Caylee not in woods until after Casey was locked up proves she's innocent.

New Posts

justthinkin

justthinkin

New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
2,223
Reaction score
156
Video: Casey
http://www.cfnews13.com/MediaPlayer2...al&title=Casey

Article:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2...e_experts.html

To all you sleuthers with far more energy to keep up with this case than I ever will, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think the jury will buy it? Can you make a good argument against Baez's claim or for it?

Baez is lining up interviews with all the searchers who claim they were in those woods off Hopespring Drive, and didn't see anything, from LEOs to Dominic, to Texas Equisearch volunteers, a psychic, and so on.

I have never seen a defense abandon more strategies than this one. Is that something that can be discussed during the trial? I'm asking because I don't know. It sure seems relevant though.
 
It seems that this is an AL thing...it is her MO..we are not talking innocence here we are talking reasonable doubt...

They are pulling at everything they can to make sure that there is reasonable doubt and therefore no DP.
 
It could mean she had help. This "fact" from the defense doesn't prove innocence imo.
 
The defense can whine all they want saying that Caylee was put in the woods after Casey was jailed, but the problem with their theory is the forensic plant report does not support it. Plants have their cycle of growth and the roots growing through Caylees body prove that she was there when the searchers supposedly were in the woods. Caylees body was simply concealed in mud and plants and other debris. The jury will in my opinion will consider their claim for a moment until the report on the plant growth will be exposed debunking the myth.
 
Caylee was found in the low area of the woods... the part that was flooded by the tropical storm. I'm sure the SA has weather information and flooding information along with pictures taken during the search to prove that even if the searchers were there, they couldn't have seen the remains under all the water. Also as was mentioned in the wonderful post by Bakersmom there is an expert who says that the remains were there all the time because of the plant growth. So, no, I don't think a jury will find reasonable doubt with this claim.
 
The report on plant growth will be given to the jury by the SA. THEN the defense will get a chance at the jury. It will be then that the defense will try to cast reasonable doubt.

Another words, the jury will have all ready heard the report.. days, maybe weeks.. before they start hearing all those folks make those claims.

Many animated faces will be much more rememberable then a dry report, given by a person trying to be 'netural', hence, not very animated face.

That is why science evidence doesn't always hold up with juries. The person has to be neutral. Folks are swayed by emotion.

Yet, if the person showed emotion, it would be used by defense to show that it would effect the interpretation of the tests, etc.
 
I agree about the "dry" science reports. Didn't the SA have a video showing the topopgraphy though? That might stick in their minds.
 
I think we have a recent thread on this topic.if anyone knows which one it is, please let me know and maybe i can connect them to make this thread 2. I am getting ready for work and don't have time to look. Thanks everyone.
 
If she was movd then it was LEE in my opinion..............
but as a juror I would not buy the fact that she is innocent.
She deserves the death penalty and her family needs time in jail
to think about their part in all of this. JMOO
 
O/T
Hey I just realized I am over 8000 posts..........to many crimes lately!
 
justthinkin said:
Video: Casey
http://www.cfnews13.com/MediaPlayer2...al&title=Casey

Article:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2...e_experts.html

To all you sleuthers with far more energy to keep up with this case than I ever will, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think the jury will buy it? Can you make a good argument against Baez's claim or for it?

Baez is lining up interviews with all the searchers who claim they were in those woods off Hopespring Drive, and didn't see anything, from LEOs to Dominic, to Texas Equisearch volunteers, a psychic, and so on.

I have never seen a defense abandon more strategies than this one. Is that something that can be discussed during the trial? I'm asking because I don't know. It sure seems relevant though.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many people he lines up - not seeing something is not the same as it not being there. You can't prove a negative, and this cannot prove that KC is innocent.

All the defense can do is attempt to introduce doubt in the minds of the jurors regarding whether Caylee's body was there prior to KC's incarceration. Each juror will then have to decide, based on plain old common sense, whether or not that doubt is reasonable to them.

Richard Hornsby posted an excellent post on reasonable doubt in his thread.

Be back in a minute with a link to it...

ETA: I love the way Richard makes things concise and easy to understand:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4506182&postcount=112"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2[/ame]

and here's another:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4506227&postcount=116"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2[/ame]

MOO
 
In my humble opinion, of course. The science that we all read in the documents were indeed read, not listened to. The reports are scientific and were not explained in laymens terms. We are the average jury pool, mixed ages and backgrounds, so unless the court picks a jury pool that cannot read or write then it is a fair bet that the "average Joe" will certainly understand the reports of plant material growth and will be able to add 1+1 and come to the logical explanation that Caylee was in the woods the entire time.

I suppose I almost become offended by the notion that the defense would ascertain that the majority of the "average Joe's" cannot understand logic or scientifically proven reports of plant growth that remained undisturbed for months allowing roots to grow through the skeletal remains. I believe it was in the 4th grade that I had to do a science report using Hypothesis, Theory, materials, experiment with controls, observations and conclusion.
The scientists didn't misinterpret anything, it's all there for the jury to read without needing oral commentary.
 
The defense looks more desperate as each week goes by. Grasping at straws is an understatement here. I can't imagine any jury imaginative enough to follow the defense's apparent theory:

Caylee somehow being taken by "Zanny" and then passed along to Roy Kronk, who held on to the body while KC partied so he could plant it near her house after she got arrested!?

If there wasn't a murder involved this would be comedy of almost Pythonesque proportions. Enjoy your DP, KC. If you really want out of it, try confessing. :Banane15:
 
Would not be surprised if an expert were to testify as to the process of decomposition and how it would effect a body, or remains as the case would be, that was "constantly moved" from one place to another. In the Florida heat and given a few days, not something that could easily be done. I would think after 2.6 days KC was ready to dump the body and picked the place she knew well. JMO, but I think the jury will feel the same way because it makes more sense then someone else moving the remains around town. Defense getting too far fetched with their theories and they will need a truckload will just turn the jury off.
 
justthinkin said:
Video: Casey
http://www.cfnews13.com/MediaPlayer2...al&title=Casey

Article:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2...e_experts.html

To all you sleuthers with far more energy to keep up with this case than I ever will, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think the jury will buy it? Can you make a good argument against Baez's claim or for it?

Baez is lining up interviews with all the searchers who claim they were in those woods off Hopespring Drive, and didn't see anything, from LEOs to Dominic, to Texas Equisearch volunteers, a psychic, and so on.

I have never seen a defense abandon more strategies than this one. Is that something that can be discussed during the trial? I'm asking because I don't know. It sure seems relevant though.
Click to expand...

-I don't believe the body was placed there after 10/14.
-If it was, it does not exonerate KC necessarily-Rather, it could be used to implicate her own family members as accessories after the fact
-KC at best is not-guilty....But by no means is she innocent!
 
Did this person also put the body in the car for a 2.6 days and then remove it and held on to it until the arrest, release, arrest, release and then arrest of KC then while everyone was searching went in the A's house and got some items that were Caylee's, packed her up and dumped her exactly were searchers were searching but didn't see anything. Let us not forget this person also knew that KC was a cold hearted monster and would not report her daughter missing or care that she was gone and would lie for them in order to give them more time to plan their dump and frame of KC.

RIDICULOUS theory -

Baez should go in there with the theory that there is a REAL ZANNY but that she must have used this as an alias and that KC did not report Caylee missing because she thought Zanny would not hurt Caylee, but then when the heat of the media was in full affect - Zanny got scared, killed Caylee and dumped her.

That to me is atleast somewhat possible on another planet somewhere.
 
I still don't see where even IF the body was moved that it would prove anything other than that the body was moved. Casey could have murdered Caylee and if someone moved the body after that, the fact she murdered Caylee hasn't changed, right? What am I missing here?
 
Horace Finklestein said:
I still don't see where even IF the body was moved that it would prove anything other than that the body was moved. Casey could have murdered Caylee and if someone moved the body after that, the fact she murdered Caylee hasn't changed, right? What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

IMO If the defense somehow proves the remains were placed there while KC was in jail, it doesn’t prove she is not guilty. It would however bring reasonable doubt to some of the theories some us have about what we think the LE timeline is on this case.
 
justthinkin said:
Video: Casey
http://www.cfnews13.com/MediaPlayer2...al&title=Casey

Article:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2...e_experts.html

To all you sleuthers with far more energy to keep up with this case than I ever will, what are your thoughts about this? Do you think the jury will buy it? Can you make a good argument against Baez's claim or for it?

Baez is lining up interviews with all the searchers who claim they were in those woods off Hopespring Drive, and didn't see anything, from LEOs to Dominic, to Texas Equisearch volunteers, a psychic, and so on.

I have never seen a defense abandon more strategies than this one. Is that something that can be discussed during the trial? I'm asking because I don't know. It sure seems relevant though.
Click to expand...

Hahaha - I hit the article bar to read the article and it came up "Bad Request" - I think that says it all!
 
The report regarding the scattering of the remains also concluded that the body parts were separated (sorry :( ) early in the decomposition process--i.e., while certain body parts were still connected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 142 more.
Total: 3,711 (members: 143, guests: 3,568)

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,568
Total visitors
3,711
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,532
Messages
17,954,050
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top