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

It seems like one would have to assume that the jury is full of experts on decomp smell, otherwise they already have to take someone else's word that the car smelled like decomp. If that's the case I would rather just take the person's word who says it smells like decomp without having to smell those cans.

I wasn't able to watch today - do they also want to make the jury smell the garbage/trash? Will there be a sample of known decomp to compare this alleged decomp smell to? The jury is not getting paid enough for this...

I don't think the can demo will actually come off. Too prejudicial, likely to find an appellate court that will agree. Besides, if the DT refuses to acknowledge that the body was ever in the car, they will simply contend it's rotten garbage and hence probative of nothing -- thus more prejudicial than probative.

MOO
 
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:

No Smell...No Cell.
 
I agree. I don't understand the point of the cans. People have said the car smelled like decomp and the jury is not full of experts on decomp smell. So what's the point? They smell the cans - what does that mean as far as Casey Anthony's guilt? I think there are plenty of other things that point to her guilt. I would hate to be on a jury and have to do this. I can look at gruesome pictures, but having to smell something like a dead body will make me sick.

I agree...I doubt most people would know decomp from a rotting potato.
 
IMO Only: I don't think that they should have to smell the cans. First of all, if they have never smelled the smell before, it will probably just be a really bad smell to them and nothing that they recognize as being human decomp. Maybe, if they have another air sample that they can say is without doubt, human decomp so that they have a way to compare the smells.(perhaps something from the Body Farm). Second, I believe, knowing what the smell actually is, I think that, personally, for me, I would not want to get involved quite that....personally, for lack of a better term. I know that as a juror they really need to delve in to the case and the evidence to do the right thing, but for some reason, that just seems too...personal (??) to me. I really can't grasp the word, but I think most of you know what I am saying.
 
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.

IMO, anyone who has ever smelled human decomposition understands that the jurors will NEVER be allowed to smell the cans. I will eat my hat if this is allowed! The odor is unique. It is never forgotten or mistaken once you have smelled it. It is not an odor similar to road kill or pounds of rotting meat, etc. as per many of the posts on one of the threads here.

I can still summon the odor years later. It defies description. It can permeate the skin for days. One doesn't even have to touch a thing at the scene.

There's plenty to convict. There's no need to smell decomposition for themselves. If a juror or two has a problem that the cans will not be opened for them to smell the odor, they're gonna have to deal with it. I doubt it, though.
 
Marcia Clark said she hopes the judge does not allow the cans to be smelled by jurors...she thinks it is grounds for a reversal if they do.

Just posting what she said...of course, she is gun-shy after the OJ fiasco, which she claims was done against her judgement (the glove.)

I just don't think they need to do it, or that there is any reason for them to do it. They (mostly) won't have anything to compare it to and there are plenty of other people on the stand to do it for them.

JB-just admit that Caylee's body was in the trunk...we all know it. You can dream up other ways she got there, besides via your client, but she was in there...:(
 
I'm leaping from the thread title's analogy to my own little simile;
This "glove" is more like one of those gloves that the rodeo guys wear than a luxury leather glove...you know, the ones that they wrap and wrap with rope and then punch their own fingers down into a fist so that the glove is perfectly molded around their hand?
Yeah, the decomp in this case is like one of those gloves, it fits KC so darn well she can't buck these charges. (Or would she get bucked? :waitasec:)
 
I disagree.

What go OJ off, was the footage showing how the investigators treated the crime scene. Folks might not remember, but back in the 'day', local LE thought their shat didn't stink and could do as they pleased. They were not educated in the fact that they were destroying evidence, nor did they care. Their word was gold, and that was that. Alot of innocent folks were sent to jail.

From A to Z, the evidence was shat. The OJ case exposed it, and showed the shame of it. It was a wake up call to every LE out there. Time to clean up and learn how to do this right.

So yes, "If the Glove doesn't fit", sounded great. But it was more then that. It did point to the possibility that the glove might have been planted. BUT by it's self, it didn't mean a thing. Combine with all the rest, the LE screwed up big time.

