Toy horse found at crime scene

[Starfish]

Is it enough for LE to prove that the toy horse (or the sticker or duct tape, etc) came from the A home? I just wonder if JB would be able to say well, Zani came in and took those when she killed Caylee. Or that Casey took the toys over to Zani's home and then Zani killed Caylee. I mean, any items that came from the house could have Casey's prints simply because she mostly lived there, but the REAL perp (yeah, right) stole them or got them some other way. Doesn't mean Casey herself put them with the body.

I'm just so afraid she can get off if there's even the tiniest bit of reasonable doubt. IMO the totality of the evidence points to Casey - but so afraid that Casey's fingerprints on anything can be explained away by JB because Caylee and anything with her body all came from the house where Casey mostly lived.

If that's what JB wants to say then he better be able to show Zanni's prints on the items or explain how Zanni was able to wipe her prints off & leave Casey's and/or Caylee's in tact.

 

[Rumpole]

I have gone back and read this thread because I missed all the "Toy Horse" discussion before. Two things stand out for me.

1. Over this issue, NG has done some very poor, sensationalised inacurate reporting again.

2. I have not seen any explanation, (or even much of a guess) as to why LE might want to find a a toy horse similar to the one found at the remains site.

I don't see how finger prints are relevant at all?

Even matching the remains horse irrefutably to a similar horse or accesories at the A's house proves what? The horse found with what we now know to be Caylee's remains, came from the set Caylee had when she was alive and living at the A's. How does that advance what we already know?

 

[DawnTCB]

Even matching the remains horse irrefutably to a similar horse or accesories at the A's house proves what? The horse found with what we now know to be Caylee's remains, came from the set Caylee had when she was alive and living at the A's. How does that advance what we already know?

OK, it occurred to me last night that maybe they wanted to find a matching horse or horses simply to include or exclude this horse as evidence. Say it was found in the area but no idea if it was Caylee's or not. Finding the horse's remaining family members would indicate this horse was relevant, if somewhere down the road LE needs to check this horse for evidence of perhaps a different perp. To put it a different way, let's say a real ZFG shows up in the future and confesses - ten years from now, like John Mark Karr. LE at that point should be interested in pulling out items they could use to verify the real ZFG. Is the toy horse relevant or just more random forest trash? How would they know unless they make a match now?

 

[Rumpole]

OK, it occurred to me last night that maybe they wanted to find a matching horse or horses simply to include or exclude this horse as evidence. Say it was found in the area but no idea if it was Caylee's or not. Finding the horse's remaining family members would indicate this horse was relevant, if somewhere down the road LE needs to check this horse for evidence of perhaps a different perp. To put it a different way, let's say a real ZFG shows up in the future and confesses - ten years from now, like John Mark Karr. LE at that point should be interested in pulling out items they could use to verify the real ZFG. Is the toy horse relevant or just more random forest trash? How would they know unless they make a match now?

I still can't see it.

If there is no matching evidence at the A's then it proves nothing. It could still be Caylee's horse or not?

If there is matching evidence at the A's then it likely is Caylees horse. So what? The horse MAY have been found in the bag and so be KNOWN to be Caylee's?

 

[DawnTCB]

Ok, I don't guess I can explain my theory but I'll give it one more try.

It could only possibly be evidence if it is likely to be Caylee's. There is no way to determine if it is likely to be Caylee's unless LE can find similar horses, or pictures of the same horses in the home. So that's the first part - see if it is likely to be Caylee's by finding other similar ones or photos. If no matching horses or photos are found, then nothing further would be done with it, IMO. It will sit alone in an evidence box forever.

If it is determined through matching to other ponies in the set, or through photos to likely be Caylee's, then it could be important in one of three ways:

1. Part of a long list of items from the home that ended up with Caylee. So the jurors might hear something like, "100% of the items found at the crime scene match things previously photographed at the A home. The following things from the home were found at the crime scene... this horse pictured here from Christmas 2007... this book from July 2008... this laundry bag seen in this shot of KC's room, May 2006... this WTP blanket pictured here from August 2006". Then the defense could try to bring witnesses to say that there is no proof that this pony is the same pony pictured, but who could say for sure? In fact, a photo of the pony might show some identifying marks that might make it even harder to doubt - like did the dogs chew on his leg? Did he get colored on with a marker? If he had real "hair" did he have a haircut at some point? I think if police found a decent photo match it would be hard to refute.
2. Evidence could be on the pony. Potentially it could have been used as a weapon, I suppose. There could be blood spatters or smears on it. There could be something written on it, attached to it, taped to it with duct tape. From this search warrant we have no idea if there is anything special about this horse at all, just that they want to know if it matches some at the house or if there are photos of it at the house. There could be lots more that we do not know about the state of the horse.
3. Finally, like I said above, it could be kept for the future time when some ZFG confesses and we can use our super advanced "breath DNA" (I made that up!) to see if she ever breathed on this horse. Ten years from now they would be happy to know if anyone ever determined the horse was probably Caylee's.

But I get what you are saying, so what? If it is proven to be Caylee's and the prosecution says the above statements from #1 to the jury, well then the defense can just say, yeah well the nanny had a key so she must've taken the toys too. And they could say that via CA's testimony- but the jury is only going to buy that if they buy that there was a ZFG. So far we have about zero evidence that ZFG exists so I think the jury can put together that if most or all the items at the crime scene came from the house, where they had to be obtained by someone with a key, and only the four family members and an imaginary nanny had a key...

I guess maybe the opposite approach might be helpful. What if they did not try to find out if the horse was Caylee's? Could the defense then bring that up and say, "This horse found at the crime scene, has it been verified to be from the A home? No? You didn't even check? Well, then perhaps a stranger killed her! Perhaps you are trying to frame KC! CA, GA, have you seen this horse before? No? Ah-ha! Reasonable doubt! This horse was found inches from her body and no one even bothered to identify it! Kick the prosecution off the case, they are biased and unfair!"

 

[concentric]

It is so "frushhhtrating" that the toy horses could be laden with KC's fingerprints, yet, how do we know that she placed them in the bag?

 

[DawnTCB]

It is so "frushhhtrating" that the toy horses could be laden with KC's fingerprints, yet, how do we know that she placed them in the bag?

Well if they are in blood that would be a good clue.

 

[Rumpole]

Ok, I don't guess I can explain my theory but I'll give it one more try.

It could only possibly be evidence if it is likely to be Caylee's. There is no way to determine if it is likely to be Caylee's unless LE can find similar horses, or pictures of the same horses in the home. So that's the first part - see if it is likely to be Caylee's by finding other similar ones or photos. If no matching horses or photos are found, then nothing further would be done with it, IMO. It will sit alone in an evidence box forever.

If it is determined through matching to other ponies in the set, or through photos to likely be Caylee's, then it could be important in one of three ways:

1. Part of a long list of items from the home that ended up with Caylee. So the jurors might hear something like, "100% of the items found at the crime scene match things previously photographed at the A home. The following things from the home were found at the crime scene... this horse pictured here from Christmas 2007... this book from July 2008... this laundry bag seen in this shot of KC's room, May 2006... this WTP blanket pictured here from August 2006". Then the defense could try to bring witnesses to say that there is no proof that this pony is the same pony pictured, but who could say for sure? In fact, a photo of the pony might show some identifying marks that might make it even harder to doubt - like did the dogs chew on his leg? Did he get colored on with a marker? If he had real "hair" did he have a haircut at some point? I think if police found a decent photo match it would be hard to refute.
2. Evidence could be on the pony. Potentially it could have been used as a weapon, I suppose. There could be blood spatters or smears on it. There could be something written on it, attached to it, taped to it with duct tape. From this search warrant we have no idea if there is anything special about this horse at all, just that they want to know if it matches some at the house or if there are photos of it at the house. There could be lots more that we do not know about the state of the horse.
3. Finally, like I said above, it could be kept for the future time when some ZFG confesses and we can use our super advanced "breath DNA" (I made that up!) to see if she ever breathed on this horse. Ten years from now they would be happy to know if anyone ever determined the horse was probably Caylee's.

But I get what you are saying, so what? If it is proven to be Caylee's and the prosecution says the above statements from #1 to the jury, well then the defense can just say, yeah well the nanny had a key so she must've taken the toys too. And they could say that via CA's testimony- but the jury is only going to buy that if they buy that there was a ZFG. So far we have about zero evidence that ZFG exists so I think the jury can put together that if most or all the items at the crime scene came from the house, where they had to be obtained by someone with a key, and only the four family members and an imaginary nanny had a key...

I guess maybe the opposite approach might be helpful. What if they did not try to find out if the horse was Caylee's? Could the defense then bring that up and say, "This horse found at the crime scene, has it been verified to be from the A home? No? You didn't even check? Well, then perhaps a stranger killed her! Perhaps you are trying to frame KC! CA, GA, have you seen this horse before? No? Ah-ha! Reasonable doubt! This horse was found inches from her body and no one even bothered to identify it! Kick the prosecution off the case, they are biased and unfair!"

Yes but nothing you outline requires a match with anything.

They have the horse from the site to test for Zanny breath(I am sure will be a standard test one day).
Proving that stuff at the site came from A home is meaningless. That is where Caylee lived? Even fibres etc. If the A house was a strangers house that they could link to the remains site then I would see the sense.

I not trying to be awkward, its just that forensic evidence placing Caylee as having been in the A home is a waste of time since she lived there?
What I can see is very important to match up is anything associated with a crime such as the 2 bags the body was inside, the duct tape, and perhaps other things but I saw no clue in the warrant.

 

[DawnTCB]

Yes but nothing you outline requires a match with anything.

Well maybe "requires a match" is too restrictive. If they go in there and nothing matched back to the A home, that wouldn't be good... and at this point we don't know if that is the case. What if they can't find any link to the A home for the blanket, the garbage bag, the heart sticker, the horse, the duct tape... what if they cannot find (or have not found) any link for any of those items back to the home? Then it leaves it wide open for the defense to say:

"Well, jurors, as you heard in everyone's testimony, no one in this family has ever seen any of these items before, not a single one of her friends have ever seen any of these items before. In the over 4000 pictures LE reviewed from the A home and the homes of the defendant's friends had any of these items in them. There was no match in the home for this brand of garbage bag or duct tape. There were no heart stickers, no matching blanket set, no other little matching horses. We've shown you all of KC's receipts and none of them were for duct tape, garbage bags, stickers, horses, or blankets. We have shown you our expert witness who testified that it has been proven that a full 95% of all mixed race, rich, young, single, childless, imaginary nannies use just this kind of duct tape and buy their client's children just this kind of horse. The only thing you can conclude from these facts is that someone else purchased all of these items and brought them to the scene when they dropped off Caylee. You must decide to let this poor mother go free so she can help find the real killer and bring her to justice."

Proving a connection from the horse (and blanket, and sticker, and pull-up, and duct tape, and garbage bag) back to the house is not important. Proving that there is not NOT a connection is the important part. :waitasec: Difficult to phrase for me tonight somehow... how about this... if they cannot find any connections back to the house, that would be bad - pointing to a stranger abduction and murder. If they find a connection, that is neutral - pointing to no one definitively. Neutral is better than bad.

 

[treeseeker]

Well maybe "requires a match" is too restrictive. If they go in there and nothing matched back to the A home, that wouldn't be good... and at this point we don't know if that is the case. What if they can't find any link to the A home for the blanket, the garbage bag, the heart sticker, the horse, the duct tape... what if they cannot find (or have not found) any link for any of those items back to the home? Then it leaves it wide open for the defense to say:

"Well, jurors, as you heard in everyone's testimony, no one in this family has ever seen any of these items before, not a single one of her friends have ever seen any of these items before. In the over 4000 pictures LE reviewed from the A home and the homes of the defendant's friends had any of these items in them. There was no match in the home for this brand of garbage bag or duct tape. There were no heart stickers, no matching blanket set, no other little matching horses. We've shown you all of KC's receipts and none of them were for duct tape, garbage bags, stickers, horses, or blankets. We have shown you our expert witness who testified that it has been proven that a full 95% of all mixed race, rich, young, single, childless, imaginary nannies use just this kind of duct tape and buy their client's children just this kind of horse. The only thing you can conclude from these facts is that someone else purchased all of these items and brought them to the scene when they dropped off Caylee. You must decide to let this poor mother go free so she can help find the real killer and bring her to justice."

Proving a connection from the horse (and blanket, and sticker, and pull-up, and duct tape, and garbage bag) back to the house is not important. Proving that there is not NOT a connection is the important part. :waitasec: Difficult to phrase for me tonight somehow... how about this... if they cannot find any connections back to the house, that would be bad - pointing to a stranger abduction and murder. If they find a connection, that is neutral - pointing to no one definitively. Neutral is better than bad.

DawnTCB, this makes a lot of sense. I was like Hercule, wondering what forensic value the toys would have if they were Caylee's. Neutralizing would be very important.

 

[Rumpole]

Well maybe "requires a match" is too restrictive. If they go in there and nothing matched back to the A home, that wouldn't be good... and at this point we don't know if that is the case. What if they can't find any link to the A home for the blanket, the garbage bag, the heart sticker, the horse, the duct tape... what if they cannot find (or have not found) any link for any of those items back to the home? Then it leaves it wide open for the defense to say:

"Well, jurors, as you heard in everyone's testimony, no one in this family has ever seen any of these items before, not a single one of her friends have ever seen any of these items before. In the over 4000 pictures LE reviewed from the A home and the homes of the defendant's friends had any of these items in them. There was no match in the home for this brand of garbage bag or duct tape. There were no heart stickers, no matching blanket set, no other little matching horses. We've shown you all of KC's receipts and none of them were for duct tape, garbage bags, stickers, horses, or blankets. We have shown you our expert witness who testified that it has been proven that a full 95% of all mixed race, rich, young, single, childless, imaginary nannies use just this kind of duct tape and buy their client's children just this kind of horse. The only thing you can conclude from these facts is that someone else purchased all of these items and brought them to the scene when they dropped off Caylee. You must decide to let this poor mother go free so she can help find the real killer and bring her to justice."

Proving a connection from the horse (and blanket, and sticker, and pull-up, and duct tape, and garbage bag) back to the house is not important. Proving that there is not NOT a connection is the important part. :waitasec: Difficult to phrase for me tonight somehow... how about this... if they cannot find any connections back to the house, that would be bad - pointing to a stranger abduction and murder. If they find a connection, that is neutral - pointing to no one definitively. Neutral is better than bad.

I agree if nothing matches we are in troub Except it is Caylee and she did live at the A home. That does not need to be proven.
I guess in a sense we would be in the same spot we were with no body? Though not really, because the location itself is damning evidence in my view. And we are all relieved emotionally that Caylees remains have been found (Apart from on the Devils side).
If ALL the evidence has no link to A's then as you say we will be testing any alternate suspect's breath etc.

 

[Jolynna]

Ok I am lost with the whole concept of why the toy horse and pooh blanket are so important here even if they did come from the house. Why couldn't KC just say that she had turned over Caylee to the 'nanny' with her pooh blanket and toy horse? Then it would not matter either way if it came from the house. Why is this incriminating? I used to drop off my baby with daycare with her blanket and some toys all the time. (not defending her just confused why this is a big thing at all) Someone HELP me understand the logic here. Thanks!

It is important because Casey's phone pings on June 15 & June 16 don't show Casey taking Caylee anywhere.

Casey arrived at the Anthony home on June 15 at 7:30 p.m. Casey stayed in the vicinity until she headed for Tony's apartment the next day just after 4 p.m. She was with Tony by 4:25.

George says he saw Caylee alive just before 1 p.m. on June 16. Casey and Caylee were supposed to be leaving but pinged in the area. Between 2:30 and 3 after George went to work, one of the Anthony computers was downloading. Casey also talked to JG at 2:52 and told him she was moving out of the Anthony home.

Casey knew by 1 p.m. that Caylee wouldn't be coming home that night because she told George. Where was Caylee going to go?

If Caylee drug her Pooh blanket over Zani's carpet the blanket would pick up and mingle Zani carpet fibers in with Anthony house fibers. If nothing like that is found that's a clue because blankets are maxi fiber, fur and hair magnets. Just like the sticky side of duct tape.

Unless Casey killed Caylee in her car while she was watching the Anthony house waiting for George to leave, Caylee most likely died sometime after George left at 2:30 and she started downloading on the computer, but before Casey headed for Tony's (4 p.m.) The opportunities for *annother dude did it* are pretty limited considering the tight timeline and that Casey didn't go anywhere.

IMO



IMO

 

[essies]

It is important because Casey's phone pings on June 15 & June 16 don't show Casey taking Caylee anywhere.

Casey arrived at the Anthony home on June 15 and stayed in the vicinity until she headed for Tony's apartment just after 4. Casey arrived at Tony's by 4:25.

George says he saw Caylee alive just before 1 p.m. on June 16. Casey and Caylee were supposed to be leaving but pinged in the area. Between 2:30 and 3 after George went to work, one of the Anthony computers was downloading. Casey also talked to JG at 2:52 and told him she was moving out of the Anthony home.

Caylee's blanket will show traces of whatever it was up against before disposal. If Caylee had drug it over the Zani's carpet it would have some Zani carpet fibers along with Anthony house fibers. If nothing like that is found, the lack of foreign physical evidence along with the phone and computer records and Georges testimony nail the location and timeline down to where Casey was the only person with opportunity.

IMO

Think we'll find out what was downloading on the computer at that time when we get to trial? Your post is excellent-made my night!!:clap::clap:

 

[Jolynna]

Think we'll find out what was downloading on the computer at that time when we get to trial? Your post is excellent-made my night!!:clap::clap:

Thanks. I'm sure our jaws will drop over the forensic physical evidence. I can't wait for more of that info to come out.

I think there is a reason Baez's team is way heavy on the science side.

 

[Rumpole]

It is important because Casey's phone pings on June 15 & June 16 don't show Casey taking Caylee anywhere.

Casey arrived at the Anthony home on June 15 at 7:30 p.m. Casey stayed in the vicinity until she headed for Tony's apartment the next day just after 4 p.m. She was with Tony by 4:25.

George says he saw Caylee alive just before 1 p.m. on June 16. Casey and Caylee were supposed to be leaving but pinged in the area. Between 2:30 and 3 after George went to work, one of the Anthony computers was downloading. Casey also talked to JG at 2:52 and told him she was moving out of the Anthony home.

Casey knew by 1 p.m. that Caylee wouldn't be coming home that night because she told George. Where was Caylee going to go?

If Caylee drug her Pooh blanket over Zani's carpet the blanket would pick up and mingle Zani carpet fibers in with Anthony house fibers. If nothing like that is found that's a clue because blankets are maxi fiber, fur and hair magnets. Just like the sticky side of duct tape.

Unless Casey killed Caylee in her car while she was watching the Anthony house waiting for George to leave, Caylee most likely died sometime after George left at 2:30 and she started downloading on the computer, but before Casey headed for Tony's (4 p.m.) The opportunities for *annother dude did it* are pretty limited considering the tight timeline and that Casey didn't go anywhere.

IMO



IMO

That doesn't explain why they need to find anything to match the horse or anything else at the A home.

 

[Rumpole]

We would expect A House fibres etc on Caylees blanket She lived there?

 

[Rumpole]

Think we'll find out what was downloading on the computer at that time when we get to trial? Your post is excellent-made my night!!:clap::clap:

How does the post explain why LE are looking for toy horses?

 

[Rumpole]

Ok I am lost with the whole concept of why the toy horse and pooh blanket are so important here even if they did come from the house. Why couldn't KC just say that she had turned over Caylee to the 'nanny' with her pooh blanket and toy horse? Then it would not matter either way if it came from the house. Why is this incriminating? I used to drop off my baby with daycare with her blanket and some toys all the time. (not defending her just confused why this is a big thing at all) Someone HELP me understand the logic here. Thanks!

I am with you. Kitty5001

 

[Rumpole]

Just imagine that LE do find an exact matching horse at the Anthony house. It is exact in every way. It has matching numbers stamped on it. It is identical. It is a hundred percent certain the two horses were a set.

SO WHAT?

What would that prove?

 

[essies]

How does the post explain why LE are looking for toy horses?

That particular post wasn't about the horse-but-I'm sure LE was just trying to connect the dots and make all connections to the A house possible. I'm sure LE is anticipating the defense looking at any crack that they can throw reasonable doubt in. At that point they realized there were specific things to look for that they had no knowledge of or reason to seize when the last search warrant was issued. If they can find the rest of the set of horses-then there is a direct link to the house. If not, it's just a random toy-unless there's a picture of Caylee with the horse. They seized photos too didn't they?:waitasec: