Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 297
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    844

    Dr G Medical Examiner

    http://forums.televisionwithoutpity....wtopic=3146276


    This person explains the case well. Dr G is a local ME here in Central Florida but I am not sure where the case mentioned is from. I saw the episode but did not hear where it occured, her show reveals cases she has worked on over the course of her career.

    Here is what she actually writes about the case:

    "The other episode last night was one in which a woman had shot her husband. Claiming self defense. She said he was drunk and coming after her. He had a rap sheet, which included DUI offenses, and they had often had very bad fights, so this kind of made sense, but something made them not let her off the hook, quite. In the course of the investigation, when they were interviewing witnesses for the trial, a potential witness--i think the dead man's sister or cousin, said that he had been very sick and week in the days leading up to the shooting and he mentioned something about poisoning.

    Dr. G. had noticed pink pepto bismol in the stomach, but didn't think a whole lot about it, but it would explain him trying to fight off nausea. There was no alcohol in his system. She was at first , loath to follow up on the poisoning angle since it happens rarely. But she sent blood and urine off to be analyzed for heavy metals. Lo and behold, arsenic. She testified against the woman at the trial, but somethng occured with the chain of evidence such that the woman only ended up getting probation, and Dr. G. said that as far as she knows, the woman never saw any jail time despite poisioning her husband and then shooting him."



    Very much on track with the episode which I watched as well. The "something that occured" with the evidence was - it got thrown out because the defense argued that even though Dr G found evidence of long term arsenic poisoning she could not prove this woman was feeding it to her husband, since she could not prove she was feeding it to the husband and they had no other evidence proving either she was not permitted to even mention the arsenic on the stand.

    The jury never got a chance to hear this evidence. So this woman got of scott free with his murder, claiming self defense. Dr. G said the evidence she found of long term poisoning showed she was trying to kill him slowly so the arsenic would not be noticed as it would affect him adversly to do enough damage over time to his organs that poisoning may not be noticable as cause of death. (my understanding anyway of her explanation) But since it had been occuring for such a long period of time DR. G figured the woman got tired of waiting and decided to shoot him and claim self defense.

    How does this apply here? How can they prove Casey gave the chloroform or anything that may be "detected"? For the very same reason as this other case this evidence could be thrown out. This is going to drag out for so long that they may not even be able to prove that Casey did anything to Caylee even if they find the body. They must find more evidence to connect her to the crime and I have high concerns over this and the more I think on it the more I feel there could be problems here. Even if they find the body Casey can just keep on plaing stupid until they can show a direct link.

    Her car was abandoned in a highly visible area, somone could have placed evidence in the trunk during the 3 days it sat at Amscott. She can continue to play stupid with her nanny act, and they can never prove she did not have a nanny. How can you prove something did not exist? Logically you cannot.

    The longer I think about this more more circumstantial the evidence appears. They had gloves and shoe prints in O.J.'s case and that was MUCH more solid evidence that he was the culprit than anything that could link Casey to her daughters death. But even they could not prove the gloves or foot prints were O.J.'s he even had a cut on his hand.

    What do we have here so far? She was the last known person to have seen Caylee alive other than the "supposed" nanny. And she will keep playing the stupid angle on that one and the evidence found in the trunk of her car which was abbandoned for three solid days and then left in the junk yard for two weeks.

    Now ME? personnaly? this all makes me think HARD! This did not all happen by chance, she is not that lucky or smart enough to have had such a good hand dealt in this little card game of hers. NO WAY. I really feel, the more I look at this, that she had help, I am starting to think that everything was a set up deal; including running out of gas all those times and staying away from the house. Something terrible happened on the 16th and that was "D" day. What happened in that hosue that terrible day? What did Caylee see? What went on? How did she end up in the path of destruction? I do not think this was a case of getting rid of an unwanted child, I think there is something much more horrible here that created this darkness. I think there are skeletons in the closets that have yet to surface, I just wish I knew how to scare them out.

    How can they prove their case? if they cannot prove Casey's involvment? With so many "outs" she can try and take?


    Last edited by JBean; 12-12-2008 at 03:58 AM.
    Dr. Bob Kelso: "Nothing in this world worth having comes easy"


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Friptzap View Post
    http://forums.televisionwithoutpity....wtopic=3146276


    This person explains the case well. Dr G is a local ME here in Central Florida but I am not sure where the case mentioned is from. I saw the episode but did not hear where it occured, her show reveals cases she has worked on over the course of her career.

    Here is what she actually writes about the case:

    "The other episode last night was one in which a woman had shot her husband. Claiming self defense. She said he was drunk and coming after her. He had a rap sheet, which included DUI offenses, and they had often had very bad fights, so this kind of made sense, but something made them not let her off the hook, quite. In the course of the investigation, when they were interviewing witnesses for the trial, a potential witness--i think the dead man's sister or cousin, said that he had been very sick and week in the days leading up to the shooting and he mentioned something about poisoning.

    Dr. G. had noticed pink pepto bismol in the stomach, but didn't think a whole lot about it, but it would explain him trying to fight off nausea. There was no alcohol in his system. She was at first , loath to follow up on the poisoning angle since it happens rarely. But she sent blood and urine off to be analyzed for heavy metals. Lo and behold, arsenic. She testified against the woman at the trial, but somethng occured with the chain of evidence such that the woman only ended up getting probation, and Dr. G. said that as far as she knows, the woman never saw any jail time despite poisioning her husband and then shooting him."



    Very much on track with the episode which I watched as well. The "something that occured" with the evidence was - it got thrown out because the defense argued that even though Dr G found evidence of long term arsenic poisoning she could not prove this woman was feeding it to her husband, since she could not prove she was feeding it to the husband and they had no other evidence proving either she was not permitted to even mention the arsenic on the stand.

    The jury never got a chance to hear this evidence. So this woman got of scott free with his murder, claiming self defense. Dr. G said the evidence she found of long term poisoning showed she was trying to kill him slowly so the arsenic would not be noticed as it would affect him adversly to do enough damage over time to his organs that poisoning may not be noticable as cause of death. (my understanding anyway of her explanation) But since it had been occuring for such a long period of time DR. G figured the woman got tired of waiting and decided to shoot him and claim self defense.

    How does this apply here? How can they prove Casey gave the chloroform or anything that may be "detected"? For the very same reason as this other case this evidence could be thrown out. This is going to drag out for so long that they may not even be able to prove that Casey did anything to Caylee even if they find the body. They must find more evidence to connect her to the crime and I have high concerns over this and the more I think on it the more I feel there could be problems here. Even if they find the body Casey can just keep on plaing stupid until they can show a direct link.

    Her car was abandoned in a highly visible area, somone could have placed evidence in the trunk during the 3 days it sat at Amscott. She can continue to play stupid with her nanny act, and they can never prove she did not have a nanny. How can you prove something did not exist? Logically you cannot.

    The longer I think about this more more circumstantial the evidence appears. They had gloves and shoe prints in O.J.'s case and that was MUCH more solid evidence that he was the culprit than anything that could link Casey to her daughters death. But even they could not prove the gloves or foot prints were O.J.'s he even had a cut on his hand.

    What do we have here so far? She was the last known person to have seen Caylee alive other than the "supposed" nanny. And she will keep playing the stupid angle on that one and the evidence found in the trunk of her car which was abbandoned for three solid days and then left in the junk yard for two weeks.

    Now ME? personnaly? this all makes me think HARD! This did not all happen by chance, she is not that lucky or smart enough to have had such a good hand dealt in this little card game of hers. NO WAY. I really feel, the more I look at this, that she had help, I am starting to think that everything was a set up deal; including running out of gas all those times and staying away from the house. Something terrible happened on the 16th and that was "D" day. What happened in that hosue that terrible day? What did Caylee see? What went on? How did she end up in the path of destruction? I do not think this was a case of getting rid of an unwanted child, I think there is something much more horrible here that created this darkness. I think there are skeletons in the closets that have yet to surface, I just wish I knew how to scare them out.

    How can they prove their case? if they cannot prove Casey's involvment? With so many "outs" she can try and take?


    Back before the days of CSI, a case could be tried with common sense and logic, means, motive and opportunity. This case has all that. AND it has scientific evidence that aligns nicely with the circumstantial.
    It explains why there is no body. There is no body because of the lying, the computer searches, the strange anthony envrionment that permitted a 2 yr olds absence of 31 days to go unnoticed. NOBODY knew what KC did with her days or with her child for 2 1/2 years. No One...this is so sad...thats why her absence went unnoticed. I hope here, in America, that we haven't reduced ourselves to such black and white science or lack thereof, that we have actually created a mindset that will let this obvious murderess go free.


  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pattymarie For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattymarie View Post
    Back before the days of CSI, a case could be tried with common sense and logic, means, motive and opportunity. This case has all that. AND it has scientific evidence that aligns nicely with the circumstantial.
    It explains why there is no body. There is no body because of the lying, the computer searches, the strange anthony envrionment that permitted a 2 yr olds absence of 31 days to go unnoticed. NOBODY knew what KC did with her days or with her child for 2 1/2 years. No One...this is so sad...thats why her absence went unnoticed. I hope here, in America, that we haven't reduced ourselves to such black and white science or lack thereof, that we have actually created a mindset that will let this obvious murderess go free.
    Honestly, I believe that is what is happening in this country, lawyers are playing on the mindset of the Jury that think everything must be 100% provable without doubt and with solid evidence. Smoking gun, fingerprints in blood and a photograph accompanied with a video, sans sound because of course it is illegal to record someones voice without their permission even in the commision of a felony!
    Dr. Bob Kelso: "Nothing in this world worth having comes easy"


  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Friptzap For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Around here somewhere
    Posts
    12,694
    Honestly, the case agaisnt Casey is weak. Most of the scientific evidence, came from the car, which had a very distorted chain of custody. They have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there even was a death, let alone one caused by Casey. I still see Casey walking after trial with maybe probation. Maybe.
    JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to not_my_kids For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    593
    Didn't Scott P get convicted on less evidence connecting him to actually doing something to the bodies?
    I think there is more here and KC will be nailed. I think witnesses and Maggots will prove she did something!


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to twomanywords For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Around here somewhere
    Posts
    12,694
    Quote Originally Posted by twomanywords View Post
    Didn't Scott P get convicted on less evidence connecting him to actually doing something to the bodies?
    I think there is more here and KC will be nailed. I think witnesses and Maggots will prove she did something!
    What witnesses?
    JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.


  11. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    593
    Sorry, I didn't mean actual witnesses to the crime. I just meant her friends and the others on the witness list


  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to twomanywords For This Useful Post:


  13. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    608
    I think it remains to be seen what evidence is actually thrown out. I'm not convinced that the chloroform will be tossed by the wayside because we also have the computer searches to back up the physical evidence. We also then have the defense's own WRITTEN statement about the accidental death being related to an OD of a sedative.

    I'm sort of of the mindset that the cadaver evidence from the backyard will indeed be thrown out though, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

    Ultimately however, when the O.J. Simpson case was cited, I think more than the evidence itself, it's much more relevant that OJ had Johnnie Cochran. This is a luxury that Casey Anthony will NEVER have. Had OJ had Jose' Baez (as if), you can bet your last dollar, he WOULD have been convicted.


  14. The Following User Says Thank You to NancyT For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    608
    Oh and evidences of, semen, saliva, blood, urine, fingerprints, hair, DNA, mtDNA even, ALL of these are circumstantial evidences.

    The only other option is direct evidence. Direct evidence consists of (and is not limited to), a confession, an eyewitness to the ACTUAL crime (seeing Johnny flee from a crime scene is circumstantial unless you see Johnny committing the crime), a video tape, etc.....

    Circumstantial evidence is actually preferred in a court of law. Eyewitness testimony is about the most flawed evidence in existence. Of course, a video would be the ideal, but that's truly a rarity. Hell, even a confession isn't always reliable.

    I HATE to see the statement of, "all they have is circumstantial evidence." It's one of the most absurd statements ever made, IMO.

    EDIT: I did want to clarify that no one on this thread made the statement of, "all they have is circumstantial evidence." I wasn't talking about anyone here having made such a comment. I was talking about all the times I've heard someone stating this in the past.


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to NancyT For This Useful Post:


  17. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Friptzap View Post
    http://forums.televisionwithoutpity....wtopic=3146276


    This person explains the case well. Dr G is a local ME here in Central Florida but I am not sure where the case mentioned is from. I saw the episode but did not hear where it occured, her show reveals cases she has worked on over the course of her career.

    Here is what she actually writes about the case:

    "The other episode last night was one in which a woman had shot her husband. Claiming self defense. She said he was drunk and coming after her. He had a rap sheet, which included DUI offenses, and they had often had very bad fights, so this kind of made sense, but something made them not let her off the hook, quite. In the course of the investigation, when they were interviewing witnesses for the trial, a potential witness--i think the dead man's sister or cousin, said that he had been very sick and week in the days leading up to the shooting and he mentioned something about poisoning.

    Dr. G. had noticed pink pepto bismol in the stomach, but didn't think a whole lot about it, but it would explain him trying to fight off nausea. There was no alcohol in his system. She was at first , loath to follow up on the poisoning angle since it happens rarely. But she sent blood and urine off to be analyzed for heavy metals. Lo and behold, arsenic. She testified against the woman at the trial, but somethng occured with the chain of evidence such that the woman only ended up getting probation, and Dr. G. said that as far as she knows, the woman never saw any jail time despite poisioning her husband and then shooting him."



    Very much on track with the episode which I watched as well. The "something that occured" with the evidence was - it got thrown out because the defense argued that even though Dr G found evidence of long term arsenic poisoning she could not prove this woman was feeding it to her husband, since she could not prove she was feeding it to the husband and they had no other evidence proving either she was not permitted to even mention the arsenic on the stand.

    The jury never got a chance to hear this evidence. So this woman got of scott free with his murder, claiming self defense. Dr. G said the evidence she found of long term poisoning showed she was trying to kill him slowly so the arsenic would not be noticed as it would affect him adversly to do enough damage over time to his organs that poisoning may not be noticable as cause of death. (my understanding anyway of her explanation) But since it had been occuring for such a long period of time DR. G figured the woman got tired of waiting and decided to shoot him and claim self defense.

    How does this apply here? How can they prove Casey gave the chloroform or anything that may be "detected"? For the very same reason as this other case this evidence could be thrown out. This is going to drag out for so long that they may not even be able to prove that Casey did anything to Caylee even if they find the body. They must find more evidence to connect her to the crime and I have high concerns over this and the more I think on it the more I feel there could be problems here. Even if they find the body Casey can just keep on plaing stupid until they can show a direct link.

    Her car was abandoned in a highly visible area, somone could have placed evidence in the trunk during the 3 days it sat at Amscott. She can continue to play stupid with her nanny act, and they can never prove she did not have a nanny. How can you prove something did not exist? Logically you cannot.

    The longer I think about this more more circumstantial the evidence appears. They had gloves and shoe prints in O.J.'s case and that was MUCH more solid evidence that he was the culprit than anything that could link Casey to her daughters death. But even they could not prove the gloves or foot prints were O.J.'s he even had a cut on his hand.

    What do we have here so far? She was the last known person to have seen Caylee alive other than the "supposed" nanny. And she will keep playing the stupid angle on that one and the evidence found in the trunk of her car which was abbandoned for three solid days and then left in the junk yard for two weeks.

    Now ME? personnaly? this all makes me think HARD! This did not all happen by chance, she is not that lucky or smart enough to have had such a good hand dealt in this little card game of hers. NO WAY. I really feel, the more I look at this, that she had help, I am starting to think that everything was a set up deal; including running out of gas all those times and staying away from the house. Something terrible happened on the 16th and that was "D" day. What happened in that hosue that terrible day? What did Caylee see? What went on? How did she end up in the path of destruction? I do not think this was a case of getting rid of an unwanted child, I think there is something much more horrible here that created this darkness. I think there are skeletons in the closets that have yet to surface, I just wish I knew how to scare them out.

    How can they prove their case? if they cannot prove Casey's involvment? With so many "outs" she can try and take?


    For all the reasons you have explained here are why I still have doubts about this case. There are just so many gaps and things that we don't know.

    Even doing logic puzzles, something I enjoy doing, occasionally you have to take a leap of faith. Unfortunately this isn't a logic puzzle and there needs to be proof every step of the way.

    And so we keep listening, reading, and searching to fill in those gaps and bits of as of now unknown information.


  18. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    1,180
    Quote Originally Posted by not_my_kids View Post
    Honestly, the case agaisnt Casey is weak. Most of the scientific evidence, came from the car, which had a very distorted chain of custody. They have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there even was a death, let alone one caused by Casey. I still see Casey walking after trial with maybe probation. Maybe.
    Once LE had the car, the chain of custody was not broken. LE has no power over what happened with the car prior to them taking it as evidence.


  19. #12
    I honestly do not see what the television show of this ME has to do with this case!! WTH?! Hello?! Reality TV!!

    GMAB! I am not going to sit here and explain all the evidence they do have against this particular perp in order to get a conviction. It is there. It will convict her. They can prove their case in more ways than just the forensics. With this perp, they have motive, opportunity, and premeditation which are backed up with statements, witnesses, phone/text messages, forensics, and other things.

    I think this thread is unneccessary and the title is very misleading. It has NOTHING to do with this case. For starters...look who the defense attorney is here. LOL He can't even get the proper motions filed in court which a first year law student would know to do. Sheesh!
    "WE SEEK FOR THE TRUTH. WE SEEK JUSTICE.
    THE COURTS REQUIRE IT. THE VICTIMS CRY FOR IT
    AND GOD DEMANDS IT!"

    A quote spray painted on the wall by search
    and rescue workers, Team 5, at the OKC Bombing site 4-19-1995.



    What I post are my opinions only.


  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SeriouslySearching For This Useful Post:


  21. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveLoveLaughLiza View Post
    Once LE had the car, the chain of custody was not broken. LE has no power over what happened with the car prior to them taking it as evidence.
    Agreed, and when you add the squirrel comments and Casey rushing to make sure daddy and Tony didn't get near the vehicle, it's not much of a leap to say that Casey was aware of the smell.


  22. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,050
    This thread....HUGE WASTE!
    IMO


  23. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL area
    Posts
    2,406
    Quote Originally Posted by SeriouslySearching View Post
    I honestly do not see what the television show of this ME has to do with this case!! WTH?! Hello?! Reality TV!!
    Well, Considering that Dr. Garavaglia is the ME for Orange and Osceola Counties and her office would do the autopsy if remains are found, (if there are enough remains to do an autopsy that is) it has a bit of relavance to this case. However, I think the poster was talking about how some evidence does not wind up in trial for various reasons and was using this episode as an example of that.
    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
    Euripides


  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Male body sent to medical examiner for identification
    By Shadow205 in forum Crimes in the News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-01-2006, 01:11 PM
  2. TN - Medical examiner medical license revoked
    By mysteriew in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2005, 11:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •