think that the "sniffer machine" is a valid tool and will be a valuable aid in future investigations. I just think that the science in it's present state is too incomplete to have been such a major part of the states case. I think relying so heavily on a new science is just asking for problems with juries.

I just think the duct tape was a much much more solid piece of evidence. I'll bet the state could have presented plenty of cases where duct tape was used to murder small children. The duct tape was proven to have come from Casey's own home, was a rare brand and was found in situ over Caylee's little mouth and nose. Casey could be easily directly connected with that evidence - not so with the chloroform.

I'm sorry, but Dr Vass did not use his "sniffer machine" in this case. He used a GC-MS machine. A Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer. This machine is considered as the "gold standard" for forensic substance identification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography–mass_spectrometry#Instrumentation

 

[rossva]

But both ends of the tape could have been attached to the same piece of hair. The tape could have been folded in half, with the hair in the middle. I have seen no reports that the hairs that had to be cut were on opposite sides of her face or head.

I don't care if the earth's flat or round and every Eskimo in Arizona thinks it's hot, THEY HAD TO CUT THIS BABY'S HAIR TO GET BOTH ENDS OF THE TAPE REMOVED!

That's not opinion, that's FACT!

 

[rossva]

But what would happen when the wet duct tape and the wet hair dried? The "stickiness" of the duct tape would have still been there, and could have adhered to the hair as it dried.

Every time I read about the duct tape it just makes me physically ill. It is just unbearable to think of this poor baby's death.

If the duct tape had "floated" onto Caylee's face, it would have been wet. Her hair would have been wet. The tape would not have stuck to her hair so securely that it had to be cut off to separate it. (Just try sticking wet duct tape to a wet surface and you'll see.)

Tink

 

[PeteyGirl]

I realize they presented some studies I just question the relevance of those studies. They were not conducted under conditions similar enough to be relevant in my opinion. And regardless of anything else, they should have presented studies where they mixed all the elements present in the car with the cleaning agents admitted to have been used by her parents. Not doing so left the door open for reasonable doubt for the jury. They could easily imagine that the chloroform levels were a result of the mixture of cleaning agents.

I know that Dr Vass presented his evidence regarding the chloroform & his "sniffer machine". I just think that the science there doesn't have enough of a body of work to compare to that would make me believe 100% in it's accuracy. I think that it probably IS accurate but that "probably" would not be enough for me to convict on that evidence alone. Especially when the levels were not able to be quantified.

We have absolutely zero direct evidence of Casey buying, making or handling chloroform. All we have is Dr Vass and his machine. Like I said I do think that the "sniffer machine" is a valid tool and will be a valuable aid in future investigations. I just think that the science in it's present state is too incomplete to have been such a major part of the states case. I think relying so heavily on a new science is just asking for problems with juries.

I just think the duct tape was a much much more solid piece of evidence. I'll bet the state could have presented plenty of cases where duct tape was used to murder small children. The duct tape was proven to have come from Casey's own home, was a rare brand and was found in situ over Caylee's little mouth and nose. Casey could be easily directly connected with that evidence - not so with the chloroform.

I personally wasn't deeply impressed with the chloroform evidence, in terms of it having been used on Caylee. I had to admit, though, that if this evidence made it through a Frye hearing, people much more competent than I thought that it was worthy in a court of law.

So I'm with you. Me, personally, little ole me, was not impressed. So what? What does my inability to see the connection have to do with the price of rice in China (as my dear old grandpa used to say)? The amount of chloroform present in that car, all circumstances considered, was ABNORMAL. This abnormality was sanctioned as court-worthy in a Frye hearing.

And like Ranch said, there was no "machine", just the time tested bulwark of proof, the Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer. It knows more than I do, so unless I want to descend into my belly-button for Life's Truth, I'll believe the GCMS .

I guess I just don't give myself, and what I know of such things, enough credit to DISCREDIT the tests and studies and conclusions made by the expert witnesses in this case. I venture most of us here haven't the slightest idea how these tests even work, what the tests reveal, and how to get conclusions from that. Hark back to the joke we had for a while "I am not a chemist!" :crazy:

I'm a layperson going "Hmmmmm . . . ?!"

I still have every right in the world to say "I'm not a chemist, I only have a layperson's understanding of how these tests work, and what tests were even needed to come up with their conclusion, what evidence is court-of-law-worthy, BUT I still think a shoddy job was done."

You just might be asked why, and so far, I haven't seen any good "why's" other than some personal convictions/conclusions drawn from opinion. Opinion is pretty specious when it comes to GCMS, an autopsy report, and the inferences made by expert witnesses.

 

[PeteyGirl]

But both ends of the tape could have been attached to the same piece of hair. The tape could have been folded in half, with the hair in the middle. I have seen no reports that the hairs that had to be cut were on opposite sides of her face or head.

But WERE both ends of the tape attached to the same piece of hair? "Could have" is irrelevant, because they either WERE or WEREN'T.

I am a doofus about using the search function for Dr Utz autopsy report, can anyone link to it?

The autopsy photograph of the skull would put this "what if" to rest in a jiffy.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I'm sorry, but Dr Vass did not use his "sniffer machine" in this case. He used a GC-MS machine. A Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer. This machine is considered as the "gold standard" for forensic substance identification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography–mass_spectrometry#Instrumentation

Yeah I remember. I'm just not communicating well tonight! Too tired and garbling my meaning I think.

Agree 100% about the GC-MS. I have no doubt that if the GC-MS said chloroform was there then it was there. However, if I am remembering right, what it couldn't tell us was how much chloroform was there. Only that it was a large quantity relative to the other gases that were there as well. And also there was subjective evidence (based on years of experience) that a peak that large meant that the amount of chloroform was very large. But there was no way to tell (or at least nothing that was presented) that there were say 900 parts per million or something like that.

There was also (IMHO) a lack of directly correlating studies to show that the chloroform could ONLY have come from chloroform itself being introduced into the trunk of the car. There was evidence presented that highly suggested that the chloroform could not have been explained ONLY by the presence of a decomposing body. However, due to the lack of a quantified amount of chloroform that was present in the trunk it left the door open for reasonable doubt on that subject. If I remember right there were no studies (for example) that dealt directly with decompositional events of a child's remains. In addition there were no studies performed that disproved the theory of cleaning agents causing that chloroform spike (mixing with decomp, heat, time, lack of air, that particular type of carpet etc.).

I'm not saying I 100% don't believe in the chloroform theory. I just think it was not the best evidence for the state to lay it's groundwork on. It just was not as clear cut, direct, easily linkable to Casey etc. as the duct tape. The chloroform was never concretely proven - intriguingly suggested yes, absolutely irrefutable? Not as presented to this jury.

Then the "sniffer machine" was brought in. And by then the jury was totally confused IMHO.