1124 users online (283 members and 841 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Do you believe a jury would convict KC without any scientific evidence?

Voters
191. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    121 63.35%
  • No

    12 6.28%
  • More likely than not.

    46 24.08%
  • Not likely.

    12 6.28%

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573

    Casey's Defense Team Keeps Attacking The Science of the State's Case.

    Here's the latest example; http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,6574453.story

    Casey Anthony attorney slams air tests as 'guesswork'
    By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel
    4:12 p.m. EDT, April 6, 2011


    ...Today marks the latest in a series of hearings that have now spread out over several days dealing with scientific evidence that may be used in Anthony's murder trial.

    If her attorneys can successfully argue that the science is too new and not reliable enough, they may be able to convince Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry that the evidence is not ready for the courts.

    Earlier today, a different attorney for Anthony took aim at the findings of a state expert who said high chloroform levels were present in the trunk of the Sunfire.

    Defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims floated the hypothetical scenario that high chloroform levels came from Caylee Marie's bathing suit....



    The funny thing to me is, IMO, the prosecution doesn't need any scientific evidence to back up the charges.

    Years ago I remember reading an article by Vincent Bugliosi (The LA DA who convicted Charles Manson) who said that he could have convicted Simpson on his statements to police alone. I couldn't find the exact article but I did find this;

    http://www.salon.com/weekly/oj960708.html

    The prosecution, Bugliosi charges, was generally too "afraid of its own shadow" to introduce some of the most damaging evidence it had: the taped police interview with Simpson -- in which he admits to cutting his finger on the night of the murders but when asked how, says, "I have no idea, man" -- was never used because Clark and Darden didn't want the jury to hear Simpson denying guilt.

    IMO, if the defense wants to attack the validity of the science don't use any of it, or as little as possible. Like Bugliosi said about the OJ case I believe the prosecution can convict her on her statements to police alone. This robs the defense of the ability to attack any scientific evidence experts.

    I hope the prosecution doesn't try to over think this case like Darden and Clark did. JMO

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    It's very late so I'll make this short and not so sweet. Baez has to attack the scientific evidence - he has no other options except to plea her out - and we know neither her ego or his ego will let him do that.

    That's a long hallway ICA with no way out at the other end. Tick Tock.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573
    BTW, isn't Simpson's pleading not guilty showing the jury he's denying guilt?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,573
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    It's very late so I'll make this short and not so sweet. Baez has to attack the scientific evidence - he has no other options except to plea her out - and we know neither her ego or his ego will let him do that.

    That's a long hallway ICA with no way out at the other end. Tick Tock.
    I understand your point, but my point is if that's going to be his strategy then the state can rob him of his ability to question it. IIRC, he can only challenge evidence the state introduces. If they don't introduce the dicey scientific evidence then he can't challenge it. Hopefully one of our lawyers can clarify that for us.

    I think KC taking the cops to Universal, Sawgrass, the Zanny the nanny story and the stuff found in the bag with Caylee is more than enough to convict her. JMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,311
    Yes, as Dr. Vass suggested, most people don't need a scientific report to know the smell of a skunk. Some of this has got to come down to what is reasonable. The items from the remains site are all from the Anthony home. Casey's actions are not even close to reasonable. All her actions for years have been selfish choices, not troubled with remorse or guilt, able to keep stealing and lying. Plus, she was planning on fleeing. BTW, saying PTSD is just nonsense in this case.

    I do hope some of the science will be allowed in because it crucially fits in with the whole story, and supports the fact that only one person could've killed beautiful Caylee Marie.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,264
    If the DT produces faux experts, unqualiified and lacking credentials in whatever science they are hired to dispute, can SA disprove and eliminate their ineligible testimonies. That seems it would reduce the scientific opposition down to very little.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    7,521
    Very interesting POV SD - I think in some ways the State wants to present this science to make up for what they don't have - like DNA and finger prints, things that juries have come to expect - things that would place ICA at the scene of the crime.

    I also think that Jeff Ashton is comfortable enough with the science to tie it up with a bow to insure ICA never walks free with either Life w/o parole or the DP. The State must know that all this science is so far over JB's head that the DT just won't get it, ever, and that will help the State unless JB manages to completely confuse the jury.

  8. #8
    kaRN's Avatar
    kaRN is offline Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,731
    Don't worry!!! The bathing suit would have dried between June 2 when Casey allegedly put it in the trunk and the end of July when the chloroform levels were measured. Besides.....where is the bathing suit?
    Febreze doesn't contain chloroform, neither do dryer sheets and a wet size 2 bathing suit never contained enough chlorinated water to generate a carcinogenic gas strong enough and so concentrated it couldn't be measured. If it did, Casey would have passed out driving home from TonE's or when she was driving around with her dead daughter in the trunk.
    Didn't Casey swim at TonE's? Where's her chloroform bikini? Or did Caylee dive in and swim all by herself while Mommy sat on the sidelines cruising for her next conquest?

    Besides, she'd researched Chloroform before taking her daughter swimming so if the DT theory is true, it may help to prove pre-meditation. Perhaps ICA used the bathing suit as a chloroform soaked rag to kill Caylee. That's a theory I could buy into. The rest is complete carp IMO.

    Injustice for Caylee Marie Anthony.

    Copyright that Cindy

    Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Suess

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,264
    A tiny swim suit worn in a clorinated swimming pool, and left in ICA's car trunk in the hot sun for more than a month. OMG ~ laughable to think that the DT is so desperate that they would toss that one out.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,264
    I guess the Velveeta company isn't too happy with the suggestion that their product could play a role in a murder case. Velveeta isn't real cheese anyway, and it would have melted inside that package in the hot sun inside the hot trunk of that hot chick accused of murder. Wise up, JB, that excuse stinks.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,032
    I answered "more likely that not" because I don't know if they could get a guilty verdict for the First Degree Murder charge if none of the scientific evidence comes in. I think that they can still get the guilty verdict without the air samples.

    I think the single most important piece of scientific evidence... evidence that is widely accepted already is the post mortem death banding on Caylee's hair. So accepted that even the defenses "expert" in this field had testified in another trial about its' reliability. I don't care if they only found one... because not even one should have been found if Caylee was alive. The fact that the car smelled of death and numerous people have testified to this and the fact that cadaver dogs hit on the trunk of the car will be enough to prove that Caylee was in fact deceased in the trunk of Casey's car.

    I do not think that Judge Perry is going to rule against the cadaver dogs being admissable. It is what it is. I know he will hear arguments about the defense trying to get any mention of the smell in Casey's car thrown out... which I do not believe Judge Perry will exclude from this trial.

    In other words... I am complete convinced that Judge Perry will rule in favor of the State on the issues of cadaver dogs and statements made about the smell in the trunk, but I don't know if that will be enough? Damning yes... but to convince them of convicting Casey of First Degree Murder? I just don't know?

    He will also hear arguments about the stain in Casey's trunk and if that is allowed into trial.

    IF Judge Perry allows at least the post mortem hair banding, the cadaver dogs and the statements... I believe it will be enough... but if they do get the stain to add on top of these other pieces of evidence... where a jury can see the actual outline of Caylee in the trunk of the car... it will be very hard to dispute that Caylee was deceased in that trunk... even without the air samples.

    Which brings us to the problem of the chloroform. Yes, it would be nice for the jury to hear about the high levels of chloroform... especially since we have Casey searching the computer on how to make it... but they can't get rid of the duct tape! Also her searches alone prove premeditation and I believe the jury will see the searches.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In my treehouse
    Posts
    12,891
    I voted yes, the jury would convict her without it. Unless the jury are all rocket scientists. the explanation of the "science" will only cause confusion and they will spend more effort on what they want to understand. Like stated upthread ~ if someone states they smelled a skunk people take their word for it. *no reason to call in an odor specialist, to quantity the % of skunk stank. Short and sweet, no great detail... Then ICA spends the rest of her days in JAIL!
    ~ my opinion only

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Caligram View Post
    A tiny swim suit worn in a clorinated swimming pool, and left in ICA's car trunk in the hot sun for more than a month. OMG ~ laughable to think that the DT is so desperate that they would toss that one out.
    A tiny bathing suit...are you kidding me?

    There's a million people remembering what they subjected their bathing suit to without any serious choloform being made. You and I know about wet bathing suits.

    The Defense keeps twisting all reality. Sometimes I fear I drank the Kool Aid because their attempts seem so unreal and silly to be happening in a Court of Law.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In the State of Denial
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Curious Me View Post
    A tiny bathing suit...are you kidding me?

    There's a million people remembering what they subjected their bathing suit to without any serious choloform being made. You and I know about wet bathing suits.

    The Defense keeps twisting all reality. Sometimes I fear I drank the Kool Aid because their attempts seem so unreal and silly to be happening in a Court of Law.
    I believe that swimsuit was left at Chris S. place and returned to the Anthony's after ICA was arrested...I found this on Valhall's searchable website....

    There was something about one of caylee`s bathing suits being left at Chris S. place. JMO and I could be wrong, but try again JB.

    Here's more info:


    Interesting comments regarding Caylee's swimsuit. CA said in her first LE interview that one of ICA's 'friends,' Christopher S., brought a bag to the Anthony home which contained some of Caylee's swimming gear. To my knowledge, CA never turned it over to LE. Yes, raising it's head ...
    by XXXX
    Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:08 am

    Forum: Caylee Anthony Case
    Topic: Caylee Anthony case: Frye hearing continues 04/06/11
    Replies: 906
    Views: 8522
    Last edited by Sooner Fan#1; 04-08-2011 at 03:37 AM. Reason: removed last name

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Sooner Fan View Post
    I believe that swimsuit was left at Chris S. place and returned to the Anthony's after ICA was arrested...I found this on Valhall's searchable website....

    There was something about one of caylee`s bathing suits being left at Chris S. place. JMO and I could be wrong, but try again JB.

    Here's more info:


    Interesting comments regarding Caylee's swimsuit. CA said in her first LE interview that one of ICA's 'friends,' Christopher S., brought a bag to the Anthony home which contained some of Caylee's swimming gear. To my knowledge, CA never turned it over to LE. Yes, raising it's head ...
    by XXXX
    Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:08 am

    Forum: Caylee Anthony Case
    Topic: Caylee Anthony case: Frye hearing continues 04/06/11
    Replies: 906
    Views: 8522

    I remembered a friend brought some of Caylee's swim gear back to the Anthonys, but am fuzzy on the timing of when Caylee left that stuff at this Christopher's or how he ended up with it. Every time I have to think about Caylee's little bathing suits my anguish for Justice increases. Does the defense really want to bring this up?

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Defense Team Still on the Case
    By Lucky 1 in forum Israel Keyes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-09-2013, 11:14 PM
  2. Casey's Defense Team. What Now? #2
    By TURBOTHINK in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 260
    Last Post: 05-29-2010, 01:05 PM
  3. The spokeswoman for Casey Anthony's defense team has resigned.
    By Tulessa in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 02-20-2010, 08:42 PM
  4. State Wants Evidence From Casey's Defense Team
    By Spangle in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 334
    Last Post: 09-23-2009, 09:53 PM
  5. Casey defense team files motion to dismiss case--Could KC walk!
    By momtective in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 445
    Last Post: 09-19-2009, 08:51 PM