Sidebar Discussion

[RANCH]

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.

Is this what your looking for? Check this link.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/reports/autopsyreport.pdf

 

[logicalgirl]

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

You must have missed all of my post shower duct tape experiments :crazy:- try sticking duct tape to a wet skin - doesn't work either...that's why the post death or swimming pool accidentally drowning scenarios don't work.

 

[LambChop]

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.

Caylee's body was triple bagged. What are the chances of what you're proposing happening, one in a billion. Whereas duct tape from the A's garage ends up on Caylee's face, she's triple bagged from items from the home and wrapped in her own baby blanket. What are the chances of this happening? Well, it did happen. Even Dr. Spitz admitted the tape was there, that someone put the skull back together and placed the tape there. But then, too, Dr. Spitz admitted to JA that he had not seen ALL the pictures from the crime scene and was just speculating and had no proof that happened. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

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

Yes, in mine also - two hundred child deaths per year in the the US by mother's killing their children and the overwhelming majority of them used their hands...my link is back a few pages...

 

[RANCH]

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.

I never gave the chloroform evidence as much weight as all the other circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution. That said, I never found out for sure how and why it got in the trunk. Nobody was able to say it came from cleaning products. So again, how did it get there?

 

[logicalgirl]

It's not speculation when you use scientific facts and measurements to figure exactly where that tape was when there was tissue on Caylee's face. The tape was adhered to the hair in the proximity of where the tape would have been placed on her face. The size of three pieces of tape one on top of the other does not leave much doubt as to where that duct tape was placed.

Dr. G. is not using speculation as much as she is using measurements and calculations to determine where that tape was. As an ME she would have done that. To say she did not is speculation. jmo

And to add, the face of a 2.5 year old little girl is pretty small - I imagine three pieces of duct tape laid vertically one just above the other would cover that little face completely - so why argue about it?

 

[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.

Thanks Ranch :seeya:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/reports/autopsyreport.pdf

C. Several overlapping pieces of duct tape, over the anterior portion of
the lower skull, including mandible and a portion of the maxilla
1. Duct tape still attached to scalp hairs
2. Mandible still in approximate anatomic position with no
visible attached soft tissue beneath the duct tape

My bolds and font bigging, of course.

"Over" is the operant word, here.

Rossva, what you describe in your post is "Beside" the skull. The autopsy report tells the story and there isn't really and "what if's" about it.

 

[LinasK]

I never gave the chloroform evidence as much weight as all the other circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution. That said, I never found out for sure how and why it got in the trunk. Nobody was able to say it came from cleaning products. So again, how did it get there?

From Casey Chloroforming little Caylee before she duct taped her for good, to make sure she was dead!!! I will always believe this is what happened.

 

[okiedokietoo]

The Chloroform was a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against fca

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/06/casey-anthony-how-did-expert-do-with-chloroform-testimony.html
posted by halboedeker on June, 6 2011 6:40 PM
Casey Anthony: How did expert do with chloroform testimony?

WKMG-Channel 6’s Tony Pipitone said the most important topic was the chloroform in the trunk, which stunned Vass. “The chloroform was shockingly high, unusually high,” Vass testified. “We had never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples … in 20 years.”

Judge O.H. Eaton Jr., WESH’s legal consultant, said that Vass “established an extremely high level of chloroform” that is much higher than the normal decomposition of a human body.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/06/ddhln.01.html
Week Three of Casey Anthony Murder Trial-Aired June 6, 2011 - 21:00 ET

JEFF ASHTON, PROSECUTOR: Did the amount of chloroform that you found in the chromatogram surprise you?
VASS: We were shocked.
ASHTON: Why?
VASS: We have never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples before. At least I never have in 20 years of shooting these types of samples. The concentration in that sample was in the parts per million range.
ASHTON: And I believe you said that what you have seen in decomposition was parts per trillion?
VASS: Trillion, correct.
ASHTON: So it`s million, billion, trillion --

 

[RANCH]

You must have missed all of my post shower duct tape experiments :crazy:- try sticking duct tape to a wet skin - doesn't work either...that's why the post death or swimming pool accidentally drowning scenarios don't work.

I remember your shower experiments well. Hey, don't take that the wrong way. LOL. I found one of your posts for other members enjoyment.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6950275&postcount=137"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?[/ame]

 

[PeteyGirl]

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.

That there was ANY chloroform in the trunk of that car is compelling. That for it to still be evident in very large amounts by the time it was discovered is very compelling.

If you pour water in a bowl and leave it out in Las Vegas for a week, the water will take a couple or three days to evaporate. Chloroform is not near as stable as water in liquid form, and will "evaporate" (aerosolize) very quickly. So for a "large" amount to remain detectable, how much was present in the trunk to start off with?? That's what gets me.

Not to miss the forest for the trees, here . . . but that there was ANY chloroform in the trunk that also had evidence of a dead child is tres hinky. Like, beyond hinky.

It makes sense why the state chose chloroform as one of the "murder" weapons.

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.).

This is sort of what I mean by "missing the forest for the trees" problem many of us have had, including the jury. Maybe there was some presentation problems by the state, but an inartful presentation of such a glaring bit of evidence is hardly reason to throw it out.

Not to be blunt in particular to you, NL . . . but the presence of so much chloroform in the trunk does not NEED further "proof" of how it got in there to prove that it WAS there.

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.

<<snip>>

The chloroform WAS proven. It's presence, that is. The DT did a great kerflunkling job on the jury and the rest of us in distracting us by asking HOW it got in there and a bunch of nonsense about household cleaners and chloroform evaporating from a dead body. I agree with you, the jury had it's collective head on backward by the end of that one. I remember thinking, a few days after how clever that was of the DT.

That it was used as a murder weapon is less clear

 

[logicalgirl]

I remember your shower experiments well. Hey, don't take that the wrong way. LOL. I found one of your posts for other members enjoyment.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

LOL - at least it isn't the one where I was sitting on the edge of the bathtub, just me and the duct tape - hoping my daughter didn't walk in......:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

That there was ANY chloroform in the trunk of that car is compelling. That for it to still be evident in very large amounts by the time it was discovered is very compelling.

If you pour water in a bowl and leave it out in Las Vegas for a week, the water will take a couple or three days to evaporate. Chloroform is not near as stable as water in liquid form, and will "evaporate" (aerosolize) very quickly. So for a "large" amount to remain detectable, how much was present in the trunk to start off with?? That's what gets me.

Not to miss the forest for the trees, here . . . but that there was ANY chloroform in the trunk that also had evidence of a dead child is tres hinky. Like, beyond hinky.

It makes sense why the state chose chloroform as one of the "murder" weapons.



This is sort of what I mean by "missing the forest for the trees" problem many of us have had, including the jury. Maybe there was some presentation problems by the state, but an inartful presentation of such a glaring bit of evidence is hardly reason to throw it out.

Not to be blunt in particular to you, NL . . . but the presence of so much chloroform in the trunk does not NEED further "proof" of how it got in there to prove that it WAS there.



The chloroform WAS proven. It's presence, that is. The DT did a great kerflunkling job on the jury and the rest of us in distracting us by asking HOW it got in there and a bunch of nonsense about household cleaners and chloroform evaporating from a dead body. I agree with you, the jury had it's collective head on backward by the end of that one. I remember thinking, a few days after how clever that was of the DT.

That it was used as a murder weapon is less clear

Point taken however. Dead triple bagged child in trunk,with duct tape covering nose and mouth. Trunk has overwhelming high levels of chloroform when tested. It isn't a big stretch to believe it played some part in the murder....

 

[NocturnalLady]

Yes, in mine also - two hundred child deaths per year in the the US by mother's killing their children and the overwhelming majority of them used their hands...my link is back a few pages...

I just wish the prosecution would have gone with what I call the "common and ordinary" approach. It so much easier to prove a smothering murder with the evidence they had and all the historical data to back that up. If only they had gone out there with a "Casey killed her child the way so many other mothers before her have done, other mothers just like her - young, unmarried, white, with a child they never wanted or never "bonded" with, low educational level etc. Casey is nothing special. This murder is shocking only in that it is totally typical." I wish they had brought the whole thing back down to earth and just called it what it was...sigh.

