For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[Smelly Squirrel]

Here Smelly Squirrel, let me and a retired Judge from the Federal Bench help you out...

The SA could have talked about circusmtantial evidence in their closing as well.

 

[Solace]

snipped


I disagree. That evidence was up to interpretation. The tape at that time was not across her nose/mouth. It was speculation where it originally lied.

Right, the tape could have been put on her hair to keep it nice and neat or the tape was put on the outside of the bag and then placed itself around the bottom of her mandible keeping it in place or the tape was just lying in the woods and found its way to the mandible. Gotta be one of those.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I previously argued this exact thing with someone else, and never got a straight answer.

If the duct tape held the mandible to the skull, but the skull was found with the duct tape only (I repeat ONLY) attached to the hair mat, what was holding the mandible in place at that time? Especially since RK testified he, at the very least, tilted the skull up. How was the mandible still being held in place? If it wasn't the tape, then it could have been roots, which would then mean that the roots could've been holding the skull/mandible together all along, no need for the tape.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19801867/detail.html

UCF Osteological Analysis
Page 3, third and fourth paragraphs...

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collection bag by tearing the corners of the bag to expose the skull. A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noticed covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base of the cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary detintion that was approximately 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion:
Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.

 

[logicalgirl]

He has such great moral character doesn't he?

Don't get me started!

LG rushing back to read TOS.....

 

[beccalecca1]

(1) I didn't say it was evidence of homicide. It is evidence of Casey's culpability, at least of negligence. The only other alternative would be some widely speculative theory, such as the one Baez presented in the opening statement, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, or molestation. Reasonable doubt is not wild speculation.

(2) The grief expert did not examine Casey. There is no evidence of "magical thinking" in Casey's part. Her lies were clearly manipulative and to get her way; she changed them to make it convenient to her. She made up people to deflect attention from her deeds and misdeeds. The magical thinking theory is widely speculative and without evidence. Even if you believe the expert's opinion, that is only evidence that some people could respond to grief with magical thinking, not that Casey did so.

(3) I could see that a body in the trunk is consistent with negligence leading to death, but not to a non-negligent accident. Negligence leading to death would be manslaughter. If Casey was innocent and not negligent, why would she hide the body?

(4) Here is where common sense has to be tied to expert testimony and to other pieces of evidence. The tape belonged to the Anthony family. It is not reasonable to assume that RK or an outsider had access to the tape. Even if we don't know exactly when and where if it's an accident why duct tape the face and head? The duct tape had to be placed by one of the Anthony's (and given 1-3, and other evidence it had to be Casey). Why would one of the Anthony's place Caylee's body in Casey's trunk, place duct tape afterwards, as then throw the body in a swamp without proper burial? IMO, this does not make sense, even if a DT expert witness testified that it is theoretically possible.

In regards to 1, culpable negligence deals with harming a child. When you're failing to report the death of your child, sadly that person isn't considered a human being anymore (when they're dead) by law. So, that's why culpable negligence isn't in play anymore, she was dead by undetermined means.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Don't get me started!

LG rushing back to read TOS.....

:smile:
Sorry.

 

[logicalgirl]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19801867/detail.html

UCF Osteological Analysis
Page 3, third and fourth paragraphs...

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collection bag by tearing the corners of the bag to expose the skull. A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noticed covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base of the cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary detintion that was approximately 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion:
Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.

And we all saw Dr. Spitz fumble, flip and drop his mandible when he was on the stand giving a demonstration.

 

[magnolia]

Here Smelly Squirrel, let me and a retired Judge from the Federal Bench help you out...

Thanks for posting logicalgirl.

The jury in the Casey Anthony trial was not instructed that circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight and consideration as direct evidence. Indeed, the words "circumstantial evidence" do not appear anywhere in the court's charge to the jury.

I can't believe the State Of Florida has nothing in their version of Jury instructions regarding circumstantial evidence.

 

[Solace]

I previously argued this exact thing with someone else, and never got a straight answer.

If the duct tape held the mandible to the skull, but the skull was found with the duct tape only (I repeat ONLY) attached to the hair mat, what was holding the mandible in place at that time? Especially since RK testified he, at the very least, tilted the skull up. How was the mandible still being held in place? If it wasn't the tape, then it could have been roots, which would then mean that the roots could've been holding the skull/mandible together all along, no need for the tape.

The mandible was resting on the hair mat, which was held together by the tape. As the body decomposed the tape clung to the hair, the hair DROPPED arund the skull forming the mat. Per Ashton the tape was placed predecomposition and as the skin dissolved, the tape stayed with the hair. This magic tape that has a mind of its own and can hop from outside a bag to inside the bag and attach itself to hair surrounding a skull just because it wants to.

That is reasonable - i can see why a jury would not find the tape evidence. Especially if they have been sequestered and want to go hoooooome.

 

[Chablis]

I previously argued this exact thing with someone else, and never got a straight answer.

If the duct tape held the mandible to the skull, but the skull was found with the duct tape only (I repeat ONLY) attached to the hair mat, what was holding the mandible in place at that time? Especially since RK testified he, at the very least, tilted the skull up. How was the mandible still being held in place? If it wasn't the tape, then it could have been roots, which would then mean that the roots could've been holding the skull/mandible together all along, no need for the tape.

We dont know why it was held together, if it was, but we know for a fact that duct tape can not be attached to rotting flesh, and then adhere and tighten on a skull.

 

[logicalgirl]

Right, the tape could have been put on her hair to keep it nice and neat or the tape was put on the outside of the bag and then placed itself around the bottom of her mandible keeping it in place or the tape was just lying in the woods and found its way to the mandible. Gotta be one of those.

Wait a minute Solace! I think you've got it wrong...I'm sure one of the posters said earlier it was used to secure the bags, and then in the flood it became detached and floated down and attached itself to the hair mat and secured the mandible at the same time...Details Solace, details!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The mandible was resting on the hair mat, which was held together by the tape. As the body decomposed the tape clung to the hair, the hair DROPPED arund the skull forming the mat. Per Ashton the tape was placed predecomposition and as the skin dissolved, the tape stayed with the hair. This magic tape that has a mind of its own and can hop from outside a bag to inside the bag and attach itself to hair surrounding a skull just because it wants to.

That is reasonable - i can see why a jury would not find the tape evidence. Especially if they have been sequestered and want to go hoooooome.

JA was not the only one who stated the tape was placed on Caylee's face predecomp... it's in the report I have linked.

 

[beccalecca1]

Wow...it's not evidence that she drowned.
It's evidence that she COULD HAVE drowned.

Big difference!

ETA: So saying OVER and OVER again that there WAS evidence that SHE DROWNED is not a correct statement.

I already previously clarified myself to you. That is 'supportive evidence'. Supportive of the theory that it was certainly plausible that she drowned in the pool.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I already previously clarified myself to you. That is 'supportive evidence'. Supportive of the theory that it was certainly plausible that she drowned in the pool.

So all it takes is having a pool to support the theory that it was certainly plausible that she drowned in the pool.

Ok.

So everybody who wants to murder their child, dump them in the woods, who has a pool is golden.

NOT GUILTY by way of having a pool.

I get it.

 

[beccalecca1]

Um, some juries make wrong verdicts. It happens.

Ok. I'm not a 'magical thinker' though. If there was evidence of murder, why would I be here arguing the opposite?

 

[jrb0124]

We do????
We know for a fact???

We must know more than the experts that examined the skull then.

We sure are smart WSers.

Come one Chablis, are you just gonna ignore the report?

You mean ignore the inference made in the report?

It was an inference, not a determination or finding of fact.

Big difference.

Another expert testified and reported that it could not be inferred that the tape was placed pre-mortem due to the lack of any DNA on the sticky side whatsoever.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

You mean ignore the inference made in the report?

It was an inference, not a determination or finding of fact.

Big difference.

Another expert testified and reported that it could not be inferred that the tape was placed pre-mortem due to the lack of any DNA on the sticky side whatsoever.

Even though the tape was in the elements for 6 months.
Even though there was not much sticky (if any at all) on the tape in December 2008.

 

[Solace]

Wait a minute Solace! I think you've got it wrong...I'm sure one of the posters said earlier it was used to secure the bags, and then in the flood it became detached and floated down and attached itself to the hair mat and secured the mandible at the same time...Details Solace, details!

Exactly, I don't know what I could have been thinking.

And I can certainly see why the chloroform computer evidence didn't make any sense ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE NEVER WAS A SEARCH FOR CHLOROPHYL.

And I can see why Vass was so confusing and they couldn't understand his DRAWING with a peak of chloroform that looked like a mountain. I mean if they cannot understand the jury instructions, I can imagine the peaks would be quite difficult.

And why even take into account the FBI forensic scientist who said he found chloroform on the rug even after it had been sent to him in AN UNSEALED cardboard box (and chloroform is KNOWN TO DISSIPATE QUICKLY).

And then there being no DNA is quite the culprit also - EVEN THOUGH HEAT AND WATER ARE DNA'S ENEMIES. and Caylee was underwater for some four months or so. So I can understand the jury getting all this evidence confused. I mean Dr. Kenney Baden said there should have been DNA or skin tissue attached to the tape and he should know - he is only about 500 years old and his colleague Spitz, 506 years old, who BROKE THE SKULL.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Got it. Right.

 

[cmsg2002]

Who's to say JB didn't advise her to take the deal? Its Casey's call.

As to her singin like a bird, even if it was a covered up accident, the State had made clear (due to the duct tape) that manslaughter (10 years) was the offer, nothing less - regardless of her newest story. i do not believe there has ever been any credible information to support this statement.

Given that scenario, GA - I am sure - had made it clear to Casey that he would never admit involvement or knowledge of the truth after the snowball started rolling...so there goes her alibi for accidental death. while I wholeheartedly disagree with this theory, which is really no more than speculation, but even if taking this as true....by her coming out and saying it was an accident and GA was involved, it would have at least made LE investigate it. So I just can't buy this.

So why doesn't she just accuse him of complicity outright then and go public with the accident story?

This is probably where the discussions with JB came into play...once Casey decided not to accept a plea and fight the charges, was it more advantageous to sit in jail for forged checks and time served for lying to LE (she'd be in there anyhow)...then surprise the prosecution (who wouldn't offer a plea less than manslaughter) at trial? or go public and hope her newest story persuades the State to let her plea to a lesser offense, or that GA admits his role - and if they didn't...allow them to completely prepare for the drowning defense. Something tells me there is no way the State would have believed her anyhow or offered a lesser plea.

there is no way her DT attorneys would have allowed her to sit in jail and face a murder charge that carried the DP in order to buy more time for a defense if it was the truth. that is not reasonably believable, IMO.

 

[beccalecca1]

That would imply that they knew about this imaginary accident on day 1 right?

Cindy thought Caylee was with Casey those 31 days.
She was being lied to by the queen of all liars.

She did not have any idea until they picked up that car that something this serious could be wrong.

I'm not buying that GA and CA knew Caylee drowned.

I'm not buying that Caylee drowned at all.

I do believe that Cindy had no clue of anything in the beginning. I'm not believing George though. I think he had a huge part in all of this. And, if CA didn't know how she died (or that she died at all), there wouldn't be a reason to take the pool down. If GA all of a sudden came up to CA and said, let's take the pool down, CA would probably question why.

IMO