Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"#2

[LambChop]

Keep in mind, we are the laymen. It is easy to point to an expert fbi report, but it won't be cross examined by me the layman. It will be cross examined by a real expert. None of the evidence or reports or experts have been cross examined.

I believe the forum is an excellent way to test defense theories, but no where close a real trial on an even playing field. So yeah, in a forum with the make up of 10 to 1 majority vs minority, it looks good for the majority, but not even close to an even playing field as in a trial. MOO

To quote Logicalgirl: "It is what it is." And from what we see from defense, that is all that it is. Doesn't make the child any less dead nor her mother any less guilty.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Keep in mind, we are the laymen. It is easy to point to an expert fbi report, but it won't be cross examined by me the layman. It will be cross examined by a real expert. None of the evidence or reports or experts have been cross examined.

I believe the forum is an excellent way to test defense theories, but no where close a real trial on an even playing field. So yeah, in a forum with the make up of 10 to 1 majority vs minority, it looks good for the majority, but not even close to an even playing field as in a trial. MOO

Doesn't take an expert to see the truth of this case.

 

[cyberborg]

When you stop and think about it a forum such as Websleuths is an excellent way to test out defense theories to see if they will fly with a jury. It appears the trunk issue needs more work. But we all pretty much figured that out a long time ago.

Not only that but to refine and re-test enhancements. :crazy:

 

[cyberborg]

I don't think he sold out. I just think he KNEW that Casey was behind this entire thing and the smell in the damn car plus the 31 days would convict her and nothing he could say or do would sway a Jury's mind.

Agreed...... isn't that better known as, "choose your battles wisely" and given he never ever returned to complete examination of the car and its content speaks volumes.

I'd love nothing more than to hear the side from the Defense experts, I just don't see them or them developing anything....

 

[MissJames]

What a truly bizarre coincidence it would be if KC's car smelled like a dead body,but her dead toddler did not cause that smell! If true,the universe must have it in for KC for some other reason. The 31 days + the trunk = guilty .

 

[Phumi]

What a truly bizarre coincidence it would be if KC's car smelled like a dead body,but her dead toddler did not cause that smell! If true,the universe must have it in for KC for some other reason. The 31 days + the trunk = guilty .

Exactly! And every test:

Cadaver dogs
Sniff test
hair analysis
adipocere

is inaccurate and shows there was a cadaver in the car...Wow! What are the odds? KC must have done something REALLY bad in a previous life--maybe like murder or something.

 

[cyberborg]

What a truly bizarre coincidence it would be if KC's car smelled like a dead body,but her dead toddler did not cause that smell! If true,the universe must have it in for KC for some other reason. The 31 days + the trunk = guilty .

KC's evolution towards today's karma ......

"Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."
- Unknown

 

[marspiter]

In regards to the scientific evidence in this case about the trunk. I'm kinda reminded about a t-shirt I saw. It had a picture of the Virgin Mary and said abstinence is only 99.999% effective. Now with out getting into any kind of religious debate and I use this example not to offend anyone but because I thought it was pertinent to this discussion.

Science has very few "laws", or things that can be repeated by experimentation with 100% percent surety. That being said there is also a very big distinction between science in the lab and practical application in a real world setting.

No scientist is ever going to speak in absolutes...period. They are always going to use words like "consistent with" or other open ended speech. I think what is happening in this discussion is to much weight has been placed in the open-endedness (new word) of this type of scientific speech.

Meaning that some are seeing "consistent with" and thinking well they didn't say it was with a definitive "yes" and then go on about how it could be something else because the "report" was not definitive.

Which leads me back to that t-shirt. Yeah it isn't 100% but the likely hood of there not being a body in the car and that body not being Caylee is so astronomically slim that no other answer really seems feasible unless someone is just trying to play devil's advocate just to do so.

The evidence is pretty clear and the "experts" have pretty much given the best scientific answer they can....with out stating it is absolute 100% undeniable truth. Which no scientist will.

So yeah it could in the farthest reaches of imagination be lunch meat that caused the smell and all the evidence is just a major coincidence, but the reality is that based on the evidence thus far there was in fact a dead body in that car and it was Caylee....with 99.999% surety.

moo

 

[Tulessa]

In regards to the scientific evidence in this case about the trunk. I'm kinda reminded about a t-shirt I saw. It had a picture of the Virgin Mary and said abstinence is only 99.999% effective. Now with out getting into any kind of religious debate and I use this example not to offend anyone but because I thought it was pertinent to this discussion.

