In the trunk 2.6 days Decomp Info #1

regarding Father's day
you know what I found strange
and I don't know if it evens means anything
remember Casey first claimed June 9 was the day that Caylee disappeared
if you read the transcript of the interview with Cindy'S mother
I read it recently
she says, a couple times, regarding the date, "I thought it was the 8th "
"I keeping thinking it was the 8th but it was the 15th"
something to that affect
I just find it odd the Casey was a week off and the great grandmother was also a week off regarding that day

I am wondering if any of you with more experience could please explain something...

I heard part of the report that shows there was human decomposition in the trunk of Casey's car, there was a hair whose mitochondrial DNA matches Casey's, and there is post mortem banding on the hair. In addition, the report says that the decomposition existed for 2.6 days in the trunk of that car.

Since this info is so specific, can someone explain how a defense team would argue this????? I mean, they know to the HOUR that baby Caylee's body was dead, in that trunk based on the evidence.

Is it arguable? Could there possibly be any reasonable doubt at this point? :snooty:

JMCDAD said:

regarding Father's day
you know what I found strange
and I don't know if it evens means anything
remember Casey first claimed June 9 was the day that Caylee disappeared
if you read the transcript of the interview with Cindy'S mother
I read it recently
she says, a couple times, regarding the date, "I thought it was the 8th "
"I keeping thinking it was the 8th but it was the 15th"
something to that affect
I just find it odd the Casey was a week off and the great grandmother was also a week off regarding that day

Click to expand...

Was she too confused about the date? I thought she was one of the few in the family that had it straight. I still think it is crazy that they all had the wrong date.

AmyinTheHam said:

Was she too confused about the date? I thought she was one of the few in the family that had it straight. I still think it is crazy that they all had the wrong date.

Click to expand...

I'm telling you, if you get a chance take a look
maybe its just me

Mrs.G: In addition, the report says that the decomposition existed for 2.6 days in the trunk of that car.

I understood this to mean the decomp, while inside the trunk, was estimated to be at an approx. stage of 2.6 days (as opposed to the period of time it was in this location) Hope I'm not wrong about that...

JMCDAD said:

regarding Father's day
you know what I found strange
and I don't know if it evens means anything
remember Casey first claimed June 9 was the day that Caylee disappeared
if you read the transcript of the interview with Cindy'S mother
I read it recently
she says, a couple times, regarding the date, "I thought it was the 8th "
"I keeping thinking it was the 8th but it was the 15th"
something to that affect
I just find it odd the Casey was a week off and the great grandmother was also a week off regarding that day

Click to expand...

Hi JMCDad,

Per Lee's police interview: Casey picked the 9th as the day Caylee disappeared because she heard Cindy say she last time she saw Caylee was on the 8th. Cindy: Mistaken. Casey:Lying as usual.

Clock: OK....I hate to even go here, because the thought absolutely turns me inside out.....but what if???......Lets pretend that Caylee was found by KC after some kind of accident (be it drowning, OD, whatever)...what if KC believed her child deceased (couldn't find a pulse/hear a heartbeat...) and she put her in the trunk. What if Caylee was salvageable at that point....

ITA Have posted much re this possiblity (on other threads) and believe, in the panic and horror of discovering a child appearing either beyond hope of revival or beyond hope of being restored to her former alert, active self, it's possible she would not seek to render aid. Which is NO excuse for failing to attempt to render aid nor to report, but in hiding the body she would have destroyed the only evidence which could have ever proven this. JMHO

kiki the parrot said:

Mrs.G: In addition, the report says that the decomposition existed for 2.6 days in the trunk of that car.

I understood this to mean the decomp, while inside the trunk, was estimated to be at an approx. stage of 2.6 days (as opposed to the period of time it was in this location) Hope I'm right about that.

Click to expand...

Me, too. This is how I interpreted it.

MrsG728 said:

I am wondering if any of you with more experience could please explain something...

I heard part of the report that shows there was human decomposition in the trunk of Casey's car, there was a hair whose mitochondrial DNA matches Casey's, and there is post mortem banding on the hair. In addition, the report says that the decomposition existed for 2.6 days in the trunk of that car.

Since this info is so specific, can someone explain how a defense team would argue this????? I mean, they know to the HOUR that baby Caylee's body was dead, in that trunk based on the evidence.

