Sidebar Discussion #12

[logicalgirl]

Me neither LG. I have ALWAYS told my bosses that I suck at proof reading. At least I'm honest.

Me too! And FGS keep me out of the Accounting Department!!:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

I realize after spending so many years reading masses and masses of business material and reports that I read information with the "question" what's your point - in a thumbnail - conclusion? in the back of my mind - very bad habit.

 

[AZlawyer]

Isn't she meaning those are dates she received or looked at the information? If Caylee was reported missing on July 16, it makes sense those are the dates this information first came in to her lab?

Very interesting interview and some lessons to be learned. Interesting about not stopping for a" family crisis" or there was "no family crisis".

Well, I wondered if that was the case too, LG, until I read, "At 1330hrs or thereabouts, the activity picks up again, after everyone has gone to work. What that means is that someone is one [sic] the computer from 0756hrs until 1146 hrs on the 16th of July, 2008. George (Casey’s father, Caylee’s grandfather) testified that Caylee and Casey left at about noon."

So, :dunno:.

http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

Yes, I see - you are correct! I wonder if this is the person speaking or an incorrect translation from whoever took the notes off the recorder?:waitasec:

I was reading something really interesting yesterday that said our eyes don't actually "see" anything, it is our brain trainslating images coming in through the eye and making sense of them. And that we can read a sentence of complete mispelling and easily "translate" it into making complete sense without really noticing. I think that's what I was doing - making an automatic adjustment.

I'm obviously not the person to be data checking..:blushing: Useless!

She just got June and July mixed up when she was answering the questions IMO. Plenty of us have done the same.

I noticed she also incorrectly thought 1:30 pm would have been after George went to work. And she apparently thought nothing of the "foolproof suffocation" search, as it wasn't mentioned in her answers (unless I missed it).

 

[Desdemona]

Well, I wondered if that was the case too, LG, until I read, "At 1330hrs or thereabouts, the activity picks up again, after everyone has gone to work. What that means is that someone is one [sic] the computer from 0756hrs until 1146 hrs on the 16th of July, 2008. George (Casey’s father, Caylee’s grandfather) testified that Caylee and Casey left at about noon."

So, :dunno:.

http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

Agree w/AZ Lawyer.

In this instance (bbm) it is definitely an error, since we know the reference was to the crucial date of JUNE 16, 2008, not July.

As we all know, July 16th was the date of FCA's arrest, a full month after Caylee was last seen.

However, within the interview quoted, Ms Osborne does additionally make separate reference to the computer activity on the 16th (and 17th?) of July, which was the timeframe when someone at the A. home apparently was busy deleting huge amounts of data and browser history from the home desktop. This was hinky behavior, considering that a child from this home had been reported missing. If the family members were mystified and worried sick about the child, why on earth would they be deleting any information at all from their home computer?

Ms Osborne points out that because the data had been so recently deleted around the time of FCA's arrest, and because the computers were so quickly thereafter confiscated, much of that deleted data was able to be reconstructed for the investigation.

The similar "31 days apart" dates -- June 15/16, versus July 15/16/17, undeniably cause confusion, and have done so from the start. Remember when we were first following this case and these pesky transpositions between June/July became common? It happened a lot here, as well as within the LE interviews, depositions, investigatory reports, other docs released, etc. IIRC, June/July got mixed up a couple of times in the court testimony, too.

BTW, that in-depth interview with Ms Osborne is eye-opening and full of pertinent and thought-provoking detail, IMO.
http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

:shakehead: Why oh why was the State not allowed to present this very clear and compelling evidence of FCA's activity on the computer on June 16, to refute the Defense's assertion that Caylee drowned in the pool that day? I will never understand.

 

[Desdemona]

She just got June and July mixed up when she was answering the questions IMO. Plenty of us have done the same.

I noticed she also incorrectly thought 1:30 pm would have been after George went to work. And she apparently thought nothing of the "foolproof suffocation" search, as it wasn't mentioned in her answers (unless I missed it).

Just wanted to point out, in case this matters, that the date this interview w/Ms Osborne was posted was August 11, 2011. Over a year ago.

 

[wonders]

Agree w/AZ Lawyer.

In this instance (bbm) it is definitely an error, since we know the reference was to the crucial date of JUNE 16, 2008, not July.

As we all know, July 16th was the date of FCA's arrest, a full month after Caylee was last seen.

However, within the interview quoted, Ms Osborne does additionally make separate reference to the computer activity on the 16th (and 17th?) of July, which was the timeframe when someone at the A. home apparently was busy deleting huge amounts of data and browser history from the home desktop. This was hinky behavior, considering that a child from this home had been reported missing. If the family members were mystified and worried sick about the child, why on earth would they be deleting any information at all from their home computer?

Ms Osborne points out that because the data had been so recently deleted around the time of FCA's arrest, and because the computers were so quickly thereafter confiscated, much of that deleted data was able to be reconstructed for the investigation.

The similar "31 days apart" dates -- June 15/16, versus July 15/16/17, undeniably cause confusion, and have done so from the start. Remember when we were first following this case and these pesky transpositions between June/July became common? It happened a lot here, as well as within the LE interviews, depositions, investigatory reports, other docs released, etc. IIRC, June/July got mixed up a couple of times in the court testimony, too.

BTW, that in-depth interview with Ms Osborne is eye-opening and full of pertinent and thought-provoking detail, IMO.
http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

:shakehead: Why oh why was the State was not allowed to present this very clear and compelling evidence of FCA's activity on the computer on June 16, to refute the Defense's assertion that Caylee drowned in the pool that day? I will never understand.

I really like your post. Thank you.

Re my bold. I can't remember so please forgive me. Was it really not allowed or just not brought forth? Looking back with some 20/20 I wish they had forgone the Dr Vass stuff (don't get me wrong, I love what he is doing and think it will one day be a very usefull tool but feel it just wasn't the right time just then cuz they couldn't measure the amount of chloroform) and focused more on the computer stuff and drove home the 'I dont give a hoot attitude' of FCA in the videos. Just my opinion of course!

 

[AZlawyer]

I really like your post. Thank you.

Re my bold. I can't remember so please forgive me. Was it really not allowed or just not brought forth? Looking back with some 20/20 I wish they had forgone the Dr Vass stuff (don't get me wrong, I love what he is doing and think it will one day be a very usefull tool but feel it just wasn't the right time just then cuz they couldn't measure the amount of chloroform) and focused more on the computer stuff and drove home the 'I dont give a hoot attitude' of FCA in the videos. Just my opinion of course!

I don't believe there was any barrier to the State presenting the computer evidence. Of course, they had their times off by an hour, so maybe they were worried about getting into that "foolproof suffocation" search and having it blamed on George (not realizing that it took place an hour later, after George would have left for work).

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't believe there was any barrier to the State presenting the computer evidence. Of course, they had their times off by an hour, so maybe they were worried about getting into that "foolproof suffocation" search and having it blamed on George (not realizing that it took place an hour later, after George would have left for work).

Well we know about me and my legal knowledge but I was amazed at the amount of circumstantial evidence there was in the case so maybe the SA just thought they didn't need it? Is that possible?

When I compare this case to the Laci Peterson case I still can't believe the jury came back with a not guilty verdict..:waitasec:

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

Agree w/AZ Lawyer.

In this instance (bbm) it is definitely an error, since we know the reference was to the crucial date of JUNE 16, 2008, not July.

As we all know, July 16th was the date of FCA's arrest, a full month after Caylee was last seen.

However, within the interview quoted, Ms Osborne does additionally make separate reference to the computer activity on the 16th (and 17th?) of July, which was the timeframe when someone at the A. home apparently was busy deleting huge amounts of data and browser history from the home desktop. This was hinky behavior, considering that a child from this home had been reported missing. If the family members were mystified and worried sick about the child, why on earth would they be deleting any information at all from their home computer?

Ms Osborne points out that because the data had been so recently deleted around the time of FCA's arrest, and because the computers were so quickly thereafter confiscated, much of that deleted data was able to be reconstructed for the investigation.

The similar "31 days apart" dates -- June 15/16, versus July 15/16/17, undeniably cause confusion, and have done so from the start. Remember when we were first following this case and these pesky transpositions between June/July became common? It happened a lot here, as well as within the LE interviews, depositions, investigatory reports, other docs released, etc. IIRC, June/July got mixed up a couple of times in the court testimony, too.

BTW, that in-depth interview with Ms Osborne is eye-opening and full of pertinent and thought-provoking detail, IMO.
http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

:shakehead: Why oh why was the State not allowed to present this very clear and compelling evidence of FCA's activity on the computer on June 16, to refute the Defense's assertion that Caylee drowned in the pool that day? I will never understand.

I wonder what all was hid behind Baez and co. stipulations? But I really don't think it would of mattered with this jury of ####&&&@@@@!!!! Sorry don't want my hand smacked again by ticking off that dear sweet nun.

 

[wonders]

I don't believe there was any barrier to the State presenting the computer evidence. Of course, they had their times off by an hour, so maybe they were worried about getting into that "foolproof suffocation" search and having it blamed on George (not realizing that it took place an hour later, after George would have left for work).

That could be very true AZ. Thank you. I guess that technology needs improvement too. I've got to quit crying over split milk.

 

[Desdemona]

I really like your post. Thank you.

Re my bold. I can't remember so please forgive me. Was it really not allowed or just not brought forth? Looking back with some 20/20 I wish they had forgone the Dr Vass stuff (don't get me wrong, I love what he is doing and think it will one day be a very usefull tool but feel it just wasn't the right time just then cuz they couldn't measure the amount of chloroform) and focused more on the computer stuff and drove home the 'I dont give a hoot attitude' of FCA in the videos. Just my opinion of course!

From the posted interview:

(Sandra Osborne speaking)

I was prepared to testify about this new information as soon as Mr. Baez announced in his opening statement at trial that the baby drowned in the family pool the morning of July 16, 2008. Well, the computer tells us a story that indicates either this traumatic event never happened or the computer user ignored the crisis completely.

There is a lot I would like to have added to my testimony at trial. Many hearings were held before the trial and some of them were to determine what evidence would be allowed and forbidden. Much of the evidence I included in my reports, was either stipulated to or not allowed.

http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

 

[AZlawyer]

From the posted interview:

(Sandra Osborne speaking)

I was prepared to testify about this new information as soon as Mr. Baez announced in his opening statement at trial that the baby drowned in the family pool the morning of July 16, 2008. Well, the computer tells us a story that indicates either this traumatic event never happened or the computer user ignored the crisis completely.

There is a lot I would like to have added to my testimony at trial. Many hearings were held before the trial and some of them were to determine what evidence would be allowed and forbidden. Much of the evidence I included in my reports, was either stipulated to or not allowed.

http://forensicsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-interview-with-sandra-osborne.html

The hearings, though, were based on the motions in limine that were filed--and I don't think there was any motion in limine filed to prevent the SA from presenting evidence that Casey was dinking around on the computer on June 16. Not to mention that such a motion would never have been granted.

 

[AZlawyer]

The hearings, though, were based on the motions in limine that were filed--and I don't think there was any motion in limine filed to prevent the SA from presenting evidence that Casey was dinking around on the computer on June 16. Not to mention that such a motion would never have been granted.

From a quick search, I'm seeing motions to exclude regarding the knife, sex with the Tonys, speculation of CA knowledge, Brian Burner testimony, CA history of lying/stealing, heart sticker, hair banding, canine alerts, trunk stain, slutty pictures, tattoo, "Diary of Days," Cindy's MySpace, and "Jib Jab" cartoon. Nothing about a motion to exclude evidence that the Defendant was playing on Facebook, chatting on AIM and searching "foolproof suffocation" while her daughter was allegedly drowning or being disposed of down the block.

 

[Pattymarie]

From a quick search, I'm seeing motions to exclude regarding the knife, sex with the Tonys, speculation of CA knowledge, Brian Burner testimony, CA history of lying/stealing, heart sticker, hair banding, canine alerts, trunk stain, slutty pictures, tattoo, "Diary of Days," Cindy's MySpace, and "Jib Jab" cartoon. Nothing about a motion to exclude evidence that the Defendant was playing on Facebook, chatting on AIM and searching "foolproof suffocation" while her daughter was allegedly drowning or being disposed of down the block.

So for us non-lawyers here, they basically wanted to suppress all the evidence that pointed to her guilt because she was guilty. The rest of the stuff they did not want to suppress was because it was all made up. Right?

 

[AZlawyer]

So for us non-lawyers here, they basically wanted to suppress all the evidence that pointed to her guilt because she was guilty. The rest of the stuff they did not want to suppress was because it was all made up. Right?

Well...yeah. I guess that's one way of looking at it.

 

[Ricki]

On the book site discussions they are discussing making chloroform and it's ingredients in particular acetone. S is wondering where it can be bought. Not sure I think maybe someone there might check in here sooner or later. Acetone can be bought at any beauty supply store, perhaps even a big drugstore. I have bought it for removing nail polish and it is pure acetone.

 

[logicalgirl]

On the book site discussions they are discussing making chloroform and it's ingredients in particular acetone. S is wondering where it can be bought. Not sure I think maybe someone there might check in here sooner or later. Acetone can be bought at any beauty supply store, perhaps even a big drugstore. I have bought it for removing nail polish and it is pure acetone.

I'm not sure if we have acetone anymore here and you have to have a hairdresser or skin specialist to get into the beauty supply stores here also.
We had a problem with "glue sniffers" using nail polish remover ....so I have a feeling it was either banned or watered down ..

 

[Ricki]

I'm not sure if we have acetone anymore here and you have to have a hairdresser or skin specialist to get into the beauty supply stores here also.
We had a problem with "glue sniffers" using nail polish remover ....so I have a feeling it was either banned or watered down ..

We have a beauty supply store called Sallys. They serve beauticians but non professional people can buy certain products. Acetone is one. It goes for about 3 dollars for a large bottle 16oz. I buy it since it removes nail polish easier. It has not been banned here..at least not yet. There are several Sallys in the Orlando area.

 

[RANCH]

From a quick search, I'm seeing motions to exclude regarding the knife, sex with the Tonys, speculation of CA knowledge, Brian Burner testimony, CA history of lying/stealing, heart sticker, hair banding, canine alerts, trunk stain, slutty pictures, tattoo, "Diary of Days," Cindy's MySpace, and "Jib Jab" cartoon. Nothing about a motion to exclude evidence that the Defendant was playing on Facebook, chatting on AIM and searching "foolproof suffocation" while her daughter was allegedly drowning or being disposed of down the block.

BBM
I guess we'll never know for sure if the timeline and searches about "foolproof suffocation" would have made a difference with this jury. I suspect that it would not have. JMO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I'm not sure if we have acetone anymore here and you have to have a hairdresser or skin specialist to get into the beauty supply stores here also.
We had a problem with "glue sniffers" using nail polish remover ....so I have a feeling it was either banned or watered down ..

It is sold by the gallon at Home Depot here, so no restrictions...

 

[watcher9]

Didn't she make a trip to Lowe's? I can't remember anymore.