We have came along way since then. Labs make double sure that nothing is contaminated. The CSI at the scene does the same thing.

At this point, there is nothing in this case that makes the LE look like they are trying to frame ICA. Which was the case with OJ. There isn't contaminated evidence like OJ, the CSI now have plenty of save guards in place and the local investigators take it seriously as well. So there isn't a bunch of 'supporting' ideas for this.

And I think that is what makes the difference. It just looks like new science, that all ready supports what the SA is stating in trial. People reporting it SMELLS like death. And Dogs hitting on the car, and there IS a dead body that had to be transported some how. IT could be argued that the state is using the Casey case to make it easy to get folks use to this new science. What it's trying to prove, the SA will keep proving the same point by other means. That there was a dead body in that car at some point.

I see your point. I just think that because the science is so new, it would be risky to take this chance. If by chance the smell is not as strong as it once was or the dog does not hit on it, it will throw out the entire air evidence and jurors may think it was trash or pizza. LE is not trying to frame KC. But lets be honest, there is NO evidence of how Caylee died and the car smell is really powerful right now. Don't know if the SA should take the chance. Right now its overwhelming obvious Caylee was in that trunk, why create doubt?
 
There are many reasons why the can should not be opened. First of all, unless you kno exactly whats in there, its a hge risk. The Prosecutors learned this th hard way in the OJ trial. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

The other reason is that our justice system MUST take care not to traumatize juries. Its a very hard call to decide what a "jury of our peers" can be expectcted to handle emotionally. Its just not worht the risk legally, ethically, etc.
 
Will the jury go see the actual car?
If so, I think they will be exposed to the smell.
Bless their hearts.........my DH says you never forget that odor!
He was in Viet Nam.
 
I don't think anybody should be allowed to smell the cans.

Isn't it enough that we all know this poor baby was dumped into garbage bags and left to be eaten by animals in a glorified swamp? Do we really need to experience any more salacious details of her death?

We may not like how the A's have conducted themselves up to now, I know I sure had it in for them- but even I would draw the line at trotting out the last bit of her remains so everyone could have a sniff or stink up the court room for shock value. There's no common decency in that, IMHO. Little Caylee suffered enough. So has her remaining family, aside from one individual. Give the child one final bit of private dignity.

I wouldn't have a problem with the inmate being forced to sit in a sealed cell with an open can though. In fact I think that would make a lovely cherry on top of a guilty verdict.
 
There are many reasons why the can should not be opened. First of all, unless you kno exactly whats in there, its a hge risk. The Prosecutors learned this th hard way in the OJ trial. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

The other reason is that our justice system MUST take care not to traumatize juries. Its a very hard call to decide what a "jury of our peers" can be expectcted to handle emotionally. Its just not worht the risk legally, ethically, etc.

:wagon:

...and I disagree.

These are adults (presumably or once) capable of serving in war for our country, they're big boys and girls and making sure that 1. Casey Anthony does not die unjustly, or 2. A dead little girl gets her justice and 3. a killer is off the streets. This is more important than these jurors' discomfort. Don't know a nicer way to put that...

Now, is it a good strategy to offend their feelings? I don't know, maybe shock works for one side or the other, maybe it will damage the state's case. But I do not think a state should limit, through legislation or rules of procedure, the ability of a jury to be able to rely on (just about) any and everything they can to come to a fair conclusion.

If that can smelled like onions or some other potentially exculpatory odor, JB would want it in, offending or not. The people of the state of Florida get that option as well, no?

ETA-Dunno if that was really a disagreement, just MOO
 
Will the jury go see the actual car?
If so, I think they will be exposed to the smell.
Bless their hearts.........my DH says you never forget that odor!
He was in Viet Nam.

If they must expose the jury to this odor, the car would be the more appropriate way to do it. Even then, I think the judge would have to make it "optional". Some go through their entire lives without ever being exposed to this and I would imagine some hope they never do. This could be traumatic to some jurors.
 
There are many reasons why the can should not be opened. First of all, unless you kno exactly whats in there, its a hge risk. The Prosecutors learned this th hard way in the OJ trial. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"

The other reason is that our justice system MUST take care not to traumatize juries. Its a very hard call to decide what a "jury of our peers" can be expectcted to handle emotionally. Its just not worht the risk legally, ethically, etc.

I totally agree with you. We have expert witnesses to testify on the evidence. We've had several already who have direct experience with decomp say the car definitely smelled of human decomposition. That's enough for me.
 
:wagon:

...and I disagree.

These are adults (presumably or once) capable of serving in war for our country, they're big boys and girls and making sure that 1. Casey Anthony does not die unjustly, or 2. A dead little girl gets her justice and 3. a killer is off the streets. This is more important than these jurors' discomfort. Don't know a nicer way to put that...

Now, is it a good strategy to offend their feelings? I don't know, maybe shock works for one side or the other, maybe it will damage the state's case. But I do not think a state should limit, through legislation or rules of procedure, the ability of a jury to be able to rely on (just about) any and everything they can to come to a fair conclusion.

If that can smelled like onions or some other potentially exculpatory odor, JB would want it in, offending or not. The people of the state of Florida get that option as well, no?

ETA-Dunno if that was really a disagreement, just MOO

What qualifies any on this jury to KNOW the smell of decomp? How would they know what they are smelling to compare it to?
 
Will the Jury be allowed to smell the cans?....

snipped by me

I think a more appropriate question is "will they be FORCED to smell them?"

when this 1st came up, I thought it was more of an off the cuff remark made by LDB in response to some objection about something from the defense - don't remember the exact content as I only get to watch the trial in bits and pieces but it seems I recall something like JB whining about something to the Judge and LDB saying something like "well, we could let the jury smell the canisters for themselves" - I was multi-tasking at the time and watching a feed that was cutting in and out and I could be totally off on what I recall about it - but I really didn't think it was something the state was seriously considering until all the chatter about it on here and various news reports

but I think it is a disgusting idea and totally not necessary and if I were on the jury I would protest in any way that I could - in fact, I think I'd rather the judge put me in jail for a contempt of court charge and throw me off the jury - I really hope that this is not allowed - as someone said earlier, that is simply asking too much of the jurors
 
If they must expose the jury to this odor, the car would be the more appropriate way to do it. Even then, I think the judge would have to make it "optional". Some go through their entire lives without ever being exposed to this and I would imagine some hope they never do. This could be traumatic to some jurors.

I agree. Take the jurors to the car for some other reason. If they smell the decomp smell, then they do. I don't know how strong it would be after 3 years.

I do, personally, know of two cases where people committed suicide in their cars and the cars had to be destroyed. They were never usable again. One person had the car completely detailed and thought the smell was gone, but after selling it, the new owners returned and demanded their money back.
 
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?

He may also ask, You're not a chemist are you?
 
What qualifies any on this jury to KNOW the smell of decomp? How would they know what they are smelling to compare it to?

We don't know unless it was asked in voir dire/selection. However, if given the choice whether to present all non-prejudicial evidence or withhold evidence that goes directly to possession of the body, I believe this prosecution wants to give the jury all available options.
Some of these jurors have not seen pictures of a dead two-year old, completely skeletonized, in a swamp with duct tape around her head. They will have to see that as well and it could be argued that could be just as disturbing if not more to jurors, but jurors see heinous crime scene photos in just about every murder trial. The jurors that saw Nicole Simpson's body will never forget that...and they acquitted.
Of course, as you pointed out, it does not take prior knowledge to know what death looks like...smell is a different deal...
 
IF they get to smell the can, they will have no doubts about Caylee's presence in that trunk. IF they get to smell the can, they'll never be the same. The memory of the smell with stay with them forever.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,779
Total visitors
1,952

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,178
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top