Is it arguable? Could there possibly be any reasonable doubt at this point? :snooty:

Click to expand...

Allegedly, more than one hair that could have come from Caylee was found in the trunk of Casey's car. However, only one hair allegedly had a band around it that might signify that it came from a deceased person -- special note on "might".

As best I know, hair banding does not serve as certifiable proof that it came from the head of a deceased person. Moreover, if Caylee was dead, the obvious question is: why did only one of the hairs in the trunk have the alleged band?

As for the alleged 2.6 days, that raises the obvious question that: if Casey wanted to get rid of Caylee and premeditated her murder as the State has charged, then why did Casey keep Caylee around for over two days? That's a very reasonable question that can only hurt the State's murder one charge in the mind of the jurors.

Further still, the hair band is necessarily after the fact. It cannot serve as a premise to prove the alleged killing was: willful (intended), planned and deliberated with malice aforethought.

Even further, since the hair band is necessarily after the fact (after death), I expect the defense to argue that it cannot serve as inculpatory evidence and that, at best, it can only serve as corroborative evidence.

I think the same argument will also be made for the air samples obtained from the car's trunk.

HTH

Here is where I see text messages that stand out and a path toward KC solving her problem. Sure seems to me that the gas cans are more for burning the evidence. Because of the rainy weather and the nature of the deceased, she would have to burn the evidence more than one time and delay trying. Where could she put Caylee where she could do that?? Why couldn't she buy her own gas can??? I don't think she was satisfied until between the 30 June and the 3rd when she got the tattoo that she was finished. If she did go back to the place she put Caylee then perhaps the issue of gas cans will help. I don't have the time to dig deeper. Others of you might see an angle for further searching.


17/18/19 KC doesn't know what to do. Numerous trip to parents house. Backing into drive--borrowing shovel e.t.c. told someone car broke down. Car starting to stink.

20th AL takes KC to get Gas cans---?near house, was she afraid parents home?

24th George gets his gas cans back

If Caylee wasn't in trunk, then GA should have smelled something.

25th reference about a smelly car--excuses for not driving it

26th needs a vacation--??stress??

27th out of gas 2 Fridays --- definitely parts of dead animal under car---excuse for request of getting anothe gas can

28th asks Amy for gas can---- says drunk--threat to kill someone---stress

29th asks again for gas can

30th Amy and Casey in Jeep--buy gas can-----

July 3rd tattoo-----is the deed done and this is the final marker for her release from her problem??

EastSideOfSaddness said:

I agree with you there magic-cat. The detectives, while interviewing AL, seemed interested in the car wash he mentioned to them. It all makes sense to me. I get the idea that KC is lazy, however, she would clean the car if it meant her going to jail.

Also, I can't get over the fact that her favorite show was CSI and the episode in April of this year had a girl named Caleigh in it who was abducted which also involved chloroform. Between the pic that RM had on his facebook that read "Win her over with Chloroform" this episode and a few google searches it may be where she got the idea.

Click to expand...

I have a question: If Casey did use the Chloroform only to knock out Caylee--did she know that using Chloroform would put Caylee to sleep more deeply and far longer than by using Nyquil, etc.?

Quote by Wudge: Allegedly, more than one hair that could have come from Caylee was found in the trunk of Casey's car. However, only one hair allegedly had a band around it that might signify that it came from a deceased person -- special note on "might".

As best I know, hair banding does not serve as certifiable proof that it came from the head of a deceased person. Moreover, if Caylee was dead, the obvious question is: why did only one of the hairs in the trunk have the alleged band?

Hi Wudge. The answer is to me what seems most obvious. In the vehicle and trunk of any parent's car are certain to be found any number of hairs from a living child (ie w/out postmortem root banding) transferred during the normal course of transporting both child, and belongings (blankets, pillows, clothing, hats, brushes, stuffed toys etc). According to the FBI's forensic human hair standards and guidelines (as well as every other reliable authority, forensic crime lab, and reputable expert on hair morphology) the transformation or ellipsoidal banding pattern of the hair occurs only in hairs that remain in the scalp of a decomposing body; the changes do not occur if the hair is plucked prior to death and allowed to deteriorate. Even KC's own defense team forensic scienctist expert, Larry Kobilinsky, has acknowledged that "When hairs originate from a body in a state of decomposition, a dark band appears near the root of the hair. This characteristic has been labeled a postmortem root band." Thus no one is asking this question because it is only the hair w this opaque, ellipsoidal banding pattern with which LE or this case is concerned, not how many dozens of other incidental hairs are floating around which happened to be shed over the course of years by Caylee, or any other person, while they were still living.

Quote: "As for the alleged 2.6 days, that raises the obvious question that: if Casey wanted to get rid of Caylee and premeditated her murder as the State has charged, then why did Casey keep Caylee around for over two days? That's a very reasonable question that can only hurt the State's murder one charge in the mind of the jurors."

Again, the obvious--and reasonable--response is that KC was in search of both an opportunity, and surreptitious site, to dispose of her daughter's remains. It would appear this was done, thus far to date, successfully. Go TES & OCSO.

Quote: "Further still, the hair band is necessarily after the fact. It cannot serve as a premise to prove the alleged killing was: willful (intended), planned and deliberated with malice aforethought.

Even further, since the hair band is necessarily after the fact (after death), I expect the defense to argue that it cannot serve as inculpatory evidence and that, at best, it can only serve as corroborative evidence.

I think the same argument will also be made for the air samples obtained from the car's trunk."

ITA. The defense stands a far greater chance at creating reasonable doubt that any premeditation was involved than it could ever hope to gain by "splitting hairs" and trying to challenge the science showing Caylee is deceased. JMO

Hairs, Fiber, Crime and Evidence, Doublas Deedrick, Unit Chief FBI Trace Evidence Unit
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm

Changes in Proximal Root Morphology
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01242005-145140/unrestricted/Collier_thesis.pdf

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/01/ng.01.html

But there are thousands of lies, the shopping, the comments, the testimony from friends that might smack strongly of premeditation.

Body Farm staff is also studying the compounds released by corpses after burial. If a person is reported missing, the authorities search for the missing entities using K-9 units, but they do not know what specifically activates what the K-9 smell for. Research has confirmed that dead bodies give off more than 400 compounds. Due the success of this research, they can recreate these smells and train dogs on what exactly to search for, making these animals much more effective in aiding with homicide cases

I just posted this on the NG thread but I think it probably belongs here:

This 2.6 days business has me confused. If I've understood it correctly, it could mean one of three things:

1. Caylee was either killed in the trunk or placed there shortly thereafter and remained in the trunk for 2.6 days. (Yuck, hate this part - body not sealed.)

2. Caylee was killed elsewhere. Positioned somewhere (eg. in the sandbox) for 2.6 days and then placed in the trunk and transfered somewhere. (Body not sealed.)

3. Positioned in the trunk 2.6 days after she was killed for a period of time, removed, sealed and placed back in the trunk.

At some point at roughly 2.6 days, her body (not sealed) was placed in the trunk but if she was subsequently sealed in some sort of container, could she not have been placed back into the trunk without forensic evidence being left behind?

Thinking out loud here.

I hope its ok. posting this here,first time for me.This is so informative not only for this case but many more.
Each day, he notated the presence of various insects on human cadavers and other information like changes in the body, and the timing of each of these.[1] Rodriguez noticed that blow-flies immediately swarmed carcass in study and began mass-producing eggs all over its orifices. However, other insects were also attracted to the freshly rotting body including yellow jackets and wasps. Once the blow-fly eggs turned into maggots, beetles too began assembling on the body not only to feed on the body itself but on its co-inhabitants, the maggots, as well.[8] In addition, the four stages of decomposition were systemically characterized in a scientific, orderly manner beginning with "1-81". During the fresh stage, maggots fed and multiplied on the corpse. The skin of the upper jaw and mandible stretch into what looks like a smile, and the hair and skin are still securely attached to the skull. After a couple days, the body enters the bloat stage, which is caused by the gases that the bacteria in the intestines give off as they feed on the dead tissues. Next, the body slowly decomposes in the decay stage until it finally reaches the dry stage in which the body has basically become a skeleton. About a month passed before "1-81" entered the dry stage. Microbes and insects had consumed most of his soft tissues, and the sun had dried out what was left on the bones
------------------
Now I will scout for the suject that tells when the nose,mouth give off secretions.Its here~just have to find it.

I think I understand it better now- thank you Wudge and those of you who responded. I think that although this scientific evidence is compelling, and, when added to the other evidence seems obvious to us that KC premeditated the murder of her baby, I can see how the evidence has room for doubt in murder one.

I think you guys are amazing. This is the difference between websleuthers and lay people watching the news! Thanks for clarifying it for me.

Why I believe she was in that trunk for around five days or less - according to the forensics preliminary report when the LIBS test was performed, "as decomposition progresses various inorganic elements found in human tissue are found in INCREASING
CONCENTRATIONS in drainage from the decompositions events". [caps mine] That can only mean that as the decomposition occurs, these compounds such as iron, calcium, magnesium etc, begin to concentrate as they are emitted from the body. The LIBS test measures the different concentrations from the first day these elements are drained to the last day - each day will show a different concentration from light to heavier and heavier - he is not saying that he found A concentration of calcium and/or magnesium etc., he is saying he found DIFFERENT levels of concentration of these elements in the fluids drained from the body. That is that some of the fluid showed a lighter concentration while some of the fluid showed a heavier concentration.

I cannot think of another way to interpret the results from this test. It simply cannot mean that the body was placed there AFTER two and a quarter days, it means that the body was IN the car for 2.6 days. I keep trying to find an analogy and the only thing I can think of is a glass of lake water that has been sitting around - as you pour it out of the glass the sediment in it becomes more and more concentrated - the lighter part at the top is going to spread further than the heavier part at the bottom because the lighter it is the easier it will spread out on a surface. Why? Because the lighter part is less heavier than the bottom part. (Yes, I know, duh, but I can't think of another analogy that would illustrate the point.)

The reason this is important is because LE needs to narrow down a frame of time to place her in a certain area at the time the body was removed from the trunk. If as Padilla is claiming, the body was in the trunk for eleven days, then the concentrations of calcium/magnesium would have been much heavier than what was estimated. Secondly, what is apparently being overlooked is that the trunk liner is not the same as the trunk carpet - the liner is under the carpet - obviously, the reason the odour became more and more obnoxious is because the fluid leaked through the carpet onto the trunk liner. You could scrub that trunk carpet from now until kingdom come, but it would not take it out - it would be in the jute fiber backing and on the trunk liner and to get rid of it you would have to get rid of the carpet, scrub the trunk liner and use different carpeting. (And even then, I'm not sure that it would get rid of it entirely.)

So now, I believe that Texas Eqsh is going to go on a wild goose chase looking for "ping areas" near the airport, when in all likelihood the body is closer to home - probably in Jay Blanchard Park or Downy Park. (My hunch, since she was so eager to place herself in Jay Blanchard Park in that time frame and for another, she didn't look too worried on the night of the 20th which to me means she felt she might have solved a problem that day.)

Bev said:

So now, I believe that Texas Eqsh is going to go on a wild goose chase looking for "ping areas" near the airport, when in all likelihood the body is closer to home - probably in Jay Blanchard Park or Downy Park. (My hunch, since she was so eager to place herself in Jay Blanchard Park in that time frame and for another, she didn't look too worried on the night of the 20th which to me means she felt she might have solved a problem that day.)

Click to expand...

I agree that it is more likely Casey disposed of the body on the 20th. Possibly even on the 19th. Casey backed her car into the garage a few times on the 17th -19th, and borrowed shovel from Brian Burner on the 17th, that leads me to believe she was attempting to get rid of the body quickly. It makes no sense that she would make those first few attempts then keep the body in the trunk until June 27th. I think what is throwing us off is Casey texting Amy about the smell in the car & the car being left at the Amscot on the 27th.

I am more inclined to believe that she text Amy about the smell, not because there was a body in the trunk causing the odor, but that there was an odor. Additionally, she may have found a piece of clothing in the trunk, etc which smelled and tossed it, thinking she also was tossing out the cause of the odor.

Again, while Casey may be clever in a shifty kind of way, she isn't knowledgeable. I doubt if she realized that the body would leak fluids during decomposition and the odor from those fluids would be impossible to remove with some woolite carpet cleaner.

MrsG728 said:

I think I understand it better now- thank you Wudge and those of you who responded. I think that although this scientific evidence is compelling, and, when added to the other evidence seems obvious to us that KC premeditated the murder of her baby, I can see how the evidence has room for doubt in murder one.

I think you guys are amazing. This is the difference between websleuthers and lay people watching the news! Thanks for clarifying it for me.

Click to expand...

(tip of my hat)