Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[magic-cat]

Hi all...I'm luvschiclets.:nluv:

So very glad to read and cyber meet all. I've come out of hiding/lurking.

I've been reading lots on this board. Thanks for your input, observations, links, info. etc...

Could someone refresh my memory regarding the autopsy results please?

Irrc, when I initially read the autopsy report nothing was found in the sweet babies lungs that would indicate an accidental drowning.

Presuming my recollection is correct; are you surmising that if the defense does decide to use the accidental theory, do you mean the chloroform? That KC used chlorform to make sweet Caylee go to sleep and gave her too much on that awful day? Could someone help me to understand how an accidental defense could be feasible? If this was already explained and posted, please accept my apology in advance.

Again, many thanks. I appreciate all of the informations and opinions that I have read here.

IMO to all of my posts...

WELCOME!!!

Bold 1: I have read the report several times. Please stop accusing me of not reading the documents. It does no good what so ever. I am well informed in this case and do not need somebody to repeatedly tell me to read the docs. So, please stop it. It just appears as though you are attacking the poster. Furthermore, you are welcome to scroll right by my post anytime you please, or just select ignore.

Bold 2: again I have read this doc several times. It was the suggestion that the skull rolled out of the bag that did not make sense. The Medical examiners report makes perfect sense.

Bold 3: Again, I have read page nine several times. I reserve the right to ask questions as anyone else. You are welcome to ignore me or just scroll by. I am not puzzled. Quote the quote.

Bold 4: Again I have read the docs several times. I do not know why you keep pointing this out. It seems like a waste of time to continue to attack me for not reading the docs. Why not just attack the post?


Please stop attacking the poster. Lets just agree to disagree. If you believe the skull came rolling out, then I will accept it that you believe it.

After reading the docs in this case, It is my opinion that the skull did not come rolling out of any bag.

Hey NTS! :idea:
I had an idea of why the hair mat did not float up, besides it being attached with the duct tape. Think of how long Caylee's hair was. Now think of her lying inside the bag, in almost any position, some of her hair, at least, would have been lying underneath her head, right? So, as she decomposed, and that would have happened quickly we are told, in as little as 2 weeks she could have been completely skeletonized, and certainly within a month she would have been, her hair would have remained trapped under whatever portion of her head it was under. Then when the hair mat fell back off of her skull, it would still have remained trapped underneath her skull by some portion of the hair. This is one way to account for the hair mat not having moved away from the skull, even without the duct tape. Add in the duct tape holding it in place in another way, and whala, hair found in tact in mat at base of skull at site. Make sense? :waitasec:

I appreciate your honest questions and your efforts to understand exactly how something could have happened. It has stretched my own mind attempting to answer those very questions... :blowkiss:

 

[LambChop]

WELCOME!!!


Hey NTS! :idea:
I had an idea of why the hair mat did not float up, besides it being attached with the duct tape. Think of how long Caylee's hair was. Now think of her lying inside the bag, in almost any position, some of her hair, at least, would have been lying underneath her head, right? So, as she decomposed, and that would have happened quickly we are told, in as little as 2 weeks she could have been completely skeletonized, and certainly within a month she would have been, her hair would have remained trapped under whatever portion of her head it was under. Then when the hair mat fell back off of her skull, it would still have remained trapped underneath her skull by some portion of the hair. This is one way to account for the hair mat not having moved away from the skull, even without the duct tape. Add in the duct tape holding it in place in another way, and whala, hair found in tact in mat at base of skull at site. Make sense? :waitasec:

I appreciate your honest questions and your efforts to understand exactly how something could have happened. It has stretched my own mind attempting to answer those very questions... :blowkiss:

Perfect. Sounds very logical.

Many of us, including the experts, look at what is in the reports as "logical". Other only see what a "skeptic" would see needing the information right down to 100% certainty. Life is not like that. Nothing is 100% certain except death. No one will live forever on this plane of existence. Let's hope the jury has people who use their logic and keep an open mind instead of insisting on perfection in a not so perfect crime. SA will say the most logical person is the mother. Defense will say the most logical person is from "fairyland" or mom and it was an accident. JMO

 

[magic-cat]

I guess I just find it very odd that the tape still had "sticky" on the backing after all that time in the water,exposed to the elements, vermin (who I would think would be attracted to the glue on the tape), etc.. Common sense would say to me that this seems improbable. I am sure jurors will have the unfortunate task of viewing photos which will definitively say one way or another.

O/T (sort of) I agree with the earlier posters about this case being one of the crazier ones. I still for the life of me am trying to figure out why Caylee. Of all the cases I read about here and in case studies that are absolutely horrifying with prior abuses, amongst other aspects, this one has certainly gripped an awful lot of people! Bless her little soul!

Howdy!
It isn't that the duct tape still had "stickiness" on it...it is that the duct tape was placed in such a way across the face that it went into the hair on either side of the face. Now, once duct tape is stuck to hair? Good luck getting it out. When Caylee's hair fell off of her skull and formed the mat, the tape was still IN both sides of the hair, on either side of the head. The hair then fell down over the tape, and further held it in place. It is amazing, really, and personally, I think it must have been one of Caylee's own angels that made sure it happened this way so the evidence would not be washed away in the floods. Anyhow, even as the skin vanished, the taughtness of the tape, as it would have been simply from being in both sides of the hair, also held the mandible in place, and it HAD to have been the tape holding it there, because the tissues were completely gone that would have held it there otherwise.

 

[ZsaZsa]

If it was fact, why didn't he state it as fact? Instead of saying it could be inferred? (guess, speculation)

How can we establish this as fact when the Medical examiner won't even establish it as fact or state it as fact?

IMO it is not a matter of documented fact.

I agree to disagree with you. It is a matter of the interpretation of the documents at hand. Many just accept it as fact. I can accept that. But the Jury has 12. Will they all accept it as fact?

I think this person will be cross examined and explain his reasoning for not stating it as fact. At that time, he will have the opportunity to say it is his opinion that the duct tape held the mandible in place.

It has been explained on this thread already- that is the terminology they use in reports. When they are called to testify they give their opinions, that is what his opinion will be.

 

[ZsaZsa]

In case you have forgotten NTS, here is your dictionary's definition of Inferring:
To derive by reasoning, conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

No guess or speculation as you call it, is mentioned as a possible definition.

 

[LambChop]

Scientists state opinions. Forensic pictures STATE FACTS. Jurors will judge by what they can see for themselves. JMO

 

[Just Jayla]

The ostelogical report by Dr. Schultz says it can be inferred that the tape held the mandible in place in the opinion section.

RK also says a couple of things about this that lead me to believe that the mandible adhered (with tape) to the skull: RK says the skull fell or rolled out. He also said that he manipulated it, picked it up slightly and set it back down with his meter stick (detectives clarified that he did not move it, he manipulated it). So, if the mandible were not attached in some way, I would think it would have come apart when RK moved the bag or lifted the skull.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I guess I just find it very odd that the tape still had "sticky" on the backing after all that time in the water,exposed to the elements, vermin (who I would think would be attracted to the glue on the tape), etc.. Common sense would say to me that this seems improbable. I am sure jurors will have the unfortunate task of viewing photos which will definitively say one way or another.

O/T (sort of) I agree with the earlier posters about this case being one of the crazier ones. I still for the life of me am trying to figure out why Caylee. Of all the cases I read about here and in case studies that are absolutely horrifying with prior abuses, amongst other aspects, this one has certainly gripped an awful lot of people! Bless her little soul!

No stickiness on the tape is mentioned, that I can see. The examiner mentions that it has an open weave backing, and is delaminating.The duct tape was still attached to the mat of skull hair but was overlying the mandible and maxilla, and there were several layers. An analogy might be if a bandage were tied across the face, around the head,and tape secured it to the hair at the back of the head- the bandage would still be holding the mandible in place.. it wouldn't need to be stuck to anything.
We do not know if the duct tape was completely around the head , but it was certainly across the face, mouth and nasal apertures and was applied to the skull hair,at the back and base of the skull, where it remained until discovered.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Duct tape is most durable and basically waterproof...which is why there are a million reasons to use, plumbers use this most, IMO...

It is pronounced duct tape, but people say it so fast it sounds like duck tape.

Originally duct tape was used for taping ductwork together. This is used in the air conditioning systems in most buildings. Duct tape was strong enough and flexible for the job. Later, it was used for almost anything imaginable, from canoe repair to fixing the Apollo 13 spacecraft. Duck tape was manufactured later by an Australian company. There was even a book on the alternative uses of duct tape in everyday life. Its also called 100 mph tape by the military. The airline industry has made some improvements, now making a 600 mph tape. See the related links for more information.

Duct tape was originally created during World War Two, when soldiers needed a waterproof means to keep moisture out of ammunition cases. They soon found how versatile the tape was and put it to many other uses, including fixing tents, repairing clothing, fixing guns and other equipment, and a whole host of other things. It was said that the name "Duck Tape" was given due to the tapes ability to shed water much like a duck's plumage does. When the war was over and the soldiers returned home, even more uses for the tape were discovered, particular with reference to repairing heating and air ducts. The colour was changed from army green to silver along with the name, giving birth to Duct Tape we know today.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_duck_tape_or_duct_tape

 

[notthatsmart]

WELCOME!!!


Hey NTS! :idea:
I had an idea of why the hair mat did not float up, besides it being attached with the duct tape. Think of how long Caylee's hair was. Now think of her lying inside the bag, in almost any position, some of her hair, at least, would have been lying underneath her head, right? So, as she decomposed, and that would have happened quickly we are told, in as little as 2 weeks she could have been completely skeletonized, and certainly within a month she would have been, her hair would have remained trapped under whatever portion of her head it was under. Then when the hair mat fell back off of her skull, it would still have remained trapped underneath her skull by some portion of the hair. This is one way to account for the hair mat not having moved away from the skull, even without the duct tape. Add in the duct tape holding it in place in another way, and whala, hair found in tact in mat at base of skull at site. Make sense? :waitasec:

I appreciate your honest questions and your efforts to understand exactly how something could have happened. It has stretched my own mind attempting to answer those very questions... :blowkiss:

I like this explanation and is probably what happened. Accept for one thing, I don't think they found bag or portions of bag underneath the skull. I would really like a better explaination from Rk on which bag he lifted with his meter stick. We will just have to leave it at this until depositions are released. thanks

 

[nort]

I'm not sure a jury will care if the mandible was held by duct tape I think they will want to know what led to that. Even if it was the cause of death still dont think their going to care that the tape held the mandible in place. I mean what does it prove???? Or disprove..

 

[LambChop]

I'm not sure a jury will care if the mandible was held by duct tape I think they will want to know what led to that. Even if it was the cause of death still dont think their going to care that the tape held the mandible in place. I mean what does it prove???? Or disprove..

Actually it proves a lot. It proves that the defense can't claim that somehow the duct tape just happened to float over in the water from some unknown source and attach itself to the skull in the manner in which it was found. JMO

 

[nort]

Actually it proves a lot. It proves that the defense can't claim that somehow the duct tape just happened to float over in the water from some unknown source and attach itself to the skull in the manner in which it was found. JMO

I was not disputing it being there or that she put it there just that who cares that it held up the mandible. It was there I dont really care what it held in place or didnt it was there. I dont think holding anything in place is what we need to prove it didnt float over its obvious to me it did'nt.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I was not disputing it being there or that she put it there just that who cares that it held up the mandible. It was there I dont really care what it held in place or didnt it was there. I dont think holding anything in place is what we need to prove it didnt float over its obvious to me it did'nt.

Believe it or not a poster on this site suggested that was a possibility, that it just floated up there, and therefore was not placed there intentionally by KC...:innocent:

 

[LambChop]

I was not disputing it being there or that she put it there just that who cares that held up the mandible.

The jaw being held in place with duct tape shows it was applied right before or right after death because the jaw drops when a person dies. After decomp nothing would hold that jaw to the skull as it would naturally separate. The duct tape is holding the jaw bone onto the skull which shows the duct tape did not just affix itself to the skull, it had to have been placed there. Defense can't say the duct tape stuck to the skull after decomposition and therefore can't be the cause of death. A piece of duct tape floating freely in water could stick to anything. The mandible closes that door for the defense. That is why they care. JMO

 

[LambChop]

Believe it or not a poster on this site suggested that was a possibility, that it just floated up there, and therefore was not placed there intentionally by KC...:innocent:

I don't have a link because I think I read it on a blog that defense was suggesting that. JMO

 

[magic-cat]

I'm not sure a jury will care if the mandible was held by duct tape I think they will want to know what led to that. Even if it was the cause of death still dont think their going to care that the tape held the mandible in place. I mean what does it prove???? Or disprove..

It proves she went into the woods right after she died...with duct tape on her face at that time.

 

[joypath]

If it was fact, why didn't he state it as fact? Instead of saying it could be inferred? (guess, speculation)

How can we establish this as fact when the Medical examiner won't even establish it as fact or state it as fact?

IMO it is not a matter of documented fact.

I agree to disagree with you. It is a matter of the interpretation of the documents at hand. Many just accept it as fact. I can accept that. But the Jury has 12. Will they all accept it as fact?

I think this person will be cross examined and explain his reasoning for not stating it as fact. At that time, he will have the opportunity to say it is his opinion that the duct tape held the mandible in place.

In the format of writing professional referral documents, please note that this is under the OPINION section and that the opinion stated is that the reason WHY the mandible is in the position it was found in is because of the tape, thus the "inference" since the TAPE is the only non-biological reason why the oddity is present.
YES, on the stand he will be able to quote "chapter and verse" regarding statistics of cases where this phenomena is/is not present.

 

[nort]

The jaw being held in place with duct tape shows it was applied right before or right after death because the jaw drops when a person dies. After decomp nothing would hold that jaw to the skull as it would naturally separate. The duct tape is holding the jaw bone onto the skull which shows the duct tape did not just affix itself to the skull, it had to have been placed there. Defense can't say the duct tape stuck to the skull after decomposition and therefore can't be the cause of death. A piece of duct tape floating freely in water could stick to anything. The mandible closes that door for the defense. That is why they care. JMO

If it did not hold the mandible in place I would still believe she put it there. I think as far as timing (again pretty obvious) we know it had to be right before or after because the body with the roots and all had to have been there the entire time. So you dont need it to prove that. I personally dont think floating duct tape would have affixed itself so tightly to the hair had it not been placed there, (they had to cut it out and all) especially after being in the water so long. So the whole floating thing to me is ridiculous especially because the tape was around not just stuck to a part of but around. Difficult for the that to happen naturally. JMO

 

[nort]

It proves she went into the woods right after she died...with duct tape on her face at that time.

So if the mandible was not held in place you would not believe that?