In the trunk 2.6 days Decomp Info #1

[Wudge]

SNIP

If Casey's objective was to eliminate Caylee couldn't that overwhelming urge totally control her thoughts and actions? If her mental state is unstable at best maybe the only thing she was focused on was being free. It's as if she fell into a drunken euphoria picturing her life as unencumbered. As she in fact acted out after the loss of Caylee. This is something so beyond my expertise but it would be nice to to see a profiler do a write-up on this.
This is one way I try to form an understanding about something I have no understanding about.

Without evidence, "if" is speculation. Unsupported speculation, theories, stories, possibles, etc., are not what courts deal in.

 

[rozey]

Without evidence, "if" is speculation. Unsupported speculation, theories, stories, possibles, etc., are not what courts deal in.

Actually I was waiting for your reply concerning the what premeditated murder has to do with disposal of the corpse. Sry..yes I'm being snarky...

 

[Bunkie78]

I'm not sure that KC wanted to kill Caylee. She may have just wanted her to sleep through the night--if so she found a weird place to leave her. Why couldn't the grandparents take her for one night?

But, if it was an accident why did she ride around with the body for several days? And try to find good places to leave her?

KC is worse than Scott P. Can a sociopath be that callow?

Zelda, you just gave me an Ah Ha moment. All along I've been running with the theory that she was using the Chloroform to knock Caylee out, but you just made me think; why would she use that?
I mean really if her ultimate goal was to have Caylee sleep so she wouldn't have to bothered with her. Why not use any number of childrens medicines that cause drowsiness? Or even adult medicines? Why go through all the hassle of making something so obscure as Chloroform? I mean anyone can go to the drug store and get some NyQuil or Benadryl both of which will knock an adult out for hours at a time.
I am now more convinced then ever that if she used Chloroform on Caylee, which i think she did, then it was with the intent to kill her and it was not an accident that happened in the process of trying to just put her to sleep for a few hours.

 

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge. My first exposure to your writings was in this weeks "Do you think LE has enough evidence to get Casey on 1st Degree Murder?" thread. I loved your input and learned much. One of the things that I thought I learned from you was that a person's actions after an alleged crime do not support guilt.

"During the passage of jury instructions, the Judge would instruct the jury that consciousness of guilt is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder.

In other words, while the behavior that allegedly represents consciousness of guilt might well look like a nice, big, soft, warm, lovely looking bun, if there is no beef to go along with it, there will be no conviction."

Following this same logic how could a person's lack of a plan after murder (lack of consciousness of guilt) be a support for the defense?

Shouldn't they both hold the same weight?

A lack of a plan would not necessarily foreclose on consciousness of guilt.

Two elements of a premediated murder are planning and deliberation. To prove premediated murder, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a plan.

If they can't prove there was a plan, that does not mean that they could not present evidence of consciousness of guilt, which could evidence itself via post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

For example, let's say Casey was grossly negligent, Caylee died and Casey attempted to cover up her death. That would not be a premeditated murder. However, Casey could still exhibit consciousness of guilt via her post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

Even so, consciousness of guilt has limited evidentiary value, for it represents corrobative evidence, not inculpatory evidence. It serves to support primary evidence. It is not primary evidence in and of itself.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

Actually I was waiting for your reply concerning the what premeditated murder has to do with disposal of the corpse. Sry..yes I'm being snarky...

In this case, one set of alleged circumstances have Casey looking up how to make chloroform so as to murder Caylee. The degree of planning here would be considered very methodical and substantial. It would not a quickly formed plan. What to do with the body would not be an after thought.

The alleged circumstances in this case differ dramatically from a fight where a person grabs a gun, thinks for a few seconds, points the gun, pulls the trigger and kills another person. Next up, what do I do now; i.e., what to do with the body would be an after thought.

HTH

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

A lack of a plan would not necessarily foreclose on consciousness of guilt.

Two elements of a premediated murder are planning and deliberation. To prove premediated murder, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a plan.

If they can't prove there was a plan, that does not mean that they could not present evidence of consciousness of guilt, which could evidence itself via post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

For example, let's say Casey was grossly negligent, Caylee died and Casey attempted to cover up her death. That would not be a premeditated murder. However, Casey could still exhibit consciousness of guilt via her post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

Even so, consciousness of guilt has limited evidentiary value, for it represents corrobative evidence, not inculpatory evidence. It serves to support primary evidence. It is not primary evidence in and of itself.

HTH

Thank you; I follow.

 

[rozey]

In this case, one set of alleged circumstances have Casey looking up how to make chloroform so as to murder Caylee. The degree of planning here would be considered very methodical and substantial. It would not a quickly formed plan. What to do with the body would not be an after thought.

The circumstances in this case differ dramatically from a fight where a person grabs a gun, thinks for a few seconds, points the gun, pulls the trigger and kills another person. Next up, what do I do now; i.e., what to do with the body would be an after thought.

HTH

Question...If she had went back and forth for a period of time contemplating getting rid of Caylee. Even to the extent of purchasing chloroform (by illegal means, my theory) than deciding against it. Than at a later date, weekend of June 15th, she becomes so angry and kills Caylee with the chloroform would that be considered premeditated?

 

[Theonly1]

Question...If she had went back and forth for a period of time contemplating getting rid of Caylee. Even to the extent of purchasing chloroform (by illegal means, my theory) than deciding against it. Than at a later date, weekend of June 15th, she becomes so angry and kills Caylee with the chloroform would that be considered premeditated?

YES. And if you want to take it a step further, even if she intended to kill victim A (let's say CA for instance with poisoned koolaid) and instead accidentally killed victim B (Caylee with the poisoned koolaid) then it's also premeditated!

 

[Salem]

A lack of a plan would not necessarily foreclose on consciousness of guilt.

Two elements of a premediated murder are planning and deliberation. To prove premediated murder, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a plan.

If they can't prove there was a plan, that does not mean that they could not present evidence of consciousness of guilt, which could evidence itself via post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

For example, let's say Casey was grossly negligent, Caylee died and Casey attempted to cover up her death. That would not be a premeditated murder. However, Casey could still exhibit consciousness of guilt via her post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

Even so, consciousness of guilt has limited evidentiary value, for it represents corrobative evidence, not inculpatory evidence. It serves to support primary evidence. It is not primary evidence in and of itself.

HTH

Here's a scenario of premediated murder. I am not saying this is what happened, and this most likely DID NOT happen, but it is an example.

Casey and Caylee are driving down the road. Caylee is crying for whatever reason and wants her grandmother. Casey pulls over to the side of the road, jumps in the backseat to talk to Caylee. As Casey is looking at Caylee and hearing Caylee ask for grandmom, Casey thinks... I could just kill you, put my hands around your throat and squeeze until you can no longer cry ... and then she does just that. Deliberation and planning.... 3 secs maximum.

AGAIN - I am not saying that is what happened, I don't think this is what happened, this is just an example.

Salem

 

[impatientredhead]

A lack of a plan would not necessarily foreclose on consciousness of guilt.

Two elements of a premediated murder are planning and deliberation. To prove premediated murder, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a plan.

If they can't prove there was a plan, that does not mean that they could not present evidence of consciousness of guilt, which could evidence itself via post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

For example, let's say Casey was grossly negligent, Caylee died and Casey attempted to cover up her death. That would not be a premeditated murder. However, Casey could still exhibit consciousness of guilt via her post-death actions, behavior, statements, etc..

Even so, consciousness of guilt has limited evidentiary value, for it represents corrobative evidence, not inculpatory evidence. It serves to support primary evidence. It is not primary evidence in and of itself.

HTH

Premeditated does not require a plan. Premeditated equals intentional. Your intent was to kill them, it took forethought, possibly only a second or two. And as said before Florida does not require premeditation for murder one/death penalty charges.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Please help me understand this. This is the third thread I've read related in some fashion to the decomp and the forensic report; and I read the actual report as well. So, although I've been trying (and do understand some things), I just can't get my arms around the entire concept.

I keep thinking of decomposition as an ongoing process; from live tissue, etc, at final, final end stage turning into dust. That makes me think that if one says that results show 2.6 days of decomp that whatever that sample came from died 2.6 days before. Am I correct? If I am does that mean that the origin of these samples (air, gases, tissue, etc) died 2.6 days before they were collected, or 2.6 days before they were processed, or what?
If the samples were in the car as early as KC was complaining to Amy about the smell from the dead squirrels; then I know that was way more than 2.6 days before collection of those samples. . . They weren't collected until after the car was retrieved.
What prevents the decomposition from continuing on to nothing? I guess I understand that the starting event is the death; but what makes it stop at 2.6? Is it separation from the rest of the body? Or some other chemical event that my brain just can't seem to digest?

Please help!

What they tested and reported on were remains which had been dead 2.6 days approximately from the gases and the other things which identify decomp. That means that either the baby was in the car for 2.6 days or she was somewhere else and put in the car at that level of decomp.

I personally think they are off about a day, because I believe the temperate analysis was off. The other thing which could have made it appear only 2.6 days is she could have been submerged in water which would have slowed the decomposition by a day or so.

Decomp never turns into nothing. You would be surprised what you can find out about a body which has been buried for 40 years. Dr. Bass wrote about one case where a woman was put in a cave and when they found it because of the adipocere and the low temp in the cave was almost perfectly preserved after 34 years.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Premeditated does not require a plan. Premeditated equals intentional. Your intent was to kill them, it took forethought, possibly only a second or two. And as said before Florida does not require premeditation for murder one/death penalty charges.

Doesn't Florida also consider other circumstances to make it murder one, like a child under the age of 12? I believe that is what the GJ indictment was referring to in the warrant.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

What they tested and reported on were remains which had been dead 2.6 days approximately from the gases and the other things which identify decomp. That means that either the baby was in the car for 2.6 days or she was somewhere else and put in the car at that level of decomp.

I personally think they are off about a day, because I believe the temperate analysis was off. The other thing which could have made it appear only 2.6 days is she could have been submerged in water which would have slowed the decomposition by a day or so.

Thank you for your response, TURBOTHINK.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Thank you for your response, TURBOTHINK.

Here is a site which can give you some good lay information on the process after death of the body and the insects which the body attracts at each stage. It uses a pig because it is the closest to the human body the way it decomposes.

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/decomposition/index.htm

 

[kiki the parrot]

I had posted elsewhere and just realized there's a thread for this. Body Farm report indicates it found compounds consistent w/ decomp having taken place in "anaerobic" conditions, ie w/out oxygen. From this we may infer or at least allow the possibility that Caylee died elsewhere, at a location other than inside trunk, after which her remains were encased or sealed w/in some type of airtight plastic bag, eg (which we may conclude must have later broken allowing fluids to escape ie seep into trunk). Thus it stands to reason that Caylee's remains may not have been placed inside trunk until after she was deceased, a period following which her remains were likely transported. The fact the Body Farm estimated decomp present to be that of 2.6 days gives LE a further indication of when and for how long those remains were present inside the trunk. But all of which is more consistent w/ KC having left Caylee's remains in backyard (from which it might also be inferred is where death more likely occurred) and until reportedly borrowing shovel approx. two days later. All of which creates for me reasonable doubt at least as far as theories Caylee was alive when placed in trunk IMO.

As for offing Caylee on the night of June 15, there is a sighting by GA of both KC, and Caylee alive and well, on am of June 16. Despite his denial GA's otherwise cooperated on an official level w/ LE--and this would entail his having, from very early on, been complicit or conspired to assist w/ cover-up by determining this splitting of hairs, over period of hours, would one day far down the road somehow exculpate his daughter. (I realize this part is slightly OT, sorry!)

 

[Baznme]

I had posted elsewhere and just realized there's a thread for this. Body Farm report indicates it found compounds consistent w/ decomp having taken place in "anaerobic" conditions, ie w/out oxygen. From this we may infer or at least allow the possibility that Caylee died elsewhere, at a location other than inside trunk, after which her remains were encased or sealed w/in some type of airtight plastic bag, eg (which we may conclude must have later broken allowing fluids to escape ie seep into trunk). Thus it stands to reason that Caylee's remains may not have been placed inside trunk until after she was deceased, a period following which her remains were likely transported. The fact the Body Farm estimated decomp present to be that of 2.6 days gives LE a further indication of when and for how long those remains were present inside the trunk. But all of which is more consistent w/ KC having left Caylee's remains in backyard (from which it might also be inferred is where death more likely occurred) and until reportedly borrowing shovel approx. two days later. All of which creates for me reasonable doubt at least as far as theories Caylee was alive when placed in trunk IMO.

As for offing Caylee on the night of June 15, there is a sighting by GA of both KC, and Caylee alive and well, on am of June 16. Despite his denial GA's otherwise cooperated on an official level w/ LE--and this would entail his having, from very early on, been complicit or conspired to assist w/ cover-up by determining this splitting of hairs, over period of hours, would one day far down the road somehow exculpate his daughter. (I realize this part is slightly OT, sorry!)

Seems in the eyes of a scientist, this is "Hard Evidence" and supports some of what you said.

http://www.wesh.com/news/17800136/detail.html

 

[Wudge]

Question...If she had went back and forth for a period of time contemplating getting rid of Caylee. Even to the extent of purchasing chloroform (by illegal means, my theory) than deciding against it. Than at a later date, weekend of June 15th, she becomes so angry and kills Caylee with the chloroform would that be considered premeditated?

Your hypo has Casey, at first, intending to murder Caylee. So she starts to plan the murder and purchases chloroform with the intent of carrying out her plan. However, she changes her mind and times passes. Finally, she gets angry and intent rears its head again. And she grabs the chloroform and murders Caylee. That would be a premeditated murder: intent (willful), planning, deliberation with malice aforethought.

 

[rozey]

Your hypo has Casey, at first, intending to murder Caylee. So she starts to plan the murder and purchases chloroform with the intent of carrying out her plan. However, she changes her mind and times passes. Finally, she gets angry and intent rears its head again. And she grabs the chloroform and murders Caylee. That would be a premeditated murder: intent (willful), planning, deliberation with malice aforethought.

So a full blown plan to include disposing of the body is not needed to prove premeditated. Thanks tahts what I was getting at.

 

[Wudge]

So a full blown plan to include disposing of the body is not needed to prove premeditated. Thanks tahts what I was getting at.

Correct. It would depend on the circumstances leading up to the moment of the murder.

 

[kajohn]

I am having a problem understanding something and maybe someone can help.


The report indicates the carpet sample test showed decompostion at 2.6 days.

Would there be enough decomp fluid at 2.6 days to create such an intense odor on July 15th when the car was picked up?