"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Smelling the decomp cans

New Posts

gamom

gamom

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
996
Reaction score
-8
Will the Jury be allowed to smell the cans? It looked as though JA was going that direction today and then stopped right in the middle. I know the cans were admitted into evidence, but what exactly does that mean? In Session was saying that if the jury does smell the cans, the SA better hope it still smells or we could have another OJ scenario. Curious as to what you guys think about that and also what tag line do you think the DA team will come up with? I was thinking they would use:

"If the can don't stink, you have to think" or "If the can doesn't smell, the state has failed" :floorlaugh:

I personally think the smell of the cans is pointless to the jury anyways. There is more than enough people testifying that it smelt like decomp. Including Vass today who has 20 years of experience. I thought his testimony was a home run for the state today.
 
I don't think a jury should be expected to smell those cans, it's simply asking TOO MUCH of them.
 
I posted this on another thread yesterday. I hope they can do something like this - it would solve both problems. Particularly if they set the can near the jury stand:

I know that HHJP does not want the jury to become "witnesses" by having them smell the "cans of death" the media has been playing up which contain the air from the trunk that was sealed and has been in the FBI lab. Although I was interested to see a can being unpacked the other day in court and was wondering just how it might come into play.

After thinking about it for a bit, I'm wondering if the prosecution can somehow sidestep the issue of having the jurors smell the can outright by having an actual cadaver dog enter the courtroom to see if the dog will alert on the can when it is opened. I would imagine that would be pretty dramatic - to see a trained cadaver dog immediately alert on a can of decomp air from the trunk of ICA's car that is three years old.

The state could make the point all over again about the accuracy of the dogs and the fact that, even after time, the air that came from in that car still smells like a dead body.

It would also destroy JB's silly claim about not being able to have a dog on the stand as a witness.
 
I think this might have been discussed before, but I can't find it. My question is Since they decided not to allow the jury to smell the contents of the can (because the judge doesn't want to make the jury witness) could that actually hurt the state's case? I'm wondering if there are jurors that, while they have been told that the air in the can was from decomp found inside of Casey's car, may not believe that? I'm thinking it could potentially be something along the lines of a person seeing a sign that states Wet Paint and still to touching the paint. That may not be the best example, but I am interested in everyone's opinions.
 
I kind of weaving in and out of this....there is a chance some of the jurors will want to smell the can and an equal change that some won't.
With the evidence that the state has presented and will present in the future, I don't think excluding the 'smell can' will have that much of an impact on the jurors. moo
 
cecybeans said:
I posted this on another thread yesterday. I hope they can do something like this - it would solve both problems. Particularly if they set the can near the jury stand:

I know that HHJP does not want the jury to become "witnesses" by having them smell the "cans of death" the media has been playing up which contain the air from the trunk that was sealed and has been in the FBI lab. Although I was interested to see a can being unpacked the other day in court and was wondering just how it might come into play.

After thinking about it for a bit, I'm wondering if the prosecution can somehow sidestep the issue of having the jurors smell the can outright by having an actual cadaver dog enter the courtroom to see if the dog will alert on the can when it is opened. I would imagine that would be pretty dramatic - to see a trained cadaver dog immediately alert on a can of decomp air from the trunk of ICA's car that is three years old.

The state could make the point all over again about the accuracy of the dogs and the fact that, even after time, the air that came from in that car still smells like a dead body.

It would also destroy JB's silly claim about not being able to have a dog on the stand as a witness.
Click to expand...

Great idea. Only one thing concerns me, what if the dog does NOT alert on the can? I think that is so risky. Unless the state tries this experiment before they do it in front of the jury. This is what got OJ off. I think simple is better in this case and just take the word of everyone else who smelt the cans. Going for the slam dunk instead of the layup here could end up losing the game.
 
Linda7NJ said:
I don't think a jury should be expected to smell those cans, it's simply asking TOO MUCH of them.
Click to expand...

I agree. It might also make some of them sick, and I don't believe Judge Perry would appreciate that as he highly respects these jurors.
There is no need to allow the jury to smell those cans in order to solidify their case, too many people have testified to the odor of the trunk, and it is just not necessary. Besides, the smell would probably permeate the courtroom considering how long it would take for each juror to smell it.
As for the cadaver dog, that wouldn't help either. Baez would want to cross examine the dog.
 
TxLady2 said:
I agree. It might also make some of them sick, and I don't believe Judge Perry would appreciate that as he highly respects these jurors.
There is no need to allow the jury to smell those cans in order to solidify their case, too many people have testified to the odor of the trunk, and it is just not necessary. Besides, the smell would probably permeate the courtroom considering how long it would take for each juror to smell it.
As for the cadaver dog, that wouldn't help either. Baez would want to cross examine the dog.
Click to expand...

Cross examine the dog! :floorlaugh:

JB: Are you a purebred or a mutt? Who were your mother and father? How many of these courtroom gigs have you done? Ever been on Facebook? Wikipedia? Were you given treats today before you came into this courtroom? When is the last time you participated in training? Your resume here says that you were instrumental in cracking a big drug operation -- can you prove that? Did anyone here promise you dog treats or special consideration for coming here today? Where do you live, and did the State pay for your trip here? What did you have for dinner last night and did the State pay for it?
 
TxLady2 said:
I agree. It might also make some of them sick, and I don't believe Judge Perry would appreciate that as he highly respects these jurors.
There is no need to allow the jury to smell those cans in order to solidify their case, too many people have testified to the odor of the trunk, and it is just not necessary. Besides, the smell would probably permeate the courtroom considering how long it would take for each juror to smell it.
As for the cadaver dog, that wouldn't help either. Baez would want to cross examine the dog.
Click to expand...



BBM, JB could always place the trash bag out with the pizza box and hope the dog alerts on it. :floorlaugh: Something tells me that he knows the dog won't.
 
There are a number of these cans, right? I hope, if they decide to get it opened in the courtroom some way, they test one of the others to make sure it still reeks! I believe it will, but better be sure. mo


eta: I don't think the prosecution should make the jurors retch. jmo
 
I can't see any of the juror really wanting to smell the can. How many people really know what "death" smells like? I'm sure it smells nothing like rotting pizza.
 
It seems wrong to make jurors smell the cans. JB is pushing for that by his confusion making. It may be necessary to compare the can with a rotting potato. It's wild when so many people have confirmed the car trunk smelled like a dead body.
 
Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell 7PM EST

The “stench of death” comes back to haunt Casey Anthony as jurors hear explosive testimony about air samples taken from her car!

Should the jurors be able to smell it for themselves?

Will the experience be too powerful to ignore? Or could the “CSI effect” backfire on the prosecution!?


TONIGHT: We’re taking your calls! Lines open at 7pET/4pPT: 1-877-JVM-SAYS (1-877-586-7297)!
 
Betty Boop said:
Cross examine the dog! :floorlaugh:

JB: Are you a purebred or a mutt? Who were your mother and father? How many of these courtroom gigs have you done? Ever been on Facebook? Wikipedia? Were you given treats today before you came into this courtroom? When is the last time you participated in training? Your resume here says that you were instrumental in cracking a big drug operation -- can you prove that? Did anyone here promise you dog treats or special consideration for coming here today? Where do you live, and did the State pay for your trip here? What did you have for dinner last night and did the State pay for it?
Click to expand...

Are you indeed sure that you are a canine? I heard you like blogging--according to this blog Wonderdog Orlando is your handle? Why are people wishing you well post your neutering on this blog? Were you sent to the doghouse due to disciplinary action concerning your blogging?
 
Miaa said:
I kind of weaving in and out of this....there is a chance some of the jurors will want to smell the can and an equal change that some won't.
With the evidence that the state has presented and will present in the future, I don't think excluding the 'smell can' will have that much of an impact on the jurors. moo
Click to expand...
IMO I think few if any would really feel the need to smell it. There is so much to say that it is decomp that the only logical conclusion is that it is in fact decomp.
 
lol @ gamon, I just posted something about the OJ glove smell-o-can similarity over in teh sidebar. Great minds think alike I guess, wonder if I should move that post over here.

Anywho, the gist of it was that I think opening the can could backfire much as the infamous glove moment did in the OJ trial Better to leave the smell up to the jurors' imaginations IMO.
 
Boy, I'm watching HLN and LKB was sure putting up a fuss about the stink of the can. She doubts it-- called it laughable. So, my question is: Can the defense open the can when Vass is called as their witness?
 
Idk if this has already been said, but I don't see why they can't just find a reason to open the can to pull out what's inside and then the smell will over take the whole room anyway if it's still there. If the smell is no longer there, then nothing was hurt by anything, because the can is not being passed around, and the juror's might just think it's not a strong enough smell after 3 years to make it to where they are sitting.
 
I wonder if the jurors themselves will ask to smell the can:waitasec:

All this talk about smell, could they actually request this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 3,875 (members: 198, guests: 3,677)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
3,677
Total visitors
3,875
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,836
Messages
17,959,821
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top