Trial Analysis

[BritsKate]

Personally, I think I would have an easier time finding reasonable doubt were it not for the outlandish, nonsensical opening statement made by the defense.

JMHO

 

[Harmony 2]

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.

I thought the SA established at the end that the whole search took an hour. ( eta: whole time frame)

 

[SATA]

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.

I have the same feeling. The prosecution is almost done presenting its case, and we still need the defense - and here I am with a feeling that they have not entirely proven that Casey murdered little Caylee with pre-meditation. In my view it could as well have been an accident.

 

[goldenlover]

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.

That is exactly how I feel also. I am not trying to be argumentative with anyone on this forum, but in my opinion the state has not proven its case. I would hope that our justice system needs more than they have proven in this case to send someone to the death chamber, even if it is ICA. I may have to re-think my opinion on the death penalty after this. I also think she is guilty - but I thought that for the past 2 years.

I am trying to look at just the evidence the state has presented at trial, like I am a juror and that is all I have heard. I don't think the state has told the story very well. There are too many unknowns for me too, and I hate to say it, but I think that JB has cast doubt on some of the expert testimony.

Some of the experts like Dr. Vass and the bug expert just came across to me as a bit creepy and I was wondering if any of the jury members felt that way. As far as the Blowflies, I see them all the time, they are the "metallic looking flies". The fact that he found a blowfly leg in the "vacummings" of her car was certainly not worth the $22,000 the bug expert was paid. He also knew how long Caylee had been missing and that is probably why he came to the assumption that she had been in the woods for about 6 months. The prosecutor would not have hired him or used his testimony if he said otherwise. The jury can and will take that into consideration, as they should. I am sure you guys are glad I am not a juror. I would need something more for a first degree murder verdict.

I enjoy hearing all of your opinions, also.

 

[sappysoul]

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.

He said the searches took about 3 minutes. He did not say she only spent 3 minutes in her 84 visits. He said the history can tell how many times a person visited a site. He never said all 84 visits took only 3 mins. 11 sec. Reread the testimony. I think if a person visits a website 84 times in the limited time he was looking at they have way more than a passing interest in it's content.

 

[whiteangora]

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...

Poor baby Caylee had no lungs when she was found, but I agree with everything else you said.

 

[Baznme]

According to Bill Schaefer's latest analogy of the trial, he seems to think because of JB's outrageous opening statement that he has not found any in-roads to substantiate JB's claims therefore, has shifted the burden to the defense. He seems to think because of that, his client will almost be assured of a conviction. Interesting.........

http://www.wftv.com/video/28222880/index.html

 

[goldenlover]

He said the searches took about 3 minutes. He did not say she only spent 3 minutes in her 84 visits. He said the history can tell how many times a person visited a site. He never said all 84 visits took only 3 mins. 11 sec. Reread the testimony. I think if a person visits a website 84 times in the limited time he was looking at they have way more than a passing interest in it's content.

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

This article states:

"On cross examination, Bradley was asked the longest time anyone spent on the home computer looking at websites dealing with chloroform.

Baez volunteered that in the two days together [March 17 and 21] the chloroform searches took up “a little over three minutes in total.”

“Yes, I would agree with that,” Bradley said.

I interpret this to be total time spent looking at chloroform pages, you interpret it to mean time spent just "searching" for chloroform pages, is that what you are saying? It is all in how one interprets the words. That is what will be happening when the jury deliberates, I am sure. Either one of us could be right, but we do not know who is without further clarification from the expert, but just this little thing that we both interpret differently could have a huge outcome in the verdict.

 

[sappysoul]

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

This article states:

"On cross examination, Bradley was asked the longest time anyone spent on the home computer looking at websites dealing with chloroform.

Baez volunteered that in the two days together [March 17 and 21] the chloroform searches took up “a little over three minutes in total.”

“Yes, I would agree with that,” Bradley said.

I interpret this to be total time spent looking at chloroform pages, you interpret it to mean time spent just "searching" for chloroform pages, is that what you are saying? It is all in how one interprets the words. That is what will be happening when the jury deliberates, I am sure. Either one of us could be right, but we do not know who is without further clarification from the expert, but just this little thing that we both interpret differently could have a huge outcome in the verdict.

Yes, searches are not site visits. Hold on I'll find the video clip and link it.

