Sidebar Discussion

[Murphismo]

LOL another computer breakdown for me! And when I come back, what do I see?

Oh sniff!

Do publish your findings. I await with (a)bated breath.

In fact, today I found my duct tape in my bathroom - an experiment that a couple of us performed... I'll take it a bit further and see what a Chicago winter will bring... But I will need a decaying thing to wrap it around. Hmmm, all my kids are grown...

Why don't you use an acorn squash....... I say this because I found one rotting in my basement the other day, long story don't ask. At any rate, it's about the same size.

 

[vlpate]

I think it was a tragic drowning accident. I don't think anyone is responsible. If the State had charged her correctly, say for not reporting the accident, for improper disposal of a corpse, I believe the jury would have found her guilty of those charges., Of course, as any parent that has lost a child, most tend to blame themselves regardless. I don't find it unusual that Casey fought the charges against her. But, I think it's very possible that privately, she does blame her self. All JMO.

No doubt, she blames herself for not being so lazy when she had the shovel. She could have dug a deep grave and she'd be three years further in her pursuit of slu... ummm ... a life of ill repute.

I think the OT had the charges right, they just didn't count on a Jury that rode in on the short bus.

 

[vlpate]

Why don't you use an acorn squash....... I say this because I found one rotting in my basement the other day, long story don't ask. At any rate, it's about the same size.

Still talking about the skull I presume... :crazy:

 

[strawberry]

I don't think they are true FCA supporters. Some people enjoy causing friction. Kind of like FCA, ignore is the best option.

IMO

Oh yes! But them someone quotes and it's all for naught. I wish everyone would just ignore. Different opinions is one thing. Haranguing and horse beating is another. IMO:banghead:

 

[BellaVita]

I don't assume that the duct tape was holding the mandible in place. No, I don't think RK placed the mandible back in place and put duct tape over the mouth and nose area, nor do I think the ME's did that either.

That removes one possibility then. I don't recall you ever stating that so clearly.

I am not convinced, from listening to all the experts who talked about the duct tape, and from the photos we were allowed to see, that the duct tape was ever placed over the face.

Not trying to be snarky at all here because this is the best post I've seen with an opposing viewpoint. How do you think the tape got there or where was it placed if not over the face?

I don't remember ever stating that the mandible had become unattached from the skull. At some point, during decomposition, the skull was laying on its side, which caused the two deposits Dr. Spitz found when he opened the skull. Later in decomposition, while the mandible was still attached naturally, the skull landed in an upright position on the ground with the mandible still in place.

According to autopsy report and other testimony, a small child, in those conditions, would have decomposed completely in 2 weeks or less. If the tape played no part in holding the skull together, then there was a 2 week window of opportunity before total decomp for animal predation and dispersal resulting in the upright position. The autopsy notes which bones have signs of predation. It doesn't note any signs of predation on the skull. IMO, very unlikely that the skull would be intact after Tropical Storm Fay and 3 months of standing water unless the tape was involved. It just doesn't happen. Dr. Utz had never seen it, not sure about Dr. G, and the anthropologist who has examined thousands of skeletal remains has only seen it once. A Bosnian war crime victim who had been taped. Besides, absent the tape, once the skull was moved by CSI, it would have come apart and it didn't. It stayed intact through all examination until the hair matte and tape were removed by the ME's.

There is no evidence that proves when the skull ended up in an upright position, unless you believe that RK did it (which I don't). In its upright position, the weight of the skull held the mandible in place.

In your theory, all that is required to keep the mandible in place is the weight of the skull. Dr. Utz testified that after decomp the mandible stays put and the skull rolls off and is found separate. He was testifying to what would have happened in this particular instance absent the tape. No reason to think that after the rain, wind and standing water that Caylee is the exception to the rule.

The duct tape was not adhered to the hair matt with glue, the glue was gone due to decomposition. The duct tape was adhered to the hair matt, as well as slightly adhered to the mandible by dirt, sandy silt, and plant growth. The fact that the duct tape was only adhered to the hair matt and slightly to the mandible by dirt, silty sand, and plant growth makes the claim that the duct tape was holding the mandible in place questionable.

The fabric of the tape combined with the silt, etc. and formed a strong matrix. Strong enough to hold the sling in place. Sometimes at the beach I will find a shell or sand dollar with a conglomeration of sand, small shells and vegetation sort of just plastered on it. It is not really all that easy to remove without damaging a delicate shell. Rather a strong adhesion. IMO, the same type of thing happened with the duct tape, organic elements and Caylee's hair. Exactly the way it was described as being attached to the bone as well.

It would be more plausible that the skull sitting in an upright position was holding the mandible in place. If the tape was there, once decomposition took place, and the tape slid, which would have occurred prior to Faye according to some, then unless the skull was already embedded and or weighed down by something (like the garbage bag that RK stated he picked up and discovered the skull on the ground), loose tape in a sling shape would not have held the mandible in place with animal activity and Faye activity.

Yes, the tape would have slid about 7 weeks before Fay. It would hold the mandible in place because it was placed tightly over Caylee's hair and face with no slack to begin with. When Caylee decomposed, the tape became slack due to no flesh. Not extremely slack, but slack enough to migrate underneath to where the chin used to be yet taut enough to hold things together. The Bosnian example really brought home to me the signifigance of why Caylee's skull was intact. On the other hand, if it was a common event for a skull to stay upright and intact for nearly 6 months in a brutal enviroment, I think the DT would have been all over it. The best Dr. Spitz could do was to accuse the ME's office of misconduct regarding the tape. That was all he had in way of rebuttal.

As has been stated by many, there is nothing holding the mandible in place once decomposition occurrs. If the skull was ever on its side rather than upright after decomp occurred, the duct tape could not have held the mandible in place. If the skull was never on its side after decomposition, then the weight of the skull would have held the mandible in place.

Please see above. Additionally, it was testified by CSI Hanson that the skull was not embedded in the soil but merely somewhat obscured by leaf litter.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Bolded by me and my responses in green. Thank you for your post. Very thought-provoking and caused me to look at alot of testimony over again.
Regards, BellaVita
.....

 

[strawberry]

An aside......how did I miss this tidbit....

Nancy Grace allegedly "tooted" on DWTS.

http://www.tmz.com/

:floorlaugh: Thank you for getting the thread back on topic of SIDEBAR! LOL when I clicked on it, the post that came up was Tupac's Sex Tape. Scared the life out of me! NG and Tupac?

 

[strawberry]

Maybe it would help to make a distinction between whether we 'get it' and whether we agree. I can't speak for others who don't think the prosecutors proved their case, but I completely understand what you and others say about the evidence. I get it. But I don't share that same view. And looking at evidence involves analysis and thought and consideration, so it's not at all unusual that everyone's not going to see the same thing. Not seeing the same thing doesn't mean anybody doesn't 'get it'.

There is one thing I don't 'get', and that's why it's so important that others not have an opposing view. I don't need or want anybody else to change their view to mine. Why would I?

I don't know who you're referring to here who doesn't want to believe Casey is guilty; I haven't seen anyone say that or imply that. That makes it sound like people are here defending Casey (the person) or sticking up for her in some way, and I've seen none of that, either. I have no feelings one way or the other about Casey; she was just the defendant in this case... a case which the prosecution failed to prove.

Maybe we should agree to disagree and move on. IMO

 

[cityslick]

I'm referring to the people who keep bringing up the same arguments, over and over. The duct tape, for one. There are those who STILL want to argue it wasn't over her face, that it floated there, that Casey didn't put it there. The science says otherwise, has for a LONG time. I'm tired of having to refer back to it time and again.

I have no problem with people who have other opinions than my own. There are some I respect because they are respectful right back. But the ones who keep bringing up the same arguments that have been asked and answered I don't know how many times by the same solid science? Obviously those people can't wrap their minds around Casey having done this horrible deed. Otherwise those same arguments wouldn't keep coming up. Over. And Over. and OVER!

Maybe that's not you in particular. But I see it come up time and again, and I want to just bang my head against a wall. That's what I'm talking about, the resurfacing of arguments that good, solid science has already answered. I know that some people will always view this as accident. There's going to be disagreement forever there. I'm fine with that. I'm just tired of getting my intelligence insulted by those who twist, warp, or ignore the science in saying that this was an accident. That just doesn't work because of the science. And no one has offered solid scientific proof to back up their claims on that either.

We can agree to disagree, but science doesn't lie. Logic and reason doesn't lie. It is simply illogical and against scientific and expert opinion that Casey didn't do this horrible crime, all IMO.

BBM

I thought this was a good post but when I got to this paragraph I got confused. On one hand you are saying that you can accept that some people view this as an accident but on the other you say you are insulted when someone gives reasons/theories why they believe it's an accident. I'm one that doesn't think all the evidence in this case is black and white and that includes the science involved. Because of that, I don't think it's out of the ordinary that people will arrive at differing conclusions.

IMO (and I'm not saying this about you specifically), I've noticed there are some that seem really bothered by the fact the there are actually people beyond the jury that agree with the verdict. To me I just think that's the reality of the case. A large majority of people think the jury got it wrong but those 12 people in the jury room weren't the only people on the planet that had a minority view of this case. And in most cases, some folks who agree with the verdict saw/heard/read more evidence then the jury did.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

..the "plea deal" was offered by LDB (not JA) in august 2008----limited use immunity if she wished to "participate in locating her child".

..emails from LDB---baez.



...( that offer was subsequently extended to september 2nd----no reply from baez/kc .)

..the affadavit by kc in early '09 had to do with the states motion re: conflict of interest---(IE: is baez in this for the $$$??)

..she added in the dig to ashton ( that had zero to do with the motion )--in her own scrawl on an otherwise typed doc--- on her own..

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0310/18900892.pdf
--kc affadavit---retainer agreement with baez--

--#'s 1 through 6 typed...( no one is selling my story, blah di blah.)

--# 7. (handwritten) "I believe that Mr.Ashton is angry because I have refused to take a plea agreement for a crime that I DID NOT commit."

( the defense/kc were mad that ashton filed HIS 'conflict of interest' motion on the heels of THEIR motion crying the blues that they had been video-taped meeting in jail..)

---therefore: the personal line to JA---via baez-- from baez/kc...had nothing to do with the old plea deal possibility from months ago..

Thanks for finding this motion.

Quoting the motion:
7. I believe that Mr. Ashton is angry because I have refused to take a plea agreement for a crime that I did not commit.

There is no mention of the limited immunity that LDB offered in AUG of 08. KC states Mr. Ashton is angry not LDB is angry. KC says she refused to take a plea agreement for a crime she did not commit. She did not say she refused to accept a limited use immunity offer from LDB.

It is because of this statement that I believe JA offered KC some sort of plea deal late in Feb or early March. The limited use immunity is not really a plea deal, in my opinion, it is only an offer for limited immunity on a statement made to police, kind of a one time deal offer limiting immunity to that statement only, and only partial immunity at that.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[coco puff]

Maybe it would help to make a distinction between whether we 'get it' and whether we agree. I can't speak for others who don't think the prosecutors proved their case, but I completely understand what you and others say about the evidence. I get it. But I don't share that same view. And looking at evidence involves analysis and thought and consideration, so it's not at all unusual that everyone's not going to see the same thing. Not seeing the same thing doesn't mean anybody doesn't 'get it'.

There is one thing I don't 'get', and that's why it's so important that others not have an opposing view. I don't need or want anybody else to change their view to mine. Why would I?

Snipped


I read this post last night and thought long and hard about the question you asked that I bolded. Now that I truly believe you really think she did not murder her child, I would like to tell you why it matters to me. In cocopuff’s world, there is no uncertainty about who killed Caylee. This rarely happens because I usually reserve the right to be wrong. Not this time. So, again, in my mind, every time someone….anyone… buys into the defenses theory, it perpetuates the strength of the lies and excuses KC used to get away with murder. Not only does this build up her inner monster, but it gives other moms the option of killing their babies and using these “theories” to get away with. There it is, in a nutshell. I’m a worrier.

 

[cityslick]

Snipped


I read this post last night and thought long and hard about the question you asked that I bolded. Now that I truly believe you really think she did not murder her child, I would like to tell you why it matters to me. In cocopuff’s world, there is no uncertainty about who killed Caylee. This rarely happens because I usually reserve the right to be wrong. Not this time. So, again, in my mind, every time someone….anyone… buys into the defenses theory, it perpetuates the strength of the lies and excuses KC used to get away with murder. Not only does this build up her inner monster, but it gives other moms the option of killing their babies and using these “theories” to get away with. There it is, in a nutshell. I’m a worrier.

Good post, but what if you think you know who is responsible but don't think the state proved it's case? I believe there are firmly 2 camps when it comes to the NG verdict. I think those that don't think the state proved it's case doesn't necessarily buy into the DT theory either.

 

[sleutherontheside]

:floorlaugh: Thank you for getting the thread back on topic of SIDEBAR! LOL when I clicked on it, the post that came up was Tupac's Sex Tape. Scared the life out of me! NG and Tupac?

Sorry bout the link. Try this one.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/04/nancy-grace-fart-denial-dancing-with-the-stars-investigation-tristan-macmanus-brooke-burke/

I can't get the video to embed but look it up. I swear I almost cried I laughed so hard.

 

[strawberry]

Sorry bout the link. Try this one.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/04/nancy-grace-fart-denial-dancing-with-the-stars-investigation-tristan-macmanus-brooke-burke/

I can't get the video to embed but look it up. I swear I almost cried I laughed so hard.

No no it's there! Just had to scroll down because new stories were added since the link.! Toot!

 

[coco puff]

Good post, but what if you think you know who is responsible but don't think the state proved it's case? I believe there are firmly 2 camps when it comes to the NG verdict. I think those that don't think the state proved it's case doesn't necessarily buy into the DT theory either.

You are right, that is a whole other issue. Our judicial system is imperfect for sure. :innocent:

 

[bayouland]

:floorlaugh: Thank you for getting the thread back on topic of SIDEBAR! LOL when I clicked on it, the post that came up was Tupac's Sex Tape. Scared the life out of me! NG and Tupac?

Stay tuned for more of "Tooting With The Stars"......:floorlaugh:

 

[sleutherontheside]

This thread is starting to feel like....

[URL=http://www.lowbird.com][/URL]

 

[sleutherontheside]

Stay tuned for more of "Tooting With The Stars"......:floorlaugh:

I thought it was hilarious that they said Nancy cut the rug and then cut the cheese. I swear this is her attempt to keep her name out there. One of the comments said that they expect her to pee on the floor next week and blame it on a leaky ceiling.


Up next week NG does the "Toot Step" not to be confused with the Two Step.

 

[Just K]

We've had a teat and a toot now. Let's hope the next thing doesn't rhyme with tot.

 

[Just K]

Well, Ms <modsnip>, how do you like these apples?

Today's total viewers of all threads related to this case.
Showing threads 1 to 25 of 4789
58 (17 members & 41 guests) Moderators : 10

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't agree. :floorlaugh:

Just kidding.

Seriously... your take on it may be that I don't offer specifics and that I'm indifferent, but that's not how I see it. I've posted reasons why I agree with the verdicts and would have voted the same way, but I don't see any point to going on and on about it. So sometimes I post more generally, just because. At this point, I know all of the arguments for and against every piece of evidence and rehashing the specifics isn't all that fascinating to me.

But in the end it probably all comes down to how each of us views the internet, discussion boards, and this board in particular. I just see the internet as one great big learning place, kind of like a cross between a huge library and a talk show. Before the internet, I used to physically go to the library and read up on all different opinions about issues and current events. I used to watch CourtTV back in the 90s and what I most enjoyed was seeing how their different commentators and analysts would look at the evidence presented in court that day and not always agree on what it meant. I still like listening to radio talk shows (not the politcal ones, just regular talk shows) and hearing all the different views on a subject. I use the internet the same way. I like to see all the different ways people react to the same thing, whether it's evidence in a trial or opinions about a hot topic. I've never felt the need to convince others to think the same way I do, or to come out the victor in a debate. I just like reading what someone says and thinking, 'Oh, I never thought of it that way', or 'Yes, that makes sense' or 'No, I don't agree with that'. I'll defend my positions to a point, but that's not the most interesting thing about participating on discussion boards for me.

Sometimes things frustrate or annoy me on message boards, including this one, but the annoyance doesn't come from hearing different opinions or realizing that not everyone agrees with me.

I think many of my fellow peeps on the board will tell you that I am often out of step with them and have often not agreed with general assumptions here on the board. And I have stated over and over again that it does not matter to me if anyone agrees with me - mass agreement often causes me to rethink my position, to be absolutely confident I have rethought a problem from a whole circular spectrum.

However our difference is that I am a detail person. I believe to have confidence in a fact - we need supporting details. And to those who say the prosecution didn't prove OCA's role in this murder, I say I need more than an opinion other than agreeing with the jury. We don't actually know why the jury came to their conclusion. We speculate based on the result, but until we hear facts from each one, there is no way to come to any conclusion as to why they voted the way they did.

Also, I have no negative agenda about the degree of professionalism of Dr. G., the many CSI's and LE's who worked many long hard hours to bring evidence to this case, nor the State's Attorneys who brought this case to trial. At some point in our society, I believe we need to place our trust in their work while watching with a somewhat critical eye. There is no doubt there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence that pointed to OCA. Rational and logical thinking points only to this conclusion.

But at some point the love of argument for the sake of argument or discussion if that word feels more "comfortable" seems just futile when the answer is in the details. The answer lies not in what we think, or feel, but in the irrefutable details of this case. The answer is not hidden like the secret magical tales of our childhood that we may never know, the raw ugly truth is right here in facts and details in front of us. We can however choose to look it squarely in the eye or continue to turn our eyes to the horizon and search for the answer that will never come. And I acknowledge some peeps are more comfortable not knowing the answers, or facing what is real.