Science has very few "laws", or things that can be repeated by experimentation with 100% percent surety. That being said there is also a very big distinction between science in the lab and practical application in a real world setting.

No scientist is ever going to speak in absolutes...period. They are always going to use words like "consistent with" or other open ended speech. I think what is happening in this discussion is to much weight has been placed in the open-endedness (new word) of this type of scientific speech.

Meaning that some are seeing "consistent with" and thinking well they didn't say it was with a definitive "yes" and then go on about how it could be something else because the "report" was not definitive.

Which leads me back to that t-shirt. Yeah it isn't 100% but the likely hood of there not being a body in the car and that body not being Caylee is so astronomically slim that no other answer really seems feasible unless someone is just trying to play devil's advocate just to do so.

The evidence is pretty clear and the "experts" have pretty much given the best scientific answer they can....with out stating it is absolute 100% undeniable truth. Which no scientist will.

So yeah it could in the farthest reaches of imagination be lunch meat that caused the smell and all the evidence is just a major coincidence, but the reality is that based on the evidence thus far there was in fact a dead body in that car and it was Caylee....with 99.999% surety.

moo

:toast:

 

[notthatsmart]

In regards to the scientific evidence in this case about the trunk. I'm kinda reminded about a t-shirt I saw. It had a picture of the Virgin Mary and said abstinence is only 99.999% effective. Now with out getting into any kind of religious debate and I use this example not to offend anyone but because I thought it was pertinent to this discussion.

Science has very few "laws", or things that can be repeated by experimentation with 100% percent surety. That being said there is also a very big distinction between science in the lab and practical application in a real world setting.

No scientist is ever going to speak in absolutes...period. They are always going to use words like "consistent with" or other open ended speech. I think what is happening in this discussion is to much weight has been placed in the open-endedness (new word) of this type of scientific speech.

Meaning that some are seeing "consistent with" and thinking well they didn't say it was with a definitive "yes" and then go on about how it could be something else because the "report" was not definitive.

Which leads me back to that t-shirt. Yeah it isn't 100% but the likely hood of there not being a body in the car and that body not being Caylee is so astronomically slim that no other answer really seems feasible unless someone is just trying to play devil's advocate just to do so.

The evidence is pretty clear and the "experts" have pretty much given the best scientific answer they can....with out stating it is absolute 100% undeniable truth. Which no scientist will.

So yeah it could in the farthest reaches of imagination be lunch meat that caused the smell and all the evidence is just a major coincidence, but the reality is that based on the evidence thus far there was in fact a dead body in that car and it was Caylee....with 99.999% surety.

moo

Yet, none of the reports said 99.999% surety. Yet they didn't even say likely. Yet they didn't even say most likely. I don't even think they said probably. There are other words to describe. So, I am not sure that these experts are going to agree with Sa anymore than they agree with the defense.

How about some questions for the FBI Dr Vass, and Dr Haskell:

Are you absolutely sure that the dark root at the proximal end of the hair is that of a "human decomposing body"?
Is it your expert opinion sir that Caylee's body was indeed in the trunk?
Did you inspect the trunk yourself?
One hair, one napkin, one component of vfa (butric acid) ? Is that what you would expect to find after a body decomposes in a trunk? or would you expect to find much much more?
Is it adipocere or not Dr Vass?
Were you given the opportunity to inspect all the garbage in the bag to include the bag to help you make a determination? or were you just given a couple pieces? Would you not rather have the bag of garbage along with the carpet to make your determination?
It has been said that the trunk had a basketball sized stain, and the bag also has a basketball sized stain, would you not like to have compared these two things to determine the source of the VFA?
At the body farm, have you found cadavers to produce post mortem death bands at 2.6 days? Or is it normally 6 weeks, 6 months?
After finding the hair on the ground surrounding the skull, would you expect this skull to have been submerged in water at some point? Doesn't hair float Dr Haskell? Do you believe Caylee's skull was ever under water? Could you explain to us, how could a skull possibly be standing upright as you described Dr?
Well, was the body inside any bags or not?

There are a lot of unanswered questions. There is no way that we have determined surety. Moo

 

[MissJames]

Yes,KC still has a lot of questions she has not ,will not answer. But just using common sense, again, many people said they smelled a "dead body" smell in the trunk. Caylee was found dead. She was last seen in that car. You don't need scientists to figure it out.JMOO

 

[AZlawyer]

Yet, none of the reports said 99.999% surety. Yet they didn't even say likely. Yet they didn't even say most likely. I don't even think they said probably. There are other words to describe. So, I am not sure that these experts are going to agree with Sa anymore than they agree with the defense.

