2011.06.11 Sidebar (Trial Day Sixteen)

MissJames said:

(Big sigh) Do you know how wide ONE strip of duct tape is ? ONE strip can cover the nose and mouth of an adult . There were THREE strips,not directly on top of one another,so the three create an even wider strip. Imagine Caylee's tiny face and think of this in another way. How could that wide strip of THREE pieces of duct tape NOT cover her mouth and nose. Placing it all the way to the top or all the way to the bottom,it would still cover her mouth and nose, IMO.

Click to expand...

Belinda said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but after reading the trial threads of the last couple of days, I am afraid she will have her probable conviction overturned. Her attornies are doing such an incredibly bad job that I'm afraid she will be able to claim incompetent counsel and get a new trial. The DT is just pitiful and embarrassing. Does anyone else see that coming? It would suck to have to redo the whole thing, but that is where I think we may be headed.

Click to expand...

ynotdivein said:

MK we can probably take this over to one of the duct tape threads. But essentially, the three that were wrapped around the face were between 7.5 and 9.5 inches long IIRC. They would not, as CM so eloquently demonstrated with his swirly finger, have wrapped entirely around Caylee's head. They remained in place (and held the mandible there) by a very few points of contact and with the help of the roots growing through the hair mat.

Click to expand...

Mountain_Kat said:

I considered that. But why, of all places, in your own backyard? Your parents backyard? The parents that, eventually, are going to start asking alot of questions about where their grand daughter is?

Doesn't make sense to me. But clean up in the back yard, along with the neighbors testimony about the shovel and the backing into the garage, that makes perfect sense to me.

JMO

Click to expand...

Trident said:

I agree to a point, the DT does look lame, but I also think the prosecution is not doing a good job either. If I knew nothing about this case, such as the jurors are know nothing about this case, I would not be convinced, at all, that ICA was guilty. The thing is though, I HAVE been privy to each and every thing since the beginning of this case, and I still don't believe the prosecutor has done a good job of tying ICA to the homicide. Yes, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but what evidence they do have, does not necessarily point to ICA alone, or even point directly to ICA. To my way of seeing things, unemotionally, without prejudice, they have not proven beyond a doubt ICA is guilty of anything beyond bad taste.

Yeah, I think ICA is guilty, and the parents, well. . .,but the point is, the prosecution has NOT proven that ICA killed Caylee. Sorry, they have given me no proof that she did it to the exclusion of all others. To me, the evidence is not there, and if I were on the jury I surely would not convict her on what they have shown me so far - it does not come together.

My opinion only

Click to expand...

bayouland said:

I still think that GA either saw Caylee in the trunk that day (gas can incident) or caught ICA when she was trying to bury her in the yard. I'm feel certain he told her he was having no part of it but would not tell her mother (which he didn't do until much later) or the cops. I think the drowing story came from ICA telling this to her father. What daughter would admit to her father that she killed her child???

Afterwards, ICA dumped first the body and then the car. I don't feel GA had anything to do with this but I firmly believe that he knew.

JMO

Click to expand...

Trident said:

I agree to a point, the DT does look lame, but I also think the prosecution is not doing a good job either. If I knew nothing about this case, such as the jurors are know nothing about this case, I would not be convinced, at all, that ICA was guilty. The thing is though, I HAVE been privy to each and every thing since the beginning of this case, and I still don't believe the prosecutor has done a good job of tying ICA to the homicide. Yes, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but what evidence they do have, does not necessarily point to ICA alone, or even point directly to ICA. To my way of seeing things, unemotionally, without prejudice, they have not proven beyond a doubt ICA is guilty of anything beyond bad taste.

Yeah, I think ICA is guilty, and the parents, well. . .,but the point is, the prosecution has NOT proven that ICA killed Caylee. Sorry, they have given me no proof that she did it to the exclusion of all others. To me, the evidence is not there, and if I were on the jury I surely would not convict her on what they have shown me so far - it does not come together.

My opinion only

Click to expand...

Mountain_Kat said:

Give it up. :floorlaugh:

I know how wide one piece of duct tape is. I know that it is certainly wide enough to cover both the nose and mouth of a child. But without knowing WHERE this duct tape was positioned on the face, I can not state that it ever covered the nose of this child. I can't.

Now leave me alone and stop trying to tamper with the jury! :crazy:

Click to expand...

Mountain_Kat said:

Give it up. :floorlaugh:

I know how wide one piece of duct tape is. I know that it is certainly wide enough to cover both the nose and mouth of a child. But without knowing WHERE this duct tape was positioned on the face, I can not state that it ever covered the nose of this child. I can't.

Now leave me alone and stop trying to tamper with the jury! :crazy:

Click to expand...

Mountain_Kat said:

BBM

And that is exactly the reason I haven't read through any of these threads. I've picked up a few things just on the sidebar thread that I wish I hadn't read. For instance, people kept stating over and over that the duct tape covered Caylee's mouth AND nose. I believed that to be true. But then I listen to evidence in court, and no...that is not an established fact. No one who has given evidence can state with any certainty that the duct tape ever covered the nasal cavity of this child. COULD it have? Yes. Could it NOT have? Yes. So, to me, it's meaningless since I can't say one way or the other.

I think it might frustrate some people when I won't go back and read everything WSers have dug up (and trust me, I'd love to!), but if I'm going to continue to play at being a mock juror, I have to avoid all this misinformation and speculation. Otherwise, I might as well not do it at all, you know?

Click to expand...

Trident said:

I agree to a point, the DT does look lame, but I also think the prosecution is not doing a good job either. If I knew nothing about this case, such as the jurors are know nothing about this case, I would not be convinced, at all, that ICA was guilty. The thing is though, I HAVE been privy to each and every thing since the beginning of this case, and I still don't believe the prosecutor has done a good job of tying ICA to the homicide. Yes, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but what evidence they do have, does not necessarily point to ICA alone, or even point directly to ICA. To my way of seeing things, unemotionally, without prejudice, they have not proven beyond a doubt ICA is guilty of anything beyond bad taste.

Yeah, I think ICA is guilty, and the parents, well. . .,but the point is, the prosecution has NOT proven that ICA killed Caylee. Sorry, they have given me no proof that she did it to the exclusion of all others. To me, the evidence is not there, and if I were on the jury I surely would not convict her on what they have shown me so far - it does not come together.

My opinion only

Click to expand...

Mountain_Kat said:

I knew VERY little about this case prior to watching the trial, and I think the state has done a brilliant job of presenting their case.

Do I think they will be able to prove to me exactly how Caylee died? No. But they've already proven to me that this was NOT an accidental drowning. The DT will have a chance to convince me that that IS what happened, of course...so I'll listen intently. But at this stage of the game, they have an incredible mountain to climb in order to do that. JMO

We'll see.

Click to expand...

KathrynL said:

I don't do it either, MK..for the same reasons-only court testimony counts for me. As for the duct tape, just the fact that is was on her face at all is what holds some weight with me. Who would ever use duct tape even over the mouth of their child? This to me points to intentional homicide and child abuse. I am convinced, beyond any doubt, that:
1. a deceased Caylee was in the trunk
2. that only KC had access and use of the car up until it was abandoned
3. that the presence of Caylee's backpack and doll in the trunk of the car, full of clean diapers and other necessities indicates she died soon after she was last seen
5. death was not accidental, for all the reasons nicely laid out by Dr G.
6. that KC alone dumped the body exactly where it was found (forensic testimony and her own words: "Caylee is nearby, I can feel it" (she is being truthful while torturing her parents)

I know the DT will make hay about having a cause of death, the above facts alone make it a moot point to me. The prosecution isn't finished, and I do not have any reasonable alternative scenario. I realize the defense has not begun yet, but they made a mistake with their scenario at the get-go and I don't think they have anywhere compelling to go. imo

Click to expand...

Trident said:

It isn't up to the DT to prove it was an accidental drowning, nor that GA helped dispose of the body, abused ICA, or that Kronk stashed/staged the body. It IS up to the prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ICA killed Caylee, and I don't believe they have done so with what they have so far presented. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. If I were a juror, with what I've seen/heard so far I would have to let ICA walk because they did NOT prove ICA did anything.

Click to expand...

Trident said:

It isn't up to the DT to prove it was an accidental drowning, nor that GA helped dispose of the body, abused ICA, or that Kronk stashed/staged the body. It IS up to the prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ICA killed Caylee, and I don't believe they have done so with what they have so far presented. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. If I were a juror, with what I've seen/heard so far I would have to let ICA walk because they did NOT prove ICA did anything.

Click to expand...

Tuffy said:

I suppose if the drug use stopped before the 90 day period, then yes, Caylee could have been drugged in March. Caylee had long hair though, and they could get a pretty lengthy history as well.

I don't remember if they said whether they tested any further back than the 90 day window though. I looked up some info about the drug tests for hair:



http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/hair_drug_test_FAQ.asp

Click to expand...

Phoebeb said:

Kat- Why would she need the shovel to bag the body? I just can't get that part. I think she would only do that as a last resort to not have the neighbor recall that she borrowed it. She must have REALLY needed that shovel to take the risk of him saying she borrowed it.
Maybe she used the duct tape the night of the 16th leading to Caylee's death, then the next day - or the 18th- came back to the house with the body still open (not bagged) in the trunk. Something was up since she backed the car in, and neighbor said that wasn't the norm. If fluids were already leaking, maybe she knew she couldn't prepare the body in the garage because of the mess, so she got the blanket from the house, and transported the body through the side gate, concealed with the blanket and/or laundry bag, to that corner out back.
If you look at the yard photos, you see a very large unopened umbrella next to the playhouse- not the small striped one that goes with the picnic table that is shown opened. But there is a tall one (closed up in the photos) right in the area of the dog hits. I think she opened that to give herself privacy from all the surrounding neighbors' windows. You can see houses behind the Anthony yard, next door, etc. Maybe that was the spot in the yard she could get protection/ privacy to prepare the body. She never thought the grassy area would retain fluids, odors like the garage floor would have.
But where does that borrowed shovel come in? I can't see why she would risk having to borrow it creating a red flag. And IIRC, she used it for about an hour.

Click to expand...

reeseeva said:

Did anyone post a picture of Cindy mouthing the words "I love you" to ICA, yesterday? I know someone posted about this, and find it hard to believe. Not to say she doesn't support her daughter, but I can't see Cindy doing this in court??

Thanks

Click to expand...