 

[3doglady]

Yes, searches are not site visits. Hold on I'll find the video clip and link it.

IRRC Bradley also said that KC bookmarked the chloroform site. There would be no reason to search 84 times. JB was the one asking how long she searched in an attempt to confuse.

 

[goldenlover]

IRRC Bradley also said that KC bookmarked the chloroform site. There would be no reason to search 84 times. JB was the one asking how long she searched in an attempt to confuse.

I guess JB's tactics could have worked on some of the jury, they worked on me as I am very confused about this.

 

[katydid23]

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.

It was NOT in 'one computer session' because it was on two different days, March 21st and 24th. And we do not know if she copied the recipe down or printed it off ot copied and pasted it somewhere else. imoo

 

[goldenlover]

When they jury deliberates they are not given the trial transcript to go back and look at, correct? So they could have the same type of misunderstanding we are having and just have to rely on memory and/or notes? That is what I am afraid of. We are able to go back and take a look at prior testimony to clarify, they are not, and most of the newspeople in the courtroom are reporting that the jurors are not taking very many notes compared to other trials they have covered.

 

[Kentjbkent]

: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 . . .

But here is what I think you are missing.....SA isn't finished with testimony once they rest their case tomorrow (or Wed)....

If you recall, a lot of the witnesses on Pros List were duplicated by Defense on their list....for example, I fully expect Baez to call Roy Kronk to the stand, and IF TES comes into play, the defense will be opening that door....SA will then have the opportunity to draw out their pro prosecution testimony during cross examination...

And then of course, SA has the opportunity to present REBUTTAL witnesses...

It is appearing to me that SA is playing akin to a very good poker game...

 

[Kentjbkent]

When they jury deliberates they are not given the trial transcript to go back and look at, correct? So they could have the same type of misunderstanding we are having and just have to rely on memory and/or notes? That is what I am afraid of. We are able to go back and take a look at prior testimony to clarify, they are not, and most of the newspeople in the courtroom are reporting that the jurors are not taking very many notes compared to other trials they have covered.

If I am not mistaken, they can send word to the judge and ask that any portion of testimony that may be "misunderstood" be reread to them in open court....

Have seen this done many times...(e.g. reread of Mr. X testimony...)

 

[justbeachy]

If I am remembering correctly, there is a computer guy on the jury. Hopefully he is good at his job and can explain this stuff to the rest of the jury.

Also, for me personally, the issue of tabs in browsing is huge. Now, admittedly, I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is this: If someone searches for something in one tab and then opens another tab, the search history will log two searches closely together. The first tab, however, can still be open and as long as that tab is not refreshed, there will not be another time log for that page. So, ICA could have had the chloroform site open in one tab, opened another tab (myspace or whatever), and then returned to the chloroform tab reading, copying, printing, etc. for an undetermined amount of time.

 

[Americka]

Juries can request that any of the testimony be read back to them.

 

[Trident]

: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 . . .

Exactly. What's missing to me is SA linking Casey definitely and exclusively to all the circumstancial evidence. Good post.

 

[GeekyGirl]

According to Bill Schaefer's latest analogy of the trial, he seems to think because of JB's outrageous opening statement that he has not found any in-roads to substantiate JB's claims therefore, has shifted the burden to the defense. He seems to think because of that, his client will almost be assured of a conviction. Interesting.........

http://www.wftv.com/video/28222880/index.html

Very interesting. I just can't figure out where the DT is going to go with their case... I think the drowning theory doesn't, pardon the pun, hold water but honestly, the more I learn about this case, the less sure I am about how everything went down. Every time I get to an "aha, that's what must have happened", I stumble on another fact that makes me think "what the truck?!? That doesn't fit!". I know I've argued that the state hasn't totally proven their case, but it's not because I think they've done a bad job, it's just that there are too many pieces to the puzzle missing.

 

[sappysoul]

Bradley was the the 1st witness on day 25 (video on WTFV.com). He states that you cannot tell how long a person has a website open. If they open another tab and go to another website while leaving the other site open the history will log the previous site as closed and record the most recently opened site. So if you're reading this site and decide to check out Facebook on a new tab the history shows you "leaving this site" and going to Facebook although you still have this site open and available to read. (An extremely common practice with me.) Thus, there is no way to know how long she spent on this site, only how many times she clicked on the link.