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

[askfornina]

You said it. "P*nis in the mouth" was what sold them imo. Tv educated, too many movies and did not understand the law.

except for the fact that those who have spoken have said they put no weight on the sexual abuse claims because they weren't proven.

 

[Peepers]

It would not have made a difference because the State did not connect KC to the chloroform except for computer searches. Thank God in the good ole US of A we cannot be convicted on computer searches. They did multiple searches of the house, they could have brought out the ingredients used to make chloroform. There was no actual evidence that KC did anything but google it.

 

[Nikki 01]

except for the fact that those who have spoken have said they put no weight on the sexual abuse claims because they weren't proven.

Only #3 said she didn't. #16 said he couldn't get them out of his mind.

 

[jojomonkey]

According to JF, juror #3, she was very confused by the chloroform. Said she felt in a maze and didn't know how to get from here to there.

Juror #3 should probably cease talking right about now. Really, she didn't know how to get from here to there. Wow. Searched internet on how to make chloroform + very high levels in the trunk. Really Juror #3?

 

[askfornina]

regarding the "very high levels" of chloroform in the trunk, i was under the impression that there was no quantitative testing done, and that "high level" referred to the ratio of chloroform versus the other components found.

 

[D96s]

According to JF, juror #3, she was very confused by the chloroform. Said she felt in a maze and didn't know how to get from here to there.

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.

 

[Italy]

except for the fact that those who have spoken have said they put no weight on the sexual abuse claims because they weren't proven.

Well they certainly had no problem speculating that it was an accident and that others were involved - which also was not proven.

The things that were "proven" by expert testimony such as:
chloroform levels were unusually high in the trunk;
accidents involving children are ALWAYS reported;
Casey last person to have Caylee (by her own admission saying she dropped her off at some apartment building);
the 31 days without reporting her missing;
her lies covering her irresponsible behavior;
the stench of human decomposition;
duct tape holding around the skull (holding the mandible in place prior to decomposition)

...well these things the jury ignored. And now they want us to understand their verdict??!! We understand all right - we know all we need to know. Now please - GO AWAY.

BTW - even the daughter of one of OJ's lawyers was shocked and incredulous at this verdict. That is saying something.

 

[Nikki 01]

regarding the "very high levels" of chloroform in the trunk, i was under the impression that there was no quantitative testing done, and that "high level" referred to the ratio of chloroform versus the other components found.

They were able to get a rough idea, but they felt it wasn't useful to get an exact number since it is so volatile. If it had been in there for the entire 31 days it was likely it a much larger quantity on day 1 and had been evaporating since.

Chloroform is a by-product of decomp - but in very small amounts - parts per trillion. They tried to quantify it in the sample. They injected a standard of chloroform in a known standard to verify their findings. They were then able to make a rough approximation of amount of chloroform - rough approximation - parts per million vs. parts per trillion that he had seen before.

They could not further quantify it because they needed a more concentrated standard. Further quantification really wouldn't have been helpful to them.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6625445&postcount=14"] Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Dr. Arpad Voss testimony (Oakridge Laboratories)[/ame]

and

Vass, who studied decomposing bodies for 20 years, found 10,000 times the amount of the potentially deadly chloroform that he would expect to find with human decomposition alone inside the trunk. Vass believes there was a body in Casey's trunk."We were shocked. We've never seen chloroform in those levels before, at least I haven't," Dr. Vass said. "The chloroform was shockingly high, unusually high."

http://www.wftv.com/news/28140590/detail.html

 

[Nikki 01]

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.

These are honestly the most intellectually lazy group of people I've ever seen. Juror #3 didn't even bother to take any notes. They didn't care about doing their jobs. They just wanted to get out of their ASAP.

 

[MarthaM]

The things that were "proven" by expert testimony such as:
chloroform levels were unusually high in the trunk;
accidents involving children are ALWAYS reported;
Casey last person to have Caylee (by her own admission saying she dropped her off at some apartment building);
the 31 days without reporting her missing;
her lies covering her irresponsible behavior;
the stench of human decomposition;
duct tape holding around the skull (holding the mandible in place prior to decomposition)

...well these things the jury ignored. And now they want us to understand their verdict??!! We understand all right - we know all we need to know. Now please - GO AWAY.

But the point is that none of that proves Casey killed Caylee. None of it, even if you add all of that together.

I wonder when the animosity toward the jury will shift and be directed toward the ones with whom the real blame lies... the prosecution. They didn't prove their case. They didn't prove it to me and they didn't prove it to this jury. Good prosecutors don't pick the person they (and the public, media) want to pin the crime on and then try to make some evidence fit. They approach it the opposite way: they take the evidence and see who it points to and, more importantly, what specific crime it points to. And if that means that you have to take your time and risk being criticized by the public and media while you wait and build a solid case, then so be it. And if you just don't have the evidence to support a 1st Degree Murder conviction, you don't go that route even if it means you won't be popular.

The prosecution did a pathetic, dismal job. They're the ones people should be angry with.

 

[Texana]

regarding the "very high levels" of chloroform in the trunk, i was under the impression that there was no quantitative testing done, and that "high level" referred to the ratio of chloroform versus the other components found.

I understood it to be that when tested, the presence of chloroform was at a "high level" and yes, relative to the other gases present (which seemed to present a normal or usual level) but the exact amount of chloroform would be known.

You can't get a ratio without having the exact amounts of each gas present known; i.e., if you know that chloroform was three times as high as oxygen, then you have to know the exact original amounts presented in the test results, first.

 

[Italy]

But the point is that none of that proves Casey killed Caylee. None of it, even if you add all of that together.

I wonder when the animosity toward the jury will shift and be directed toward the ones with whom the real blame lies... the prosecution. They didn't prove their case. They didn't prove it to me and they didn't prove it to this jury. Good prosecutors don't pick the person they (and the public, media) want to pin the crime on and then try to make some evidence fit. They approach it the opposite way: they take the evidence and see who it points to and, more importantly, what specific crime it points to. And if that means that you have to take your time and risk being criticized by the public and media while you wait and build a solid case, then so be it. And if you just don't have the evidence to support a 1st Degree Murder conviction, you don't go that route even if it means you won't be popular.

The prosecution did a pathetic, dismal job. They're the ones people should be angry with.

Do you honestly think it is the Prosecutor who investigates and charges a defendant? Do you even know about a bill of indictment from the grand jury ... and oh yeah, the police investigation??

 

[MarthaM]

Your comments show that you are equally qualified to be a juror as the pathetic group that just heard this case.

Do you honestly think it is the Prosecutor who investigates and charges a defendant? Do you even know about a bill of indictment from the grand jury ... and oh yeah, the police investigation??

I'm not sure why you're directing personal comments at me. Regardless, your opinion of me doesn't matter.

Yes, I most certainly do understand the role that prosecutors have. I understand it very well, which is why I made the comments you responded to.

 

[Italy]

I'm not sure why you're directing personal comments at me. Regardless, your opinion of me doesn't matter.

Yes, I most certainly do understand the role that prosecutors have. I understand it very well, which is why I made the comments you responded to.

You are right - I should not have made a personal comment directed toward you. I apologize - it was improper and I am sorry.

 

[Soulmagent]

I don't think it would have made a difference. Based on Juror #3's interview...the medical examiner would have needed to say what caused Caylee's death. IMO the jury stopped listening after Dr. G couldn't tell them how she died. Apparently....HOMICIDE wasn't good enough for them.

I think Dr G was a very bad witness for the state. I keep meaning to go and rewatch her to make sure I remember how she came off correctly but I think for me it was the point when I decided that this case might not end with the predicted verdict, not because she couldnt give a COD, because I was never expecting one but because of the way she came off in court. Like she was reaching and trying to overcompensate for her MOD. The when she admitted at the end of her testimony that she could not say the duct tape was ever on Caylee's face that meant she herself took a leap when she made the ruling. And she could never truely know if a homicide had occured.

DR G homicide ruling was needed to get the case to court and she gave it to them.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

Honestly? I think the jury needed a confession from ICA or a video tape of the murder. Actually both, because if ICA confessed they probably would have said they couldn't vote guilty because she is a known liar and the prosecution couldn't prove she was telling the truth.

They absolutely did NOT understand that they didn't have to totally agree with the SA's theory of COD or motive. I don't happen to go along with the SA's COD (the duct tape) but I still would have voted guilty. Juror # 3 came across as thinking they had to believe everything happened like the SA said in order to convict.

 

[USARDOG]

Caylee was likely killed during the day, so there was no party to go to.

IMO it didn't matter, the jury was looking for fingerprints or a home video... This was just a jury who was not willing to use common sense.

There was plenty of evidence to link ICA to killing Caylee with either the duct tape, or the chloroform, or the hot car for that matter. Which came first the chicken or the egg? It doesn't' matter because she killed her, what matters if it was the duct tape or the chloroform or the heat in the trunk? Without an autopsy and tissue study it would have been impossible to tell anyway, and there was no tissue left to study. I doubt ICA knows which really killed her. Plenty of people have been convicted with no body at all, and this was just very close to that. You have to have a jury that is willing to see and think, not one just willing to sit in the seats.

 

[Soulmagent]

Honestly? I think the jury needed a confession from ICA or a video tape of the murder. Actually both, because if ICA confessed they probably would have said they couldn't vote guilty because she is a known liar and the prosecution couldn't prove she was telling the truth.

They absolutely did NOT understand that they didn't have to totally agree with the SA's theory of COD or motive. I don't happen to go along with the SA's COD (the duct tape) but I still would have voted guilty. Juror # 3 came across as thinking they had to believe everything happened like the SA said in order to convict.

If I couldnt believe the COD that they showed me a simulated video of ,and I didnt believe other things about the case ,such as 84 chloroform searches in an hour or that Casey wanted to live without Caylee so she could party...

Where would my not believing certain things they said cut off and still having to believe murder but not the murder theory they presented ?
Just asking. I couldnt vote guilty if I didnt agree with the SA theory.

They present me with what they "think " happen but I dont believe it, I am still suppose to think up a way that fits my idea of how it was still a murder and work the "evidence " in my theory to find a person guilty?

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

I don't think it would have made a difference. Based on Juror #3's interview...the medical examiner would have needed to say what caused Caylee's death. IMO the jury stopped listening after Dr. G couldn't tell them how she died. Apparently....HOMICIDE wasn't good enough for them.

Nevermind the fact that Caylee was completely skeletonized when she was found 6 months later :furious: . COME ON it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that 6 months after death most evidence would've disappeared especially after a tropical storm created a pond at the remains site!

Chloroform, Duct tape, 31 days, grave wax, bella vita, the nanny lie, heck all the lies, THE SMELL, none of it mattered to this jury, none of it!:banghead:

 

[Baznme]

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"!!!!!