Everything in Casey's life history proves she is nothing special, completely common and a dime a dozen. But relying too heavily on the chloroform made her look like some sort of evil genius. Harder to believe that an underachiever like Casey researched chloroform 80+ times (oh how I WISH that software had never been used!!!!), bought supplies for it leaving no trace, manufactured it leaving no trace, etc.

Also the chloroform leaves the door open for the premise that some people still believe to this day - that Caylee's death was an accident due to an overdose and Casey panicked and "made it look like a kidnapping" (as if any kidnapping ever looked like that!) to cover it up. That would mean that Casey not only successfully did all of the above with the chloroform but that she also presumably had used it on Caylee before the fatal event - again with not trace left and no one being the wiser. It aggravates me to no end that even her own father who now says he thinks "Casey is responsible for Caylee's death" uses the chloroform theory to leave an "out" for Casey being FULLY responsible for what she actually did. This was no accident with a cover up. This was pure cold blooded murder.

I personally believe the prosecution went with the chloroform so heavily because they went for the DP. They knew mother's rarely get the DP for smothering murders (I can't even think of case where that has occurred. Can anyone else?) but mother's who murder their children in more spectacularly violent ways often do receive harsher sentences. Darlie Routier comes to mind. Diane Downs also. (In fact I would argue that because these women murdered their children "man style" if you know what I mean, they got a harsher penalty because the aggression behind their actions was more obvious.)

 

[Concerned Papa]

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.

BBM

Folded in half? With the hair in the middle?

Several overlapping pieces of duct tape, over the anterior portion of the lower skull, including mandible and a portion of the maxilla

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/reports/autopsyreport.pdf

The grayish tape formed a kind of mask along the right side of the skull, covering the jaw and nasal cavity.

Once displayed on large monitors in the courtroom, this image elicited a single gasp from the gallery.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...tape-casey-anthony-trial-caylee-marie-anthony

The tape was OVER this baby's lower skull, COVERING her jaw and nasal cavity NOT folded in half with hair in the middle.

 

[RANCH]

That there was ANY chloroform in the trunk of that car is compelling. That for it to still be evident in very large amounts by the time it was discovered is very compelling.

If you pour water in a bowl and leave it out in Las Vegas for a week, the water will take a couple or three days to evaporate. Chloroform is not near as stable as water in liquid form, and will "evaporate" (aerosolize) very quickly. So for a "large" amount to remain detectable, how much was present in the trunk to start off with?? That's what gets me.

Not to miss the forest for the trees, here . . . but that there was ANY chloroform in the trunk that also had evidence of a dead child is tres hinky. Like, beyond hinky.

It makes sense why the state chose chloroform as one of the "murder" weapons.



This is sort of what I mean by "missing the forest for the trees" problem many of us have had, including the jury. Maybe there was some presentation problems by the state, but an inartful presentation of such a glaring bit of evidence is hardly reason to throw it out.

Not to be blunt in particular to you, NL . . . but the presence of so much chloroform in the trunk does not NEED further "proof" of how it got in there to prove that it WAS there.



The chloroform WAS proven. It's presence, that is. The DT did a great kerflunkling job on the jury and the rest of us in distracting us by asking HOW it got in there and a bunch of nonsense about household cleaners and chloroform evaporating from a dead body. I agree with you, the jury had it's collective head on backward by the end of that one. I remember thinking, a few days after how clever that was of the DT.

That it was used as a murder weapon is less clear

Well said PeteyGirl. Just the fact that they were able to detect any chloroform weeks after the car was left at the Amscot suggests a large initial amount was left in that trunk. Any small amounts would have evaporated long before the test were done. IMO.

 

[LinasK]

That there was ANY chloroform in the trunk of that car is compelling. That for it to still be evident in very large amounts by the time it was discovered is very compelling.

If you pour water in a bowl and leave it out in Las Vegas for a week, the water will take a couple or three days to evaporate. Chloroform is not near as stable as water in liquid form, and will "evaporate" (aerosolize) very quickly. So for a "large" amount to remain detectable, how much was present in the trunk to start off with?? That's what gets me.

Not to miss the forest for the trees, here . . . but that there was ANY chloroform in the trunk that also had evidence of a dead child is tres hinky. Like, beyond hinky.

It makes sense why the state chose chloroform as one of the "murder" weapons.



This is sort of what I mean by "missing the forest for the trees" problem many of us have had, including the jury. Maybe there was some presentation problems by the state, but an inartful presentation of such a glaring bit of evidence is hardly reason to throw it out.

Not to be blunt in particular to you, NL . . . but the presence of so much chloroform in the trunk does not NEED further "proof" of how it got in there to prove that it WAS there.



The chloroform WAS proven. It's presence, that is. The DT did a great kerflunkling job on the jury and the rest of us in distracting us by asking HOW it got in there and a bunch of nonsense about household cleaners and chloroform evaporating from a dead body. I agree with you, the jury had it's collective head on backward by the end of that one. I remember thinking, a few days after how clever that was of the DT.

That it was used as a murder weapon is less clear

What I don't get is why some posters feel it has to be one murder weapon over the other- Chloroform vs. Duct Tape?:waitasec: Why can't it be both?- her intention was to suffocate her and make sure Caylee couldn't breathe ever again. She may have Chloroformed her so that Caylee wouldn't struggle and make it easier to Casey. Yes, it's overkill, and often murderers do that- to ensure death!
She got the Chloroform idea from Ricardo, this was no accident- hence the duct tape. She wanted Caylee gone from her life- freedom to party, freedom from the responsibilities of motherhood, free to be with Tony.

 

[bayouland]

Well, I finally finished reading this thread. Very interesting. I wish I had of been around during the three years alot of you were. I am sure there were some very lively conversations I would have enjoyed.

I honestly can't believe that there are those that don't feel there was enough evidence to convict FCA but anyway.....

Here's my little simple comparison of two circumstantial cases. I admit that it is just scratching the surface, not in depth, but it really is just that simple.

Scott Peterson - Motive - wanted freedom in order to live the bachelor lifestyle. Had a girlfriend and didn't want the responsibility of fatherhood.

FCA - wanted freedom, didn't want to be tied down to motherhood. Lied and made up excuses (jobs) so her mom would babysit.

Scott Peterson - Last one to be seen with LP

FCA - Last one to be seen with Caylee

Scott Peterson - immediately signed up for a dirty movie channel and I forget what else except wining and dining his mistress who eventually ratted him out on all his lies.

FCA - moved in with TL, partied like a crazy woman.

Scott Peterson - dumped LP in the water.

FCA - dumped Caylee in a swamp.

Scott Peterson had boat launch receipts.

Caylee was found with items from home.

Both are profound liar's. (Most criminals are ya know).

Both had a sequestered jury.

It was never determined how LP died but it was homicide.

It was never determined how Caylee died but it was homicide.


Scott Peterson got the death penalty.
FCA walked.

There was plenty of evidence to convict FCA.

The difference?

Well for one, his defense team didn't pat him like he was a child and have him sit one foot lower than them at the table. He probably wasn't cued when to cry, or to seek out a juror to make eye contact with.

Another one is SP didn't roll his girlfriend or parents under the bus via his attorney.

In my little feeble mind, SP has more character than FCA and he is a lowlife slime sitting on death row.

 

[NocturnalLady]

That there was ANY chloroform in the trunk of that car is compelling. That for it to still be evident in very large amounts by the time it was discovered is very compelling.

If you pour water in a bowl and leave it out in Las Vegas for a week, the water will take a couple or three days to evaporate. Chloroform is not near as stable as water in liquid form, and will "evaporate" (aerosolize) very quickly. So for a "large" amount to remain detectable, how much was present in the trunk to start off with?? That's what gets me.

Not to miss the forest for the trees, here . . . but that there was ANY chloroform in the trunk that also had evidence of a dead child is tres hinky. Like, beyond hinky.

It makes sense why the state chose chloroform as one of the "murder" weapons.



This is sort of what I mean by "missing the forest for the trees" problem many of us have had, including the jury. Maybe there was some presentation problems by the state, but an inartful presentation of such a glaring bit of evidence is hardly reason to throw it out.

