Trial Analysis

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

GeekyGirl said:
But if you use that to conclude that she somehow manufactured her own chloroform, couldn't one also argue that she might have intended to use it for sedation purposes, rather than murder? That casts doubt on her intent, which is a requirement for a murder conviction. MOO of course.
Click to expand...

Using chloroform on a two-year-old baby is aggravated child abuse... if it caused Caylee's death... whether intentionally or not... it is first degree murder!
 
LolaMoon08 said:
The searches for chloroform along with the extreme amounts of chloroform found in the trunk of her car is premeditated enough for me. Even if the searches were meant for her parents, it shows that Casey had murder on her mind. Does it really matter who she killed first and why??

The mere fact that Casey is still taking absolutely no responsibility for Caylee's death... even though she claims it was an accident... speaks to her consciousness of guilt.
Click to expand...
So does partying when you know your baby daughter is missing or dead!!!
 
:cow::cow::cow:

I believe the SA did a great job in their Opening Statement and carefully laid out the "31 Days" ... and then led up to the 9-1-1 calls ...

I believe the SA did a great job with the experts, especially Dr. G and Dr. Vass ... and a great job with the witnesses ...

And I believe the SA did a great job bringing in ALL the EVIDENCE from all the experts ...

:waitasec: But ... when the SA said that they would be concluding their case in the next day or two, I thought WHOA -- it can't be over already ?

There is something that is missing and there is something that has NOT been CONNECTED by the SA -- at least for me. I know we haven't heard the Closing Statement yet ...

Look ... I totally believe ICA murdered her daughter, and I believe it was pre-meditated (computer searches and chloroform) ... And I believe ICA should get at least LWOP or the DP ...

But in "My Opinion" ... something is missing ... hopefully they will get to it in the Closing ...

I guess I am waiting for a BIG "BOMBSHELL" from the SA . . .
 
goldenlover said:
True, but JB got the FBI computer guy to testify that the entire search on the computer for Chloroform and anything to do with Chloroform was just 3 minutes, in the entire computer history. I tend to think the computer was refreshing itself or something, it would be hard to read any of the search resutls if you went to 84 sites in a period of just 3 minutes.
Click to expand...

When you add a search word and hit search, it takes mere seconds for the result of said search to hit. IIRC the chloroform site that she visited had a counter. All computer have a different address. Her address was recorded 84 times returning to that site. She may have book marked or added it to her favorites. Each time she revisited that page the counter counted her as visiting. If you need more help understanding this I am sure that there are others here that can do a better job of explaining it to you.
 
dog.gone.cute said:
:cow::cow::cow:

I believe the SA did a great job in their Opening Statement and carefully laid out the "31 Days" ... and then led up to the 9-1-1 calls ...

I believe the SA did a great job with the experts, especially Dr. G and Dr. Vass ... and a great job with the witnesses ...

And I believe the SA did a great job bringing in ALL the EVIDENCE from all the experts ...

:waitasec: But ... when the SA said that they would be concluding their case in the next day or two, I thought WHOA -- it can't be over already ?

There is something that is missing and there is something that has NOT been CONNECTED by the SA -- at least for me. I know we haven't heard the Closing Statement yet ...

Look ... I totally believe ICA murdered her daughter, and I believe it was pre-meditated (computer searches and chloroform) ... And I believe ICA should get at least LWOP or the DP ...

But in "My Opinion" ... something is missing ... hopefully they will get to it in the Closing ...

I guess I am waiting for a BIG "BOMBSHELL" from the SA . . .
Click to expand...

The stain in the trunk?

Roy Cronk?

The video from Home Depot (that we haven't seen yet)?

I agree, I was very surprised that they are winding down already.
 
LinasK said:
It wasn't drowning, they didn't find water in her lungs, it was a "soft kill" meaning without blood. They know this. If the Chloroform didn't kill her, then duct tape did! It is a reasonable conclusion that she wouldn't have been able to breathe the way the duct tape covered her airways...
Click to expand...

When her remains were found, she was skelatanized. They do not know it was not a drowning. They could not check for water in her lungs. They do not know it was a soft kill without blood. They only believe it was not a drowning because 911 was not called.

And why would she click on the same website 84 times in 3 minutes. Even the FBI computer expert admitted the chloroform search was done in a total of 3 minutes...all 84 times..and in the same "computer session". It had something to do with computer refreshing (not visible, but what is going on in the background logs of your computer) or cookies...of course this is left out of testimony as the jury only hears what they prosecuter wants them to hear.
 
dog.gone.cute said:
:cow::cow::cow:

I believe the SA did a great job in their Opening Statement and carefully laid out the "31 Days" ... and then led up to the 9-1-1 calls ...

I believe the SA did a great job with the experts, especially Dr. G and Dr. Vass ... and a great job with the witnesses ...

And I believe the SA did a great job bringing in ALL the EVIDENCE from all the experts ...

:waitasec: But ... when the SA said that they would be concluding their case in the next day or two, I thought WHOA -- it can't be over already ?

There is something that is missing and there is something that has NOT been CONNECTED by the SA -- at least for me. I know we haven't heard the Closing Statement yet ...

Look ... I totally believe ICA murdered her daughter, and I believe it was pre-meditated (computer searches and chloroform) ... And I believe ICA should get at least LWOP or the DP ...

But in "My Opinion" ... something is missing ... hopefully they will get to it in the Closing ...

I guess I am waiting for a BIG "BOMBSHELL" from the SA . . .
Click to expand...

I actually think what the State is doing is brilliant.

The State no longer has to prove that Caylee died on June 16th, 2008. According to the defense, it is an undisputed fact that Caylee died on June 16th, 2008. The State no longer has to prove that Casey was present at the scene of death. The defense has conceeded that Casey was present at the time of Caylee's death.

That was huge for the State's case and it cut a lot out of what they would have to prove. If you rewatch Jose's opening statement, you can see the smile on Jeff Ashton's face as Jose placed Casey at the scene when Caylee died. That Casey was no longer disputing the fact that she was there at the time of death.

The State has, imo, proven that Caylee was decomposing in the trunk of Casey's car. The defense has been trying desperately to dispute this... which means that Casey is not admitting that Caylee was in the trunk of her car. It is now up to the defense to prove to the jury that Casey was not the person who placed Caylee in the trunk of that car... which would have had to have been very shortly after death as Caylee was in the trunk during the early stages of decomposition. Someone had to have had taken Caylee and placed her in the trunk of that car without Casey knowing about it... and then removed her without Casey knowing about it.

I know people are going to say... wait... the defense doesn't have to prove anything... well, yes they do. Now that they have claimed that Casey knew about Caylee's death and claim that George is the one who covered it up... they have placed themselves in the position to prove that this is what happened. The jury is just not going to take their word for it.

I could go on and on. The fact remains, it is now up to the defense to disprove all the evidence against Casey and make it fit in with their own theory of what happened.

I must say that I am very excited to see where the defense is going with all of this and if they are as <unusual> as I really believe they are?? I am equally excited in seeing what the State does to completely destroy anything the defense presents once they can call rebuttal witnesses. The defense has backed themselves into a very tight corner with very little wiggle room. The opening statement made Casey out to be an even bigger monster than I gave her credit for... let's see if the defense can bring that back into the forefront.
 
goldenlover said:
When her remains were found, she was skelatanized. They do not know it was not a drowning. They could not check for water in her lungs. They do not know it was a soft kill without blood. They only believe it was not a drowning because 911 was not called.

And why would she click on the same website 84 times in 3 minutes. Even the FBI computer expert admitted the chloroform search was done in a total of 3 minutes...all 84 times..and in the same "computer session". It had something to do with computer refreshing (not visible, but what is going on in the background logs of your computer) or cookies...of course this is left out of testimony as the jury only hears what they prosecuter wants them to hear.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that testimony? I don't remember anyone saying there were 84 searches, I recall them saying there were 84 visits to one site. I also do not recall them saying all 84 visits took place within 3 minutes. Am I remembering incorrectly?
 
goldenlover said:
When her remains were found, she was skelatanized. They do not know it was not a drowning. They could not check for water in her lungs. They do not know it was a soft kill without blood. They only believe it was not a drowning because 911 was not called.

And why would she click on the same website 84 times in 3 minutes. Even the FBI computer expert admitted the chloroform search was done in a total of 3 minutes...all 84 times..and in the same "computer session". It had something to do with computer refreshing (not visible, but what is going on in the background logs of your computer) or cookies...of course this is left out of testimony as the jury only hears what they prosecuter wants them to hear.
Click to expand...

It was not due to refreshing according to the site owner. Read below:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06/09/caylee-anthony-case-84-times/
 
LCoastMom said:
The stain in the trunk?

Roy Cronk?

The video from Home Depot (that we haven't seen yet)?

I agree, I was very surprised that they are winding down already.
Click to expand...


I definitely would have liked to see the Home Depot video ... I wonder what in the world ICA was buying there -- the duct tape or ingredients for the chloroform ?

I did not think the SA would call Roy Cronk -- and now we know from Opening Statement, the defense will be calling him.

I just feel there is "something" -- I just can't "nail it" in my head right now -- that something has not gotten through yet ... :banghead:

Otherwise, I do believe the SA has done a great job so far.
 
sappysoul said:
Do you have a link to that testimony? I don't remember anyone saying there were 84 searches, I recall them saying there were 84 visits to one site. I also do not recall them saying all 84 visits took place within 3 minutes. Am I remembering incorrectly?
Click to expand...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...hes-for-chloroform-take-center-stage/(page)/2

I do not have a link to the actual testimony, but I do remember it. It is quoted in several news articles from that day.. here is a link to one of them. It is the testimony of FBI specialist John Bradley.
 
LolaMoon08 said:
I actually think what the State is doing is brilliant.

The State no longer has to prove that Caylee died on June 16th, 2008. According to the defense, it is an undisputed fact that Caylee died on June 16th, 2008. The State no longer has to prove that Casey was present at the scene of death. The defense has conceeded that Casey was present at the time of Caylee's death.

That was huge for the State's case and it cut a lot out of what they would have to prove. If you rewatch Jose's opening statement, you can see the smile on Jeff Ashton's face as Jose placed Casey at the scene when Caylee died. That Casey was no longer disputing the fact that she was there at the time of death.

The State has, imo, proven that Caylee was decomposing in the trunk of Casey's car. The defense has been trying desperately to dispute this... which means that Casey is not admitting that Caylee was in the trunk of her car. It is now up to the defense to prove to the jury that Casey was not the person who placed Caylee in the trunk of that car... which would have had to have been very shortly after death as Caylee was in the trunk during the early stages of decomposition. Someone had to have had taken Caylee and placed her in the trunk of that car without Casey knowing about it... and then removed her without Casey knowing about it.

I know people are going to say... wait... the defense doesn't have to prove anything... well, yes they do. Now that they have claimed that Casey knew about Caylee's death and claim that George is the one who covered it up... they have placed themselves in the position to prove that this is what happened. The jury is just not going to take their word for it.

I could go on and on. The fact remains, it is now up to the defense to disprove all the evidence against Casey and make it fit in with their own theory of what happened.

I must say that I am very excited to see where the defense is going with all of this and if they are as <unusual> as I really believe they are?? I am equally excited in seeing what the State does to completely destroy anything the defense presents once they can call rebuttal witnesses. The defense has backed themselves into a very tight corner with very little wiggle room. The opening statement made Casey out to be an even bigger monster than I gave her credit for... let's see if the defense can bring that back into the forefront.
Click to expand...

BBM: :rocker: I agree with your post ... excellent points !

I was just taken by "SURPRISE SURPRISE" this morning when it was announced that the SA would be wrapping up on Tuesday or Wednesday ... I thought there was a lot more EVIDENCE to come in.

:waitasec::waitasec: Maybe it is because of the great work and info here at WS ... we KNOW MUCH MORE than the JURY will EVER KNOW -- BEFORE they render their VERDICT !!
 
Link to real time transcription of John Bradley's testimony

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139517"]John Bradley testimony (Cacheback - internet searches for chloroform, etc.) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
I really do see where everyone is coming from here, and as I've said, my gut feeling is that she's guilty as all get out, but I pretty much thought that from the first time I heard the story. What I'm trying to say is that if were starting with a presumption of innocence and given only the evidence presented in trial, I just don't think that I could say, at this point, that I believe BARD that she knowingly and willfully killed Caylee. There are just too many unknowns. Like another poster said, I know that isn't what most people want to hear, but that's my honest opinion. It could change as the trial goes on, of course. Thanks for all the insightful responses, you guys have really made me think.
 
Harmony2 said:
It was not due to refreshing according to the site owner. Read below:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06/09/caylee-anthony-case-84-times/
Click to expand...

Still, 84 times vs. 3 minutes 11 seconds...IMO they cancel each other out. I think the websearch is irrelevant. The FBI expert admitted that the entire time spent on chloroform pages was 3 minutes 11 seconds. If I had not heard that and only the 84 times the chloroform search would have more meaning, but when I heard it only for 3 minutes 11 seconds and that she intermittently went to myspace and Fb pages also during that time, it leaves little time to study chloroform. I think she was going to myspace and FB pages to look at the cartoon her boyfriend sent her regarding chloroform to see how it was spelled, etc.

When the FBI expert was asked about refreshing, why did he start to say, "I speculate". If he was a computer expert for the FBI providing this kind of testimony about number of times a website was visited, you would think he would absolutely, positively know about pages refreshing so that his "facts" were not wrong during a trial, especially a DP case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 4,251 (members: 180, guests: 4,071)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
4,071
Total visitors
4,251
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,710
Messages
18,161,670
Members
231,839
Latest member
Backhand
Back
Top