Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #6 (New Smoking Gun Theories for DP)

[Brini]

Dang! It's fun to be among a passel of brainy. analytical people like you'uns! Every, single one of you.

XOXOXOOXOX

 

[AZlawyer]

Agreed, it wasn't written in response, but it was posted as a response, wasn't it?

No, it was just posted as a blog entry on KC's page, just like Cindy's was posted as a blog entry on Cindy's page.

 

[Kathy1964]

Did LE say no fingerprints were found on the duct tape? I must have missed that.

LE said no prints from Cindy, George or Lee. KC was not mentioned.

 

[countzero]

LE said no prints from Cindy, George or Lee. KC was not mentioned.

Kathy, I looked late last evening for this exact evidence in the docs just released. Couldn't find it. If you have a link to the page I would be most appreciative.

I did find the docs which stated that no prints were found on the plastic pieces of black bags found with Caylee.

Thanks.

 

[nickster]

Hi everyone, I usually just lurk, but I"ve been wondering about the paper towel. Could there be priints on it? I used to classify prints for NYSDCJS, and i've seen alot of things done so No prints possible...... and one other thing on the AR Caylee's soft spot had not closed???? Not good at the medical , any ideas?

 

[MAMABEAR]

Conversely, I've also wanted to ask if that privilege belongs to the defense. After they have received discovery, do they have the option to withhold or redact information before it is turned back in to the state and the media can petition for public release?

It just seems like in the last several doc dumps, we've been led to expect certain things (like LP and his crews depos) or other evidentiary items that just didn't seem to show up. Can JB and his team also request items be withheld from the public under the same aegis as the reasons cited in that article?

And what about them naughty pics? They didn't give us that either. State released all this stuff.

 

[TakeNote]

I appreciate what you are trying to say, however, consider simple human anatomy. Look at the following diagram of a human skull and note where the mandible attaches:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/8915.jpg

Then consider whether a few small overlapping pieces of duct tape would have been enough to keep those two pieces of bone -- which have no articulating pieces -- together. The flesh had long since decayed. No ligaments or tissues of any sort to provide any support. And in spite of that, both of those pieces of bone were located together, in approximate anatomical position, after all the animal activity, after the decomp and nature took it's toll. The only reasonable conclusion is that the tape was placed close enough to the articlulation point of the mandible and the skull, forcefully enough to withstand ALL the elements mentioned previously. The tape went at least beyond her ears, IMO, or else the mandible would have dropped off or been carried off by animals. Think about it logically. These two pieces of bone had NO REASON to be together, yet they were fastened together in such a manner that they remained together, despite the elements. The tape did NOT have to be completely wrapped around her skull to accomplish this, however, if you look at the diagram of the skull you can reasonably see that they were not small pieces of tape...

thank you for the link to a diagram of a human skull and note where the mandible attaches.....i was wanting to do that in some other threads ...but didnt want to make anyone upset and i couldnt find one that i could see very well....

thank you...the diagram was easy to see and read

 

[Imbackon]

My impression is that the hair was matted at the base of the skull. This would be because something was holding it there since it had fallen out during decomposition.
So that something holding the hair at the base had to be the tape which means if it was
not wrapped completely around, it had to go back quite far.

 

[cecybeans]

LE said no prints from Cindy, George or Lee. KC was not mentioned.

And, IIRC, nothing was mentioned about Caylee's prints. Although I'm hoping LE was able to lift them from some item in the home, just the size of the fingers themselves would probably erase any doubt it could be those of another child's should any of them appeared on the tape.

 

[cecybeans]

My impression is that the hair was matted at the base of the skull. This would be because something was holding it there since it had fallen out during decomposition.
So that something holding the hair at the base had to be the tape which means if it was
not wrapped completely around, it had to go back quite far.

Could that have been a rubber band from a ponytail that had somehow completely deteriorated, but left the hair in place long enough to maintain the matted clump at the base of the skull?

 

[TakeNote]

i know there was some hair with the matting....but wasnt there hair still attached to the skull? and i heard from one of the dr. talking heads a while back stating the the hair could still be attached to the skull even after decomp and nothing but bones were left.....and also the ME said something about cutting out pony tails...and i though she meant two of them....did i read that wrong?

 

[Leila]

Speaking of 'smoking guns' and evidence that we may have not seen yet - another poster, Tracey276, posted this link to an article by Wendy Murphy on the Duct Tape thread. Thought it would be of particular interest here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/full/

Thanks beach2yall That was a great article! I've long thought that LE and the prosecution have a lot more than what we've seen. I've watched other criminal cases (in other states), and was amazed at what the state presented at trial. It all seemed to come together and things all fit like a jigsaw puzzle.

 

[TakeNote]

Speaking of 'smoking guns' and evidence that we may have not seen yet - another poster, Tracey276, posted this link to an article by Wendy Murphy on the Duct Tape thread. Thought it would be of particular interest here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-21/the-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/full/

thank you for this! i really like what was said ...made me really think....and i would like to try this.....
from the article: " know it's awkward to assess evidence based on what we aren't being shown, but it's doable. We just have to ask different questions. Instead of "what does this evidence mean?” we should ask things like, "what seems to be missing?" and "what more do I need to know to make sense of this piece of information?”

 

[beach]

The problem I have with this article is that the exceptions to the Sunshine Law that she discussed would all leave a trail in the case docket if they had, in fact, been invoked. There would be a motion to exclude the evidence from public view, a motion to intervene by the press, a hearing, etc. Remember the jail video? We didn't get to see it, but we certainly knew about the request to keep us from seeing it.

What I can't understand is what people think would be the REASON for LE hiding good (i.e., bad-for-Casey) evidence from the defense? I can understand why they would hide evidence that would HELP her (which would, of course, be unethical, but at least you can understand the impulse). But why hide evidence that they want to use at trial? They can't use anything at trial that they don't disclose in at least sufficient time for the defense to examine and respond to it. There can be no surprises at trial. So hiding evidence from the defense would be counterproductive--and hiding evidence from the public would leave a trail of motions for us to follow.

This is why I think, if there was some "smoking gun" piece of evidence, it would have been released. The only possible exception would be if LE is still trying to figure out something about the evidence to make sure it is what they think it is. But even in that case, they will disclose it in plenty of time for the trial.

Hey AZ! I gave you a shout out on the Duct Tape thread to drop by and clarify this here. Not sure if you saw it or not, but thanks so much! :blowkiss:

In my state we have reciprocal discovery, but I'm totally ignorant about the the FL Sunshine Laws and what would legally constitute an exception. I didn't even think about the docket trail. :doh:

 

[JaJo]

Does anyone have a source of LE saying there were no fingerprints found on the duct tape?

I was thinking, too, about the heart that was placed on the duct tape. Any word about fingerprints being found on the heart?

Thanks, JaJo

 

[Tuffy]

i know there was some hair with the matting....but wasnt there hair still attached to the skull? and i heard from one of the dr. talking heads a while back stating the the hair could still be attached to the skull even after decomp and nothing but bones were left.....and also the ME said something about cutting out pony tails...and i though she meant two of them....did i read that wrong?

I thought that I heard that the hair on the skull was tied in a pony tail. I think singular, but it could have been pony tails.

 

[Brini]

thank you for the link to a diagram of a human skull and note where the mandible attaches.....i was wanting to do that in some other threads ...but didnt want to make anyone upset and i couldnt find one that i could see very well....

thank you...the diagram was easy to see and read

Here's one. The uncolored piece right in front of the ear. If you poke around a bit, you can feel it.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...bD9cAH&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image

 

[KenoshaKid]

And what about them naughty pics? They didn't give us that either. State released all this stuff.

Do we know they were naughty or just bad? Maybe the bad, dam*ing pics are the ones of the skull, the child with the noose, etc. Maybe that is what they meant by bad. Ya think maybe?

 

[Brini]

As far as I'm concerned the smoking guns are just these:

31 days
Refusal to report
Custody of child
Custody of car
Decomposition in car
Lying and obfuscation of investigation
Site of disposal

 

[skygirl]

I was just thinking about the Winnie the Pooh blanket. Was this a blanket that Caylee carried around as her "binkie" or "baby" as my granddaughter calls her blanket? Did Caylee go everywhere with it? Would it have been with her during her trip with CA to greatgrampa's? Was it at the A home the evening of CA and KC's argument? Did GA see Caylee with it when he fed her breakfast and put her into the car that morning? he described them in detail as they walked out the door (before he claimed "he" tucked Caylee into the car) afterall, would "Zanny the Nanny" also have a duplicate Pooh blanket? I imagine that because GA didn't state Caylee had her blanket, which was supposed to be so important to her, that as I believe, he is lying about 6/16/08. I think the last time someone saw the blanket may be relevant. If Caylee only used the blanket as a nighty-night blanket then it makes more sense that Caylee was killed on the evening of the 15th when the blanket would have been readily available for use to wrap her up in. I hope this makes sense.

I was following old links and came accros these photos... (I hope I post this right) There is one where Caylee appears to be in light blue pj's and the pooh blanket is on the left side of the photo-looking at it. Post #4 picture 3.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68989"]Images Only NO DISCUSSION! - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]