Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Tuffy]

Is that not hysterical??? I will have to sit on my hands for this one so I don't get a time out!!!! Their closing was as bad as their opening........good grief!

The defense did their closing!??!! arrgghhhh! Did they do it today?

 

[Who_What_When]

I think it's pretty clear that duct tape was used, so I guess that's why I don't get hung up on #2.

Exacty. If you think it's clear than it's a no brainer. That's where I differ, I don't think it's clear. Maybe their closing arguments will change that for me. Hopefully the jury thinks it's clear as well otherwise they can't convict her of first degree murder.

 

[pcrum12]

She places herself on the scene when the child died, it's blatantly obvious both that she did transport and dispose of the body and that she doesn't want to admit to it, and the story her lawyer tells about how she didn't really do anything wrong is absolutely fantastic. Then there are the chloroform searches and the chloroform in the car...we may not know exactly what transpired there but it certainly indicates some sort of premeditation.

The duct tape did not float around the swamp and then wrap itself tightly around the skull and hold the mandible in place. If it was floating it would have been sort of wadded up and stuck to one part of the skull, not wrapped tightly around it.
And then 31 days of hiding and lying and generally indicating consciousness of guilt.

I am almost certain that the tape was only stuck to the hair on one side and not stuck to the skull. Am I wrong? Do you have a source or link that was testified to? TIA

 

[GeekyGirl]

Maybe the closings will help to pull it together for everyone and lean people in a different direction.

For those that aren't sold on the chloro do you think she drowned accidentally and then covered it up? Do the chloro searches and chloro in car bother you at all? What wasn't met for her in regards to the chloro?

While I could find for 1st I still think jury will comprise with lesser charges. I hope it's not hung.

Okay... My issues with chloroform... Sorry, this is going to be long.

The state has two main pieces to tie chloroform to the crime, the searches ~ 3 months prior and the air sample testing done ~ 1 month after. Because of the time intervals, you really need both pieces to be solid. There'd be more leeway if you could show how, when or where Casey made it, or evidence that she obtained it some other way, but we don't have that. I doubt the state could have gotten the searches in without the air sample evidence, due to the time frame involved, and the air samples appear to have been requested due to the searches, so again both pieces have to be solid in order to draw the inference that it was used (for me anyway).

First the trunk... The FBI expert said that he found chloroform in the carpet, but it wasn't alarming. Chloroform exists naturally at very low levels, so this isn't really a red flag. Next you have the air sample testing, which is a very new technology. Excellent idea, because chloroform likes to be a gas, so it evaporates quickly, and then hangs around. New technology isn't inherently bad, and you can't discount the findings because it's a new technology but there are several things that lead me to question whether it's truly relevant evidence to the issue at hand. Dr. Vass testified that there were "shockingly high" levels, which is a red flag, but then goes on to say that the test is not truly quantitative, in the strict sense. He and his partner both testified that they could not determine the source of the high chloroform levels (whether from manufactured chloroform or a chemical reaction due to solvents used, etc) and that they could not extrapolate how long the chloroform had been present or what the original quantity was. The defense's expert raised questions, pointing out that the test results couldn't be independently validated and that it was an extremely new technology and there was a lot of work to be done to determine what the presence and quantities of elements in air samples actually translates to in a forensic capacity. Independent verification is a fairly big deal, even scientists with the best of intentions can make mistakes. He also confirmed that there was no way to determine what the original source of the compounds were once they were broken down and dispersed into the air. No, I don't think the chloroform was from the trash or the body, but there was no testing to exclude the possibility that it was produced by the chemical reaction of multiple cleaning solvents. In other words they tested the positive hypothesis (if Casey used chloroform, was it present in the trunk) but didn't fully explore and disprove the negative hypothesis (if chloroform was in the trunk, is there another reasonable explanation for it).

So I'm left with this, is it possible that Casey had chloroform and left evidence in the trunk? Yes. Is there any other reasonable explanation for it? I don't know, because the alternate reasonable possibilities were not fully explored. Possible is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if exclude the trunk evidence, I'm left with the searches. Did Casey search how to make chloroform, yes. Were those searches made along with other concerning searches, yes. Did those other searches paint a clear picture of someone who is researching ways to kill a toddler? No, not really. Are any of those other searches tied to the state's theory of how Caylee died? No, there were no signs of antemortem trauma. But 84 times, 84 times! Was it really eighty four times? The discrepancy between the two software programs suggests it might not have been, and the issue was never resolved or clarified by the state.

So I have some unusual searches, done 3 months prior, which may or may not show intent to Caylee, nothing in between to tie Casey to the manufacturing or purchase of any chloroform, and some evidence collected a month later that possibly points to manufactured chloroform being present, but doesn't fully explore alternate reasonable scenarios. The only thing that gives me pause is the well timed deletion of the Internet searches, but it's still not enough for me to say that I believe with moral certainly that Casey used chloroform on Caylee. That's my thought process, and I understand if you disagree, but it's enough to give me, personally, reasonable doubt.

MOO

 

[Bon]

The defense did their closing!??!! arrgghhhh! Did they do it today?

OOPs, my mistake. It was when he was arguing for acquittal or mistrial, correct?

 

[pcrum12]

I know BARD that ICA killed Caylee. She placed three layers of tape on her face and left her in a swamp. I do not need to know the details of the suffering Caylee went through. It was a willful, vile, selfish act done by a woman who hated her mother and wanted to be free of responsibility and do what she wanted to do when she wanted to do it. The evidence shows us what she was doing immediatedly after Caylee's death which proves the point of her happiness w/o Caylee around.

Because the law states that the method of death and the motive for death is not necessary to convict a person of murder I, I stand by my conclusion that this was murder in the first degree.

How do you know the tape was put on before death?

 

[GeekyGirl]

That fact alone should silence Kronk's critics. No way could that duct tape happen to end up adhering to the toddler's face and hair by merely being jostled in the bag.

Murder is only one type of homicide. Of course there's no reason for duct tape to be on a child's face, but it was there. The question becomes was there before or after she died, and Dr. G said she could not scientifically support listing it as COD because she could only determine that it was applied prior to decamp. Isn't "not scientifically supported" a reasonable doubt?

 

[Bon]

How do you know the tape was put on before death?

Did you see or hear Dr G's autopsy report???

 

[Who_What_When]

If it was an accident, then that would assume she did not want her to die. Thus she would have been very sad when her child died.
But she was happy go lucky when her child died. She was texting and calling her bf with the hour. Within hours she was on a movie date, giggling and cuddling.

That tells me it was on purpose.

That's not necessarily true. That's why I would find her guilty of aggravated manslaughter.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Did you see or hear Dr G's autopsy report???

She never said is was placed prior to death, only that it was placed prior to decomp.

Edited because my iPad autocorrect is irritating.

 

[pcrum12]

In regards to #2:

a. yes, the death occurred as a consequence of her placing duct tape on the baby's mouth which is abusive.
b. Yes, the death was a consequence the defendant attempting to get rid of her child who was a there with her when she was experiencing rage. Rage determined by number of layers.
c. yes, the occurred as a consequence of the defendent leaving the child while duct tape was sealing her breathing and not calling for help to save the child's life..total disregard.

a. how do you know the tape went on before she died?
b. 3 pieces= rage BUT refer to (a)
c. how do you know it was on the mouth and nose IF (a) is even proven?

Got to get pass (a) to get to (b) or (c) JMOO

 

[Cailin Rua]

I am almost certain that the tape was only stuck to the hair on one side and not stuck to the skull. Am I wrong? Do you have a source or link that was testified to? TIA

The thread that has the autopsy report on this site says the duct tape was adhering to the face over the mouth and nasal aperture.

 

[GeekyGirl]

If it was an accident, then that would assume she did not want her to die. Thus she would have been very sad when her child died.

But she was happy go lucky when her child died. She was texting and calling her bf with the hour. Within hours she was on a movie date, giggling and cuddling.

That tells me it was on purpose.

Why would we assume that? It a disheartening fact, but not every mother loves her child, especially people who exhibit signs of NPD and sociopathic traits.

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

I was just listening to a replay of CM's motion for mistrial from yesterday.

Still cannot believe the nerve of the comments he made. The one that struck out most to me:

"We still don't know how she died, when she died or who was with her when she died."

Um, were you sleeping during your DT's opening statement?

According to you all, she died as a result of an accidental drowning on June 16, 2008 in the care of her mother.

Wow. That these attorneys kept at it, continually asking for a mistrial, I wonder if this was their strategy or just did it as they went along.

 

[katydid23]

I am almost certain that the tape was only stuck to the hair on one side and not stuck to the skull. Am I wrong? Do you have a source or link that was testified to? TIA

When the remains were found, the skin was gone, so the tape was no longer stuck to the 'face' because it had decomposed fully. But it was still stuck to the hair. It would not be stuck to the skull because it never was stuck to the skull because the skin was in the way.

How do we know it was ONCE stuck to the face? Because the mandible was still in place, and would not be unless it had been fastened in some way, like with tape.

That tape could not have been used to close the garbage bags because it would
fully melted together in that florida heat and the heat of the trunk. imo

 

[Cailin Rua]

I hope they do. I would hate to think that the jury would just immediately vote yes to the DP without going through every piece of evidence. That is what there job is and for them not to go through every thing would be an injustice to our justice system.

I hope they do recognize, though, that GA was not on trial here. If the state had some evidence to charge him with he would have been in the dock right along with Casey.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find duct tape to be difficult to use at all.

Suffocation, by many different methods has been the cause of death in many killings. I don't know why the use of duct tape in this case falls outside the realm of reasonable. JMO, crime shows on TV or movies, don't provide much in the way of reality-based information.

There's a post earlier in thread where I considered how hard it would be to suffocate a conscious child with duct tape.I'm sorry, I just can't type it again, it was too hard.

 

[GeekyGirl]

there was opposing me testimony to the following? didn't follow the case...

HARRIS: As you moved out to Laci's remains, what did you find there, or not find?

PETERSON: Well, that was the same issue. My challenge with Laci is that so much was missing. Could there have been damage before she died to the head, to the neck, to organs in the chest? There most certainly could have, but I simply found no evidence that I could point at and say This must correlate to antemortem injury. No bullets, no cut marks, just nothing that I could make into lethal damage. The toxicology was also not productive. We found some decomposition chemical and some caffeine. We probably all have caffeine. So at that point I was left with undetermined. Nothing positive there that I could make cause death.

-----------------------------------------------

9 Q. Okay. The other area that you were describing to
10 Mr. Harris regarding the -- I guess the injuries to Laci, so
11 to speak, both you and Dr. Galloway talked about multiple
12 rib fractures; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And in your report, I believe you identified
15 that there were rib fractures to the left number five and
16 six and to the right number nine; is that correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Now, when she did her examination, she referred to
19 I believe the fifth and the sixth ribs show, she called it,
20 perimortem fractures; isn't that correct?
21 A. She did.
22 Q. Okay. Now, can you describe what the difference
23 between a perimortem fracture is and a postmortem fracture?
24 A. Sure. A postmortem fracture is one that occurs
25 after death. An antemortem fracture would occur before
26 death. A perimortem could be either.

------------------------------------

I stand corrected, but there was still evidence that supported a claim of a violent death.

 

[Who_What_When]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find duct tape to be difficult to use at all.

Suffocation, by many different methods has been the cause of death in many killings. I don't know why the use of duct tape in this case falls outside the realm of reasonable. JMO, crime shows on TV or movies, don't provide much in the way of reality-based information.

This is where we differ and that's okay. That's why they we have juries. If they can't come to the same conclusion (on a count, they may be able to come to a conclusion of a lesser count) then they can't convict them of that count. If they can come to the same conclusion, then great, they all agree!

When I mentioned movies or TV, I was just throwing it out there that there are other ways shows on TV or movies that would be easier, such as a pillow, drugs, strangling, etc.

 

[pcrum12]

Great post!
Common sense, either you have it or you don't!!!:crazy:

okay she's a bad person how only cared about herself. She's NPD. Does not prove MURDER.