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

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

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.

I agree with you, magnolia, with 100% certainty. Typically, scientific data is not (and can never be) 100%. That's the "nature of the beast"... in scientific research you do not PROVE anything with 100% certainty...EVER.

My point is that if anyone here expects the defense (OR the prosecution) to prove anything relating to scientific data to the degree that they are "100% certain", then they're CRAZY. No sane scientist is going to present the conclusions that they draw from an experiment as if it's 100% accurate... because ALL GOOD science takes error into account. Saying that you're 100% certain in a laboratory report REALLY IS "junk science" (as CA likes to call it)... presenting information in the way that it has been so far in this case is NOT "junk science".

ETA: You may notice that I said I agree with magnolia with 100% certainty... I'm allowed to say that because my OPINION is NOT scientific data. Hope this makes sense

ETA#2: I really hope CA isn't silly enough to think we've overlooked her presence.... 'cause I sure haven't overlooked it! Hope I don't get in trouble for shooting her a quick "Hi, CA!" since I KNOW she's reading here...

 

[logicalgirl]

From what I've heard from the Defense, they aren't going to be able to prove anything, let alone anything scientific!

 

[RR0004]

I agree with you, magnolia, with 100% certainty. Typically, scientific data is not (and can never be) 100%. That's the "nature of the beast"... in scientific research you do not PROVE anything with 100% certainty...EVER.

My point is that if anyone here expects the defense (OR the prosecution) to prove anything relating to scientific data to the degree that they are "100% certain", then they're CRAZY. No sane scientist is going to present the conclusions that they draw from an experiment as if it's 100% accurate... because ALL GOOD science takes error into account. Saying that you're 100% certain in a laboratory report REALLY IS "junk science" (as CA likes to call it)... presenting information in the way that it has been so far in this case is NOT "junk science".

ETA: You may notice that I said I agree with magnolia with 100% certainty... I'm allowed to say that because my OPINION is NOT scientific data. Hope this makes sense

ETA#2: I really hope CA isn't silly enough to think we've overlooked her presence.... 'cause I sure haven't overlooked it! Hope I don't get in trouble for shooting her a quick "Hi, CA!" since I KNOW she's reading here...

A shout out to Cindy...priceless. Now that just about made my day!

 

[Eidetic]

http://www.onetruemedia.com/shared?p=a243064bc56f3e0c27a1a6&skin_id=601

 

[Eidetic]

You could be right about that, I don't know what colour decomp fluid is. (Anybody?)

But wouldn't the prosecution have released that if it had tested positive, like they released the hair evidence? The bottom of that dumpster looks pretty wet, I think it is rusty water.

I believe the procedure would be to photograph the dumpster as it appear before logging the trash in as evidence. Which means, not likely it had been turned from where it initially lie when tossed in to acquire such an appearance from the bottom of the dumpster.

I have been curious about that hard to miss imprint on the side of that garbage bag as well AZ.

 

[cyberborg]

I believe the procedure would be to photograph the dumpster as it appear before logging the trash in as evidence. Which means, not likely it had been turned from where it initially lie when tossed in to acquire such an appearance from the bottom of the dumpster.

I have been curious about that hard to miss imprint on the side of that garbage bag as well AZ.

I agree.

I was in two minds about this but the sludge in the dumpster would have left more of a wet runny imprint in my mind -- this is more like a sticky print like an ink fingerprint. Obviously the forensic testing can tell what it is/source.

Either way, the dumpster looked fairly empty and if that is how the bag was tossed and landed then contamination to the inside of the bag is less likely.

 

[notthatsmart]

OK. Let's move on. This is just a circular argument. There is no way to come to a conclusion on this topic. If the experts are to be challenged, they need to be challenged by experts.
No offense to you or anyone else NTS, but I don't think any of us on this board have enough intimate knowledge with these lab results to challenge the expert analysis to this degree.
It is now noted how everyone is interpreting the results and that is about as far as we can take it for now. There is zero value in going around and around on this topic so I am asking you to move on to other evidence because this is a dead end.
Just to clarify, it is not a dead end because the experts are always right, it is a dead end because we do not have the expertise to challenge the results and their meaning at this point.

We have one verified resident chemist that can weigh in if she feels as though this is her area of expertise but that is about it. there is no one else qualified on this board to take this discussion any farther and even at that it would just be their interpretation as well.

Come trial, when they put other experts on the stand it may be a whole new ballgame, but for now this is just an exercise in frustration.

thanks.

Sorry Jbean, thanks for reminding me when it gets to that circular motion where it always becomes someones opinion or interpretation. Appreciate you stepping in. thanks

 

[joypath]

To answer a few queries: decomposition fluid takes on a yucky (scientific term!) brownish color resembling brackish slimy rusty water. Lots of fantastic chemical reactions occur but the basic thing is the body leaks and all that fluid gets old looking and smelly.
The principle of crime scene photography: snap it twice or more, then move it!

 

[ynotdivein]

So far the public does not have all the information, in fact we may not even have all the information on the trunk evidence. No matter how intelligent we are, no matter how much what we do know points in one direction, without all the facts that are going to be presented we cannot know the correct answer.

