1254 users online (215 members and 1039 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 548
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,427

    "G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #2

    Please continue here.

    Guilty 1st Degree Murder - Totally Premeditated

    Guilty 2nd Degree Murder

    Guilty Manslaughter - Not premeditated but during a Rage attack or a snapped moment

    Not Guilty - Complete Accident

    Completely Innocent

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,247
    Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.


    If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape. moo
    The heart of the pure can see, but my eyes have never seen the unicorn . . .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,244
    Bringing over from previous thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Rose View Post
    How exactly could this be a self inflicted wound without the presence of a firearm in the vicinity of the body?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marina2 View Post
    It's probably not. More likely that a ME will conclude homicide based in part on the circumstantial evidence you present. That's a good example of how a ME can conclude homicide without using a scientific fact. She can consider more than scientific facts just as you did in your question to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Rose View Post
    How is the lack of presence of a gun not a scientific fact in analysis of the crimescene? It is an easy and reasonable question to posit, there is definitely a factual answer and there are only two possible answers - yes or no by which to measure the presence of a gun in the crimescene.
    In the analysis of the crime scene, the lack or presence of a gun is a fact. We were discussing whether a ME can use other than scientific facts to draw a conclusion as to whether the manner of death is homicide or suicide. When the ME concludes that a death is homicide rather than suicide based on the lack of a gun at the crime scene, he is relying on circumstantial evidence, not a scientific fact. It's circumstantial because, even though it's a fact that the gun wasn't there, there is more than one reason for it not being there. Just because a gun isn't there doesn't mean it never was there. That's why this would be circumstantial evidence of homicide and not a scientific fact.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,522
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns View Post
    Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.


    If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape. moo
    Yep! Decomp starts the second the blood stops flowing, which is right after the breathing stops.

    If the blood has stopped flowing, there is nothing to stop the ever-present bacteria from doing what they do so well. And, there is no O2 to keep the tissues alive.
    Age. Fac ut gaudeam

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns View Post
    Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.


    If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape. moo
    She states that it was "clearly" placed before decomposition. To me, this is something she could see with the naked eye, but she didn't elaborate on how she concluded this. It was probably as far as she could go in her analysis without further lab testing. Surely, there's some sort of testing that can take her analysis further and prove placement before death. They brought the death penalty back 4 months after finding Caylee. If it was just the tape and no other evidence related to the tape that made them bring back the DP, why did they wait 4 months? We haven't seen the fiber results from the tape so it's reasonable that there could be other evidence related to the tape we haven't seen.

    I think she's guilty of premeditated murder because of the tape. Not because it's there but because I think there's evidence regarding the tape that we haven't seen.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Brini View Post
    Yep! Decomp starts the second the blood stops flowing, which is right after the breathing stops.

    If the blood has stopped flowing, there is nothing to stop the ever-present bacteria from doing what they do so well. And, there is no O2 to keep the tissues alive.
    A Scientific American article I read recently said 4-10 minutes before cells start breaking down.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    A Scientific American article I read recently said 4-10 minutes before cells start breaking down.
    ty AZ,

    This is what for me makes me ask the question.. if it were an accident, How is it possible in that few minutes prior to decomp where 'normally a mother would be freaking out' about an unexpected accident rationally think or irrationally decide to go run and find the duct tape and bags. I just can not see this logically happening 'in that few minutes' if it were an accident. The moment would be consumed by 'OMG' and 'I need help to save my daughter'. Definately, not I need to get the duct tape, where the heck is it. I'm a layperson and a mother, this makes no sense to me. 4-10 minutes isn't that long of a time to come up with such an idea imo it had to be pre-meditated

  8. #8
    COURT OF FLORIDA & DUCT TAPING AFTER DEATH

    The Supreme Court of Florida, Brent Robert Huck Case, July 16, 2004

    Ms. Morris was found deceased after decomposing approximately 6 months in a river. Her mouth, nose and eyes were covered with duct tape. Mr. Huck was subsequently charged and convicted of murdering her. Mr. Huck's defense was, "somebody else did it" OR Ms. Morse had expired from natural causes during consensual sex. & Mr. Huck panicked, taped up Ms. Morse and tossed her into the river.


    At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose and mouth or from drowning. The medical examiner found no fractures, entrance or exit wounds, or injuries from a sharp object, but could not rule out blunt force trauma. He found no evidence of organ injuryor disease in the lungs, and found no drugs, poisons or heavy metals.

    According to the doctor, the victim looked to be a normal 22-year old woman. He concluded that the manner of death was homicide.

