Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

[twocuriouscats]

Simon Birch and George when they threw the garbage out of the trunk of the car. George and Cindy when they cleaned the trunk and the car. Has anything been said about the affect of all the chemical sprays/cleaners Cindy used to remove the car's odor?

Hi Hali,

Good point IMHO. From what I understood from Baez's questioning is this:
1) a wet swimsuit thrown in the trunk may have produced chloroform (via chlorine?)
2) Baez made reference to cleaning products that could produce a positive result for chloroform. CA has admitted to cleaning products being used by her in the car...after it was retrieved from the impound lot...

One other thing:

Officer Bloise was questioned about the "trash" and how he may have "destroyed evidence." I don't believe his testimony was fabricated or malicious, but I understood where Baez was going with questioning - Bloise came off looking as an irrelevant witness. Not good or bad. Just irrelevant. Unskilled. And not credible IMO. I'm thinkin', "why would you put collected "WET" evidence into a dry room? Like Baez was pointing out - "didn't you think DNA could be extracted from that trash?"

Bloise's answer was something like "we didn't have any DNA to compare it to...(at the time of testing no body had been found.) Scratch his testimony too.

 

[2door73chevy]

I don't think the jury cares that much about the can mix up. They are up close and see the mountain of evidence that is laid out on the table. I believe they completely understand how that might happen. I also believe in the end the jury will not look at any particular witness in a vacuum but look at the totality of the evidence.

I'd love to hear what you think the outcome will be for ICA? TIA

 

[Dignity4Victims]

That was one of the things that he did not understand....I tried to explain the 9-1-1 calls to him and all the information that we already know from following the case...and he didn't really understand...I told him to sign up and start reading!!! I guess you make a valid point...sorry...I was just lost in what was going on I guess...yesterday was a very emotional day for a lot of people...

Now that you and your fiance' have your own sweet baby, have your fiance' watch the jailhouse videos of Casey's demeanor and then get back to us.

I don't care how severely "abused" Casey lies about being now, at this late date no less after sitting in jail for her abuser?! for nearly 3 long, miserable years - NO parent who truly loved their baby is going to behave as Casey did on those video tapes!

Nonetheless, please tap back into this thread after your fiance' has become more well-informed. I would be very interested to the anticipated change in his opinion.

 

[kjpaw]

[/U][/B]

Hi Hali,

Good point IMHO. From what I understood from Baez's questioning is this:
1) a wet swimsuit thrown in the trunk may have produced chloroform (via chlorine?)
2) Baez made reference to cleaning products that could produce a positive result for chloroform. CA has admitted to cleaning products being used by her in the car...after it was retrieved from the impound lot...

One other thing:

Officer Bloise was questioned about the "trash" and how he may have "destroyed evidence." I don't believe his testimony was fabricated or malicious, but I understood where Baez was going with questioning - Bloise came off looking as an irrelevant witness. Not good or bad. Just irrelevant. Unskilled. And not credible IMO. I'm thinkin', "why would you put collected "WET" evidence into a dry room? Like Baez was pointing out - "didn't you think DNA could be extracted from that trash?"

Bloise's answer was something like "we didn't have any DNA to compare it to...(at the time of testing no body had been found.) Scratch his testimony too.

As someone who has been following this case from "day 31" I really enjoy reading the responses and fresh sets of eyes . Since you posed the BBM question above I wonder if you have a perspective on something that was going through my mind on this issue: should they have allowed the evidence to remain "wet" and possibly ferment or mold? I feel that may have contaminated the evidence more than allowing it to dry out. I just feel like that was a no win situation for the state...but looking very forward to anyone's thoughts on this topic.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I don't think the jury cares that much about the can mix up. They are up close and see the mountain of evidence that is laid out on the table. I believe they completely understand how that might happen. I also believe in the end the jury will not look at any particular witness in a vacuum but look at the totality of the evidence.

BBM - I agree 100% and then some.

Mistakes happen even with the best of professionals. The outcome of the mistake, at least to me, is more important than the mistake itself.

1. You admit the mistake. The State did just that and they did it in a timely manner as well as being the first to admit it rather than, the Defense bringing before the Jury.

2. You own the mistake and Jeff Ashton did just that.

3. You rectify the mistake and again, Jeff Ashton did just that.

Case closed, no big deal.

 

[Themis]

IMO, I think the SA may have made too much of a big deal about the odor of decomp in the car.

Both my friend and I were SHOCKED that the Blue Star nor the more specific test did not show blood. We both said the same thing. If there is no blood than it had to be the trash.

When the "hair" was introduced, again surprised that there was only one hair showing a possible "decomp."

Again, just because there was so much testimony about the strong odor, we expected more forensics to support that a decomposing body was in that car.

Well, trash usually doesn't contain blood, but this is not a stabbing or gunshot type of murder that would involve bleeding.

The lack of blood is consistent with death by smothering. No need to cut the body so it will bleed if the cause of death is smothering with duct tape or knocking her out with chloroform and then smothering with duct tape.

 

[Turnadot]

My sister didn't care about the can mixup because, she said, since Mr Ashton brought it up himself, it showed him to be honest and not trying to pull one over on the jury.

However, she was concerned that JA didn't do enough on redirect and as a result, it seemed Dr Vass' testimony was undercut. She hopes the jury isn't confused.

 

[Themis]

I know I'm probably in a small minority, but I don't really give a rat's bottom if she was abused from here to Sunday and back. I don't even care if that alleged abuse warped her little psychological state and was the major contributing factor in causing her to kill her 2 year old. Unless her mental condition meets the legal standard for an insanity defense (which it does not because that isn't being raised in this case) then in my opinion, the abuse isn't relevant on any level; not even sentencing. I'm all for society being active in preventing and stopping abuse and treating abuse victims, but I personally draw the line when it comes to giving them a pass on criminal acts where there is no insanity defense. JMHO

 

[mommaearth]

I thought the FBI chemist today did take away somewhat from Dr. Voss. (I am new to the case, except for the very basics.)

But I do believe that overall, enough experienced people smelled the decomposition to believe that Caylee was in the trunk. Am not convinced about the levels of chloroform however.

I totally believe Gerus and all of this training and his handler.

Caylee was in the trunk for a number of days, that seems obvious. I think the jurors will conclude that much.

I'm still waiting to be shown that she was killed on purpose, so will hold off on that, but I am convinced that Casey alone is responsible.

At first I was thinking that the FBI chemist took away a bit from Dr. Vass' testimony however after thinking about it they were not sent the same sample to base their results off of. Dr. Vass was taking his sample from a sealed can. Very little air has escaped that can besides when he cracked a small amount to add then remove some air. The sample that the FBI chemist was basing his results from was a large part of the trunk liner that had not been sealed but put into a box and shipped. The concentration of chloroform found obviously would be much less since it was not concentrated in a tiny can with little air. The FBI witness said although the amount of chloroform was small he was shocked to see it at all after the sample had been subjected to air all of that time.

 

[mommaearth]

[/U][/B]

Hi Hali,

Good point IMHO. From what I understood from Baez's questioning is this:
1) a wet swimsuit thrown in the trunk may have produced chloroform (via chlorine?)
2) Baez made reference to cleaning products that could produce a positive result for chloroform. CA has admitted to cleaning products being used by her in the car...after it was retrieved from the impound lot...

One other thing:

Officer Bloise was questioned about the "trash" and how he may have "destroyed evidence." I don't believe his testimony was fabricated or malicious, but I understood where Baez was going with questioning - Bloise came off looking as an irrelevant witness. Not good or bad. Just irrelevant. Unskilled. And not credible IMO. I'm thinkin', "why would you put collected "WET" evidence into a dry room? Like Baez was pointing out - "didn't you think DNA could be extracted from that trash?"

Bloise's answer was something like "we didn't have any DNA to compare it to...(at the time of testing no body had been found.) Scratch his testimony too.

Dr. Vass testified that the looked at the ingredients that made up the fabreeze and they did not contain anything that would produce chloroform. I believe the only thing CA admitted to using in the car was the fabreeze.

 

[Sharai]

I know I'm probably in a small minority, but I don't really give a rat's bottom if she was abused from here to Sunday and back. I don't even care if that alleged abuse warped her little psychological state and was the major contributing factor in causing her to kill her 2 year old. Unless her mental condition meets the legal standard for an insanity defense (which it does not because that isn't being raised in this case) then in my opinion, the abuse isn't relevant on any level; not even sentencing. I'm all for society being active in preventing and stopping abuse and treating abuse victims, but I personally draw the line when it comes to giving them a pass on criminal acts where there is no insanity defense. JMHO

I, too, am aware of the long term damage any type of abuse causes in the hearts and minds of victims, however, abuse does cause someone to murder nor does it excuse murder, especially the murder of an innocent little two year old girl, such as Caylee.

 

[txsvicki]

At first I was thinking that the FBI chemist took away a bit from Dr. Vass' testimony however after thinking about it they were not sent the same sample to base their results off of. Dr. Vass was taking his sample from a sealed can. Very little air has escaped that can besides when he cracked a small amount to add then remove some air. The sample that the FBI chemist was basing his results from was a large part of the trunk liner that had not been sealed but put into a box and shipped. The concentration of chloroform found obviously would be much less since it was not concentrated in a tiny can with little air. The FBI witness said although the amount of chloroform was small he was shocked to see it at all after the sample had been subjected to air all of that time.

But, wash the FBI chemist talking about the air coming off of the trunk liner that had been put into a box or the actual liner fibers itself? Will they ever get to the actual fibers?

 

[GreenTeam]

Hi all,

Just an update from where I (we) see it:

1) My spouse and I agree that the air samples, in order to be considered, had to have been collected in a "clean room" type environment. That wasn't done, so we discount it.
2) Prosecution blew it. They had to admit that Dr. Vass identified and testified about the wrong can. Baez made a good point - this was a research lab - not a forensics lab; As a juror, I would "throw out" his testimony. He and the prosecution are not reliable - they have made mistakes.
3) I don't think the prosecution needs the testimony of Dr. Vass - I believe the other people who have testified about the decomp smell in the car...especially CA's 911 call...and the tow truck driver...
4) The FBI "expert" reported findings on the "chloroform" to be "consistent with" chloroform. Not definitely chloroform. I heard that, and I think the jury did too. Just like the hair, with the supposed decomp band around the root end - they couldn't say definitively. It was "consistent with"...
5) The K-9 officer who testified today...I believe him. I have a german shep and I know how good her nose is...but he and Gerus never found any of Caylee's remains...right? So what did his testimony prove? We have to consider what that means...that's what I would be thinking as a juror...
Peace

Interesting thoughts! Here are a few comments:

1. I don't think the state would allow evidence into the trial that wasn't collected properly. The scientists involved (Dr. Voss and his associates?) would not do the tests if they knew it was done improperly. If a clean room was needed, I'm sure they'd use one.

2. It was a simple mix-up of showing him the wrong can. His tests were done on the correct can. His testing and results are not affected by showing him the wrong can in the courtroom.

3. Yep.

4. I think if it is consistent with chloroform, it means it is not consistent with other possible substances. It's just that there wasn't a high enough amount left after evaporation for a conclusive ID.

5. The dog hitting on the car and the yard show that there was a body in both locations at some points in time.

And I try to remember, the jury needs to find the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Life is not exacting. I think the prosecution has a mountain of evidence and LE has done the best they can with what they had. Just my .02.

 

[Turnadot]

Interesting thoughts! Here are a few comments:

1. I don't think the state would allow evidence into the trial that wasn't collected properly. The scientists involved (Dr. Voss and his associates?) would not do the tests if they knew it was done improperly. If a clean room was needed, I'm sure they'd use one.

2. It was a simple mix-up of showing him the wrong can. His tests were done on the correct can. His testing and results are not affected by showing him the wrong can in the courtroom.

3. Yep.

4. I think if it is consistent with chloroform, it means it is not consistent with other possible substances. It's just that there wasn't a high enough amount left after evaporation for a conclusive ID.

5. The dog hitting on the car and the yard show that there was a body in both locations at some points in time.

And I try to remember, the jury needs to find the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Life is not exacting. I think the prosecution has a mountain of evidence and LE has done the best they can with what they had. Just my .02.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding in regards to the collected air samples; chemical signatures; odour signatures; how they are distinguished, etc. And I think it's probably gone over the jury's heads.

Even after tossing Dr Vass' testimony out, there's plenty of evidence that a deceased Caylee was in the trunk, IMO.

As far as the "consistent with" term goes, I understand it like this -- There's a glop of marinara sauce, and a long thin noodle on the stove. They are "consistent with" spaghetti being prepared. Is it a fact that spaghetti was prepared on the stove? No, but there's no other reasonable explanation for the sauce and noodle being there.

My opinions...

 

[ColdDayIn]

I'm a relative newbie here. I haven't been following the case.

But based on the evidece I've heard, just the raw evidence of the child, the car and the 911 call and Casey's lies, I'd convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. I just woudnt give her the DP.

The thing that cinches it for me is that she didnt do anything for 31 days.

I don't care about her prison phone calls, (never heard them) don't care about her relationship with her parents (could believe George has something to do with it) don't care about her out partying (not really seen the pix)

To me the case was over the minute the 911 operator asked her why she waited until now, 31 days later to do anything.

She's a vile human being, her daughter is dead because of it. Guilty. I think they will debate it for little while but chick is not getting out of a guilty verdict.


ETA

I do believe that there is ONE shot in the dark that she could actually beat the case. That is if she took the stand and had breakdown and confessed to leaving Caylee in the car because she was drunk and didn't mean to leave her for as long as she did. Then comes back and finds she's in sheer panic. Goes to her Dad who forces her to have sex with him so that he won't turn her in but promises to help her. That's why she didn't say anything.

I think if she admits she killed her by accident she'll get a lighter sentence just because people are dying to know the truth.

I loved reading your POV. That is exactly how I felt when all of this first started, and we had no idea what happened to Caylee, we had not heard or seen jailhouse stuff, etc. All we knew was that the mother had waited 31 days. I knew then she was guilty.

Anyhow, I wanted to address your shot in the dark thing. There's no way she could ever claim something like that, because of the duct tape. If you haven't heard anything about the case other than what has been at trial, then you will hear about the duct tape later. It was placed over Caylee's mouth AND nose (3 pieces) BEFORE she died, so there's absolutely not theory she could make up on the stand that could explain that.

I hope you continue to post your thoughts on here because i agree 110% with your opinion.

 

[ColdDayIn]

I think there's a huge misunderstanding in regards to the collected air samples; chemical signatures; odour signatures; how they are distinguished, etc. And I think it's probably gone over the jury's heads.

Even after tossing Dr Vass' testimony out, there's plenty of evidence that a deceased Caylee was in the trunk, IMO.

As far as the "consistent with" term goes, I understand it like this -- There's a glop of marinara sauce, and a long thin noodle on the stove. They are "consistent with" spaghetti being prepared. Is it a fact that spaghetti was prepared on the stove? No, but there's no other reasonable explanation for the sauce and noodle being there.

My opinions...

That's an excellent analogy :goodpost:

 

[shotzie]

After the Dog Handler said his dog had paws in the trunk..I realized Cindy must have vacuumed that car pretty good, since no Animal hairs were found..Right..???
I can't comment on what the juror's think since I have watched since day 31..an she is sooo guilty an a sociopath.I think the SA has done a great job if the Juror's use common sense. The FBI made me nervous to day an Baez thought aha..gotcha but Ashton explained about the way it wasn't contained like the cans were an it fades in time..makes sense to me.

 

[Turnadot]

[/u][/b]

Hi Hali,

Good point IMHO. From what I understood from Baez's questioning is this:
1) a wet swimsuit thrown in the trunk may have produced chloroform (via chlorine?)
2) Baez made reference to cleaning products that could produce a positive result for chloroform. CA has admitted to cleaning products being used by her in the car...after it was retrieved from the impound lot...

One other thing:

Officer Bloise was questioned about the "trash" and how he may have "destroyed evidence." I don't believe his testimony was fabricated or malicious, but I understood where Baez was going with questioning - Bloise came off looking as an irrelevant witness. Not good or bad. Just irrelevant. Unskilled. And not credible IMO. I'm thinkin', "why would you put collected "WET" evidence into a dry room? Like Baez was pointing out - "didn't you think DNA could be extracted from that trash?"

Bloise's answer was something like "we didn't have any DNA to compare it to...(at the time of testing no body had been found.) Scratch his testimony too.

BBM.

Because he was following procedure. If he were really unskilled, he'd have disregarded lab procedure. And then you'd know what we'd have? People saying Bloise's testimony should be tossed out because he didn't follow procedure.

 

[Turnadot]

Hi all,

Just an update from where I (we) see it:

1) My spouse and I agree that the air samples, in order to be considered, had to have been collected in a "clean room" type environment. That wasn't done, so we discount it.
2) Prosecution blew it. They had to admit that Dr. Vass identified and testified about the wrong can. Baez made a good point - this was a research lab - not a forensics lab; As a juror, I would "throw out" his testimony. He and the prosecution are not reliable - they have made mistakes.
3) I don't think the prosecution needs the testimony of Dr. Vass - I believe the other people who have testified about the decomp smell in the car...especially CA's 911 call...and the tow truck driver...
4) The FBI "expert" reported findings on the "chloroform" to be "consistent with" chloroform. Not definitely chloroform. I heard that, and I think the jury did too. Just like the hair, with the supposed decomp band around the root end - they couldn't say definitively. It was "consistent with"...
5) The K-9 officer who testified today...I believe him. I have a german shep and I know how good her nose is...but he and Gerus never found any of Caylee's remains...right? So what did his testimony prove? We have to consider what that means...that's what I would be thinking as a juror...
Peace

Bold and colour by me.

This post is consistent with the English alphabet.

 

[Turnadot]

As someone who has been following this case from "day 31" I really enjoy reading the responses and fresh sets of eyes . Since you posed the BBM question above I wonder if you have a perspective on something that was going through my mind on this issue: should they have allowed the evidence to remain "wet" and possibly ferment or mold? I feel that may have contaminated the evidence more than allowing it to dry out. I just feel like that was a no win situation for the state...but looking very forward to anyone's thoughts on this topic.

BBM.

Exactly!

Baez, IMO, is trying to discredit anyone involved in this case because that's all he has, and so he looks for any hole to slither into. I pray to God it's not working on the jurors.