Not to be blunt in particular to you, NL . . . but the presence of so much chloroform in the trunk does not NEED further "proof" of how it got in there to prove that it WAS there.



The chloroform WAS proven. It's presence, that is. The DT did a great kerflunkling job on the jury and the rest of us in distracting us by asking HOW it got in there and a bunch of nonsense about household cleaners and chloroform evaporating from a dead body. I agree with you, the jury had it's collective head on backward by the end of that one. I remember thinking, a few days after how clever that was of the DT.

That it was used as a murder weapon is less clear

Oh I agree 100% that it was proven that the chloroform was there. And that it was proven that it was there in a large amount. And that it is very hinky.

I just don't think it was proven how it got there. With science in a court room - especially newer science like air testing that most people are not familiar with - I think you have to be extra careful to cross all the T's and dot all the I's. So there should have been studies refuting what the DT said was a possible source of the chloroform. Add to that the fact that there was no evidence linking Casey directly to the chloroform and you end up with a problem for the jury.

I think its a well known phenomenon that juries expect science type evidence to be all CSI - magically irrefutable. But at the same time they are easily confused by scientific evidence. I would also argue that they can easily get bored listening to scientists "lecture" them and stop listening. In addition I think certain types of jurors are likely to take offense to being "talked down to" - whether or not that is actually happening - by those scientists "who think they are smarter than everyone else". (I think an argument could be made that Dr Vass came off badly to the jury because it appeared to them that he was a scientist who was somehow the only guy in the world who had this magical knowledge, and a magical sniffer machine etc. in the hands of a lawyer like Baez who was playing the role of "I'm just an ordinary guy like you poor jurors up against the big bad state and all their money and resources etc." I think certain types of jurors would discount Dr Vass and anything he had to say automatically. In other words they know that they are personally much more "like" that nice Mr. Baez who smiled at them everyday then they are "like" an intelligent accomplished scientist like Dr. Vass. So they align themselves with "one of their own". But that's a whole other can of worms...)

 

[RANCH]

I just wish the prosecution would have gone with what I call the "common and ordinary" approach. It so much easier to prove a smothering murder with the evidence they had and all the historical data to back that up. If only they had gone out there with a "Casey killed her child the way so many other mothers before her have done, other mothers just like her - young, unmarried, white, with a child they never wanted or never "bonded" with, low educational level etc. Casey is nothing special. This murder is shocking only in that it is totally typical." I wish they had brought the whole thing back down to earth and just called it what it was...sigh.

Everything in Casey's life history proves she is nothing special, completely common and a dime a dozen. But relying too heavily on the chloroform made her look like some sort of evil genius. Harder to believe that an underachiever like Casey researched chloroform 80+ times (oh how I WISH that software had never been used!!!!), bought supplies for it leaving no trace, manufactured it leaving no trace, etc.

Also the chloroform leaves the door open for the premise that some people still believe to this day - that Caylee's death was an accident due to an overdose and Casey panicked and "made it look like a kidnapping" (as if any kidnapping ever looked like that!) to cover it up. That would mean that Casey not only successfully did all of the above with the chloroform but that she also presumably had used it on Caylee before the fatal event - again with not trace left and no one being the wiser. It aggravates me to no end that even her own father who now says he thinks "Casey is responsible for Caylee's death" uses the chloroform theory to leave an "out" for Casey being FULLY responsible for what she actually did. This was no accident with a cover up. This was pure cold blooded murder.

I personally believe the prosecution went with the chloroform so heavily because they went for the DP. They knew mother's rarely get the DP for smothering murders (I can't even think of case where that has occurred. Can anyone else?) but mother's who murder their children in more spectacularly violent ways often do receive harsher sentences. Darlie Routier comes to mind. Diane Downs also. (In fact I would argue that because these women murdered their children "man style" if you know what I mean, they got a harsher penalty because the aggression behind their actions was more obvious.)

While I understand what your getting at, the prosecution would have had a hard time doing what you propose. They had zero evidence of a smothering death. But then again, this jury seemed to believe an accidental drowning made to look like a murder made sense so perhaps your premise is valid.