How about some questions for the FBI Dr Vass, and Dr Haskell:

Are you absolutely sure that the dark root at the proximal end of the hair is that of a "human decomposing body"?
Is it your expert opinion sir that Caylee's body was indeed in the trunk?
Did you inspect the trunk yourself?
One hair, one napkin, one component of vfa (butric acid) ? Is that what you would expect to find after a body decomposes in a trunk? or would you expect to find much much more?
Is it adipocere or not Dr Vass?
Were you given the opportunity to inspect all the garbage in the bag to include the bag to help you make a determination? or were you just given a couple pieces? Would you not rather have the bag of garbage along with the carpet to make your determination?
It has been said that the trunk had a basketball sized stain, and the bag also has a basketball sized stain, would you not like to have compared these two things to determine the source of the VFA?
At the body farm, have you found cadavers to produce post mortem death bands at 2.6 days? Or is it normally 6 weeks, 6 months?
After finding the hair on the ground surrounding the skull, would you expect this skull to have been submerged in water at some point? Doesn't hair float Dr Haskell? Do you believe Caylee's skull was ever under water? Could you explain to us, how could a skull possibly be standing upright as you described Dr?
Well, was the body inside any bags or not?

There are a lot of unanswered questions. There is no way that we have determined surety. Moo

I too am curious about the reddish-brown stain on the outside of the white bag.
http://marinadedave.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/odor7.jpg

I have heard speculation that it was something from the dumpster, or soil, but wouldn't decomp fluid be that color? I haven't seen any test results on the outside of the bag that I recall....

 

[strawberry]

I originally posted in the other Dead Body Dam Car thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phumi
Well, just to save a little time, let me sum up the thread thus far for any newcomers.

*Car trunk contains hair with mitochondrial DNA that is consistent with Caylee.
*Hair contains dark banding consistent with post-mortem decomposition.
*Trunk contains garbage bag with maggots and coffin flies.
*Garbage bag contains papertowels/napkins with substance consistent with adipocere.
*Air test indicates chemical signature unique to human decomposition.
*Smell in car consistent with human decomposition (multiple reports)
*Owner of car reports smell to friend as coming from death of an animal (not garbage in her trunk.) Car owner leaves car at Amscot. 6 months later (long after garbage bags have been removed) it is reported that the smell of death in the car is still overwhelming.

Car owner's daughter is missing and months later found deceased--packaged like garbage and thrown in the woods 1/4-1/2 mile from car owner's home in garbage bags and laundry hamper consistent to those found in the home. Oh, and a rather rare (according to the manufacturing company) duct tape on her skull--and guess what--that same rather rare duct tape is found on gas cans that are in the home of the car owner and were once in the trunk of the car owner.


Obvious conclusion...All of the above were caused by lunchmeat.


Ladies and gentlemen, Caylee Anthony was killed by a ham sandwhich. The defense rests.
**********************************************************************


Great Summary! And IIRC, the same death bands were found on the hair from Caylee's "hair mat". If and I believe this to be the case, the dark bands were not found on the hair from the hairbrush, some of which must be Caylee's and not the dogs, did not have this band, this strengthens the conclusion that the hair in the trunk was from a dead Caylee.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

Not trying to be snarky...but I want to point out that you probably won't ever hear a scientist say "with 99% surety". We tend to use the word "certainty" or we speak in terms of "confidence intervals". This is because they are terms you use when you're working with statistics... and statistical analysis allows such conclusions to be drawn about scientific data in the first place.

 

[joypath]

Again just adding another layer of information to this discussion: some of the answers will be presented in the lexicon of th examiner's jargonese: for example, one frequently hears Michael Baden, M. D. refer to information/conclusions "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty". (He also has a tendency to slip and call things "medico-legal" rather than forensic but that's my ageism bias showing!). My point: the presentations of the scientific materials will be made I ASSUME within the backdrop of the context, IE. the analytical protocols,standards,controls,guidelines,etc. One would HOPE that those scientific results that are "borderline" or "negative" are presented in exactly the same manner as those which are "positive", thus exhibiting the true nature of science...it serves the victim/truth/justice but NEITHER "SIDE".

The outstanding questions floating around are spectacular, more than likely there are answers to them within the materials retained in the SAO, waiting for the final pre-trial release. As far as we lay persons know, NONE of the State experts have been deposed by the defense (correct?) and none of the defense experts have been deposed or been in contact with the State/parties involved with the case beyond Drs. Lee & Spitz (correct?) as of today. MORE FIREWORKS to follow!

 

[joypath]

DogMom2JoeAndWillie:

LOVE your tag line!

[REAL Chemists do it in tha 'hood... and we periodically do it on the table!]



Thought you'd like to "do it with QC....quality control, after all we do have standards!"

 

[marspiter]

Well, just to save a little time, let me sum up the thread thus far for any newcomers.

*Car trunk contains hair with mitochondrial DNA that is consistent with Caylee.
*Hair contains dark banding consistent with post-mortem decomposition.
*Trunk contains garbage bag with maggots and coffin flies.
*Garbage bag contains papertowels/napkins with substance consistent with adipocere.
*Air test indicates chemical signature unique to human decomposition.
*Smell in car consistent with human decomposition (multiple reports)
*Owner of car reports smell to friend as coming from death of an animal (not garbage in her trunk.) Car owner leaves car at Amscot. 6 months later (long after garbage bags have been removed) it is reported that the smell of death in the car is still overwhelming.

Car owner's daughter is missing and months later found deceased--packaged like garbage and thrown in the woods 1/4-1/2 mile from car owner's home in garbage bags and laundry hamper consistent to those found in the home. Oh, and a rather rare (according to the manufacturing company) duct tape on her skull--and guess what--that same rather rare duct tape is found on gas cans that are in the home of the car owner and were once in the trunk of the car owner.


Obvious conclusion...All of the above were caused by lunchmeat.


Ladies and gentlemen, Caylee Anthony was killed by a ham sandwhich. The defense rests.

All this time I thought it was the Chupacabra.....maybe it left the ham sandwich?

Yeah no matter which way the defense tries to spin it there is just no getting around the evidence on this one. I don't think any jury is going to have a hard time believing Caylee was in the trunk and deceased. No other explanation is "reasonable" in my opinion.

I doubt Casey was hauling a dead pig around in her trunk for doing some whole hog bar-b-q like they do in Georgia. Mmm thats some good vittels.

 

[Tulessa]

All this time I thought it was the Chupacabra.....maybe it left the ham sandwich?

Yeah no matter which way the defense tries to spin it there is just no getting around the evidence on this one. I don't think any jury is going to have a hard time believing Caylee was in the trunk and deceased. No other explanation is "reasonable" in my opinion.

I doubt Casey was hauling a dead pig around in her trunk for doing some whole hog bar-b-q like they do in Georgia. Mmm that's some good vittles.

Pass the grits!

 

[magnolia]

Yet, none of the reports said 99.999% surety. Yet they didn't even say likely. Yet they didn't even say most likely. I don't even think they said probably. There are other words to describe. So, I am not sure that these experts are going to agree with Sa anymore than they agree with the defense.

How about some questions for the FBI Dr Vass, and Dr Haskell:

Are you absolutely sure that the dark root at the proximal end of the hair is that of a "human decomposing body"?
Is it your expert opinion sir that Caylee's body was indeed in the trunk?
Did you inspect the trunk yourself?
One hair, one napkin, one component of vfa (butric acid) ? Is that what you would expect to find after a body decomposes in a trunk? or would you expect to find much much more?
Is it adipocere or not Dr Vass?
Were you given the opportunity to inspect all the garbage in the bag to include the bag to help you make a determination? or were you just given a couple pieces? Would you not rather have the bag of garbage along with the carpet to make your determination?
It has been said that the trunk had a basketball sized stain, and the bag also has a basketball sized stain, would you not like to have compared these two things to determine the source of the VFA?
At the body farm, have you found cadavers to produce post mortem death bands at 2.6 days? Or is it normally 6 weeks, 6 months?
After finding the hair on the ground surrounding the skull, would you expect this skull to have been submerged in water at some point? Doesn't hair float Dr Haskell? Do you believe Caylee's skull was ever under water? Could you explain to us, how could a skull possibly be standing upright as you described Dr?
Well, was the body inside any bags or not?

There are a lot of unanswered questions. There is no way that we have determined surety. Moo

NTS, I believe you are demanding more than the SA will be required to prove. You need scientific certainty. Prosecutors are not required to establish guilt to a 100% scientific certainty. That said, IMO, you may be disappointed because the expert testimony will not satisfy your standard of proof.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

DogMom2JoeAndWillie:

LOVE your tag line!

[REAL Chemists do it in tha 'hood... and we periodically do it on the table!]



Thought you'd like to "do it with QC....quality control, after all we do have standards!"

OHMYGOODNESS! I love that!!! I might just have to steal it from you and add it to my tagline...if you don't mind? :blowkiss:
ETA-I like it because my focus is in Analytical Chemistry... so this quote is SO appropriate!!