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

[MissJames]

What strikes me the most is that the defense did nothing in the last 3 years to prepare a defense based on their opening statement.
They are scrambling to get stuff in the back door,to blurt stuff out,even though they know it is out of the scope of cross. That flies in the face of our judicial process.
The jury doesn't necessarily know this,but it will be interesting to see if they disregard ,per judges' order,or if they let it sway them.
The opening argument was NOT EVIDENCE. The DT must bring in real evidence if they want the jury to use it in making a decision.
They screwed up the Kronk prior bad acts,and have nothing to bring forward on him.IIRC,they passed the deadline HH set to argue bringing that in.Why was that?
They don't have an expert to say ICA was a SA victim.
As far as I know they don't have a way of even bringing that in unless ICA takes the stand,and she's a liar.
I think Dr,G will be a powerful witness and will leave little doubt about how Caylee died.

So let the jurors do what they will.ICA's DT came up with too little,too late.

JMO

 

[1Chump]

if it was a "soft kill" as suspected, there would be no blood. Decomp fluids are not bloody. This was not a 180 lb adult, it was a 3 yr old baby ... decomp fluids would not even be that much quantitively speaking... and she was tripled bagged, wearing a pull up so the fact that there was anything leaking at all is pretty surprising.

Where does the blood in the body go?

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Where does the blood in the body go?

It stays. Think of veins as a "plumbing system" of sorts - tubes. As long as those tubes aren't compromised - stabbing, shot, blunt trauma - they won't leak (for lack of a better word). The organs shut down - bladder empties, colon relaxes, etc. - that is where the fluids come from.

 

[Turnadot]

I don't want to be graphic so maybe this will help explain it. Have you went away on vacation or emergency and came back to a rotting bag of celery or fruit in your fruit/veg drawer? It turns to liquid. If you remove it without dripping the liquid, the smell goes away when it is removed. But if the liquid leaked, the odor keeps gettting worse until you clean up the liquid.

Yes; but I still don't understand your point, which is my fault.

From my own reading on decomp, by Dr Vass and other sources, after death, the blood separates into solids and fluids and is no longer "blood", and if you were to stick a pin in the body, a watery substance would leak out, but not "blood".

Please explain in laymen terms why there should be blood in the trunk.

ETA: I just found this at hinky. It's an excellent, easy to follow explanation of the decomp event in the trunk, IMO.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/03/08/decomposition-gases-in-caseys-trunk/

 

[RR0004]

It stays. Think of veins as a "plumbing system" of sorts - tubes. As long as those tubes aren't compromised - stabbing, shot, blunt trauma - they won't leak (for lack of a better word). The organs shut down - bladder empties, colon relaxes, etc. - that is where the fluids come from.

...and the body fills with gas and organs kinda explode...but that doesn't happen after a fews days. Right?

 

[RR0004]

I don't want to be graphic so maybe this will help explain it. Have you went away on vacation or emergency and came back to a rotting bag of celery or fruit in your fruit/veg drawer? It turns to liquid. If you remove it without dripping the liquid, the smell goes away when it is removed. But if the liquid leaked, the odor keeps gettting worse until you clean up the liquid.

That's decomp.

 

[joypath]

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.

:twocents: Just wanted to address these two points: The lack of blood only indicates that the corpse was not leaking erythrocytes (red blood cells) as the "Blue Star" formula reacts with the hemoglobin (iron, Fe++) within the erythrocyte (red blood cell) which carries oxygen within the blood stream. When death occurs, the heart stops (DUH, no kidding!) beating and pushing the blood throughout the body, especially to the lungs where in life it exchanges CO2 for O2. NOT happening in death so the O2 sites get filled up with other "stuff"....thus NO MORE HEMOGLOBIN. IF the body had been "damaged" (ie. epithelial layers or deep wound surface breakage) pre or perimorten, THEN there would be residual fluids of blood & tissue fluid (lymphatic) and a POSITIVE screen & confirmatory reaction would occur.

