Sidebar Discussion

[PeteyGirl]

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....

No ma'am, it is not

 

[LinasK]

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.

The biggest difference besides the idiot jurors who refused to review the evidence, is that the Peterson's weren't called to testify (and I think they were excluded from the courtroom for parts of the trial, IIRC), and neither should have the Anthony's!!! It was a conflict of interest from the start, they were related to the victim, but in reality were there to get the murderer, their daughter off!!! The Peterson's were also grandparents of one of the victims!

 

[LinasK]

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...)

There was a trial about a year ago in Ohio (was on InSession) Dr. Yazid (Sp?) Essa, poisoned his wife with Cyanide in her Calcium pills. They never conclusively determined how he obtained the Cyanide (they suspect he got it from a jewelry manufacturer warehouse) or where he did the substitution, yet he was convicted of 1st degree murder...

 

[bayouland]

The biggest difference besides the idiot jurors who refused to review the evidence, is that the Peterson's weren't called to testify (and I think they were excluded from the courtroom for parts of the trial, IIRC), and neither should have the Anthony's!!! It was a conflict of interest from the start, they were related to the victim, but in reality were there to get the murderer, their daughter off!!! The Peterson's were also grandparents of one of the victims!

Good point. Yes, there were a few rulings that seemed unfair to the SA but I won't go there........

I would love to read a thread on it though. LOL.

 

[PeteyGirl]

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.

Like I said earlier, the "chloroform" issue was one where I didn't feel convinced that it was used as a murder or negligent homicide weapon. In just the way you describe, it looks muddy, because proving how it got there involved speculation that was not so thoroughly backed up as the rest of it.

I see now that "how the chloroform" was a diversion tactic, and I probably bought into it at the time. Now, I'm thinking, how many T crosses and I dots does a person need when you are confronted with a very large amount of chloroform where there should be none? HOW it got there pales in importance to that it was there in the first place. Does that make sense? :waitasec:

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...)

OK, I think I understand your points You probably hit the nail on the head with the possible jury responses. What it sounds like to me, is you are describing how people's personal quirks, insecurities about how "smart" they are or are perceived to be, and how this can effect one's confidence in an expert. Or, effect one's willingness to even listen to them.

There is a nurse at work who drives everyone nuts with her dramarama, but now and then, she makes an excellent point. I know I've glossed over her because I am tired of listening to her "poor meeee." There is another nurse who seems to know everything there is to know, and she gets on nerves and unfortunately, we end up ignoring her, too.

If this jury's verdict was influenced, even in part, by their own personal agendas and pet peeves about "smart experts thinkin' I'm dumb" or feeling sorry for poor teensy little Casey barely peeking over the defense table or for Baez getting spanked by JP and picked on (poor thing) by Ashton . . . .

That illustrates my point that folks aren't going to reach correct conclusions when their thought processes are contaminated by opinions or agendas.

What you describe above could be a great explanation of how the jury went so far down the wrong road. A collective (of 12) folie a' deux. Sequestered, controlled, isolated for six weeks, a person can't expect the highest function out of these folks. If I was sequestered like that, away from my little farm and my daughters and grandson, I'd be typing drivel and having LOTS of hostile thoughts .

Sometimes, well, most of the time, I think that the only way a person could conclude Casey Anthony was not guilty, with the evidence provided, that they must have some kind of unexamined personal "thing" preventing them from seeing the obvious. Now THAT is my personal opinion and no offense meant to anyone in particular. Don't we all have personal "things" that get in our way of seeing clearly?

 

[superboo]

I have a question, does anyone know if your teeth generaly fall out or stay in the mandable? Also, does anyone know off hand [I am not asking anyone to go look] where any of the teeth were found? thanks

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

I agree - never saw what the big deal was - two weapons - based on the facts..

 

[logicalgirl]

Like I said earlier, the "chloroform" issue was one where I didn't feel convinced that it was used as a murder or negligent homicide weapon. In just the way you describe, it looks muddy, because proving how it got there involved speculation that was not so thoroughly backed up as the rest of it.

I see now that "how the chloroform" was a diversion tactic, and I probably bought into it at the time. Now, I'm thinking, how many T crosses and I dots does a person need when you are confronted with a very large amount of chloroform where there should be none? HOW it got there pales in importance to that it was there in the first place. Does that make sense? :waitasec:



OK, I think I understand your points You probably hit the nail on the head with the possible jury responses. What it sounds like to me, is you are describing how people's personal quirks, insecurities about how "smart" they are or are perceived to be, and how this can effect one's confidence in an expert. Or, effect one's willingness to even listen to them.

There is a nurse at work who drives everyone nuts with her dramarama, but now and then, she makes an excellent point. I know I've glossed over her because I am tired of listening to her "poor meeee." There is another nurse who seems to know everything there is to know, and she gets on nerves and unfortunately, we end up ignoring her, too.

If this jury's verdict was influenced, even in part, by their own personal agendas and pet peeves about "smart experts thinkin' I'm dumb" or feeling sorry for poor teensy little Casey barely peeking over the defense table or for Baez getting spanked by JP and picked on (poor thing) by Ashton . . . .

That illustrates my point that folks aren't going to reach correct conclusions when their thought processes are contaminated by opinions or agendas.

What you describe above could be a great explanation of how the jury went so far down the wrong road. A collective (of 12) folie a' deux. Sequestered, controlled, isolated for six weeks, a person can't expect the highest function out of these folks. If I was sequestered like that, away from my little farm and my daughters and grandson, I'd be typing drivel and having LOTS of hostile thoughts .

Sometimes, well, most of the time, I think that the only way a person could conclude Casey Anthony was not guilty, with the evidence provided, that they must have some kind of unexamined personal "thing" preventing them from seeing the obvious. Now THAT is my personal opinion and no offense meant to anyone in particular. Don't we all have personal "things" that get in our way of seeing clearly?

There we have it - right there in bold - and in more than just this case. It is a constant struggle for me day to day to recognize what colours my view of this world...and deal with overcoming it. The "things" not the world...:crazy:

 

[PeteyGirl]

I have a question, does anyone know if your teeth generaly fall out or stay in the mandable? Also, does anyone know off hand [I am not asking anyone to go look] where any of the teeth were found? thanks

I think baby teeth have more shallow roots than adult teeth, and don't extend into the bony jaw areas so deeply. Teeth would dislodge from a child's jaw more easily is my guess. Was that your question?

 

[superboo]

I think baby teeth have more shallow roots than adult teeth, and don't extend into the bony jaw areas so deeply. Teeth would dislodge from a child's jaw more easily is my guess. Was that your question?

yes, thank you. do you know if all of Caylee's teeth fell out?

 

[PeteyGirl]

[/B]

There we have it - right there in bold - and in more than just this case. It is a constant struggle for me day to day to recognize what colours my view of this world...and deal with overcoming it. The "things" not the world...:crazy:

Yes, I totally relate to this.

The same stuff is happening today as yesterday (work, goose poop on my steps, goats getting into the hay in spite of my feeble attempts to block the gate), but some days I want to wring their necks, and other days I chortle and think "Oh, those silly kids!"

That's simplistic, I realize.

There's a case in the Crimes Against Children thread about the 25 y/o who gave birth to twin boys in her bedroom and suffocated them. Of course I'm gnashing my teeth and beyond horrified.

Then as I'm driving home from work last night, I remember reading about a Jewish girl in WW2 who was raped by a soldier, conceived, and hid in a barn to give birth. I don't know her age. Anyway, the infant was found by someone else, buried in the hay, placenta and all. She'd never mentioned the birth. She admitted it later on, and admitted "hating" the thing that came out of her, and kicking it away from her and hiding it under hay.

Now, I can relate with that, too I can also see this innocent life had no part in her rape, and should not have been punished for it.

My looooong point is, the same thing can be seen and perceived many different ways. So what is the "right" way? For me, the "right" way is the way that approaches the truth. Again, so simplistic. But then again, the "truth" is usually pretty simple. What gets it complicated is all our emotional and psychological machinations, biases, pre-conceived beliefs and motivations. Plowing through those to get to the "truth" is a daily task when life is tough.

I believe that "machinations", of whatever kind or source, got in the way for the Pinellas 12. I believe they failed their sworn duty, but I also believe they are human beings capable of being hamstrung by unexamined personal issues, just like me. I'd sure hate to be one of them, right now, it's October. I hope at least some of them have reached a kind of peace with themselves, it will be easier on them when their names are released.

 

[PeteyGirl]

yes, thank you. do you know if all of Caylee's teeth fell out?

No I don't, but in what I've read many of them did and they were counted.

 

[miss plum]

This is total speculation and not inference and is in fact probably downright demented, but...maybe the chloroform was put in the trunk after the taping/death/bagging as a precautionary measure-- maybe KC thought that if anyone were to open the trunk while Caylee's body was still in there the chloroform would knock them out and give her a chance to get away, and/or hopefully they wouldn't remember what they had seen (memory loss is a listed side effect of chloroform). If, as has been previously speculated, KC used chloroform to confuse Amy when she was stealing from her I can see how she might have used it for this (albeit farfetched and melodramatic) purpose.

 

[RANCH]

This is total speculation and not inference and is in fact probably downright demented, but...maybe the chloroform was put in the trunk after the taping/death/bagging as a precautionary measure-- maybe KC thought that if anyone were to open the trunk while Caylee's body was still in there the chloroform would knock them out and give her a chance to get away, and/or hopefully they wouldn't remember what they had seen (memory loss is a listed side effect of chloroform). If, as has been previously speculated, KC used chloroform to confuse Amy when she was stealing from her I can see how she might have used it for this (albeit farfetched and melodramatic) purpose.

I don't know miss plum. Demented no, a stretch yes. MOO.

 

[superboo]

No I don't, but in what I've read many of them did and they were counted.

thanks again. can someone point me in the right direction to find out where they were recovered? tia

 

[RANCH]

thanks again. can someone point me in the right direction to find out where they were recovered? tia

I might take a look if I knew what exactly your looking for. Your just curious about Caylees teeth?

 

[ZsaZsa]

thanks again. can someone point me in the right direction to find out where they were recovered? tia

The autopsy report describes all the teeth that were found, in detail,here -
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf start with page 8 and read on.. One incisor was never found.

 

[superboo]

The autopsy report describes all the teeth that were found, in detail,here -
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf start with page 8 and read on.. One incisor was never found.

does anyone recall Cindy saying that was not true, that they had found them all.
That she knew how many teeth Caylee had because she brushed them?

 

[NocturnalLady]

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.

I don't agree that there was zero evidence of a smothering death. The duct tape, how it was found on the remains, and how much of it was used all point to usage of the duct tape to smother Caylee.

Overall my point is not that there was no evidence regarding the chloroform, just that there was much more, solid and direct evidence regarding the duct tape. And that focusing more on the duct tape and less on the chloroform would possibly have been more successful as a prosecution strategy - for all the reasons I've outlined in my previous comments.

Want to add too that - as someone commented up thread - I think it's entirely possible that Casey chloroformed Caylee and then duct taped her. Both weapons could have been used. It's just a matter of what can be solidly proven.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I don't agree that there was zero evidence of a smothering death. The duct tape, how it was found on the remains, and how much of it was used all point to usage of the duct tape to smother Caylee.

Overall my point is not that there was no evidence regarding the chloroform, just that there was much more, solid and direct evidence regarding the duct tape. And that focusing more on the duct tape and less on the chloroform would possibly have been more successful as a prosecution strategy - for all the reasons I've outlined in my previous comments.

Want to add too that - as someone commented up thread - I think it's entirely possible that Casey chloroformed Caylee and then duct taped her. Both weapons could have been used. It's just a matter of what can be solidly proven.

Funny, I thought that too. It seemed plausible that she both chloroformed and duct taped Caylee. This is macabre, but I hope, if this was the case, that she did this, so Caylee had no awareness

I just didn't need to know exactly how Caylee was killed or neglected to death or whatever. All the evidence provided and sewn together the way it was gave a convincing enough idea that Casey did something to her, was responsible for her death and should be found guilty of it.