Duct Tape and Premeditation #500

I thought that Jeff Ashton did an outstanding job depicting the "last moments." What struck me the most was that he pointed out the simple fact that an almost 3 yr. old could rip the tape off herself....unless physically/chemically restrained. Shocker, yes?

After the initial shock of hearing this...I got to wondering why we, here at WS...had not thought of this yet....or has it been discussed? It made me think of the many different angles/questions about this case we have not yet considered in this case...

(the last video of Caylee with her greatgrandfather....she seems so tired)

Pattymarie said:

I thought that Jeff Ashton did an outstanding job depicting the "last moments." What struck me the most was that he pointed out the simple fact that an almost 3 yr. old could rip the tape off herself....unless physically/chemically restrained. Shocker, yes?

After the initial shock of hearing this...I got to wondering why we, here at WS...had not thought of this yet....or has it been discussed? It made me think of the many different angles/questions about this case we have not yet considered in this case...

(the last video of Caylee with her greatgrandfather....she seems so tired)

Click to expand...

My thought to add to your post...is what if Caylee was already strapped into the car seat, alive, while the duct tape was being administered? Just a thought...I have no proof.

I just don't think a 2 yeard old could rip off duct tape from their own mouth, while it is attached to their hair. Have you ever had to pull a band aid off a boo-boo on a child? O..M.G. - I always had to use the snatch- and- pull- by- surprise method. Band aids hurt like heck, much less duct tape. Ouch! Not to say that Caylee could not have done it, but I think it would have been difficult.

This has been discussed on other threads. I believe on one discussing premeditation and possibly on one dedicated to duct tape. IMO the reason that Mr. Ashton mentioned the ability of a child that age to remove tape is to support the theory of restraint, hence supporting premeditation. The State of Florida ruled in Huck that is was not logical to assume duct tape would be placed "after" death, thus allowing the presumption that duct tape was used on a live victim. Mr. Ashton was setting up an additional aggravating factor to support the DP. By stating that Caylee would have had to be restrained, he can offer evidence to be considered that will support premeditation.

Here is a thread where it has been discussed.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86507&page=5

Pattymarie said:

I thought that Jeff Ashton did an outstanding job depicting the "last moments." What struck me the most was that he pointed out the simple fact that an almost 3 yr. old could rip the tape off herself....unless physically/chemically restrained. Shocker, yes?

After the initial shock of hearing this...I got to wondering why we, here at WS...had not thought of this yet....or has it been discussed? It made me think of the many different angles/questions about this case we have not yet considered in this case...

(the last video of Caylee with her greatgrandfather....she seems so tired)

Click to expand...

What I found interesting is that Ashton referred to "either physically or chemically restrained"....

Makes me wonder if we are going to hear more about the chloroform/syringe/Gatorade bottle in future doc dumps and that SA still thinks there is a relevance to it. I have read posts where some are stating that the reports only reflect trace amounts so probably not used on Caylee?

If SA thought that, why would Ashton include "chemically" restrained as well?

Kentjbkent said:

What I found interesting is that Ashton referred to "either physically or chemically restrained"....

Makes me wonder if we are going to hear more about the chloroform/syringe/Gatorade bottle in future doc dumps and that SA still thinks there is a relevance to it. I have read posts where some are stating that the reports only reflect trace amounts so probably not used on Caylee?

If SA thought that, why would Ashton include "chemically" restrained as well?

Click to expand...

Because he was just surmising that, given that she would be able to rip the tape off herself...and she didn't....that she had to be restrained one way or another....physically or chemically.... my guess...Xanax....at least....

I think we have now seen the reason why LDB in CA's depo asked so many questions about how manually dexterous Caylee was for her age. They needed to establish that she was able to pull off duct tape so that the jury would feel it was necessary to provide a physical or chemical restraint (ie: aggravated assault) and to cement the felony aspect of the death. Which I think JA did a good job of outlining.

This is so heinous and...so sad....probably why JB seemed so forlorn in his interview with JVM....

If the tape was wrapped around her leg I doubt a child her age could have removed it and she never could have removed it from her hair, however, anything blocking her airway she would have fought with superhuman strength to remove. If she was conscious to do so. The ME will attest to that as will every other medical expert they call. Even lightly drugged, her instincts would be to breathe.
She may not have succeeded in removing it, but she would have tried.

I can't wait for the expert testimony. AL was completely off base today suggesting abuse couldn't have occurred because it wasn't evident on the skeletal remains. Fractures weren't evident, nothing more.

TotallyObsessed said:

I just don't think a 2 yeard old could rip off duct tape from their own mouth, while it is attached to their hair. Have you ever had to pull a band aid off a boo-boo on a child? O..M.G. - I always had to use the snatch- and- pull- by- surprise method. Band aids hurt like heck, much less duct tape. Ouch! Not to say that Caylee could not have done it, but I think it would have been difficult.

Click to expand...

I kinda share your pov--part of my post on this subject from other thread

The tape had to be pretty tough (if not impossible) for her to remove since it stayed attached for so many months & thru (they say) very unfavorable weather conditions.

The above makes me believe she could have desperately tried (without success) to remove it..IOW..No need for restraints or to knock her out with ???

sleutherontheside said:

This has been discussed on other threads. I believe on one discussing premeditation and possibly on one dedicated to duct tape. IMO the reason that Mr. Ashton mentioned the ability of a child that age to remove tape is to support the theory of restraint, hence supporting premeditation. The State of Florida ruled in Huck that is was not logical to assume duct tape would be placed "after" death, thus allowing the presumption that duct tape was used on a live victim. Mr. Ashton was setting up an additional aggravating factor to support the DP. By stating that Caylee would have had to be restrained, he can offer evidence to be considered that will support premeditation.

Here is a thread where it has been discussed.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86507&page=5

Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed on 499 threads, so i changed this one to #500
This topic has the ability to bring out the Bickersons, so please everyone it is an excellent topic always worthy of discussion.

But can't we all just get along?

LittleBitty35 said:

My thought to add to your post...is what if Caylee was already strapped into the car seat, alive, while the duct tape was being administered? Just a thought...I have no proof.

Click to expand...

I wondered about the same thing on the car seat thread. There was fringe (chest?) hair on the tape so I thought that maybe she was taped to the seat.

JBean said:

This topic has been discussed on 499 threads, so i changed this one to #500
This topic has the ability to bring out the Bickersons, so please everyone it is an excellent topic always worthy of discussion.

But can't we all just get along?

Click to expand...

OH JBean....you didn't have to start another thread. I was just referring to another one for reference. I agree that this is a hotly debated and much discussed issue. I think we are now seeing the beginnings of real "mechanics" in this case playing out (from questions that seem odd in depositions to their motive being presented in the courtroom).

Slightly OT, I have searched a number of times today for threads that are in place to continue discussion about these very key issues, and shocker.....they elude me. Where has this been discussed before? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Off to "work" the "tag mines".

3doglady said:

I wondered about the same thing on the car seat thread. There was fringe (chest?) hair on the tape so I thought that maybe she was taped to the seat.

Click to expand...

I have always thought she did this to her in the trunk...not in a carseat... always thought she died in the trunk...while she was renting a video with Tony...... came back...saw she was (finally) dead...and then had to come up with a new scenario.... (poor Tony...had no idea what he was dealing with).

sleutherontheside said:

OH JBean....you didn't have to start another thread. I was just referring to another one for reference. I agree that this is a hotly debated and much discussed issue. I think we are now seeing the beginnings of real "mechanics" in this case playing out (from questions that seem odd in depositions to their motive being presented in the courtroom).

Slightly OT, I have searched a number of times today for threads that are in place to continue discussion about these very key issues, and shocker.....they elude me. Where has this been discussed before? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Off to "work" the "tag mines".

Click to expand...

Hi SOS.
I always do a title search on a key word. if that doesn't work, I do a post search on a key word and have it show threads.
If tags are utilized they are another great search tool.

The other threads are mainly closed due to the Bickersons. So, rather than bumping an old one, it is fine to continue discussion here.
Since admission here is on a rolling basis, not everyone has discussed this so there is always room fo rmore discussion!

LittleBitty35 said:

My thought to add to your post...is what if Caylee was already strapped into the car seat, alive, while the duct tape was being administered? Just a thought...I have no proof.

Click to expand...

I've always thought that Caylee was laying down when the tape was applied, but the car seat scenario fits too.
Its never made sense to me that there were 3 seperate pieces of tape rather than one long one wrapped around the head multiple times. It would be easier and more effective that way,( if the intent was to kill the victim) imo.
It would be possible for an almost three yr old to pull off tape when its in three sperate pieces, but not so much if it were wrapped around the entire head.
Hubby allowed me to use him as a lab rat today.:woohoo:
I firmly placed three long pieces of duct tape covering his mouth, nose and ears and attatched to his hair.(not that there's much of it....lol).
Even though the top layer of tape reached to just below his lower eye lids, he could still breath! Within a few seconds he manipulated the tape with his tongue, and his mouth was free. Pulling the rest of the tape off was not such an easy task though.(hehe)

TotallyObsessed: I just don't think a 2 yeard old could rip off duct tape from their own mouth, while it is attached to their hair. Have you ever had to pull a band aid off a boo-boo on a child? O..M.G. - I always had to use the snatch- and- pull- by- surprise method. Band aids hurt like heck, much less duct tape. Ouch! Not to say that Caylee could not have done it, but I think it would have been difficult.

Click to expand...

I agree.... but pulling a bandaid off is not a life threatening situation (even though a child might act like it is :wink. The survival instinct would kick in, even for an almost 3 yr old, when duct tape is covering their airways.

My thinking is that Caylee was sedated- but if she was sedated then why would KC not lift her head to wrap the tape around the entire head if she wanted to be sure it never came off?

I still don't think she meant for Caylee to die....she just wanted her silent in the trunk of the car while she went to blockbuster and chilled with her bf.:furious:
That scenario doesn't make it any better than if her intent was to kill her beautiful child- it's vile and just plain sickening....and still caused the death of Caylee.
JMO

Pattymarie said:

Because he was just surmising that, given that she would be able to rip the tape off herself...and she didn't....that she had to be restrained one way or another....physically or chemically.... my guess...Xanax....at least....

Click to expand...

I know he was surmising but I think he nailed it...no matter how old you are it is always a "fight or flight" response. Just think we have all seen a video here or there of a baby-infant being put into a swimming pool and even at that young age they kick their feet wave their little hands trying to get out of the water, and we know at that age they dont know the dangers of water etc but they are fighting to get to the top to "breathe" JMO:angel:

3doglady said:

I wondered about the same thing on the car seat thread. There was fringe (chest?) hair on the tape so I thought that maybe she was taped to the seat.

Click to expand...

IMO It will be so hard to say if she was sedated or did she fight for her lil life...she was so badly decomposed that there is no way of seeing if she had tried to get the tape of, if she pulled on it at all...that poor child my god rest her soul and I hope she is in a wonderful place full of love, kindness and lots of fun

ps had antoher thought so I needed to add this...most of us here are moms, dads, aunts, uncles etc. Let me ask you this question...have you ever been at the hospital with a child- even at age 2 they rip out their IV's , they fight do the death for stitches, they wont sit still for the painless test of an xray...no child would not fight for tape being applied to their mouth and noses if they had been awake....IMO

From previous discussions, some thoughts on restraining involved the fourth piece of Henkel tape found near Caylee's remains:

Reference info: Found Dec 12, 2008, H-60493, Item 16, OCSO# Q100, FBI# Q104

If I remember correctly it was about 15" long.

Other thoughts were that KC laid Caylee on her back, and then sat on her chest.

Some thoughts were that KC both bound Caylee's wrists or arms with the 4th piece of Henkel tape *and* sat on Caylee's chest.

ETA: MOO is the last - that KC both bound Caylee's wrists and sat on her chest, then taped her mouth. I also believe she used chloroform prior to taping Caylee's mouth.

I don't think it is a given that she could remove the tape.
Now my initial stance on this was that it would not be possible to be removed by a three year old in full fledge panic but I also thought at that time that the tape was wrapped around the full circumference.

Being so embedded in hair months later I still am skeptical that it just a given that she could remove the tape if alert.

I have always thought and continue to feel that the tape is indicative of premeditation, restraint or not. Knowing Casey as she has been displayed to be I would go with chemical restraint just to make Casey's life easier. Wouldn't want to exert herself or break a nail. For Caylee's sake I hope she was sedated and there was not the moment of terror looking into the face of her murderous mother.