    Mr. Huck's defense position was that it was improper for the medical examiner to offer his opinions based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, instead of a reasonable degree of medical certainty. There were no eyewitnesses. No confession. There is no evidence the duct tape did cause Ms. Morse's death. The tape could have been put over Ms. Morse's face after death. Mr. Huck's conviction was based on a finding that excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence advanced by Mr. Huck.

    Mr. Huck filed an appeal. The court ruled that while Mr. Huck raised numerous issues upon appeal none of them none of them merited reversal of Mr. Hucks judgement or sentence.

    Most interesting and relevant to WS's duct tape debate is that according to the Court of Florida...the assertion that Mr.Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking,screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.

    As to the second hypothesis, there was evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes, and as noted above, taping the eyes and mouth after death is not reasonable.

    http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin200...03-1906.op.pdf
    Last edited by Jolynna; 07-15-2009 at 10:08 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Between the beach and the river
    Posts
    6,552
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns View Post
    Dr G said the tape was applied "before decomposition." I googled every way I could think of and all the results I got agreed that decomposition of animal tissue "begins at death." If that is true then Dr G basically said the tape was applied before death. Dr G did not reveal all in her autopsy report. We have no measurements of anything (including the pieces of tape). We know only the general placement placement of the tape ~ no specifics. While her autopsy reveals many important facts it also omits many. I think she chose her words carefully. . . But I think she and her autopsy will hold up well under questioning. She is highly regarded in her field and this is far from her first trial. She knew when she wrote her report what to expect at trial and I believe that was her reason for her careful wording.


    If the tape was applied before decomposition/death then we do have evidence of premeditation; especially 3, mind you, 3 layers of tape. moo
    I'm sure there were pictures and probably drawings to show exactly how the tape was placed.They just weren't released .I suspect the placement of the tape,more than anything,helped Dr.G rule homicide.
    As I've said before,she has no dog in the fight.She doesn't say who did it,only the manner of death.
    Always ,just my opinion





    *****************************************
    We never saw it coming .Please talk to your teen even if you don't think you need to !
    Far more teens commit impulsive suicide without chronic depression
    Miss U James

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Between the beach and the river
    Posts
    6,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic View Post
    ty AZ,

    This is what for me makes me ask the question.. if it were an accident, How is it possible in that few minutes prior to decomp where 'normally a mother would be freaking out' about an unexpected accident rationally think or irrationally decide to go run and find the duct tape and bags. I just can not see this logically happening 'in that few minutes' if it were an accident. The moment would be consumed by 'OMG' and 'I need help to save my daughter'. Definately, not I need to get the duct tape, where the heck is it. I'm a layperson and a mother, this makes no sense to me. 4-10 minutes isn't that long of a time to come up with such an idea imo it had to be pre-meditated
    You are so right,Mystic.A parents reaction to an unexpected death is to get help and "My child will be okay.My child CAN"T be dead".From my own experience,even after the dr told us ,I kept asking him to keep trying.It just was not possible our son was dead.Now we know our son had did before my daughter found himand all the CPR was useless,but a parent would try. I just can't imagine anyone finding their child lifeless and going for the duct tape instead of 911.
    I've talked to a lot of parents since and it's a universal reaction to an unexpected death IMO.
    Always ,just my opinion





    *****************************************
    We never saw it coming .Please talk to your teen even if you don't think you need to !
    Far more teens commit impulsive suicide without chronic depression
    Miss U James


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Between the beach and the river
    Posts
    6,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolynna View Post
    COURT OF FLORIDA & DUCT TAPING AFTER DEATH

    The Supreme Court of Florida, Brent Robert Huck Case, July 16, 2004

    Ms. Morris was found deceased after decomposing approximately 6 months in a river. Her mouth, nose and eyes were covered with duct tape. Mr. Huck was subsequently charged and convicted of murdering her. Mr. Huck's defense was, "somebody else did it" OR Ms. Morse had expired from natural causes during consensual sex. & Mr. Huck panicked, taped up Ms. Morse and tossed her into the river.


    At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose and mouth or from drowning. The medical examiner found no fractures, entrance or exit wounds, or injuries from a sharp object, but could not rule out blunt force trauma. He found no evidence of organ injuryor disease in the lungs, and found no drugs, poisons or heavy metals.

    According to the doctor, the victim looked to be a normal 22-year old woman. He concluded that the manner of death was homicide.

    Mr. Huck's defense position was that it was improper for the medical examiner to offer his opinions based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, instead of a reasonable degree of medical certainty. There were no eyewitnesses. No confession. There is no evidence the duct tape did cause Ms. Morse's death. The tape could have been put over Ms. Morse's face after death. Mr. Huck's conviction was based on a finding that excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence advanced by Mr. Huck.

    Mr. Huck filed an appeal. The court ruled that while Mr. Huck raised numerous issues upon appeal none of them none of them merited reversal of Mr. Hucks judgement or sentence.

    Most interesting and relevant to W duct tape debate is that according to the Court of Florida...the assertion that Mr.Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking,screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.

    As to the second hypothesis, there was evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes, and as noted above, taping the eyes and mouth after death is not reasonable.

    http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin200...03-1906.op.pdf
    Man Jolynna,
    you are good.Wish we could sticky this and pull it out every time the "stem the decomp" debate comes up.
    Hope the defense has found this.Maybe KC has seen it in her law research
    Always ,just my opinion





    *****************************************
    We never saw it coming .Please talk to your teen even if you don't think you need to !
    Far more teens commit impulsive suicide without chronic depression
    Miss U James

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolynna View Post
    COURT OF FLORIDA & DUCT TAPING AFTER DEATH

    The Supreme Court of Florida, Brent Robert Huck Case, July 16, 2004

    Ms. Morris was found deceased after decomposing approximately 6 months in a river. Her mouth, nose and eyes were covered with duct tape. Mr. Huck was subsequently charged and convicted of murdering her. Mr. Huck's defense was, "somebody else did it" OR Ms. Morse had expired from natural causes during consensual sex. & Mr. Huck panicked, taped up Ms. Morse and tossed her into the river.


    At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose and mouth or from drowning. The medical examiner found no fractures, entrance or exit wounds, or injuries from a sharp object, but could not rule out blunt force trauma. He found no evidence of organ injuryor disease in the lungs, and found no drugs, poisons or heavy metals.

    According to the doctor, the victim looked to be a normal 22-year old woman. He concluded that the manner of death was homicide.

    Mr. Huck's defense position was that it was improper for the medical examiner to offer his opinions based on a reasonable degree of medical probability, instead of a reasonable degree of medical certainty. There were no eyewitnesses. No confession. There is no evidence the duct tape did cause Ms. Morse's death. The tape could have been put over Ms. Morse's face after death. Mr. Huck's conviction was based on a finding that excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence advanced by Mr. Huck.

    Mr. Huck filed an appeal. The court ruled that while Mr. Huck raised numerous issues upon appeal none of them none of them merited reversal of Mr. Hucks judgement or sentence.

    Most interesting and relevant to W duct tape debate is that according to the Court of Florida...the assertion that Mr.Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking,screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.

    As to the second hypothesis, there was evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes, and as noted above, taping the eyes and mouth after death is not reasonable.

    http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin200...03-1906.op.pdf
    Wow, a Florida Supreme Court opinion stating that it's not reasonable that a person's eye's and mouth were taped shut after death. The only logical reason, according to the higher court, is to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing. I guess the jury can legally disregard this explanation if it's given by the defense.

    There are other similarities to KC's case, too. Duct tape comparison, plastic bag comparison, dog hairs found on the tape. The high court seemed to think this evidence was strong.

    Thank you Jolynna. How in the world did you find this case?


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolynna View Post
    COURT OF FLORIDA & DUCT TAPING AFTER DEATH

    Snipped by me with respect
    I think this is a very interesting case, however, this is obviously a couple practicing duct tape bondage (a form of S&M) which is known to be risky and I don't think, because of that, it will apply to Caylee's case. The circumstances are too drastically different.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Rose View Post
    I think this is a very interesting case, however, this is obviously a couple practicing duct tape bondage (a form of S&M) which is known to be risky and I don't think, because of that, it will apply to Caylee's case. The circumstances are too drastically different.
    Actually, there are a number of similarities in this case, with the evidence collected and examined, and the possible hypos that could be put forth by the defense. I think this is a case that the Prosecution will use elements of, and the Defense would NOT want it used. Some of the defense arguments sound like Baez's reasoning. heh

    I encourage everyone here to download the PDF that Jolynna linked and read it in full.

    I don't see anything about them being "obviously a couple practicing duct tape bondage"

    Bondage was just one of 5 hypothesis put forth by the defendant. Did you read the while thing Princess? Or just skim through it?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Rose View Post
    I think this is a very interesting case, however, this is obviously a couple practicing duct tape bondage (a form of S&M) which is known to be risky and I don't think, because of that, it will apply to Caylee's case. The circumstances are too drastically different.
    An S&M hypothesis was presented in the appeal.

Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY TX - Dr. Calvin Day for sexual assault of patient, San Antonio, 2013
    By wfgodot in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 10:02 AM
  2. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM
  3. "G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #3
    By Patty G in forum Media Links/General Discussion/Rules and Stickies
    Replies: 528
    Last Post: 11-18-2009, 10:19 AM
  4. "G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?
    By Mermaid in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 973
    Last Post: 07-14-2009, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread