Caylee Anthony 3 year old General discussion #99

[Themis]

In the Michigan case the judge did not allow the dog hits and it did not go in front of the jury. The jury did NOT get to decide because the judge did not allow it period.

Actually, Rose Red, when using scientific evidence in trials -- any trial, judge alone or jury trial, the one offering the evidence has to lay a foundation first by asking questions designed to show that the evidence is reliable and done according to accepted scientific methods so the same result will happen time and time again under the same circumstances AND that it is accepted to prove the fact that is sought to be proved, by the scientific community. For dog evidence, a lot of evidence comes in showing the training of the dog, the credentials of the trainers, the credentials of the dog handlers, the number of times the dog was used, results, etc. Lots of foundation goes into this and it chews up a lot of court time to present it. Further, the defense may object on many grounds. One common ground is an objection that the evidence is too prejudicial and the prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Sometimes a judge will sustain an objection based on that ground. Then again, sometimes judges just make rulings on motions that are wrong and the prosecution can preserve the objection and take it up on appeal. However, if the prosecution wins the case based on other evidence, obviously they don't appeal. I just thought you deserved a better explanation than just argument on this one. It was a good point.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

They'll all just "pop" up saying WE'VE FOUND ZANNY! Then they'll take the zanny's and declare NOT GUILTY!! Either that or Casey will supply them all - JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION (and scarcasm) lol

LOL Swag! Beer Pong break after Verdict coming right up!

 

[JBean]

That's right, I will also give you and Rose Red this much. In the arrest affidavit it does say the initial responding officer found a note in the car before the detective arrived. No date is given but I assume that was early on the 16th? I wonder what the convo was then about the smell of the car?

What is really weird is that the arrest affidavit does not even mention the smell in the car.

 

[SuziQ]

Wouldn't that be the 15th?
.

I think he arrived after midnight?

 

[ketel0ne]

In the Michigan case the judge did not allow the dog hits and it did not go in front of the jury. The jury did NOT get to decide because the judge did not allow it period.

Based upon review of the case law below, an alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.

http://www.k9fleck.org/articles/cadaver_dog.html

I think the cases you are referring to may be in there. As well as the cases where the handler in Michigan actually planted the evidence the dog hit on.

 

[ketel0ne]

Wouldn't that be the 15th?
.

Yuri Melich arrived at about 3am on the 16th.

 

[RoseRed]

Actually, Rose Red, when using scientific evidence in trials -- any trial, judge alone or jury trial, the one offering the evidence has to lay a foundation first by asking questions designed to show that the evidence is reliable and done according to accepted scientific methods so the same result will happen time and time again under the same circumstances AND that it is accepted to prove the fact that is sought to be proved, by the scientific community. For dog evidence, a lot of evidence comes in showing the training of the dog, the credentials of the trainers, the credentials of the dog handlers, the number of times the dog was used, results, etc. Lots of foundation goes into this and it chews up a lot of court time to present it. Further, the defense may object on many grounds. One common ground is an objection that the evidence is too prejudicial and the prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Sometimes a judge will sustain an objection based on that ground. Then again, sometimes judges just make rulings on motions that are wrong and the prosecution can preserve the objection and take it up on appeal. However, if the prosecution wins the case based on other evidence, obviously they don't appeal. I just thought you deserved a better explanation than just argument on this one. It was a good point.

IIRC the prosecution lost.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Are you talking about Sandra Anderson? http://www.geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/dogs/ap040928.htm

 

[SuziQ]

What is really weird is that the arrest affidavit does not even mention the smell in the car.

It doesn't, which is why I'm scratching my head over what time the officer found the note. There is no date or time mentioned. Just says first responding officer.

 

[ketel0ne]

I too was watching the weather radar as I have friends in Florida. I've wondered if this might affect the arrival of the Padillas in Orlando?

Leonard is already there. Don't know when Tony is set to arrive.

 

[JBean]

Actually, Rose Red, when using scientific evidence in trials -- any trial, judge alone or jury trial, the one offering the evidence has to lay a foundation first by asking questions designed to show that the evidence is reliable and done according to accepted scientific methods so the same result will happen time and time again under the same circumstances AND that it is accepted to prove the fact that is sought to be proved, by the scientific community. For dog evidence, a lot of evidence comes in showing the training of the dog, the credentials of the trainers, the credentials of the dog handlers, the number of times the dog was used, results, etc. Lots of foundation goes into this and it chews up a lot of court time to present it. Further, the defense may object on many grounds. One common ground is an objection that the evidence is too prejudicial and the prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Sometimes a judge will sustain an objection based on that ground. Then again, sometimes judges just make rulings on motions that are wrong and the prosecution can preserve the objection and take it up on appeal. However, if the prosecution wins the case based on other evidence, obviously they don't appeal. I just thought you deserved a better explanation than just argument on this one. It was a good point.

IIRC, there was a training video showing the very dogs that were used in the Laci Peterson case. In that video the dogs were shown making mistakes. Consequently that was a probelm for the prosecution because there were documented errors by the dogs that hit on a few spots.

 

[McSev]

That's what it comes down to. Look for a live Caylee or we don't want your help.

Yes, it's maddening. Especially when you look at children who have been abducted like Shasta and Dylan Groene, Jessica Lundsford, Polly Klaas, and many others.

There are a certain set of what were initially missing person's cases being studied that are called "eraser" killings, and they're mostly committed by men against their wives (ex) or girlfriends (ex). Eraser killings are not like a crime of passion: those who commit these types of murders typically start with a delayed missing person's report, days or even weeks later that the victim actually went missing. Sometimes, those reports are made by friends or other family members, because the man who we find later has committed the murder of his spouse/girlfriend tries to delay that report as much as possible to buy time. Time is their friend and the enemy of LE. (31 days, and Cindy called in the report for her granddaughter - kinda similar, hm?)

The psychology studies around those cases reveal a dark trilogy of common traits, actions, and crime scene manipulation that the perps had, and that the families of those accused of those kinds of crimes typically were supportive all the way to the bitter end. The ONLY family that wasn't an "enabler" like this in recent memory happened to be Mark Hacking's brothers who basically forced him to confess he killed his wife while commited to the psych ward temporarily after running around his hotel naked.

While we're talking a missing child and these men admittedly did away with their female partners, I can't tell you how astonished I was with the similiarities in how Casey is appearing to behave relative to how the convicted men in the study behaved as POI pr suspects (very self centered, very very), the many lies she has told, the fact she waited to report her child missing for 31 days, and how she lawyered up...it's really stunning.

 

[gibby207]

I'm addicted to this website and a lurker and now have finally been added. I hope yawl are safe during the hurricane and no evidence is lost.

My stance: Casey killed her. Accident or not, Caylee is dead. So, my question as the resident newbee is that do you think her parents are a ruse to get her to talk? Do you think they know more and know how she manipulates are trying to "out-manipulate" her? Do you think she would tell the truth if bailed out? I doubt it but I see in some cases maybe. She seems to be very narcissistic....

 

[SeriouslySearching]

It doesn't, which is why I'm scratching my head over what time the officer found the note. There is no date or time mentioned. Just says first responding officer.

I thought the note was found by Cindy and she gave them the note?

 

[Themis]

Wasn't allowed in this case and I don't remember the exact case but it was brought up during the McCann fiasco and the McCann attorneys brought that case up and that is why I remember it. The dog hits were not allowed in the trial because they hit under the house but no body was ever found. The judge said without a body no one could prove a body was ever under the house. It was a precedent case in the US and was to be used by the McCann attorneys .

If you are a JD, I apologize for the detailed explanation later. However, we'd probably agree that a good prosecutor wouldn't ever want to base a homicide case on dog evidence standing alone. However, cumulatively, maybe dog evidence is good even without a body.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

I thought the note was found by Cindy and she gave them the note?

Wasn't the note actually Amy's resume and Cindy used that to call Amy to get to Casey. Right? Or was there yet another mysterious note?

 

[Themis]

IIRC, there was a training video showing the very dogs that were used in the Laci Peterson case. In that video the dogs were shown making mistakes. Consequently that was a probelm for the prosecution because there were documented errors by the dogs that hit on a few spots.

Yes. Even exculpatory evidence has to be presented. The jury weighs it.

 

[RoseRed]

Based upon review of the case law below, an alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.

http://www.k9fleck.org/articles/cadaver_dog.html

I think the cases you are referring to may be in there. As well as the cases where the handler in Michigan actually planted the evidence the dog hit on.

No it is not one of those cases as there were no bones found.

I just get tired of the dogs are always right when they are not proof if other evidence is not found. Just because they hit on an area it does not prove that a body has been there. We keep seeing but how do you explain the dogs hitting? Well I am trying to explain that the dogs are not proof alone but there must be other evidence also. I a, amazed so many people think that just because a dog hits it is absolute proof but it is not.

 

[JBean]

It doesn't, which is why I'm scratching my head over what time the officer found the note. There is no date or time mentioned. Just says first responding officer.

Wouldn't that be the 15th? Either way imo it could be one of 2 things.
1. it really wasn't that bad. It was blown out of proportion and LE picked up on it later and investigated it. I do know an officer testified to smelling it at the bond hearing, but I do not know exactly when he smelled it and I cannot find the dang link to that hearing!
OR
2. LE blew it. They were not investigating a murder involving the car and it wasn't until Casey took them on that wild good chase did the light start to go on. They said ruh-roh...we need to regroup. I think they then went over the information which would include the stinky car and THEN they smelled it and acted on it.

As i have said before there is something stinky about the stink.
But part of my issue with this is that Cindy has taken a LOT of heat for washing those pants. many posters here have said over and over that LE was not looking at a homicide but a kidnapping so the important evidence was discounted at that time. The same must hold true for Cindy. Moreover she volunteered the info about the pants and imo she did it on more than one occasion.

 

[ketel0ne]

No it is not one of those cases as there were no bones found.

I just get tired of the dogs are always right when they are not proof if other evidence is not found. Just because they hit on an area it does not prove that a body has been there. We keep seeing but how do you explain the dogs hitting? Well I am trying to explain that the dogs are not proof alone but there must be other evidence also. I a, amazed so many people think that just because a dog hits it is absolute proof but it is not.

It is equally as maddening that there is a kidnapper or babysitter because a habitual liar says there is one.