#2 point.......lots of scientific information to come! Dr. Vass:rocker: will present his air analysis and discuss the information from the trunk carpet. And the "bugs" & "botany" info will be interesting as a dovetail into the death sequences.

:innocent: IMHO, of course:innocent:

 

[joypath]

I don't want to be graphic so maybe this will help explain it. Have you went away on vacation or emergency and came back to a rotting bag of celery or fruit in your fruit/veg drawer? It turns to liquid. If you remove it without dripping the liquid, the smell goes away when it is removed. But if the liquid leaked, the odor keeps getting worse until you clean up the liquid.

:twocents: Absolutely correct because what you are dealing with is decomposition fluid which is a treasure trove of bacteria and in the case of humans, some fungi too. That's the issue WHY the carpet in the trunk remained so wicked odorous after the body was removed. The environment in that car & tow yard were like a week at the beach for the "critters" who wicked themselves into the carpet along with the nutritious (for THEM!) decomp fluid. And don't forget that the life cycle of the visible "critters" also added nutrients for their life cycle along with MORE bacteria. :innocent:

 

[joypath]

...and the body fills with gas and organs kinda explode...but that doesn't happen after a fews days. Right?

RIGHT! and moving a body in the bloat stage is VERY tricky! :twocents: :innocent: :twocents:

 

[RR0004]

:twocents: Just wanted to address these two points: The lack of blood only indicates that the corpse was not leaking erythrocytes (red blood cells) as the "Blue Star" formula reacts with the hemoglobin (iron, Fe++) within the erythrocyte (red blood cell) which carries oxygen within the blood stream. When death occurs, the heart stops (DUH, no kidding!) beating and pushing the blood throughout the body, especially to the lungs where in life it exchanges CO2 for O2. NOT happening in death so the O2 sites get filled up with other "stuff"....thus NO MORE HEMOGLOBIN. IF the body had been "damaged" (ie. epithelial layers or deep wound surface breakage) pre or perimorten, THEN there would be residual fluids of blood & tissue fluid (lymphatic) and a POSITIVE screen & confirmatory reaction would occur.

#2 point.......lots of scientific information to come! Dr. Vass:rocker: will present his air analysis and discuss the information from the trunk carpet. And the "bugs" & "botany" info will be interesting as a dovetail into the death sequences.

:innocent: IMHO, of course:innocent:

Thanks so much, joypath. Your experience is invaluable.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Why would there be blood? I would not expect there to be any blood if the child was smothered or drowned in the pool or died of heat in the car.

 

[MissJames]

To add to the initial question and a point Donjeta made, if you are just starting to watch this case/trial ,and you heard in the jailhouse videos and phone calls,ICA alluding to other people being involved ,what do you think of that?
She told her family not to trust Jesse Grund. Does that make you question the drowning story at all?

Or,on the flip side,if you believe the drowning story,what do you think of ICA insinuating innocent people may be responsible for Caylee's disappearance?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Soulmagent]

Bodies in hot cars will act differently then ones laying out in the open.

Intresting link.
But remember lots of things can cause varied changes in the way a body decomposes.

http://www.farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog/view/286/forensic_lesson_for_day___putrefaction

 

[strawberry]

Bodies in hot cars will act differently then ones laying out in the open.

Intresting link.
But remember lots of things can cause varied changes in the way a body decomposes.

http://www.farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog/view/286/forensic_lesson_for_day___putrefaction

Thanks for the link! Interesting site!

 

[cluciano63]

To add to the initial question and a point Donjeta made, if you are just starting to watch this case/trial ,and you heard in the jailhouse videos and phone calls,ICA alluding to other people being involved ,what do you think of that?
She told her family not to trust Jesse Grund. Does that make you question the drowning story at all?

Or,on the flip side,if you believe the drowning story,what do you think of ICA insinuating innocent people may be responsible for Caylee's disappearance?

Thanks in advance!

I heard all of the tapes for the first time this week. The strangest thing to me was the relationships between the family members, across the board. Also the way they were all so careful with their words and what they said-why, if Casey was innocent and they all believed Caylee had been kidnapped? So what if the call is being tape, they had nothing to hide, right??

Also she told her brother Amy was the best, etc, so clearly Amy had not yet learned about the theft, I presume and Casey was not mad at Amy for bringing her mom to her, which is surprising to me.

I do not believe the drowning story at all, at least not the way the defense told it. Drowning is one possible way Caylee COULD have died, but I'm thinking more reckless disregard, died during abuse, something like that. And the way they act in jail, especially her father, I believe he knows the truth, from more than just a gut feeling.

 

[MissJames]

I heard all of the tapes for the first time this week. The strangest thing to me was the relationships between the family members, across the board. Also the way they were all so careful with their words and what they said-why, if Casey was innocent and they all believed Caylee had been kidnapped? So what if the call is being tape, they had nothing to hide, right??

Also she told her brother Amy was the best, etc, so clearly Amy had not yet learned about the theft, I presume and Casey was not mad at Amy for bringing her mom to her, which is surprising to me.

I do not believe the drowning story at all, at least not the way the defense told it. Drowning is one possible way Caylee COULD have died, but I'm thinking more reckless disregard, died during abuse, something like that. And the way they act in jail, especially her father, I believe he knows the truth, from more than just a gut feeling.

Thanks,
Many here have spent the last ,almost ,3 years analyzing the family dynamics and even those tapes. Simply bizarre.

I'm still curious what newbies think of ICA implicating some her friends or old boyfriends ,since the opening statement said Caylee drowned accidently .
Does it make you angry that she would throw others under the bus to avoid saying there was an accident? or does the implication of others suggest there was no drowning?
I know how I feel because I have so much info,but I'd like to know how this revelation in the tapes might play to the jury.

 

[Donjeta]

By my reckoning you're more likely to try and throw hordes of completely innocent people under the bus if you're covering up a murder than if you're covering up an accident. For two reasons.

First, your stakes are higher if you could be facing LWOP or DP for what you did and you would be more desperate to be saved from the consequences of your actions.

Second, the willingness to sacrifice innocent people to save your own hiney rather than take responsibility for your own part in what happened implies a pretty high level of malice and selfishness. If you're a murderer I generally expect you to exhibit those qualities to a somewhat high extent, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a murderer. If you're a mother whose child met with an unfortunate accident you do not have to be malicious and selfish, you could be just unlucky and sad.

I don't remember any cases offhand in which a mother attempted to cover up an accident by implicating just about anybody she could think of in kidnapping and murder. Usually if you want to scapegoat or frame somebody for an accident it's one specific person and not your whole circle of acquaintances. If you throw spaghetti in all directions hoping that something sticks you're probably hoping people would ignore the pot of lasagne all over yourself.

 

[tasylshari]

By my reckoning you're more likely to try and throw hordes of completely innocent people under the bus if you're covering up a murder than if you're covering up an accident. For two reasons.

First, your stakes are higher if you could be facing LWOP or DP for what you did and you would be more desperate to be saved from the consequences of your actions.

Second, the willingness to sacrifice innocent people to save your own hiney rather than take responsibility for your own part in what happened implies a pretty high level of malice and selfishness. If you're a murderer I generally expect you to exhibit those qualities to a somewhat high extent, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a murderer. If you're a mother whose child met with an unfortunate accident you do not have to be malicious and selfish, you could be just unlucky and sad.

I don't remember any cases offhand in which a mother attempted to cover up an accident by implicating just about anybody she could think of in kidnapping and murder.

BBM: ICA appears to be neither unlucky nor sad to me. She's the star that she always wished she could be right now. "Melicious and Selfish" tattoos on special this week.

 

[Hali]

Bodies in hot cars will act differently then ones laying out in the open.

Intresting link.
But remember lots of things can cause varied changes in the way a body decomposes.

http://www.farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog/view/286/forensic_lesson_for_day___putrefaction

As I read this article, the following sentence ("The tongue and eyes begin to protrude.") caused me to wonder if this could be why duct tape was applied to Caylee's face? But I read somewhere else here that the tape was applied before decomposition had begun. Is this true and has it been proven?

 

[Chewy]

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.