To demonstrate in this thread

A = forensic evidence for trunk = 1
+
B = 99% believe evidence = 1
=
1+1= 2 2 equals KC is guilty

No math whiz here, but we aren't including one significant number in this equation: 31.

This is part is simple and basic, but if you add intangibles it changes everything, and at trial these intangibles will be presented.

C = possible evidence from defense, cross examination by defense = ?

I see and appreciate your point, but the defense will have to put up some serious numbers to make this all add up to more than a squirrel carcass or some decaying trash... To all appearances, they have nothing. Granted, they might be holding out on us.

Hypothetical Bombshell after trial. KC Acquitted! KC admits to murdering her child, but never had her in the trunk. She walks free today because the trunk evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the child was in the trunk.

Nightmare.

 

[InspectorGadget]

I'm adding a huge AMEN to the round robin discussion points covered and adding a tiny detail: the SA has to bring the jury into the entire scene where the death of this adorable child was orchestrated and completed by the defendant. That means tying all the ends and pieces together: the car, the house, the dump site. IMO: THERE HAS TO BE MORE scientific material out there, what we've seen so far again IMO, should have forced any realistic human being and defense team to run to the nearest PLEA BARGAIN STORE!

IMO: The defense team per se is counting on the razzle and dazzle 'em approach, overwhelm the jury with technical terms and make 'em fall asleep at the wheel like OJ; sorry not this time!

Surely there has to be more? Well, we know there is more because we have some missing pages....or is that just me? Could have missed them....

 

[noonie]

Just to add. There were food containers. The big black one. There was a stoufers bag. There were bags at the end of the table that you could not tell what were in them. (Dr Lee said bags of food). There should be up close pictures of each item, there should be bench notes. There is so much missing from discovery, it makes me sick.

I think this whole thing is based on Dr Vass only being given a couple chapters out of a whole book to make a determination. He deserved the right to know about everything in that trunk. As a matter of fact, he email Yuri asking for the inventory. Dr Vass or the fbi need to come clean with the adipocere. We all need to know if it is or isn't.

Yes, ther IS a lot of stuff missing that I would like to see also and it doesn't pertain to food stuff! More like items that should have never been washed or discarded by Cindy or George!!!!:banghead:

 

[magic-cat]

Dr. Lee never returned, in a year. That is the alpha and the omega. He is a very wealthy man. He has stated publicly he was on this case pro bono. He could afford to have visited Florida many, many times over this year. He has not.The only explanation for him not returning is the defense did like his opinion of what he gleamed from searching the car. There is no other, absolutely no other inference one may draw from his absence FOR A YEAR, imo.

I agree completely! Dr. Lee surely KNOWS the smell of decomp, and one single wiff of that car was likely ALL he needed to know to determine there was indeed a dead body inside of that car at some point. So, from there, we move on to whom is dead? Well, Caylee is so it stands to reason that the dead body in the trunk of Casey's car was indeed Caylee...especially since no other persons associated with Casey seem to be dead or otherwise missing?

Another thing about the "experts" for the defense? None of them has examined ANY of the evidence whatsoever...in ALL this time. What does THAT reveal to us? The evidence speaks for itself and they KNOW what it is saying...It is saying Caylee Marie is dead. She was missing for over a MONTH unreported by her mother. The thing that finally brought her to BE reported was the SMELL of a dead body in the "damn car" and the fact that Caylee was nowhere to be found...until later, when her BONES were found, discarded thoughlessly and without care by the side of the road near her home, a place familiar to her mother, whom she was last known to be with as a LIVE child...

The evidence nearly screams out that Caylee was inside her mothers car, inside of the trunk, dead, until such a time as she was removed and thrown out like garbage. The jury should have little to NO problem reaching this same conclusion...I know I had zero problem with it myself.:furious:

 

[MissJames]

I agree completely! Dr. Lee surely KNOWS the smell of decomp, and one single wiff of that car was likely ALL he needed to know to determine there was indeed a dead body inside of that car at some point. So, from there, we move on to whom is dead? Well, Caylee is so it stands to reason that the dead body in the trunk of Casey's car was indeed Caylee...especially since no other persons associated with Casey seem to be dead or otherwise missing?

Another thing about the "experts" for the defense? None of them has examined ANY of the evidence whatsoever...in ALL this time. What does THAT reveal to us? The evidence speaks for itself and they KNOW what it is saying...It is saying Caylee Marie is dead. She was missing for over a MONTH unreported by her mother. The thing that finally brought her to BE reported was the SMELL of a dead body in the "damn car" and the fact that Caylee was nowhere to be found...until later, when her BONES were found, discarded thoughlessly and without care by the side of the road near her home, a place familiar to her mother, whom she was last known to be with as a LIVE child...

The evidence nearly screams out that Caylee was inside her mothers car, inside of the trunk, dead, until such a time as she was removed and thrown out like garbage. The jury should have little to NO problem reaching this same conclusion...I know I had zero problem with it myself.:furious:

bbm
Can Henry Lee be called by the Prosecution as a witness? Is he protected by client privilige?