Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[logicalgirl]

I think there are plenty of people that are still considering the possibility of an accident so let's please be careful when making generalizations about what everyone thinks or should think. It is not fair to say if you have read the evidence then you cannot draw that conclusion.

On another note, it may be a moot point to some of you what she may ultimately be convicted of , but to me it is very important.

It doesn't really have anything to do with sentencing for me ; but there is a difference between murder 1, felony murder, murder 2, manslaughter and/or other lesser charges and to me it is VERY important what the state can prove and what she will ultimately be convicted of.
I see people asking what's the difference and why should we even care, but if there wasn't a difference then different elemements for fdifferent crimes would not exist. So while it may not be of interest to you, it is of interest to others.

I have apologized for my blanket statement, as I never meant to speak for all. I can only speak for "I" and what I believe to be true. I don't believe there has ever been a moment I have asked for complete agreement to my point of view. I may ask that posters understand how or why I have arrived at what I believe, but thanks very much - the burden of expecting everyone to believe what I do is just too much to expect and one I am not interested in.

I am interested in the facts of the case, re accidental or intentional. Which is why I keep saying - show me some facts that point towards accidental. I'm willing to change my mind - but so far it's not looking good.

 

[AZlawyer]

Lets get back to topic. Very interesting conversation went a little off topic.

My opinion is that I do not believe it was an accident.

Thanks for this post.

What evidence do you believe is incompatible with an accident theory?

 

[Just Jayla]

we have a local case here where the DA was not going to be able to prove cause of death. there was enough circumstantial evidence to show that the accused was indeed involved in the killing of this young woman someway somehow. But even after skipping town,hiding evidence,scrubbing out his car, and transporting and disposing of the body, the murderer was able to say it was an accident and a plea agreement was struck accordingly.
So even though every piece of circumstantial evidence pointed to a murder, no cause of death meant they had to take his word that she killed herself with drugs he supplied.
That case did not have a body,and obviously there is a big difference as compared to this case. However I still think that the cause of death could be a critical piece in the final analysis.

Thanks for this info...I think we can rule out certain types of accidents, due to lack of evidence-For instance, I do not believe Caylee was accidentally run over by KC's car (no evidence on the car or driveway), I do not think it is probable that she was electrocuted, either-And her skeleton did not show any signs of being hit with a falling or heavy object (such as an appliance tipping over), nor was there blood on the clothes that she was found with or in the hair mat, that I remember.

As for drowning, suffocation or accidental poisoning, I think all of the evidence to counter these potential accidents is circumstantial. Even the duct tape, especially as there were no prints (that we know of yet).

Help me out sleuthers, is there a way we can rule out the potential for these accidents, based on lack of telling evidence? For instance, CA said poisons were not accessible to Caylee, what else could rule out an accidental poisoning? Suffocation & drowning?

 

[LambChop]

Point--missed. Sorry LC no matter how i try to explain it, I seem to do a poor job of it. I was not implying that Caylee killed herself or even remotely suggesting it so please.
The point was that because there was no cause of death, the murderer was able to come up with his own story to account for the death and no one was able to refute it with evidence. Maybe there is a parallel here and maybe not. We have a body that tells a story that may be all the evidence we need. but i think that is what we are discussing.

Oh, I know you weren't saying that. What I was trying to say is the difference between the two is Caylee was a child and KC could not say Caylee killed herself. Moms are responsible for their children 100%. Getting away with murder is harder for a mother of an infant than for an adult who claims the person killed themself. Many a person has gotten away with murder by claiming the same thing. JMO

 

[logicalgirl]

we have a local case here where the DA was not going to be able to prove cause of death. there was enough circumstantial evidence to show that the accused was indeed involved in the killing of this young woman someway somehow. But even after skipping town,hiding evidence,scrubbing out his car, and transporting and disposing of the body, the murderer was able to say it was an accident and a plea agreement was struck accordingly.
So even though every piece of circumstantial evidence pointed to a murder, no cause of death meant they had to take his word that she killed herself with drugs he supplied.
That case did not have a body,and obviously there is a big difference as compared to this case. However I still think that the cause of death could be a critical piece in the final analysis.

Oh boy I was hoping we weren't going to go here. I understand the difference between knowing and proving factually but I question how justice is served when pleas are taken, deals are made, and lower sentences are given just so these monsters serve some time.
Our country does not support the death penalty and we lean very much in favor of the accused rather than the victims. Please check out the crimes of Clifford Olson, Robert Pickton and Karla Homulka and you can see the reason for my restlessness on the subject.
I question why we must take the word of the accused over overwhelming circumstances and logical thinking in these cases when the victims suffered in silence.

 

[JBean]

Oh boy I was hoping we weren't going to go here. I understand the difference between knowing and proving factually but I question how justice is served when pleas are taken, deals are made, and lower sentences are given just so these monsters serve some time.
Our country does not support the death penalty and we lean very much in favor of the accused rather than the victims. Please check out the crimes of Clifford Olson, Robert Pickton and Karla Homulka and you can see the reason for my restlessness on the subject.
I question why we must take the word of the accused over overwhelming circumstances and logical thinking in these cases when the victims suffered in silence.

I think it all comes down to what the SA can or cannot prove. The case I sited was very disturbing because the guy got FIVE YEARS.
But I do think the SA has plenty of evidence to support a much stronger charge and am not concerned about that. I think a plea in this case would not be for less than 60 years. I do believe she will pay a price and a hefty one.

ETA: I do not support the death penalty but not because I lean in favor of the accused. I am just pro-life across the board.

 

[LambChop]

From one of KC's letters to RA: "It's so sad how drastically things have changed since we were both in school. One thing I know for sure- the more “power” satan obtains before the final showdown, the worse things are going to get. The chaplain and I have talked about that a lot. We need to find a way to reach out to today's youth and to the youth of tomorrow because we need them in this fight. It's easier to convert a less corrupted mind (I almost feel guilty putting it like that, but it's true in many aspects) and I know we could positively influence these young minds before they become one of the many drowning in society and the devils within.. It's hard not to get worked up over these issues before us. Especially for those of us who knows what will happen in the coming years.

Okie dokie now. I think KC has revealed in her own letter why Caylee did not drown. She has no problem using the word "drowning" and "young people" in the same sentence. Interestingly when KC mentions in another letter that if she finds out who did this to Caylee she will "end" them. She avoids the word "kill". No problem saying drowning in one sentence but avoids saying "kill" in another even though the sentence sounds ackward with the word "end" in it. JMO

 

[notthatsmart]

Thanks for this post.

What evidence do you believe is incompatible with an accident theory?

That no one ever reported an accident.
There is no injury or trauma to indicate an accident.
That Jb told Kb that she was in lala land, Kc was not in those woods.
That the defense said they believe someone other than Kc put Caylee in those woods.
That the Sa says it was murder.

The theory itself is 3rd party. The state nor the defense has brought it up.
Its pure speculation. With the theory, many things are possible, but no evidence as such. I could speculate all day that it was an accident, but no physical evidence or witness testimony to back up the claims.

Rh stated that he thought it was an accident covered up an blown completely out of proportion. He has a lot more tools than I do, He knows if these kind of things happen, I don't.

Is it possible that Kc told the police later that it was an accident and they said no way, you murdered her. Not giving her the chance to tell the truth? I doubt it.

I do wonder why Ym visited Kc in jail last August though. It was probably just an opportunity to clear something up in the case that both sides agreed to.

 

[LambChop]

I do wonder why Ym visited Kc in jail last August though. It was probably just an opportunity to clear something up in the case that both sides agreed to.

Really, I never heard that. I know KC wrote a note to ask to see her father but I've never read anything about YM visiting KC in jail. Wonder why JB did not object to this? KC was out on bail in August, I believe but after the 14th. I'd be interested if you could find that report. Thanks

 

[faefrost]

I think it all comes down to what the SA can or cannot prove. The case I sited was very disturbing because the guy got FIVE YEARS.
But I do think the SA has plenty of evidence to support a much stronger charge and am not concerned about that. I think a plea in this case would not be for less than 60 years. I do believe she will pay a price and a hefty one.

ETA: I do not support the death penalty but not because I lean in favor of the accused. I am just pro-life across the board.

remember the standard is "reasonable doubt". We the public tend to twell too much on absolute proof orassume that means if any doubts exist the defendant must be aquitted. Not true. while the defense can put up the theory of an accidental death, in this case, much as in the case of Scott Peterson, the defendants subsequant actions can be used to tell the story such that it passes the reasonable doubt test sufficiently for a jury to convict.

Yes, that previous case was pled out because of lack of cause of death. And quite frankly LE and the state put that on the table for KC from the first interviews. But remember that prior case you mention was pled out. The prosecutor made a costs benefits calculation in doing so. and there is a good chance he erred with it in the wrong direction. This is a far cry from getting a similar result from a jury.

 

[sumbunny]

From one of KC's letters to RA: "It's so sad how drastically things have changed since we were both in school. One thing I know for sure- the more “power” satan obtains before the final showdown, the worse things are going to get. The chaplain and I have talked about that a lot. We need to find a way to reach out to today's youth and to the youth of tomorrow because we need them in this fight. It's easier to convert a less corrupted mind (I almost feel guilty putting it like that, but it's true in many aspects) and I know we could positively influence these young minds before they become one of the many drowning in society and the devils within.. It's hard not to get worked up over these issues before us. Especially for those of us who knows what will happen in the coming years.

Okie dokie now. I think KC has revealed in her own letter why Caylee did not drown. She has no problem using the word "drowning" and "young people" in the same sentence. Interestingly when KC mentions in another letter that if she finds out who did this to Caylee she will "end" them. She avoids the word "kill". No problem saying drowning in one sentence but avoids saying "kill" in another even though the sentence sounds ackward with the word "end" in it. JMO

BBM- perhaps she meant to put "def" in front of end. Because that is exactly what her parents are doing...defending the murderer. IMO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Point--missed. Sorry LC no matter how i try to explain it, I seem to do a poor job of it. I was not implying that Caylee killed herself or even remotely suggesting it so please.
The point was that because there was no cause of death, the murderer was able to come up with his own story to account for the death and no one was able to refute it with evidence. Maybe there is a parallel here and maybe not. We have a body that tells a story that may be all the evidence we need. but i think that is what we are discussing.

Respectfully BBM. Thanks, JBean, this little nugget was a light bulb moment for me to be able to understand the importance of pinning down the COD. Without one, there is license for Casey to get creative and, lacking proof, the state's theory remains just that ~ a theory. And here the state is put in the position of trying to prepare to disprove any theory that the defense can throw out there. Yuck!

 

[ZsaZsa]

I don't feel the skull would float. I feel the hair would float. I see it everyday in the toilet. Lol The duct tape was attached to the hair, the hair was not attached to the skull. I believe the mandible was held in place because the skull was sitting upright and facing North West. I believe the pictures will speak for themselves, what I am not sure of though is Le's description of things. I am not convinced at all that any thing was wrapped tightly or appeared to be placed there purposefully and it is all challengable. Given the conflicting reports at the crime scene, the jury will prolly have to view the pictures. So , The duct tape does not seal it for me not being an accident. As far as I know, the tape could have floated up to the skull and just rested there. I am not proposing that, I am saying that there are conflicting reports and things are not making sense to me, so therefore i will hold out for the cross examination. So i can not write off the accident theory completely. IMO

OK- If you have studied the reports then no doubt you have seen under - Conditions of remains and processing:-
On December 11- A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas.
The tape remained in place because IT WAS ADHERED TO THE HAIR OF THE SKULL.

I don't find any conflicting reports on this subject. It is stated as observed.

You say you believe the mandible was held in place because the skull was sitting upright and facing Northwest.

So you dispute the findings in the report that state:-
Based on the position of the tape and the mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming a matt (sic)on the base of the skull.

Having read these expert opinions, can you please outline why you think they are not correct.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think it all comes down to what the SA can or cannot prove. The case I sited was very disturbing because the guy got FIVE YEARS.
But I do think the SA has plenty of evidence to support a much stronger charge and am not concerned about that. I think a plea in this case would not be for less than 60 years. I do believe she will pay a price and a hefty one.

ETA: I do not support the death penalty but not because I lean in favor of the accused. I am just pro-life across the board.

Yes, "our" Mr. Pickton got 20 years for six women, accused of 26, suspected of 64. Ask me how many tears the women of this city have cried.

I am pro-life also but to me that means life until death behind bars.

 

[notthatsmart]

Really, I never heard that. I know KC wrote a note to ask to see her father but I've never read anything about YM visiting KC in jail. Wonder why JB did not object to this? KC was out on bail in August, I believe but after the 14th. I'd be interested if you could find that report. Thanks

Auguts of 09 is what I am talking about. It is in the visitation logs and Jb is present. I will look for a link to the logs. It may be July, but I think its August.

 

[logicalgirl]

That no one ever reported an accident.
There is no injury or trauma to indicate an accident.
That Jb told Kb that she was in lala land, Kc was not in those woods.
That the defense said they believe someone other than Kc put Caylee in those woods.
That the Sa says it was murder.

The theory itself is 3rd party. The state nor the defense has brought it up.
Its pure speculation. With the theory, many things are possible, but no evidence as such. I could speculate all day that it was an accident, but no physical evidence or witness testimony to back up the claims.

Rh stated that he thought it was an accident covered up an blown completely out of proportion. He has a lot more tools than I do, He knows if these kind of things happen, I don't.

Is it possible that Kc told the police later that it was an accident and they said no way, you murdered her. Not giving her the chance to tell the truth? I doubt it.

I do wonder why Ym visited Kc in jail last August though. It was probably just an opportunity to clear something up in the case that both sides agreed to.

I absolutely understand your speculation but just one point. Mr. Hornsby is a criminal defense attorney and thinks like a defense attorney.

 

[Pondering Mind]

That no one ever reported an accident.
that is incompatible how? I actually believe that proves that it was no accident..
There is no injury or trauma to indicate an accident.
there was hardly anything left of poor Caylee to prove or disprove imo..just duct tape.
That Jb told Kb that she was in lala land, Kc was not in those woods.
what??? KC has done nothing but lie..I'm sorry, I don't even understand this one.
That the defense said they believe someone other than Kc put Caylee in those woods.
that's their job, not evidence nts..
That the Sa says it was murder.
that's not evidence either..

The theory itself is 3rd party. The state nor the defense has brought it up.
Its pure speculation. With the theory, many things are possible, but no evidence as such. I could speculate all day that it was an accident, but no physical evidence or witness testimony to back up the claims.

Rh stated that he thought it was an accident covered up an blown completely out of proportion. He has a lot more tools than I do, He knows if these kind of things happen, I don't.

Is it possible that Kc told the police later that it was an accident and they said no way, you murdered her. Not giving her the chance to tell the truth? I doubt it.

I do wonder why Ym visited Kc in jail last August though. It was probably just an opportunity to clear something up in the case that both sides agreed to.

my answers in blue..

Respectfully NTS, AzLawyer was asking you for any perceived evidence that is incompatible with the accident theory and imho you have nothing. :waitasec:..I'm willing to consider anything plausible, because I wish that I could believe that Caylee's death was an accident, but nothing that you have ever stated IMHO even leans towards that. Kinda seems like you are trying very hard to fit a square peg into a round hole and it just won't work. Good luck to ya NTS, it ain't never going to fly..IMHO..

 

[Pondering Mind]

Oh boy I was hoping we weren't going to go here. I understand the difference between knowing and proving factually but I question how justice is served when pleas are taken, deals are made, and lower sentences are given just so these monsters serve some time.
Our country does not support the death penalty and we lean very much in favor of the accused rather than the victims. Please check out the crimes of Clifford Olson, Robert Pickton and Karla Homulka and you can see the reason for my restlessness on the subject.
I question why we must take the word of the accused over overwhelming circumstances and logical thinking in these cases when the victims suffered in silence.

bbm~ I don't believe that we do logicalgirl. Nor do I believe that a jury will either. I do worry that the SA may not be able to prove Murder 1 beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't worry that KC won't be spending the rest of her life behind bars. If she has a brain in her head she knows that she is a lot safer in prison. People will never forget this case and imho she wouldn't survive 24 hrs. on the outside. I hope she realizes that she isn't the only person in the world as evil as she is...she will meet her match one day...karma is a biotch..

 

[notthatsmart]

OK- If you have studied the reports then no doubt you have seen under - Conditions of remains and processing:-
On December 11- A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas.
The tape remained in place because IT WAS ADHERED TO THE HAIR OF THE SKULL.

I don't find any conflicting reports on this subject. It is stated as observed.

You say you believe the mandible was held in place because the skull was sitting upright and facing Northwest.

So you dispute the findings in the report that state:-
Based on the position of the tape and the mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming a matt (sic)on the base of the skull.Having read these expert opinions, can you please outline why you think they are not correct.

Bolded. I believe this part was taken out of the Medical examiners report. And it says inferred rather than stating it as fact. For instance, most of the ingredients of the body bag were stated as fact, then to get to the duct tape part and say it can be inferred. This raises my hinky meter and allows me to look into it further. Why would a person say it can be inferred if they can state it as fact?

I could say, it could be inferred that the mandible was held in place by the ground. Anyone can say those kind of things to fall short of stating somethings as fact.

I was speculating as to why LKB was going to challenge the placement of the duct tape. I am reading the same docs as you.

When it is stated as fact, it is more believable to me than when it is stated as inferred. I do not know how to explain my interpretation of the docs to you ZZ. I don't assume anything and I don't trust Le anymore than I trust a defense attorney. So I question things that are disputable to make sure they are true. Even in these fine details that seem to mean nothing, I want the whole truth and nothing but the truth for Caylee. IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

Like I've said, I want to see a fact that provides reasonable doubt this was murder.
For me what supports murder is:

-Not reporting Caylee missing either to LE or to Casey's family for 31 days.
-Where the body was found and how the body was initially triple wrapped.
-The duct tape is a big one - if it was applied pre-decomp, I question that any loving mother would think to do this for an accidental death so quickly.
-Casey's behavior the night Caylee went "missing" i.e. the videos and date with Tony.
- the decomp in the trunk
-the stories about how Caylee came to be missing.
-when LE questioned Casey, how Casey denied she had anything to do with Caylee's disappearance, either missing or otherwise.
-Casey's behavior during the 31 days before Cindy's call.
-Casey's behavior during her phone calls home from jail
-Casey's behavior during her time out on bond and with Tim Miller

The list is actually longer but I've just hit the high points for me.