The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[thedeviledadvocate]

But the fact that it could be something other than an apple doesn't meant it is reasonable to conclude that it was.

For those that say more evidence was needed to conclude BARD, I say perhaps you do not understand the meaning of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean 100% convinced.

The only thing that would change the minds of the pro verdict people would be a video of Casey committing the crime.

I agree with the thought that just because it could be something other than an apple doesn't mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is.

However, when the burden of proof is on the state, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed an apple, then stating it has a core and a skin is not enough to prove it is an apple BARD, when there are so many other things that have a core and a skin. The state could have proven it was an apple with further testing to remove any doubt. They chose not to do the further testing. WHY? If this is indeed an apple, why not prove it? I believe they wanted everyone to think it was an apple, but had they done the further testing, it would have been found to be an apple phone, not an apple, and that is why the further tests weren't done. In addition, if it were an apple it helped their CIC, if it were to prove to be an apple phone it would have damaged their CIC, therefore, they did not want to risk confirmation, and chose to present it as an apple.

In the case of adipocere, this fatty substance found on the paper towells, that was consistant with adipocere, was found inside a white kitchen trash bag. I believe it is reasonable to want to find out definatively if this substance was adipocere, because the fatty acids that Dr. V mentioned are found in a number of items that are normally found in a kitchen. That is NOT inferior reasoning.

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[NavySubMom]

Everything in the docs were facts, Casey's lies were facts, Casey not bothering to report her child missing was a fact, Casey sending police on wild goose chases were facts, everything put out about Casey were facts. The "totality" of the evidence, even circumstantial, pointed to no one but Casey.

The only "hype" were all of the fantasies put out by the DT and pushed by others about sexual abuse and GA being complicit. "Feelings" that GA looked like a pedo, "feelings" that GA looked like he was flirting with Casey, "feelings" that GA committed sexual abuse because he "looked" a certain way, "feelings" that poor CA was suffering from all sorts of different ailments excusing all of her behavior and rendering her not responsible for anything.

That is what was all hype with attempts to try to turn it into fact. NO evidence whatsoever for either sexual abuse or GA's involvement in what happened to Caylee.

For people who have experienced real sexual abuse, myself included, it's outrageous that a liar like CA would use it as a get out of jail free card.

The jurors took the easy way out, they wanted out of there, they couldn't get past the OS, they disregarded what they didn't understand. It's much easier to believe sordid fantasies about perverted old men and sexual abuse than believing a mother would do that to her child, especially watching poor Casey sitting way down low in her chair, being fondled by her DT, stroked, petted, crying on cue.

JMHO

One of the jurors even stated that FCA 'seemed to be sincere', or something to that effect, (I will have to look to get the exact wording). Whatever could that possibly mean? to use that "feeling" about FCA to come to a verdict, as she never spoke one word at the trial other than watching her on the jailhouse videotapes with her parents, and listening to her 1st phonecall from jail when all she wanted was TL's phone #? when I hear what those jurors used as "evidence" during their deliberations (totaly speculation about Ga, RK, drowning, who Caylee was last seen with), totally ignoring the "facts" that were presented over 6 weeks, "I become so Frushtrated I can hardly Schwallow!"

 

[kelian36]

There was plenty of evidence presented by the state. Good solid evidence. Reference all trial docs.

The evidence was ignored.

The jurors made up their minds before they deliberated. mo

They wanted to go home.

A baby killer (mo) walked.


Sad day/no justice.

 

[kelian36]

One of the jurors even stated that FCA 'seemed to be sincere', or something to that effect, (I will have to look to get the exact wording). Whatever could that possibly mean? to use that "feeling" about FCA to come to a verdict, as she never spoke one word at the trial other than watching her on the jailhouse videotapes with her parents, and listening to her 1st phonecall from jail when all she wanted was TL's phone #? when I hear what those jurors used as "evidence" during their deliberations (totaly speculation about Ga, RK, drowning, who Caylee was last seen with), totally ignoring the "facts" that were presented over 6 weeks, "I become so Frushtrated I can hardly Schwallow!"

Excellent point NavySubMom.

 

[NavySubMom]

Well, I'm thinking CA and GA can't possibly be supporting the NG verdict or else their big attempts with their Caylees foundation isn't going to fly at all.

And accidental death and a pedophile in the family does not support the principle's of their foundation at all.

Going to be very interesting next week when their canned hype hits the airwaves to see how they are going to 'splain themselves.

"Ah yes.....our CMA is innocent, and this was just an accident so we support her to the fullest, but we never want another family to go through what we did with a missing child even though Caylee was never missing, she drowned, but we thought she was missing and oh wait a minute George found her and apparently abused CMA since she was eight but never mind that ....our foundation supports"......:crazy:

You got that right! I can't wait to hear how they try to spin the NG verdict and its implications in view of their second foundation they are starting!! Hope it is as successful as their first one..... can't wait to hear what they say this foundation will exactly accomplish, other than to provide them salaries and tax shelters and administrative costs.... IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[com n sense]

To me...there is no reasonable explanation why anyone would toss their child in a dump. And no, there was nothing that connected RK...and there was nothing that connected GA...IMO. Casey was the one who didn't want her daughter found.

No doubt in my mind she never wanted Caylee found & the reason is....... the duct tape!
She couldn't cry accident. She would have to lead them to the body & she KNEW she couldn't do that.

 

[Aedrys]

I agree with the thought that just because it could be something other than an apple doesn't mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is.

However, when the burden of proof is on the state, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed an apple, then stating it has a core and a skin is not enough to prove it is an apple BARD, when there are so many other things that have a core and a skin. The state could have proven it was an apple with further testing to remove any doubt. They chose not to do the further testing. WHY? If this is indeed an apple, why not prove it? I believe they wanted everyone to think it was an apple, but had they done the further testing, it would have been found to be an apple phone, not an apple, and that is why the further tests weren't done. In addition, if it were an apple it helped their CIC, if it were to prove to be an apple phone it would have damaged their CIC, therefore, they did not want to risk confirmation, and chose to present it as an apple.

In the case of adipocere, this fatty substance found on the paper towells, that was consistant with adipocere, was found inside a white kitchen trash bag. I believe it is reasonable to want to find out definatively if this substance was adipocere, because the fatty acids that Dr. V mentioned are found in a number of items that are normally found in a kitchen. That is NOT inferior reasoning.

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Respectfully, do no suggest that state did anything underhanded here. They did not. There was no definitive test to to say with 100% accuracy that adipocere was on those towels. No test like that exists. All they can do is test for the components that make up adipocere, and even then those components can come from other sources as well. And even if there was such a test and the state didn't get the results they wanted, the state would not just throw it out and not use it. They could get into serious, mistrial proportions of trouble for denying the defense evidence that it wasn't adipocere. That did not happen. I think part of the problem is that people think are tests out there to prove absolutely EVERYTHING with 100% percent accuracy and that is false. Shoot, if that were possible, a lot more people would be in jail. Instead, tests are interpreted, and it's up to the jury to use their imagination and critical thinking to decide whose interpretation is better, which the jury did not do here.

Getting back to the hypothesis about the state, putting out false statements like this is not cool. Disagree with the verdict but don't accuse the state of doing bad things, even in a what if scenario, unless there is actual proof on such impropriety on their part. There's plenty of proof of all of things the defense did wrong. And if the state made a mistake, they quickly admitted to it and corrected it. I'm not saying the state is always perfect, but in this case, there was no impropriety on their part whatsoever. It's worthless to accuse them of it even in hypothesis.

And the state's burden, which has been repeated time and again, is not remove ALL doubt, just all REASONABLE doubt, which with some people has gone way too far into the category of unreasonable. What happened to using imagination and putting things together? Why must people have everything in row, a complete picture by the end of trial? This does not happen in most trials! And people still get convicted, without bodies, without solid evidence and only circumstantial evidence. It seems some people think no one should get convicted unless there's completely solid proof accompanied by a video of the perp doing the deed. Good Lord. That is not the burden of the state to have at every trial to get someone convicted.

Shoot, if looks like apple, smells like an apple, has the skin and core of an apple, then it's probably an apple. It is unreasonable to assume it's something else because imagination can't be used to put the evidence together and conclude it's an apple. The attitude of there wasn't enough so we'll never know is ludicrious. That's like saying we'll never know what puzzle is supposed to look like without every piece and the box top. A puzzle can still be put together with many missing pieces but the picture can still be figured out with critical thinking and imagination.

A lot of people just don't think critically anymore. If it's not layed out 100% in front of them so they don't have to do any mental work to figure it out, then why bother. There must be doubt because everything's not there to say she did it, so acquit. Ignore all of the evidence of her selfishness like the videos, jails calls, and destroying her own family in court to save her self; her lack of caring that her daughter is dead; her lies on top of lies on top of lies about her child being missing and kidnapped when that child is long dead; her being the only person with ANY motive to want Caylee gone; the dumpsite being down the street from Casey's home; the smell of death in the back of her car that she said she had sole possession of; and items from that house found in the bag in the swamp holding the duct taped face of a child who most certainly didn't die from drowning. I am so disappointed in that all of that somehow wasn't enough, and no proof of ANYTHING the defense said was brought forward, and the defense was completely inept on top of that, but somehow the defense was more believable than all of the circumstantial evidence that said otherwise. And the unreasonable thinking here is just astounding. Somehow being weird equates to it being okay to not call 911 if a child drowns. Weird people should have no responsiblity whatsover to anyone or anything because they are weird and don't understand. Because George acted weird on the stand, he must have done something. Because the state is not cow towing to the jury and the defense is, the defense is more likable and must be right. I could on and on with the complete unreasonableness and lack of critical thinking and imagination that is this verdict. I sincerely hope verdicts like Casey's aren't the future of our justice system, but from what I've seen of these twelve jurors and many on this board, I'm afraid it is.

All IMO.

 

[kelian36]

No doubt in my mind she never wanted Caylee found & the reason is....... the duct tape!
She couldn't cry accident. She would have to lead them to the body & she KNEW she couldn't do that.

You are right --now tell me how the jurors came to a verdict without that consideration? Blows me away.

During this past month I've had a reoccurring thought>>>>> did the DT vote to allow the least smart folks as jurors? :maddening:

 

[coco puff]

I think this may be the problem. I think people are looking at one piece of evidence at a time. Which is fine, but then you have to back up and look at the whole picture. I could probably find reasonable doubt with any one piece, but that is not how the justice system works. You have to look at the whole, and unfortunately when you start listing RD next to each piece and you look at it all, it adds up to a great big mess of "what ifs" that don't even come close to resembling reasonable doubt.

this is EXACTLY it.

Think back to your “logic and critical thinking” class in college. Now remember your statistics class. (yeah, sorry to bring that one up). You have to consider the odds of the whole scenario to determine a logical conclusion. The odds of something happening depend on the circumstances, so the odds of you getting hit by lighting are lets say, 1 in 1,000,000 but it changes if it is a sunny day AND you are indoors AND your house had lighting rods on it. See what I mean?

So what are the odds that:

Car smelled like a dead body according to a LE, nurse, tow truck driver, Drs working in the area of death, decay and decompostion
Dogs trained to hit on human decomp, alerted to her car
The sniffer machine detects compounds made up of human decomp in her car.
Waxy substance was found on paper towels in garbage bag found in trunk
FCA abandons car by smelly dumpster
FCA has an inability to grieve because of abuse
FCA has an inability to tell the truth because of abuse
FCA has a daughter that just happened to die in a terrible accident
Child found duct taped in swamp hidden inside of three bags as a result of a drowning
FCA faces death penalty but still won’t talk about the “accident” but can now grieve in front of jury
FCA goes to trial and the defenses stories change from swimming accident to “we will never know”

When you put this all together, logically and statistically, This could not have been an accident….. No Way!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I totally see what you are saying, and it was an excellent way to break it down. BUT....(you knew a 'but' was coming, right)

If you couple this with Dr. V's expert testimony about the analysis of the carpet samples that determined it was a 'food apple', and all the people who stated that they smelled a decomposing 'food apple' and not an Apple Ipod, I have to believe that it was a decomposing 'food apple'.

My point is that I can easily create doubt if I separate all the evidence in this case into it's own stand-alone item. I admit that. But when I put the evidence together, I just can't. MOO

thedeviledadvocate - I am very much enjoying your posts, despite us being on opposite sides of the fence. :seeya:

Thank you, and yes, I fully expected a but... and I will dwell a little further on the adipocere. I believe I am in fact linking possiblities together. I just do not accept it as fact, that for example, the stain in the trunk was caused by decompositional fluids, nor that the adipocere substance was factually adipocere. I did indeed take into consideration Dr. V's testimony, as well as Dr. F's. So when I link these things together, as you have done, I come up with the following.

Let me start with the odor in the trunk. First off, there was a white trash bag in the trunk that came from a kitchen. There was a foul odor found in the trunk, and it also permeated to the interior of the car. There was chloroform in an air sample from the trunk, but there was no chloroform found in the interior of the car. Several people claimed they smelled human decomposition in the trunk, several others claimed they smelled a bad odor. So for me, thus far into the trunk evidence, it is looking or smelling like there may have been a dead body in the trunk, but it might have been an odor from the white trash bag. Next, we know flies flew out when GA and SB opened the trunk, and GA testified he heard maggots making a popping sound inside the white trash bag. Assuming there had been a body decomposing in the trunk at some point, thousands upon thousands of flies and fly casings and pupai would have been expected to be found not only in the trunk, but in the interior of the car as well. However, unlike the bad odor, the flies followed the same path as the chloroform and stayed only in the trunk, and amazingly in far less numbers than would be logically expected.

At this point, it is likely that there had been a body decomposing in the trunk, but it is also quite possible that there had never been a body decomposing in the trunk. So we go to the next piece of evidence. The stain. CA and LA said there had always been stains in the trunk. GA said there was a basketball sized stain in the trunk. Considering these sources, I took these statements with a grain of salt, and in my opinion, even if Caylee had been in a fetal position, the impression she would have left would have been much larger than a basketball. An officer used an alternate light source, and the stain looked like it may be blood or decompositional fluids. The vehicle was taken to the OCSO forensic garage and the csi's there tested to determine what caused the stain. Their tests came up negative for blood, negative for decompositional fluids, and negative for dna. At this point, although it is still possible that there may have been a body decomposing in the trunk, it is now just as likely that there was not a dead body in the trunk. But lets go further.

Unsatisfied with the OCSO csi results, carpet and air samples were sent to Dr. V. along with some of the contents of the white trash bag. Dr. V using technology only he can use claimed there was a shockingly high level of chloroform in the trunk, and that a fatty substance like adipocere was found on paper towells. He stated that the shockingly high amount of chloroform detected could not have been caused by a decomposing body alone. The defense cross examined and determined that Dr. V had done a qualative report, not a quantative report. How can a shockingly high level of chloroform be determined, if you do not know the quantity? Dr. V states that the fatty acid substance like adipocere contained steoric acid,palmeric acid, oleic acid and paleroleic acid, all of which are part of the makeup of adipocere, and all of which are part of the makeup of cheeses, and other dairy products, and further testing would be required to determine what this substance actually was. So now we have an odor that may have come from a dead body, or from a kitchen trash bag with maggots in it. We have some flies, but not really enough flies to determine whether they were in the trunk because of a dead body, or they were in the trunk because of the contents in a white kitchen trash bag. We have a stain, that although initially believed to have been caused by human decompositional fluids, no evidence recovered from the stain could confirm this. We have a quantative air sample, that found too much chloroform to be caused from a decomposing body inside the trunk, yet no chloroform found in the interior of the car, although the odor found its way from the trunk to the interior of the car. And we have a fatty substance like adipocere that could be either from a decomposing body (which although adipocere can form as early as within a few hours of death, it NORMALLY takes at least 2 to 3 weeks to form), or from something inside the kitchen from where the white kitchen trash bag originated.

There is much more, but the debate is the same. My claim is that I am not looking at each individual piece of evidence and raising doubt to it. I am piecing together both strings of evidence, one for and one against. And I come up to close to call which one is more believeable. And when both sides are equally believeable the jury must side with the defense, and that is why I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Sustained]

For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

 

[RR0004]

We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Well if anyone can think of an apple (the fruit) as a phone...I have no more words. Nada, zippo, zero.

 

[logicalgirl]

Emotion didn't apply all that duct tape to Caylee's skull. If you don't believe she was murdered by KC or whoever, why would that tape be there?

Dr. G got emotional because the DT was trying to make a fool out of her and she got mad. I don't blame her. She finally came back with the statement "no child should have duct tape on their face". She determined it was a "homicide" because of it so how can you dispute that? What is your level of expertise that gives you the idea that her determination is questionnable?

No, scratch that........it doesn't even matter. What reason would Caylee have had that duct tape on her face or anywhere on her skull?

Actually, if you think back - it was a Supreme Court judge in the Huck case appeal who declared there is no reason whatsoever to have duct tape across the nose and mouth of an individual except to prevent them from breathing.

 

[RR0004]

For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

I don't think Casey ever felt anything EVER. She is IMO the kind of person who would view an apple as a phone. Queen of distorting reality (much like the jurors). She has no doubt convinced herself that life is whatever she imagines it to be. I truly hope she imagines it in a place far away from here. Regardless of the verdict, I do believe she's dangerous.

 

[logicalgirl]

For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

Sustained I've read and read and read your comments in this thread and said thanks both for your tenacity and courage to be posting over and over again .

But this is the only time I'm going to disagree with you my friend. When FKC walks past a schoolyard of children, I don't think Caylee will come to mind at all, and when she sees something feasting on carrion, I don't think Caylee will come to mind, for the same reason that when I throw something away that is garbage TO ME, I never think of it again.

 

[RR0004]

Yes.



I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:



Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.



Sound reasoning is expected.



It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

Wow!
Brilliant post, brilliant mind.
Thank you.

 

[Sustained]

Let me start with the odor in the trunk. First off, there was a white trash bag in the trunk that came from a kitchen. There was a foul odor found in the trunk, and it also permeated to the interior of the car. There was chloroform in an air sample from the trunk, but there was no chloroform found in the interior of the car. Several people claimed they smelled human decomposition in the trunk, several others claimed they smelled a bad odor. So for me, thus far into the trunk evidence, it is looking or smelling like there may have been a dead body in the trunk, but it might have been an odor from the white trash bag. Next, we know flies flew out when GA and SB opened the trunk, and GA testified he heard maggots making a popping sound inside the white trash bag. Assuming there had been a body decomposing in the trunk at some point, thousands upon thousands of flies and fly casings and pupai would have been expected to be found not only in the trunk, but in the interior of the car as well. However, unlike the bad odor, the flies followed the same path as the chloroform and stayed only in the trunk, and amazingly in far less numbers than would be logically expected.

Why did the trunk and the entire car smell of decomp two years later ? From a bag of garbage ? How do you know that the people who smelled the bad odor had formerly smelled the odor of human decomp ? There was no food found in the garbage bag at all, so how do you know the maggots found were not feasting on the adipocere and FCA cleaned the vehicle before dumping it at the Amscot ? She could easily have vacuumed the trunk, eliminating all of the fly casings and pupai, but leaving the chloroform smell embedded in the carpet.

At this point, it is likely that there had been a body decomposing in the trunk, but it is also quite possible that there had never been a body decomposing in the trunk. So we go to the next piece of evidence. The stain. CA and LA said there had always been stains in the trunk. GA said there was a basketball sized stain in the trunk. Considering these sources, I took these statements with a grain of salt, and in my opinion, even if Caylee had been in a fetal position, the impression she would have left would have been much larger than a basketball. An officer used an alternate light source, and the stain looked like it may be blood or decompositional fluids. The vehicle was taken to the OCSO forensic garage and the csi's there tested to determine what caused the stain. Their tests came up negative for blood, negative for decompositional fluids, and negative for dna. At this point, although it is still possible that there may have been a body decomposing in the trunk, it is now just as likely that there was not a dead body in the trunk. But lets go further.

You forget the hair with the death band on it, plus the cadaver dogs hitting on the trunk of the car. Cadaver dogs do not hit on garbage. As for the stain, LA could have been talking about different stains that the one supposedly left by Caylee's remains. I don't recall of the stain mentioned by GA as the size of a basketball was the one introduced as the one appearing to show the outline of a child in the fetal position. But I personally do not need this stain to conclude there was a dead body in the trunk.

Unsatisfied with the OCSO csi results, carpet and air samples were sent to Dr. V. along with some of the contents of the white trash bag. Dr. V using technology only he can use claimed there was a shockingly high level of chloroform in the trunk, and that a fatty substance like adipocere was found on paper towells. He stated that the shockingly high amount of chloroform detected could not have been caused by a decomposing body alone. The defense cross examined and determined that Dr. V had done a qualative report, not a quantative report. How can a shockingly high level of chloroform be determined, if you do not know the quantity? Dr. V states that the fatty acid substance like adipocere contained steoric acid,palmeric acid, oleic acid and paleroleic acid, all of which are part of the makeup of adipocere, and all of which are part of the makeup of cheeses, and other dairy products, and further testing would be required to determine what this substance actually was. So now we have an odor that may have come from a dead body, or from a kitchen trash bag with maggots in it. We have some flies, but not really enough flies to determine whether they were in the trunk because of a dead body, or they were in the trunk because of the contents in a white kitchen trash bag. We have a stain, that although initially believed to have been caused by human decompositional fluids, no evidence recovered from the stain could confirm this. We have a quantative air sample, that found too much chloroform to be caused from a decomposing body inside the trunk, yet no chloroform found in the interior of the car, although the odor found its way from the trunk to the interior of the car. And we have a fatty substance like adipocere that could be either from a decomposing body (which although adipocere can form as early as within a few hours of death, it NORMALLY takes at least 2 to 3 weeks to form), or from something inside the kitchen from where the white kitchen trash bag originated.

If someone told you that a shockingly high amount of rain fell last night, what would you think ? That it was a brief shower, or a tremendous downpour ? I don't need a quantitative study to show me that a shockingly high level of rain or chloroform MEANS a boatload of either. And once again about the kitchen bag and the adipocere, where is the evidence that there was any actual food in the trunk and not empty containers ?

There is much more, but the debate is the same. My claim is that I am not looking at each individual piece of evidence and raising doubt to it. I am piecing together both strings of evidence, one for and one against. And I come up to close to call which one is more believeable. And when both sides are equally believeable the jury must side with the defense, and that is why I think the verdict was correct.

This is where you and I will always differ in opinion ... I do not find anything the DT threw out as evidence to be believable, nor do I think their "experts" refuted anything to which the State's experts testified. And I believe that JA/LDB turned the DT experts into State experts.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Sorry to jump in, but my comments in blue ...

 

[RR0004]

I agree with the thought that just because it could be something other than an apple doesn't mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is.

However, when the burden of proof is on the state, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed an apple, then stating it has a core and a skin is not enough to prove it is an apple BARD, when there are so many other things that have a core and a skin. The state could have proven it was an apple with further testing to remove any doubt. They chose not to do the further testing. WHY? If this is indeed an apple, why not prove it? I believe they wanted everyone to think it was an apple, but had they done the further testing, it would have been found to be an apple phone, not an apple, and that is why the further tests weren't done. In addition, if it were an apple it helped their CIC, if it were to prove to be an apple phone it would have damaged their CIC, therefore, they did not want to risk confirmation, and chose to present it as an apple.

In the case of adipocere, this fatty substance found on the paper towells, that was consistant with adipocere, was found inside a white kitchen trash bag. I believe it is reasonable to want to find out definatively if this substance was adipocere, because the fatty acids that Dr. V mentioned are found in a number of items that are normally found in a kitchen. That is NOT inferior reasoning.

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

There's a lot of supposition here. I'm not quite sure where the distrust of LE comes from, but I do know that it's been stated countless times here (by professionals no less) that scientists will not give scientific results that way. Just like they won't say "with 100% certainty". So juries will never have that.
And...I'll say it again...the jurors did not analyze the evidence as much as you have (or many here have). I wish they had.

 

[Sustained]

Sustained I've read and read and read your comments in this thread and said thanks both for your tenacity and courage to be posting over and over again .

But this is the only time I'm going to disagree with you my friend. When FKC walks past a schoolyard of children, I don't think Caylee will come to mind at all, and when she sees something feasting on carrion, I don't think Caylee will come to mind, for the same reason that when I throw something away that is garbage TO ME, I never think of it again.

Thanks logicalgirl - I'd like to think I'm right and FCA has some form of conscious, but maybe you're right. And if you are, it's just a matter of time before this shell of a human being offends again and next time she won't be so lucky. And if I'm right, she'll be tortured throughout the rest of her life and eternity.

 

[lauriej]

For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

..i have to disagree on this ------WE-----might experience those feelings, but not kc.

..she put "all that" behind her the day she took her trash to the swamp ,threw it out and began her new life---the better one, that did not include a little snot nose as part of it.

..this is a "mother" that had no problem using the pics OF her 'missing' child --( not to GIVE to the media to splash all over to help FIND her) but to pay for HER own defense for lying to LE & being charged with child neglect for "losing" her in the 1st place!

..after 3 years of sending their P.I.'s all over creation trying to find someone! anyone! that they could pin their defense on------who did kc finally decide would be the perfect scapegoat? the ONE person that couldn't take the stand and say that caylee did NOT drown???

..caylee!

..that little brat opened the sliding door, climbed the pool ladder---and drowned herself!!

..i do NOT for one second think that kc looks at anything , and is 'tortured', 'haunted' or even reminded of caylee-----kc put "that child" out of her mind a LONG time ago.