Toy horse found at crime scene

[Rumpole]

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:

Bold by me.

What I keep asking is so what? We already have a link between Caylee and the Anthony house. She lived there.

That sort of evidence would only make the slightest sense if they were looking in a strange house and trying to prove a link to that.

The toy horse is quite different from LE trying to find links to Duct Tape, Heart stickers, Black garbage bags, laundry bags. Those items are clearly involved with doing Caylee harm and if THEY can be linked to the Anthony home then that home can be linked to the harm that befell Caylee, and by inference KC is implicated.

 

[DawnTCB]

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.

:waitasec: No, I don't see that it is the same place as we would be with no body.

I had a response typed up and then got a lengthy phone call so I went back to read the posts in between and decided to change my explanation...

I hear you saying, let's say we can prove that the horse at the crime scene was definitively Caylee's. We can find irrefutable proof that the one at the crime scene was previously in her hands at her house. So what? You can correct me if that is not what you are saying.

And I agree. If it is Caylee's pony, it does not mean the family/KC did it, nor does it exclude a nanny/stranger/alien abduction. By itself it means nothing.

And if it is not Caylee's pony, or cannot be determined to be her pony, it does not mean the family/KC did not do it, nor does it mean SODDI. By itself, it means nothing.

So why check up on it? If it is not criminal evidence pointing toward a perp, why look at it at all? I think that is what you are asking.


Here's an analogy. Let's say I had a puppy which I abandoned in the neighborhood and am no longer caring for. The fine for that here is $1,000. AC gets a tip that it is mine and comes to talk to me, and I admit I had a puppy but it was well loved and stolen from the backyard. When they find the puppy running amok a few streets away, he is wearing a purple rhinestone collar. If LE searches my house and finds pictures of the puppy in a purple rhinestone collar, it does not indicate anything about my guilt or innocence - just that my dog is wearing his collar, as should be expected. However, if they did not try to create a link between my dog and the purple collar, then my strategy could be to try to create reasonable doubt by saying "I did not buy him that purple collar... I've never seen it before! The stranger that stole him must've bought it for him. The real criminal is out there somewhere... "

By the same token, linking the pony to the A's house does not point to KC's guilt or innocence. Not looking for a link means the defense could use the unidentified pony to support a stranger abduction theory.

 

[DotsEyes]

IIRC KC downloaded the Father's Day video on the 16th.

 

[Rumpole]

:waitasec: No, I don't see that it is the same place as we would be with no body.

I had a response typed up and then got a lengthy phone call so I went back to read the posts in between and decided to change my explanation...

I hear you saying, let's say we can prove that the horse at the crime scene was definitively Caylee's. We can find irrefutable proof that the one at the crime scene was previously in her hands at her house. So what? You can correct me if that is not what you are saying.

And I agree. If it is Caylee's pony, it does not mean the family/KC did it, nor does it exclude a nanny/stranger/alien abduction. By itself it means nothing.

And if it is not Caylee's pony, or cannot be determined to be her pony, it does not mean the family/KC did not do it, nor does it mean SODDI. By itself, it means nothing.

So why check up on it? If it is not criminal evidence pointing toward a perp, why look at it at all? I think that is what you are asking.


Here's an analogy. Let's say I had a puppy which I abandoned in the neighborhood and am no longer caring for. The fine for that here is $1,000. AC gets a tip that it is mine and comes to talk to me, and I admit I had a puppy but it was well loved and stolen from the backyard. When they find the puppy running amok a few streets away, he is wearing a purple rhinestone collar. If LE searches my house and finds pictures of the puppy in a purple rhinestone collar, it does not indicate anything about my guilt or innocence - just that my dog is wearing his collar, as should be expected. However, if they did not try to create a link between my dog and the purple collar, then my strategy could be to try to create reasonable doubt by saying "I did not buy him that purple collar... I've never seen it before! The stranger that stole him must've bought it for him. The real criminal is out there somewhere... "

By the same token, linking the pony to the A's house does not point to KC's guilt or innocence. Not looking for a link means the defense could use the unidentified pony to support a stranger abduction theory.

It's late, so you are breaking just a slight crack in my thinking.

If LE don't bother to find a link between horse and the A house, or can not find a provable link, then what can the defense prove?

I do concede that if it was found actually in the bag, closely associated with Caylee's body it is an extra point of proof. But if we supose that Caylee left the A house with a toy horse she could have at that point still been murdered and bagged as she was, by anybody, not just KC.

 

[DawnTCB]

If LE don't bother to find a link between horse and the A house, or can not find a provable link, then what can the defense prove?

The defense can't prove anything... they can only suggest alternatives that could create reasonable doubt.

1. If LE doesn't bother to check at all, the defense could suggest a lack of interest on the part of LE to find the real killer (i.e. they are trying to frame her), and LE could not refute that suggestion.
2. If LE does not check or cannot find a link, the defense could suggest that since no family or friends ever saw it and there's no proof KC bought it, it suggests SODDI, and LE could not refute that.

In contrast, by finding a link back to the A house, the prosecution cannot prove KC/family did it, nor exclude anyone else, and I doubt they would suggest it means either one of those (except perhaps in aggregate). But finding a link means the prosecution could refute both of the two defense suggestions above, thus eliminating those suggestions as points of reasonable doubt.

 

[Rumpole]

The defense can't prove anything... they can only suggest alternatives that could create reasonable doubt.

1. If LE doesn't bother to check at all, the defense could suggest a lack of interest on the part of LE to find the real killer (i.e. they are trying to frame her), and LE could not refute that suggestion.
2. If LE does not check or cannot find a link, the defense could suggest that since no family or friends ever saw it and there's no proof KC bought it, it suggests SODDI, and LE could not refute that.

In contrast, by finding a link back to the A house, the prosecution cannot prove KC/family did it, nor exclude anyone else, and I doubt they would suggest it means either one of those (except perhaps in aggregate). But finding a link means the prosecution could refute both of the two defense suggestions above, thus eliminating those suggestions as points of reasonable doubt.

I am still struggling a little.

I will concede that LE at the very least have to "go thru the motions" and follow this lead and any other . Else the defence can claim dereliction of duty, or a fit-up .

If LE find any link to Anthony house (Similar horse or accessories etc) the great, but I still see that does not advance the information they have, that it is Caylee, and she lived at that house etc and her own toy is with/near the remains.

If LE find no match, then I don't see that means much more than they couldn't find a link. It still may or may not be a horse from that house. Its just it is not from a set and has no accessories.

If the defence can claim it came from an unknown (Nanny) source, but that is just silly, it could equaly well(And more likely) come from Caylees collection of toys.


There is more to "Reasonable doubt" than just wild speculation that some totally unknown person could have done it. Can't just say it could have been the "One Armed Man" or "Zanny" or aliens. You have to at lest propose a realistic alternative person and at least check any horse link to them as well.

Of course, all the will be moot if LE simply find some link to the horse at the Anthonies.

 

[DawnTCB]

I will concede that LE at the very least have to "go thru the motions" and follow this lead and any other . Else the defence can claim dereliction of duty, or a fit-up .

I am willing to concede that that reason alone is why it is on the search warrant.

There is more to "Reasonable doubt" than just wild speculation that some totally unknown person could have done it. Can't just say it could have been the "One Armed Man" or "Zanny" or aliens. You have to at lest propose a realistic alternative person and at least check any horse link to them as well.

OK, at the time of the search warrant they would have no idea whose fingerprints might or might not be on the pony. Let's say they did find Caylee's, did not find KC's, and did find some partial unidentified prints. I would suggest that if a live Caylee could have been playing with the pony and all witnesses including CA, GA, LA, and all of KC's friends confirm they never saw it before, and LE could not find evidence of a link in all 4000 pictures, and there are unidentified partials that would be a strong suggestion that Caylee received the pony post-abduction, pre-murder, and SODDI. No, that could not be their whole case... in itself it does not create sufficient reasonable doubt in my mind. But in a case where the defense is trying to point away from themselves to a person they cannot locate, unidentified prints would be a huge boost to their theory.

In the JBR case there is unidentified DNA in her underwear. The RDI's in that case say well, that DNA may have come from a factory worker who made the underwear. In this case a KCDI would say the same thing about unidentified prints or DNA anywhere at the crime scene... just some random person's DNA or prints that have nothing to do with the crime. However, the SODDI's in both cases would suggest that you cannot rule out the possibility of a criminal stranger providing that evidence.

I would suggest that if the underwear in JBR's case

1. Could not be linked to their home at all
2. No witnesses had ever seen them before
3. They just showed up in the basement that morning all on their own

makes the theory that a stranger dropped off the underwear and the unidentified DNA more likely than the factory worker theory, IMO. The fact that those underwear CAN be linked back to her house (because PR admitted she bought them, and the packaging is still on the shelf with say, dust around it) does not advance the case that RDI, but it also keeps the defense from saying the small foreign faction may have brought them to the crime scene.

I guess, the more items that can be linked back to the A house or Caylee's pre-June 15th life, the less items the defense can suggest came from someone else. It's not to advance LE's case; it is to hopefully give the defense less things to list when they are trying to create reasonable doubt.

 

[Rumpole]

I am willing to concede that that reason alone is why it is on the search warrant.



OK, at the time of the search warrant they would have no idea whose fingerprints might or might not be on the pony. Let's say they did find Caylee's, did not find KC's, and did find some partial unidentified prints. I would suggest that if a live Caylee could have been playing with the pony and all witnesses including CA, GA, LA, and all of KC's friends confirm they never saw it before, and LE could not find evidence of a link in all 4000 pictures, and there are unidentified partials that would be a strong suggestion that Caylee received the pony post-abduction, pre-murder, and SODDI. No, that could not be their whole case... in itself it does not create sufficient reasonable doubt in my mind. But in a case where the defense is trying to point away from themselves to a person they cannot locate, unidentified prints would be a huge boost to their theory.

In the JBR case there is unidentified DNA in her underwear. The RDI's in that case say well, that DNA may have come from a factory worker who made the underwear. In this case a KCDI would say the same thing about unidentified prints or DNA anywhere at the crime scene... just some random person's DNA or prints that have nothing to do with the crime. However, the SODDI's in both cases would suggest that you cannot rule out the possibility of a criminal stranger providing that evidence.

I would suggest that if the underwear in JBR's case

1. Could not be linked to their home at all
2. No witnesses had ever seen them before
3. They just showed up in the basement that morning all on their own

makes the theory that a stranger dropped off the underwear and the unidentified DNA more likely than the factory worker theory, IMO. The fact that those underwear CAN be linked back to her house (because PR admitted she bought them, and the packaging is still on the shelf with say, dust around it) does not advance the case that RDI, but it also keeps the defense from saying the small foreign faction may have brought them to the crime scene.

I guess, the more items that can be linked back to the A house or Caylee's pre-June 15th life, the less items the defense can suggest came from someone else. It's not to advance LE's case; it is to hopefully give the defense less things to list when they are trying to create reasonable doubt.

The scenario:

I would suggest that if a live Caylee could have been playing with the pony and all witnesses including CA, GA, LA, and all of KC's friends confirm they never saw it before, and LE could not find evidence of a link in all 4000 pictures, and there are unidentified partials that would be a strong suggestion that Caylee received the pony post-abduction, pre-murder, and SODDI.

Is quite a long shot.

But I have conceded that LE have to be prepared.

I don't see much progress in "Horse" discussion unless we get some info in next docs?

I am wisely not commenting on Jon BR case. I was not a WSer at the time, and not privy to local news. Just as a person interested in such news, the impression I got was that the case was largely "known" if not formely solved. I'll say no more because I know it might stir up a hornet's nest and OT here.

 

[DawnTCB]

I don't see much progress in "Horse" discussion unless we get some info in next docs?

Agreed. I think there is too much we do not know to speculate beyond due diligence at this point.

Alone, a horse with no link is no real help to the defense, and no harm to the prosecution. But a horse with no link AND some other as yet undisclosed situation such as a blanket, laundry bag, pull-up and doll clothes with no link could go a long way towards the SODDI theory. The more things that LE can link the less the defense can use to promote reasonable doubt.

I personally think they have found links for all of the items to Caylee's pre-June 15th life, and they have probably found nothing of note that would even remotely indicate some stranger brought never before seen items to the crime scene with Caylee. But that does remain to be seen at this point.

 

[Rumpole]

Agreed. I think there is too much we do not know to speculate beyond due diligence at this point.

Alone, a horse with no link is no real help to the defense, and no harm to the prosecution. But a horse with no link AND some other as yet undisclosed situation such as a blanket, laundry bag, pull-up and doll clothes with no link could go a long way towards the SODDI theory. The more things that LE can link the less the defense can use to promote reasonable doubt.

I personally think they have found links for all of the items to Caylee's pre-June 15th life, and they have probably found nothing of note that would even remotely indicate some stranger brought never before seen items to the crime scene with Caylee. But that does remain to be seen at this point.

I think there imight be evidence found at the site not singled out on the warrant application. For instance, no mention of diaper etc found, but renewed look at the house and a check of the sample that LE already had from the car.

 

[seagull65]

This is exactly what I was thinking. When I first heard about the horse that was found at the crime scene I immediately thought of My Little Pony.Also, I believe it was last Spring or early summer that McDonalds had them as the prize in their Happy Meals. My daughter loved them and tried to collect the entire set. I believe there was 8 or 10 in the set but I'm not real sure about that. Anyway, thats the first thing that popped in my mind and I'm betting thats probably what they found.

I agree with everyone here who mentioned "my little pony". This was the kind that immediately popped into my mind, since most people with young children who frequent McDonalds have at least one of these in their car! I know we do and we don't even have a little girl, (boys sometimes do get the ponies in their happy meals, too). (My little ponies are also sold in stores and are very popular with little kids.)
The area in question is a dumping site for all kinds of trash, there was a TV and other junk there when I went by in January, anyone could obviously have dumped trash from their car there, including this item.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Caylee's prints or KC's are found on the toy horse since other items at the scene obviously seem to be Caylee's. It seems like this as well as other items of Caylee's could have been gathered up out of KC's car by whoever the perpetrator was (KC or other perpetrator), or whoever was involved in the disposal. Or could have been thrown out later by KC when she was trying to get rid of the smell in her car (whether or not she knew what had caused the smell.)
Obviously items of Caylee's would be expected to potentially have her prints and her family members' prints and even friends'/roommates prints on them, Caylee's items would obviously be expected to link forensically to the A home.

That doesn't mean that any of these people is the murderer, it doesn't preclude another perpetrator having murdered Caylee and dumped her along with belongings she either had with her or that were obtained from the Pontiac. If the toy horse has unidentified prints on it along with Caylee's, that would be of interest, of course. Or if the horse was inside the bag but did not have any prints from Caylee or any of her family, that would be of interest (though it didn't appear in the reports that the horse was in the bag. I think it was only stated in the search warrant that a toy horse was found somewhere at the remains site.) I hope LE are able to gather useful evidence from the items.

 

[Friday]

:waitasec: No, I don't see that it is the same place as we would be with no body.

I had a response typed up and then got a lengthy phone call so I went back to read the posts in between and decided to change my explanation...

I hear you saying, let's say we can prove that the horse at the crime scene was definitively Caylee's. We can find irrefutable proof that the one at the crime scene was previously in her hands at her house. So what? You can correct me if that is not what you are saying.

And I agree. If it is Caylee's pony, it does not mean the family/KC did it, nor does it exclude a nanny/stranger/alien abduction. By itself it means nothing.

And if it is not Caylee's pony, or cannot be determined to be her pony, it does not mean the family/KC did not do it, nor does it mean SODDI. By itself, it means nothing.

So why check up on it? If it is not criminal evidence pointing toward a perp, why look at it at all? I think that is what you are asking.


Here's an analogy. Let's say I had a puppy which I abandoned in the neighborhood and am no longer caring for. The fine for that here is $1,000. AC gets a tip that it is mine and comes to talk to me, and I admit I had a puppy but it was well loved and stolen from the backyard. When they find the puppy running amok a few streets away, he is wearing a purple rhinestone collar. If LE searches my house and finds pictures of the puppy in a purple rhinestone collar, it does not indicate anything about my guilt or innocence - just that my dog is wearing his collar, as should be expected. However, if they did not try to create a link between my dog and the purple collar, then my strategy could be to try to create reasonable doubt by saying "I did not buy him that purple collar... I've never seen it before! The stranger that stole him must've bought it for him. The real criminal is out there somewhere... "

By the same token, linking the pony to the A's house does not point to KC's guilt or innocence. Not looking for a link means the defense could use the unidentified pony to support a stranger abduction theory.

Wow, what a tremendous post, DawnTCB!!!!
Thank for adding insight and perfect, simple, clarity to something I never would have realized. Awesome. Really.

 

[LinasK]

Agreed. I think there is too much we do not know to speculate beyond due diligence at this point.

Alone, a horse with no link is no real help to the defense, and no harm to the prosecution. But a horse with no link AND some other as yet undisclosed situation such as a blanket, laundry bag, pull-up and doll clothes with no link could go a long way towards the SODDI theory. The more things that LE can link the less the defense can use to promote reasonable doubt.

I personally think they have found links for all of the items to Caylee's pre-June 15th life, and they have probably found nothing of note that would even remotely indicate some stranger brought never before seen items to the crime scene with Caylee. But that does remain to be seen at this point.

Is this why it's important that we're all speculating whether or not it was a My Little Pony brand horse vs. Schleich brand vs. Breyer brand??? LE didn't specify, so without a picture we will never know for sure what kind of toy horse Caylee owned. (Personally, if I had to bet, yes I'd go with My Little Pony as they are the cheapest of the 3 brands, and we own several also- very appealing to little ones with their colors, not a choking hazard- and most easily accessible to buy.)
P.S. My Little Ponies can be purchased individually, you do not have to purchase a set to get them, and McDonalds has offered the mini-size ones as Happy Meal toys.

 

[ThinkTank]

I havent seen a thread related to the toy horse...and am a bit curious if anyone happens to know what kind of toy horse was found that was part of a set... could this be the striped tiger from the winnie the pooh series that many saw at the crime scene...?
Im sorry if this is a new thread mods, please move it.. im just curious if anyone knows what kind of toy horse they may be referring to. TIA

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0121/18531372.pdf

pg 1 – And that there is now being kept in and on said premises and curtilage certain trace evidence to include arts and crafts material, stickers, scrap booking matieral, all shoes belonging Casey Anthony, the original clothing George Anthony last saw Caylee Anthony wearing on June 16th (pink colored top, blue jean skirt or skort, white shoes, small child’s backpack with monkey design and white rimmed sunglasses), any doll clothing that would fit the doll recovered from Casey’s vehicle on July 15th, small plastic toy horses similar to one found at the crime scene, and a black or brown backpack/shoulder bag similar to the one George Anthony saw Casey Anthony with on June 16th, that may be on said property. .......

 

[DawnTCB]

Is this why it's important that we're all speculating whether or not it was a My Little Pony brand horse vs. Schleich brand vs. Breyer brand???

No, I *think* initially we were speculating on the brand because the eagle-eyed sleuthers were looking through photos for ponies. I guess if they had found a picture with a pony, LE would know if it matched. My assumption would be that LE has all the same photos as we do and more, but maybe not the time or manpower to blow them all up and dissect them pixel by pixel.

PS: thanks, Friday... :blowkiss:

 

[seagull65]

It's bizarre how you hear so much made in the media about "the items link back to the Anthony home!" (as if this implies involvement in the crime.) Of course Caylee's things are going to link back to the Anthony home, or things a perpetrator obtained from KC's car are going to link back to the Anthony home. If there's anything they find that doesn't link back but has Caylee's prints on it, that's interesting. Obviously.

 

[Dr. Know?]

I am willing to concede that that reason alone is why it is on the search warrant.



OK, at the time of the search warrant they would have no idea whose fingerprints might or might not be on the pony. Let's say they did find Caylee's, did not find KC's, and did find some partial unidentified prints. I would suggest that if a live Caylee could have been playing with the pony and all witnesses including CA, GA, LA, and all of KC's friends confirm they never saw it before, and LE could not find evidence of a link in all 4000 pictures, and there are unidentified partials that would be a strong suggestion that Caylee received the pony post-abduction, pre-murder, and SODDI. No, that could not be their whole case... in itself it does not create sufficient reasonable doubt in my mind. But in a case where the defense is trying to point away from themselves to a person they cannot locate, unidentified prints would be a huge boost to their theory.

In the JBR case there is unidentified DNA in her underwear. The RDI's in that case say well, that DNA may have come from a factory worker who made the underwear. In this case a KCDI would say the same thing about unidentified prints or DNA anywhere at the crime scene... just some random person's DNA or prints that have nothing to do with the crime. However, the SODDI's in both cases would suggest that you cannot rule out the possibility of a criminal stranger providing that evidence.

I would suggest that if the underwear in JBR's case

1. Could not be linked to their home at all
2. No witnesses had ever seen them before
3. They just showed up in the basement that morning all on their own

makes the theory that a stranger dropped off the underwear and the unidentified DNA more likely than the factory worker theory, IMO. The fact that those underwear CAN be linked back to her house (because PR admitted she bought them, and the packaging is still on the shelf with say, dust around it) does not advance the case that RDI, but it also keeps the defense from saying the small foreign faction may have brought them to the crime scene.

I guess, the more items that can be linked back to the A house or Caylee's pre-June 15th life, the less items the defense can suggest came from someone else. It's not to advance LE's case; it is to hopefully give the defense less things to list when they are trying to create reasonable doubt.

Thank you. And thanks HP. I love difficult questions and good answers.

 

[Rumpole]

Thought I'd bump up the toy horse thread.

Spent a lot of time hypothesising what toy horse evidence might turn up.

I see in the doc that the toy horse and "fence" were listed, but not much else.

What if anything was mentioned or photographed at the A home?

 

[fortytwo]

Thought I'd bump up the toy horse thread.

Spent a lot of time hypothesising what toy horse evidence might turn up.

I see in the doc that the toy horse and "fence" were listed, but not much else.

What if anything was mentioned or photographed at the A home?

Mentioned by whom?

LE? ...or Nancy's "Broken News"?

 

[distracted 1976]

Thought I'd bump up the toy horse thread.

Spent a lot of time hypothesising what toy horse evidence might turn up.

I see in the doc that the toy horse and "fence" were listed, but not much else.

What if anything was mentioned or photographed at the A home?

This has bothered me also....I saw no other mention of the toy or any photos released that would appear they were tying it to the home. Maybe I missed something...going back to look again! :waitasec: