If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why

[beccalecca1]

We need rules and forms and clearly compulsory classes with pictures for jurors to attend before ever starting day one of a trial.

Snipped

I disagree. I feel that the justice system is in place to show that if you cannot explain your case to a lay person, then it's not black and white that someone committed a crime. Just my :twocents:

 

[beccalecca1]

I wanted to post this earlier but didn't.

It is really hard to have a real debate on this case if there is nothing anyone of us can agree on. One interpretation of the evidence is rebutted by an opposite interpretation of the evidence. One belief of something in evidence is rebutted by an opposing belief that this is not evidence. Etc Etc.


Is there anything in this case that everyone agrees on?

 

[Kat]

I welcomed suggestions on where the extremely high amounts of chloroform found in the trunk came from. And no point suggesting cleaning products because many multiple searches were done with manufacturers and no such ingredients were found,

So why - months later did the trunk still contain chloroform? It came from somewhere and CFCA was the only person who deleted any reference to chloroform off of her computer.

I'm grabbing your post to quote LG but I really want you to help me understand because something has been working at the back of my mind for some time and I can't reconcile it. I know you will give me a honest measured answer too

The chloroform in the trunk. I had always gone with the conclusion that it had been probably manufactured by KC. But, let's just go with the assumption that she had her hands on some KWIM? So I can get to the point that is bothering me.

If after such a long time (I don't remember the date of the chloroform testing, someone else might and I have got to post this post then run one of my kids somewhere...) so let's just go with the minimum of a month.

I hope I can frame this question correctly..I'm stumbling here.

Okay. 1. After a minimum of 30 days there was significant and high levels of chloroform found in the trunk.

2. That makes me think logically that there had to have been a significant and large amount of chloroform in the trunk to begin with...

3. Because chloroform is highly volatile in my understanding. (it vaporizes and disperses into the air quickly and readily)

4. If there was that much chloroform how in the heck did she drive that car? That trunk isn't sealed. The smell of decomp/garbage (whichever you believe, just throwing that in there) had permeated throughout the car. IMHO it's possible that high levels of chloroform in the trunk could have and possibly would have been found within the interior of the car soon after and at least within the few days after the spill (with that much being found I would assume there had been a spill or contact to the carpet in which to saturate some point of the trunk liner. That's the only logical conclusion I can come up with in order for there to have been such a shocking level of chloroform found at such a later date. Because....again chloroform is volatile.

5. Wouldn't the driver have been effected by the chloroform permeating through the interior of the car?

Honest questions. I haven't spent a long time thinking about it because my life is a kind of busy right now. Got kids starting school and need to focus on RL.

Thanks in advance for helping me to resolve this---

Take care all! I'll be back later to see the explanations :seeya:

 

[Who_What_When]

There was significant direct evidence that there was unusual amounts of chloroform in the air and carpet of the trunk. There was NO direct evidence of an accident, only weak circumstantial evidence.

While I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to it I would have to agree that there is no proof BARD that chloroform directly contributed to Caylee's death.

That doesn't mean that Casey is not guilty.

The smell and banding hair together with Casey's behavior is IMO, proof BARD of at least manslaughter.

The duct tape evidence adds, IMO, evidence that when examined in its totality proves first degree murder, BARD.

I never said she wasn't guilty. That's the misconception that everyone makes. Just because some people don't feel that it was proven that she murdered Caylee doesn't mean we automatically believe she is not guilty, but the second anyone questions any of the evidence that the SA presented, it’s assumed that the person thinks she's innocent. I said I didn't feel that the SA proved chloroform was used; it doesn't mean I don't think that Casey was somehow responsible for Caylee's death.

 

[logicalgirl]

I just took some laundry out of the dryer and it reminded me of something.Baez claimed that the OCSO CSI destroyed evidence by putting the trash/garbage in a dry room.My clothes are now dry but not destroyed.Was Baez right or wrong in his claim?

Was that a serious question about the trash? LOL - trash = no food products.....

 

[Sustained]

The only difference was time of year and amount of time in the trunk. She left her car at Amscot on the 27th, it was picked up on the 15th, that alone is 18 days in June/July. Who knows when the bag was placed in the trunk to begin with.

Since there was no trial evidence of any food in the bag, it doesn't matter if the bag was there from the time she met TL until 7/15. And September in Orlando is just as hot/humid as late June/early July. I am 100% convinced that a deceased Caylee was in the trunk.

