What if Prosecution said Chloroform was the murder weapon vs. Duct Tape

[TigerBalm]

OMG, I can't believe what I just heard Tracy (Padilla's bodyguard) say on Dr. Drew show. She had a conversation with ICA when she was out on bail. Tracy said they were talking about drinking, partying and Tracy asked her if she ever heard of GHB? ICA said you mean "roofies"? Tracy said "ether". ICA said "CHLOROFORM"!!!!!

Tracy has said that before in her interview with LE.

 

[Baznme]

Tracy has said that before in her interview with LE.

Well, to me, her testimony should have been heard in court. Don't mean to sound snarky but, WTH??? Wouldn't that have had an impact on the trunk testimony, explaining the high levels of chloroform in the trunk as opposed to Cindy's "cleaning supplies"?

I know, I know, no proof she made it. She didn't have to make it in order to use it though. She was getting it from somewhere and I have a suspicion as to who that was.

The duct tape was used to stage the kidnapping. I think Caylee died in the trunk while ICA was strolling around the Blockbuster store. The duct tape went on the next day when she went to the house. The theory on the decomp. was the bag ripped when she lifted her out of the trunk to put her down the path on Suburban Dr. Those dark circles under Caylee's eyes IMO were from being slowly poisoned with the use of chloroform.

I just signed the petition to have this case retried via the Federal Gov't. Ridiculous this stuff wasn't heard in court.

 

[Soulmagent]

OMG, I can't believe what I just heard Tracy (Padilla's bodyguard) say on Dr. Drew show. She had a conversation with ICA when she was out on bail. Tracy said they were talking about drinking, partying and Tracy asked her if she ever heard of GHB? ICA said you mean "roofies"? Tracy said "ether". ICA said "CHLOROFORM"!!!!!

This conversation makes no sence.

GHB is not roofies.
and GHB is not ether
and chloroform is neither

So either these two have no street wise drugs sence about them collectively or they were both playing extremely stupid for eachother. My personal veiw on it.

 

[Baznme]

This conversation makes no sence.

GHB is not roofies.
and GHB is not ether
and chloroform is neither

So either these two have no street wise drugs sence about them collectively or they were both playing extremely stupid for eachother. My personal veiw on it.

According to Wiki, both GHB and roofies are date rape drugs.

Didn't mean to insinuate that one was related to the other. I'm not very drug savvy at sixty three years old but, I think they were talking about various popular party drugs but since the GHB and roofies are typically known as date rape drugs, I think that was the train of thought when they had this convo. One named one, then the other named something else, so on and so on. The point is, it was ICA that uttered the word "chloroform".

This was not my take on it. It was what Tracy said on Dr. Drew. Maybe you can catch the show and listen for yourself.

 

[Tugela]

Really? So, let me get this straight, instead of working her way from step one through the evidence she just said, ..." oh F!@k it. I just don't understand so I'm going home.". Even the Scott Peterson jurers are criticizing these jurers for doing a horrible job. The Scott Peterson jurers say they went through EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE one by one and walked through the entire case. These jurers were dressed to GO HOME before they were even sent to deliberate.

There wasn't compelling evidence in the Peterson case either, the jury convicted him because they didn't like him, he was a dirt-bag, so therefore they figured he was probably guilty. The reason they went over every piece of evidence is that they tried to rationalize that to themselves. It isn't easy sending someone to their death when deep down you know the evidence isn't there. In his case the emotion took the jury one way, in KAs case it wasn't a factor. That is sort of the luck of the draw in those sorts of cases, I imagine it could go either way quite easily.

Whenever there is a trial if the evidence is clear and compelling for a conviction, there is no need to deliberate for a long time. It is only when the evidence is not clear and you want to convict anyway, then you first need to bury your conscience and do what you think needs to be done to satisfy what you think is justice in spite of the evidence (or lack thereof). In KA's trial the jury recognized that the evidence wasn't there, and they weren't prepared to sit down and try and make it there, so they did what they were supposed to do and voted for aquital.