Who do you believe? Dr. G or Dr. S?

[joypath]

Wonder how he thought they had identifed Caylee if not by DNA and how he thought they got DNA if not from bone marrow.

:rocker: Fantastic point......perhaps he was "assuming" that the submitted sample was tooth pulp?


:great: NAH, 'cause even on the stand he mentioned the "long bone" was surgically manipilated (paraphrasing here!) but geeeeeeeeee forgot to mention WHICH "LONG BONE" IIRC!:waitasec:

 

[GeekyGirl]

I am listening to all the evidence presented in this trial before I form my opinions, GeekyGirl, so your honest thoughts are no offense to me what so ever. I value everyone's opinions.

What bothers me about the accidental drowning theory are the following:

1). I have no doubt that Caylee's body was decomposing in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car for 3-5 days. And I do not think that a loving mother of an accidental drowning victim would drive around town with her precious child's body rotting in the back of her car. I just don't.

2). During the 31 days that this child was either missing or dead (depending on the story Casey chooses to give), Casey Anthony was out drinking and competing in Hotbody contests. I need a REASONABLE explaination for this behavior, and so far, I have not heard one. Casey, through her DT, wants me to believe the "reasonable explaination" for this is because she was molested by her father. I'm waiting for testimony and evidence of this molestation. So far, I've seen nothing. And if I continue to see nothing, then I'm going to assume this to be another of Casey Anthony's lies.

3). This child's body was found in a trash dump with duct tape stuck in her hair and near the jaw bone of her skull. While I can not determine from the evidence where exactly this duct tape was positioned on the head prior to the soft tissue of her face decomposing, I think it is reasonable to assume that the duct tape had, at some point, been on this child's face. There is NO innocent reason for that duct tape to be there. None. Why duct tape the mouth of a child who died innocently from a drowning accident?

4). Casey Anthony, through her DT team, has implied to me that Roy Kronk put that duct tape on this child's skull after he found the body and secreted it away somewhere for a period of 4 months (?!) before leaving the remains in this dumpsite. Entomological evidence does not support that fact, botanical evidence does not support that fact, and forensic evidence does not support that fact. If the DT plans to question RK about his involvement, I am all ears. Until that time, I am going to assume this "RK duct taped and then played hide and seek with the body" theory to be nothing more than another of ICA's lies to explain why this child had duct tape on her face.

If, as Casey Anthony would like us to believe, this child innocently drown, and she is now admitting to that fact, why the need to continue to lie? The jig is up, isn't it? But, of course, she needs to explain the duct tape and the partying. I believe, until the DT provides evidence to the contrary, that ICA is lying because there IS no innocent explanation for the duct tape, nor her behavior after this child was dead.

All JMO

1) I don't think Casey was a loving mother. I think she's a person who is concerned about herself and no one else.

2) I think regardless of whether the death was accidental or murder, Casey would have behaved the same way. She did these things when Caylee was alive, and see above.. I don't think Casey cares about anyone but Casey.

3) I don't see it as implausible that Casey would try and come up with a story that would absolve her of all responsibility (see her current defense) including some sort of bizarre kidnapping scenario gone wrong. Think about how often you see kidnapping victims portrayed in movie shows with duct tape on their mouths.

4) I think this DT theory is ridiculous.

I don't think the duct tape and partying are innocent by any stretch of the imagination, just that they aren't conclusive proof, to me, that the death meets the criteria for a first degree murder conviction. MOO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

1) I don't think Casey was a loving mother. I think she's a person who is concerned about herself and no one else.

2) I think regardless of whether the death was accidental or murder, Casey would have behaved the same way. She did these things when Caylee was alive, and see above.. I don't think Casey cares about anyone but Casey.

3) I don't see it as implausible that Casey would try and come up with a story that would absolve her of all responsibility (see her current defense) including some sort of bizarre kidnapping scenario gone wrong. Think about how often you see kidnapping victims portrayed in movie shows with duct tape on their mouths.

4) I think this DT theory is ridiculous.

I don't think the duct tape and partying are innocent by any stretch of the imagination, just that they aren't conclusive proof, to me, that the death meets the criteria for a first degree murder conviction. MOO

See my previous post.

ETA: I had similiar concerns, until I looked up the requirements for first degree murder under Florida law.

 

[GeekyGirl]

bbm~ I respectfully disagree, as even if it were an accident, Im thinkin administering duct tape rather than cpr speaks for itself...

.. statistical and human reaction is to try and resuscitate an accidental drowning victim not block their airways further with duct tape... jmo

Assuming one has empathy and concern for the victim, yes I would agree. For arguments sake, there's no evidence for or against CPR being performed. MOO

 

[GeekyGirl]

See my previous post.

All good we can agree to disagree. I honestly do see where you're coming from and a part of me wishes I could be this sure, but I'm just not.

 

[Sleuth5]

I am listening to all the evidence presented in this trial before I form my opinions, GeekyGirl, so your honest thoughts are no offense to me what so ever. I value everyone's opinions.

What bothers me about the accidental drowning theory are the following:

1). I have no doubt that Caylee's body was decomposing in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car for 3-5 days. And I do not think that a loving mother of an accidental drowning victim would drive around town with her precious child's body rotting in the back of her car. I just don't.

2). During the 31 days that this child was either missing or dead (depending on the story Casey chooses to give), Casey Anthony was out drinking and competing in Hotbody contests. I need a REASONABLE explaination for this behavior, and so far, I have not heard one. Casey, through her DT, wants me to believe the "reasonable explaination" for this is because she was molested by her father. I'm waiting for testimony and evidence of this molestation. So far, I've seen nothing. And if I continue to see nothing, then I'm going to assume this to be another of Casey Anthony's lies.

3). This child's body was found in a trash dump with duct tape stuck in her hair and near the jaw bone of her skull. While I can not determine from the evidence where exactly this duct tape was positioned on the head prior to the soft tissue of her face decomposing, I think it is reasonable to assume that the duct tape had, at some point, been on this child's face. There is NO innocent reason for that duct tape to be there. None. Why duct tape the mouth of a child who died innocently from a drowning accident?

4). Casey Anthony, through her DT team, has implied to me that Roy Kronk put that duct tape on this child's skull after he found the body and secreted it away somewhere for a period of 4 months (?!) before leaving the remains in this dumpsite. Entomological evidence does not support that fact, botanical evidence does not support that fact, and forensic evidence does not support that fact. If the DT plans to question RK about his involvement, I am all ears. Until that time, I am going to assume this "RK duct taped and then played hide and seek with the body" theory to be nothing more than another of ICA's lies to explain why this child had duct tape on her face.

If, as Casey Anthony would like us to believe, this child innocently drown, and she is now admitting to that fact, why the need to continue to lie? The jig is up, isn't it? But, of course, she needs to explain the duct tape and the partying. I believe, until the DT provides evidence to the contrary, that ICA is lying because there IS no innocent explanation for the duct tape, nor her behavior after this child was dead.

All JMO

:goodpost: Straight from the Mock Juror's mouth.

 

[Marina2]

This illustration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gray193.png is looking from the top down. You can see the foramen magnum (the hole Dr G looked through) is at or above the level of the are Spitz found the stain in. As far as I'm aware, the autopsy was a regular autopsy, not an anthropological examination. Again, any specimens they would collect would be considered States evidence or remains, so if Spitz took any samples/specimens, the State got them and did what they wanted with them.

bbm
I'm a little late to this thread and this point may have already been made. If so, please excuse the redundancy.

It's not true that Dr. Spitz would have to turn over anything he found to the state. To do so would deny KC her right to be free from self incrimination. No DT expert would turn samples collected over to the state without testing them first. Then, if the test results are exculpatory to the defendant, he will choose to turn them over. If the test results showed chloroform poisoning or use of any drugs, skull fractures or whatever that may be incriminating to KC the state would never, ever see the report. The DT would act as if the examination never happened and they have no obligation to disclose it.

On the other hand, the state has an absolute obligation to turn over to the defense any evidence that's exculpatory to the defendant.

 

[kathyn2]

Geeky Girl, you are not thinking of this in the right way. Dr. G did not say anything about first degree murder. She said HOMICIDE. There are all sorts of homicide and there are 3 different charges to choose from in this case. 1st degree, aggravated manslaughter (the least of the 3 charges) and aggravated child abuse (which is what I think this case is but that still carries a life without parole penalty which KC deserves. But there are other charges you can choose in this case. You don't have to let a killer go free because you don't think she committed 1st degree murder.

I think we're just going in circles here. I understand the rationale behind her findings, really I do. My problem is that when taking the whole picture into account (Casey's hx, etc.) I can't, personally, say that I don't have doubts as to whether Caylee's death meets the standard for a first degree murder conviction. This my opinion only, and I realize that I'm in the minority. No disrespect meant.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

:goodpost: Straight from the Mock Juror's mouth.

Thanks. Even if I did misspell "explanation" three times. :floorlaugh:

 

[Jack]

No, homicide is when the death was caused by another. Not the case in accident or suicide.

You could find the definition of 'homicide' as the killing of one person by another in the dictionary but that definition doesn't go far enough to describe all the categories of homicide. Rather than continue to argue the point I will just say that while the websters dictionary definition of homicide is correct it is not neccesarily the same as the legal definition of homicide, it might also be the case that the legal definition of homicide in various jurisdictions could differ.

 

[Nette]

Dr G Without A Doubt
Dr S Terrilble Witness, He Let The Defence Down Big Time, Especially With The Duct Tape Theory, They Cannot Pin It On Mr Kronk Now (Unless Hes Got Rare Henkel Tape In His Garden Shed):floorlaugh:

 

[GeekyGirl]

See my previous post.

ETA: I had similiar concerns, until I looked up the requirements for first degree murder under Florida law.

I do understand that aggravated child abuse meets the criteria, but again I don't think that I could say with any degree of certainty that either the duct tape, chloroform or both were what caused the death.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I do understand that aggravated child abuse meets the criteria, but again I don't think that I could say with any degree of certainty that either the duct tape, chloroform or both were what caused the death.

But do you have any evidence to support the theory that she accidentally drown?

 

[Donjeta]

But again, you're a reasonable person. A reasonable person would probably also put on a defense that wasn't a fairy tale if the DP was on the line. MOO

Yes, that's very strange to me. I can believe that ICA is not quite right but she's got several attorneys and several distinguished witnesses here and I must assume that at least some of them are reasonable persons. Why are they going along with this and didn't put their foot down?

The good doctor for one. Does it really make sense to him that someone would fake hair in a deceased person's photograph? Why would anyone do that? Why would a ME office employee care about the position of hair? If someone wanted to frame Casey for murder they'd have come up with something more sensational that points more directly to her. Hair on a skull is just hair on a skull and I don't think it would be immediately obvious to anybody how it could be used in a murder trial.

 

[beeshie]

I'm seeing what may be something like a self-fulfilling prophesy within the ME office on this issue. Since they are the authority which declares manner of death, they create and control the statistics regardless of what actually happened. This situation involves cause of death being undetermined.

In spite of the 3 red flags, it is the duct tape over the mouth and nose which triggers the declaration that this is a homicide and not an accident. Because nobody puts tape on the face of a fatal accident victim.

But if somebody actually did put tape on the face of a child who had accidentally drowned it would be declared a homicide anyway. It looks like it would be close to impossible for the ME to say that it was an accidental drowning death of a child but then somebody put duct tape on their face. The duct tape demands the manner as homicide no matter what actually happened.

One could say, well, the ME might allow for an "exception to their 100% statistic" if they had a confession. But in a way that is what we have here. Casey by way of her defense is confessing that Caylee accidentally drowned and then afterwards duct tape was placed on her face. She is confessing that she told countless lies to cover up that this is what really happened. The state is refusing that "confession" and is prosecuting for murder with the full support of the ME who says that it is murder.

Even if there is an acquittal and Casey is declared innocent of the charges, the ME office will still count this as a Homicide and not an accident. Their "100% rule" will remain perpetually.

First, I corrected my original post to reflect what Dr. G actually said since I got it wrong and you quoted before my correction so I just want to clear that up.

I understand your line of thinking, but I believe that the finding has to be reasonable. Casey's confession isn't reasonable. Saying that someone put duct tape on Caylee's skull after decomposition isn't reasonable. Reasonability is subjective.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Geeky Girl, you are not thinking of this in the right way. Dr. G did not say anything about first degree murder. She said HOMICIDE. There are all sorts of homicide and there are 3 different charges to choose from in this case. 1st degree, aggravated manslaughter (the least of the 3 charges) and aggravated child abuse (which is what I think this case is but that still carries a life without parole penalty which KC deserves. But there are other charges you can choose in this case. You don't have to let a killer go free because you don't think she committed 1st degree murder.

With all due respect, I've made it quite clear that I do understand the difference between the charges in this case. I've never once said I thought she should walk, only that at this point I think I would only be able to vote for manslaughter due to my doubts over the way the death actually occurred. As always, MOO

 

[GeekyGirl]

But do you have any evidence to support the theory that she accidentally drown?

Do I have any that says conclusively that she didn't? No matter what the TH's say, the burden of proof is on the state.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

bbm
I'm a little late to this thread and this point may have already been made. If so, please excuse the redundancy.

It's not true that Dr. Spitz would have to turn over anything he found to the state. To do so would deny KC her right to be free from self incrimination. No DT expert would turn samples collected over to the state without testing them first. Then, if the test results are exculpatory to the defendant, he will choose to turn them over. If the test results showed chloroform poisoning or use of any drugs, skull fractures or whatever that may be incriminating to KC the state would never, ever see the report. The DT would act as if the examination never happened and they have no obligation to disclose it.

On the other hand, the state has an absolute obligation to turn over to the defense any evidence that's exculpatory to the defendant.

The defense cannot retain possession of any physical evidence for themselves or secretly. Can a lawyer weigh in? JMOO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Do I have any that says conclusively that she didn't? No matter what the TH's say, the burden of proof is on the state.

That's true. But the defense team has already laid out their theory of what happened to this child. Do you think I'm being unreasonable to expect them to now prove this theory? Or am I simply supposed to take their word for it?

ETA: P.S. I am not allowed to listen to the TH's while watching the trial. Judges orders.

 

[kathyn2]

Well I don't know how you can say that when the child had duct tape all over her face and high levels of chloroform in the air in her trunk even after many weeks, but you are certainly welcome to your own opinion. I hope we don't have jurors thinking in that manner.

With all due respect, I've made it quite clear that I do understand the difference between the charges in this case. I've never once said I thought she should walk, only that at this point I think I would only be able to vote for manslaughter due to my doubts over the way the death actually occurred. As always, MOO