 

[Baznme]

I just took some laundry out of the dryer and it reminded me of something.Baez claimed that the OCSO CSI destroyed evidence by putting the trash/garbage in a dry room.My clothes are now dry but not destroyed.Was Baez right or wrong in his claim?

Ranch, I could be wrong but, IIRC the DNA evidence was lost on the napkins that allegedly had adipocere on them by drying them out. If anyone else remembers, please chime in.

 

[beccalecca1]

I'm grabbing your post to quote LG but I really want you to help me understand because something has been working at the back of my mind for some time and I can't reconcile it. I know you will give me a honest measured answer too

The chloroform in the trunk. I had always gone with the conclusion that it had been probably manufactured by KC. But, let's just go with the assumption that she had her hands on some KWIM? So I can get to the point that is bothering me.

If after such a long time (I don't remember the date of the chloroform testing, someone else might and I have got to post this post then run one of my kids somewhere...) so let's just go with the minimum of a month.

I hope I can frame this question correctly..I'm stumbling here.

Okay. 1. After a minimum of 30 days there was significant and high levels of chloroform found in the trunk.

2. That makes me think logically that there had to have been a significant and large amount of chloroform in the trunk to begin with...

3. Because chloroform is highly volatile in my understanding. (it vaporizes and disperses into the air quickly and readily)

4. If there was that much chloroform how in the heck did she drive that car? That trunk isn't sealed. The smell of decomp/garbage (whichever you believe, just throwing that in there) had permeated throughout the car. IMHO it's possible that high levels of chloroform in the trunk could have and possibly would have been found within the interior of the car soon after and at least within the few days after the spill (with that much being found I would assume there had been a spill or contact to the carpet in which to saturate some point of the trunk liner. That's the only logical conclusion I can come up with in order for there to have been such a shocking level of chloroform found at such a later date. Because....again chloroform is volatile.

5. Wouldn't the driver have been effected by the chloroform permeating through the interior of the car?

Honest questions. I haven't spent a long time thinking about it because my life is a kind of busy right now. Got kids starting school and need to focus on RL.

Thanks in advance for helping me to resolve this---

Take care all! I'll be back later to see the explanations :seeya:

I just wanted to add another question to your questions, wouldn't GA also have suffered some dizziness, etc from driving the car home? IIRC, he stated it was pouring rain so the windows weren't rolled down fully.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Was that a serious question about the trash? LOL - trash = no food products.....

Yes I'm serious.Does removing moisture from trash/garbage destroy evidence? I think that's what Baez claimed.

 

[beccalecca1]

Yes I'm serious.Does removing moisture from trash/garbage destroy evidence? I think that's what Baez claimed.

IMO, it does. It alters the chemicals of the "wet products". It also could turn the "wet" substances into a powder and the powder could be lost during any amount of movement.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm grabbing your post to quote LG but I really want you to help me understand because something has been working at the back of my mind for some time and I can't reconcile it. I know you will give me a honest measured answer too

The chloroform in the trunk. I had always gone with the conclusion that it had been probably manufactured by KC. But, let's just go with the assumption that she had her hands on some KWIM? So I can get to the point that is bothering me.

If after such a long time (I don't remember the date of the chloroform testing, someone else might and I have got to post this post then run one of my kids somewhere...) so let's just go with the minimum of a month.

I hope I can frame this question correctly..I'm stumbling here.

Okay. 1. After a minimum of 30 days there was significant and high levels of chloroform found in the trunk.

2. That makes me think logically that there had to have been a significant and large amount of chloroform in the trunk to begin with...

3. Because chloroform is highly volatile in my understanding. (it vaporizes and disperses into the air quickly and readily)

4. If there was that much chloroform how in the heck did she drive that car? That trunk isn't sealed. The smell of decomp/garbage (whichever you believe, just throwing that in there) had permeated throughout the car. IMHO it's possible that high levels of chloroform in the trunk could have and possibly would have been found within the interior of the car soon after and at least within the few days after the spill (with that much being found I would assume there had been a spill or contact to the carpet in which to saturate some point of the trunk liner. That's the only logical conclusion I can come up with in order for there to have been such a shocking level of chloroform found at such a later date. Because....again chloroform is volatile.

5. Wouldn't the driver have been effected by the chloroform permeating through the interior of the car?

Honest questions. I haven't spent a long time thinking about it because my life is a kind of busy right now. Got kids starting school and need to focus on RL.

Thanks in advance for helping me to resolve this---

Take care all! I'll be back later to see the explanations :seeya:

No problem and that takes a quick and easy answer. I believe it was Dr. Vass during the Frye hearings but I'm not positive that is WHEN it was - chloroform is "heavy" and sinks - plus the trunk was sealed from the passenger part of the car, so would not have permeated the interior.

I'll admit I'm hazy on the how and when ICA used the chloroform, because to me there are other drugs that would do the trick faster and I would have thought more simply. But the fact remains, the body of Caylee decomposed in the trunk of the car and at the same time, a liberal amount of chloroform was in the trunk carpet and liner at the same time. No doubt the body was there. No doubt the chloroform was there.

 

[Silkprint]

I agree
Poor Caylee was in that trunk
I cant believe people still argue that point
but if they dont it makes Casey look pretty horrible right?
That she drove around and partied and had sex while her little girl is in the trunk
then again what kind of mom would throw her daughter in a trash dump
How low can a mother get
Casey IS that low

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes I'm serious.Does removing moisture from trash/garbage destroy evidence? I think that's what Baez claimed.

No of course not - Baez was insisting there was velveeta cheese and salami or something like that in the garbage and there was none after the drying process when he saw it.

If it had been there in the first place, he would have found dried food products, because they wouldn't have evaporated. If you dry fruit, the fruit is still there!

The trash was dried to preserve it for evidence - no other reason. That was just another one of Baez silly arguments like the garbage/trash one.

 

[beccalecca1]

No problem and that takes a quick and easy answer. I believe it was Dr. Vass during the Frye hearings but I'm not positive that is WHEN it was - chloroform is "heavy" and sinks - plus the trunk was sealed from the passenger part of the car, so would not have permeated the interior.

I'll admit I'm hazy on the how and when ICA used the chloroform, because to me there are other drugs that would do the trick faster and I would have thought more simply. But the fact remains, the body of Caylee decomposed in the trunk of the car and at the same time, a liberal amount of chloroform was in the trunk carpet and liner at the same time. No doubt the body was there. No doubt the chloroform was there.

BBM

If the trunk is sealed from the passenger part of the car, how did the smell get into the passenger part of the car?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

IMO, it does. It alters the chemicals of the "wet products". It also could turn the "wet" substances into a powder and the powder could be lost during any amount of movement.

Great answer. The evidence turns into a powder and any air movement makes it fly away.And chemicals change into other chemicals when they are dried.

 

[logicalgirl]

The smell would have reminded her. At the least she would have opened the trunk to see what was in there. She texted about it on more than one occasion. The dots don't connect. IMO.

Ah but you see it would have been common sense to have assumed if your trunk smelled, you would open it to see where it was coming from, and remove the offending item. There's your problem....

Oh oh :doh: - silly me! That's exactly what CFCA did!

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.

Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

I still have no reasonable doubt. Guilty!

 

[beccalecca1]

Great answer. The evidence turns into a powder and any air movement makes it fly away.And chemicals change into other chemicals when they are dried.

Furthermore, if we were going to refer to your clothing... when they were wet they had at least the molecular compound H2O in them, after drying they do not have that (possibly amongst other chemicals that were in your water but dissipated when dried).

 

[Sustained]

Snipped

I disagree. I feel that the justice system is in place to show that if you cannot explain your case to a lay person, then it's not black and white that someone committed a crime. Just my :twocents:

With all due respect to those who agree with the verdict ...

I feel that verdicts like this make it plain as day to the prospective murderer/killer that if you hide the body until it's skeletonized with no traceable DNA/fingerprints, no one sees you do it, and deflect attention onto others around you, you will be acquitted. It doesn't matter if your post-killing behavior shows a consciousness of guilt, or you lie to police/friends/family, or you drive around with a dead body in your car, you avoid your parents for 31 days until they catch up to you, or if dump your own flesh and blood in woods for animals to chew on.

Call it anger, call it lack of evidence, call it whatever you like ... I call it a dangerous precedent.

 

[logicalgirl]

Great answer. The evidence turns into a powder and any air movement makes it fly away.And chemicals change into other chemicals when they are dried.

That is NOT what happens to chloroform. Some of the formula evaporates and those that didn't stay in the carpet. Chloroform does not "dry" into a powder...:floorlaugh: cause if it did - it could be sold as such - chlorform tablets.....:great: