The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[beccalecca1]

Wrong ... Officer Beasley testified that she "didn't recall if she did or not".

Since Officer Beasley sealed the car by place a piece of evidence tape over the cracks of the door and trunk, she never opened any doors of the vehicle or the trunk. So how do we know if the smell was emanating through the car's seals along the door and trunk ?

And she sealed the car after CA's 911 call where CA screams "there smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car" and after the car was driven home by GA who also testified that he smelled human decomp in the car.

This truly is speculative doubt and grasping at straws ...

Ok, I mispoke, she didn't recall. That still equates that it couldn't have been the distinct smell of human decomp.

She sealed the car after YM told her to, which IIRC was on the 17th of July. Another, at least day, of being in the FL heat. When YM, GB, and Co. got the car they could smell it. Why wouldn't Beasley recall if she smelled anything when she sealed it? She was pretty close to the car in order to do that.

 

[treeseeker]

So, if you're smelling human decomposition but don't see a body, you could easily confuse it with trash?

But, if you smell human decomposition (that apparently can be mistaken for trash) but see a body, then you know it's not trash and it's human?

IMO, once you've experienced an animal decomp odor, you know it when you smell it. It is very different from trash. Personally, I'm not sure there's much difference between animal and human odor.

 

[coco puff]

I disagree... it's a bigger leap to say some random hair landed on a pair of pliers in a boat of someone, with the original person never being on the boat to begin with. Then, to top it off, this person winds up dead, at the bottom of a lake that this boat was taken on. Not too far to leap.

Even bigger leap to say child found in swamp with duct tape attached to hair was an accident. We use jurors to determine guilt or innocence is because jurors can apply common sense,life experiences and logical thinking. Otherwise we could just build a formula, plug it into our IPhone app and determine guilt or innocence in about 60 seconds.

 

[Italy]

Since the verdict, I have learned so much from the jury and defenders of the verdict.

Dr. G is not up to the standard of this medical person on the jury (Was there a physician on the jury? Or a 20 year Medical Examiner? Practicing chemist or biologist?) because she stated clearly that accidents are reported.

There was NOT a smell of decomposition. (despite cops, chemists, experts, K9 - levels disputed but not the presence of the chemicals which comprise the chemicals of decomposition). Heck, read Lee's deposition and see if you think it sounds like a teaspoon of dried Velveeta.

George Anthony lied therefore he bears culpability for the death of Caylee. And the jury knew he lied because they can "read people".

Casey Anthony's demonstrable and proven lies are just a nuisance.

Casey Anthony was a good mother (much like Susan Smith). Just because you don't report (ever) that the child everyone is searching for is dead really does not speak to her being a loving, caring mother.

The search for "How to make chloroform" (undisputed) is insignificant because the IT tech erroneously said that 84 searches for chloroform were made. I guess if the defendant had admitted to killing her child only once and it was later mistakenly claimed that she said it 84 times, we can just toss out the 1 time and pretend it didn't happen.

Jeff Ashton did not say "Good morning" to the jury and that is somehow significant.

Law enforcement - State, County & FBI did not do a thorough investigation. (I'm unsure how this was so known by the jury but clearly they figured this Gordian knot out also).

Not knowing exactly how, why, when or where the crime (was there even a crime??) was committed necessarily requires a not-guilty to the charges even tho these elements do not need to be proven.

Despite the conclusions of a 3 year investigation by a highly regarded investigative team (a team that spent considerable sums of time & money seeking the truth in Caylee's death) & a true bill of indictment by the Grand Jury (with the recommendation of the first 3 charges) this jury - by their great powers of discernment - decided that Casey was guilty of "Something" and that "Something" really makes them sick.

Honestly, how could you have any problem with the verdict?

As the recent article in Psychology Today said, a person with only borderline intelligence would have been able to arrive at a guilty verdict on at least one of the 3 major charges.

 

[rollinginit]

No decomp ? So you're ignoring the work of the cadaver dogs, plus all of the other witnesses who testified to the decomp smell coming from the car ? Why did the car smell 2 years after the car was found ? From garbage wrappers with no food on them ?

Which witness do you believe? There were also a few that didn't smell anything. There were cops in and out of the garage that didn't smell anything. Friends rode in the car and didn't smell anything. In this twisted case, it really is hard to know.

Not disagreeing with you about the the body being in trunk

If I was a tow person that had experience with dead body smells...and I would have smell a foul odor coming from that car....I would have called the police to tell them something smells terrible and maybe they should come check it out. Just like GA should have when he smelled something. Just like the few LE that said they smelled something. Why not tell every other LE agent right that moment? Why not take the car right away? These people are suppose to have experiece with death smells.

Just my 2.

 

[askfornina]

i have a question for all you guilty posters. are there any pieces of evidence that you can concede were just not up to par? i believe the 84 searches is the most obvious answer here so im seeking other answers. thanks.

quoting myself, classy i know, but i do not want this post to get lost because i believe it's a valuable question.

 

[coco puff]

I never meant to imply reporting is considered harassment. But, after reporting if you continue to follow up on it and that is NOT your line of work, it could be considered harassment BECAUSE it isn't your business anymore. Like it or not, criminals are provided the same civil rights we are. Abusers or not, they have rights and me, as a nurse, has no business in their personal life finding information out.

And, in all honesty, it's not a matter of if I can separate myself from the situation; it's a matter of I have to separate myself if I don't want my license on the line. I may be bothered by the situation and get frustrated, but I can't follow up on these things as a nurse unless the situation presents itself in front of me again. I enjoy my job, I enjoy helping those who need it. And, when I report things like that, that is all I'm suppose to do.

So it just happened that kc had a car that she abandoned that smelled like human decomposition And k9s that alerted on the car plus a dead child who had to get to her grave down the road somehow? What are the odds?

 

[sacrablue]

OK.... so how do you explain SB talking about the smell of the car when he went to the windshield to get the VIN number? The car was locked, so he couldn't enter, but he smelled something.

We have all kinds of testimony. Some from here some from there. Everyone describes things differently. Some body might have a cold, somebody may have a more sensative nose. Don't expect 100% of the testimony to be always supportive or not supportive. If 100 people go to an icecream parlor and all order vanilla icecream there will be 100 different opinions if you were to interview them. But there is a way to surmise a conclusive opinion from the majority of the 100 people. And there will be a percentage that would say it wasn't icecream but yogart so they will not have the same opinion.

 

[Sustained]

Ok, I mispoke, she didn't recall. That still equates that it couldn't have been the distinct smell of human decomp.

She sealed the car after YM told her to, which IIRC was on the 17th of July. Another, at least day, of being in the FL heat. When YM, GB, and Co. got the car they could smell it. Why wouldn't Beasley recall if she smelled anything when she sealed it? She was pretty close to the car in order to do that.

OK, let me get this straight .... SB/GA smelled decomp on the 15th, CA called 911 on the 15th and said the car smelled like a dead body, Officer Beasley sealed the car for transport and testified she didn't recall, the car went to the OCSO CSI lab and GB smelled decomp and the cadaver dogs hit on the smell in the trunk. So you want me and rest of us interested in this thread to believe the decomp smell just vanished for a day and then returned ?

 

[sacrablue]

Which witness do you believe? There were also a few that didn't smell anything. There were cops in and out of the garage that didn't smell anything. Friends rode in the car and didn't smell anything. In this twisted case, it really is hard to know.

Not disagreeing with you about the the body being in trunk

If I was a tow person that had experience with dead body smells...and I would have smell a foul odor coming from that car....I would have called the police to tell them something smells terrible and maybe they should come check it out. Just like GA should have when he smelled something. Just like the few LE that said they smelled something. Why not tell every other LE agent right that moment? Why not take the car right away? These people are suppose to have experiece with death smells.

Just my 2.

It was not the tow person's business to call the police. George did smell the decom and knew he had problems. Before calling police he wanted to contact Casey and get the information from the horse's mouth before contacting LE.

 

[beccalecca1]

We have all kinds of testimony. Some from here some from there. Everyone describes things differently. Some body might have a cold, somebody may have a more sensative nose. Don't expect 100% of the testimony to be always supportive or not supportive. If 100 people go to an icecream parlor and all order vanilla icecream there will be 100 different opinions if you were to interview them. But there is a way to surmise a conclusive opinion from the majority of the 100 people. And there will be a percentage that would say it wasn't icecream but yogart so they will not have the same opinion.

I don't believe the post I responded to had anything to do with "opinion". The post stated that the trunk would seal the odor molecules because it is water-tight. Well, that can't be the case if SB stated he smelled human decomp when he got the VIN off the car by looking in the windshield now can it?

ETA: And the analogy above only furthers the idea of whether or not it was true human decomp those who testified smelled. Was it power of suggestion that brought them to the human decomp idea?

 

[beccalecca1]

OK, let me get this straight .... SB/GA smelled decomp on the 15th, CA called 911 on the 15th and said the car smelled like a dead body, Officer Beasley sealed the car for transport and testified she didn't recall, the car went to the OCSO CSI lab and GB smelled decomp and the cadaver dogs hit on the smell in the trunk. So you want me and rest of us interested in this thread to believe the decomp smell just vanished for a day and then returned ?

How about try this on for size:

SB/GA claimed to smell human decomp on the 15th but didn't actually take any sort of action on it until way after the fact. CA called 911 stating it smelled like a dead body in the car, but her calls prior to that were stating Grand Theft Auto. Officer Beasley doesn't recall what she smelled (if anything). YM stated he smelled human decomp when the car was brought to the OSCO garage, but not prior. GB stated he smelled human decomp when he was answering LDB/JA... but just decomp when answering JB.

I don't expect anyone to believe that the smell just vanished. But, I would like to clarify what trial testimony said to me.

 

[beccalecca1]

It was not the tow person's business to call the police. George did smell the decom and knew he had problems. Before calling police he wanted to contact Casey and get the information from the horse's mouth before contacting LE.

SB works for OCSO, and I believe that if anyone sees a crime, knows of a crime, etc decides not to report, it's hindering an investigation and they could actually be charged.

 

[Sustained]

Since the verdict, I have learned so much from the jury and defenders of the verdict.

Dr. G is not up to the standard of this medical person on the jury (Was there a physician on the jury? Or a 20 year Medical Examiner? Practicing chemist or biologist?) because she stated clearly that accidents are reported.

There was NOT a smell of decomposition. (despite cops, chemists, experts, K9 - levels disputed but not the presence of the chemicals which comprise the chemicals of decomposition). Heck, read Lee's deposition and see if you think it sounds like a teaspoon of dried Velveeta.

George Anthony lied therefore he bears culpability for the death of Caylee. And the jury knew he lied because they can "read people".

Casey Anthony's demonstrable and proven lies are just a nuisance.

Casey Anthony was a good mother (much like Susan Smith). Just because you don't report (ever) that the child everyone is searching for is dead really does not speak to her being a loving, caring mother.

The search for "How to make chloroform" (undisputed) is insignificant because the IT tech erroneously said that 84 searches for chloroform were made. I guess if the defendant had admitted to killing her child only once and it was later mistakenly claimed that she said it 84 times, we can just toss out the 1 time and pretend it didn't happen.

Jeff Ashton did not say "Good morning" to the jury and that is somehow significant.

Law enforcement - State, County & FBI did not do a thorough investigation. (I'm unsure how this was so known by the jury but clearly they figured this Gordian knot out also).

Not knowing exactly how, why, when or where the crime (was there even a crime??) was committed necessarily requires a not-guilty to the charges even tho these elements do not need to be proven.

Despite the conclusions of a 3 year investigation by a highly regarded investigative team (a team that spent considerable sums of time & money seeking the truth in Caylee's death) & a true bill of indictment by the Grand Jury (with the recommendation of the first 3 charges) this jury - by their great powers of discernment - decided that Casey was guilty of "Something" and that "Something" really makes them sick.

Honestly, how could you have any problem with the verdict?

As the recent article in Psychology Today said, a person with only borderline intelligence would have been able to arrive at a guilty verdict on at least one of the 3 major charges.

Italy, awesome post !

 

[rollinginit]

It was not the tow person's business to call the police. George did smell the decom and knew he had problems. Before calling police he wanted to contact Casey and get the information from the horse's mouth before contacting LE.

Why isn't it the tow person's business, he was doing an inspection on the car when he smelled the odor? At the very least, you would think he would go into to the shop and tell his boss or co-worker that car smells foul.

 

[Baznme]

logicalgirl posted that defense and state experts agreed to there being human decomp in the car, which I then posted who on the DT expert witness list stated this.

Since the sky is blue/green comment, I just wanted some clarification because I was apparently horribly misinformed on that... but then in this post I'm not misinformed?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/casey-anthony-trial-jeff-ashton-hammers-defenses-bug-1545365.html

Casey Anthony trial: Jeff Ashton hammers defense's bug expert
Expert for defense admits Casey's car smelled


"Ashton challenged everything from Huntington's experience to the validity of his opinions to his failure to include one of those opinions in a report prepared for Anthony's first-degree murder trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie."

"For example, Ashton got Huntington, a key defense expert, to admit that when he examined Casey Anthony's Pontiac Sunfire in July, roughly two years after Caylee's death, the car still smelled.

The assistant biology professor from Concordia University inNebraska attributed the odor, possibly, to the garbage that had been in the car. But later, he acknowledged the waste contained no apparent food sources.

Several other witnesses, including Casey Anthony's parents, have said the Pontiac smelled as if a dead body had been inside.

The prosecution says Caylee's body was placed in the car's trunk before she was ultimately dumped in woods near the Anthony home. Her remains were not discovered until December 2008, several months after Caylee was first reported missing.

Huntington told Ashton on Friday that insect evidence from Caylee's recovery scene indicated that the body had been moved to the woods after probably decomposing two or three days, a timeline more or less consistent with the state's theory.

He also confirmed that the body had likely been left at that wooded location months earlier, another statement supportive of the state's theory.

Huntington said he largely agreed with an explanation about insect findings included in a report by Neal Haskell, the prosecution's insect expert."

 

[beccalecca1]

http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache...7&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=fDUIqgrGS7jKpFOm7UAbcA--

Casey Anthony trial: Jeff Ashton hammers defense's bug expert
Expert for defense admits Casey's car smelled


"Ashton challenged everything from Huntington's experience to the validity of his opinions to his failure to include one of those opinions in a report prepared for Anthony's first-degree murder trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie."

"For example, Ashton got Huntington, a key defense expert, to admit that when he examined Casey Anthony's Pontiac Sunfire in July, roughly two years after Caylee's death, the car still smelled.

The assistant biology professor from Concordia University inNebraska attributed the odor, possibly, to the garbage that had been in the car. But later, he acknowledged the waste contained no apparent food sources.

Several other witnesses, including Casey Anthony's parents, have said the Pontiac smelled as if a dead body had been inside.

The prosecution says Caylee's body was placed in the car's trunk before she was ultimately dumped in woods near the Anthony home. Her remains were not discovered until December 2008, several months after Caylee was first reported missing.

Huntington told Ashton on Friday that insect evidence from Caylee's recovery scene indicated that the body had been moved to the woods after probably decomposing two or three days, a timeline more or less consistent with the state's theory.

He also confirmed that the body had likely been left at that wooded location months earlier, another statement supportive of the state's theory.

Huntington said he largely agreed with an explanation about insect findings included in a report by Neal Haskell, the prosecution's insect expert."

BBM and in red

I'm sorry, maybe I'm misreading it, but where does it say that he agreed to there being human decomposition in the trunk?

 

[beccalecca1]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/casey-anthony-trial-jeff-ashton-hammers-defenses-bug-1545365.html

Casey Anthony trial: Jeff Ashton hammers defense's bug expert
Expert for defense admits Casey's car smelled
"

Here is some more from the same article:

Huntington also said the presence of other insects — another, more common type of fly — in a trash bag once placed inside the car was not surprising, nor indicative of human decomposition.

"Their presence is completely expected, given that it's a bag of garbage," he said. At another point, Huntington said, "It's a bag of trash with trash-feeding insects. There's nothing remarkable about that."

At one point, outside the presence of the jury, Huntington told the attorneys, "For me, there's no reason to assume those maggots came from a dead body."

The prosecution has put forth the argument that fatty acids indicative of human decomposition and found on paper towels are what drew those flies.

Later, under questioning from Ashton, Huntington acknowledged that chloroform can be used to kill insects. Chloroform was found in high concentrations in air samples pulled from the trunk of the Pontiac. Still, Huntington insisted chloroform would not have kept flies away unless it was at levels displacing oxygen.

Toward the end of the day, Huntington told Baez, "The evidence doesn't make sense any way you look at it to say there was a body in the trunk."

When shown a photo of a stain from the car, Huntington said it did not resemble the stain of human decomposition.

He clearly did not agree there was human decomposition in the trunk.

 

[Italy]

Beccalecca

Clearly you do not believe the State proved it's case.

What do you think may have happened? Thanks.

 

[RR0004]

Did someone say Casey borrowed the shovel to get the ladder out of the pool? You know what I think...I bet Casey reads this forum. How about giving us some clues so we can solve this thing. Nothing will happen to you.
That would be an interesting method to write for Casey. It would be a series, one pain staking clue at a time over 5 books.

Except...I wouldn't read it 'cause I wouldn't believe it.