Rehashing, debating and discussing the evidence

[natsound]

Does, not providing the answer to that question prove there was no food in the maggot infested white trash bag, legally yes, but does that remove reasonable doubt as to whether there was food in there, for most yes, for me, not so much.

Without food being in the white trash bag, we have what exactly in evidence that caused the odor? We have a single hair with apparent decomp, but I doubt that has any odor at all. We have an adipocere like fatty substance in the white trash bag, that can't be the odor according to everyone because when the trash bag was removed the odor remained.

snipped

I hate to argue these things, especially now that the trial is over, but I think when you take the (very, very, very thin) gray area on whether there was food in the trash bag, coupled with the adipocere on the paper towels in the bag, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead body was in the vicinity of the paper towels and the bag. The hair found in the trunk with decomp tells me that body was in the trunk.

 

[bayouland]

snipped

I hate to argue these things, especially now that the trial is over, but I think when you take the (very, very, very thin) gray area on whether there was food in the trash bag, coupled with the adipocere on the paper towels in the bag, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead body was in the vicinity of the paper towels and the bag. The hair found in the trunk with decomp tells me that body was in the trunk.

BBM and don't forget the cadaver dog too.

 

[natsound]

snipped

I hate to argue these things, especially now that the trial is over, but I think when you take the (very, very, very thin) gray area on whether there was food in the trash bag, coupled with the adipocere on the paper towels in the bag, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead body was in the vicinity of the paper towels and the bag. The hair found in the trunk with decomp tells me that body was in the trunk.[/QUOTE]

BBM and don't forget the cadaver dog too.

Oh yeah! The cadaver dog hits were clear-cut evidence IMO. That's what they're for, for goodness sakes!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

snipped

I hate to argue these things, especially now that the trial is over, but I think when you take the (very, very, very thin) gray area on whether there was food in the trash bag, coupled with the adipocere on the paper towels in the bag, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead body was in the vicinity of the paper towels and the bag. The hair found in the trunk with decomp tells me that body was in the trunk.

I think these things are exactly the types of things that caused problems for the jury. I think the prosecution failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt about these things. If the prosecution had been successful in proving there was a body in the trunk, beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no room for arguments.

For example, the hair found in the trunk with apparent decomp says to you there was a body in the trunk. Yet, the FBI expert could not determine whether the hair came from a live Caylee or a dead Caylee. This leaves reasonable doubt.

Another example, the adipocere:
Fatty acids, such as the ones detected (palmitic, etc.), indicate a fat decomposition product like adipocere(grave wax) present on the paper towels::: is another part of this trial that truly baffles me. If it is a substance like adipocere then it is not adipocere.
Either it is adipocere or it is not adipocere. Why did no one test it to see if it was or it was not?
Someone asked me what would it take to get me off the fence and onto the prosecutions side of this trial. If someone would test the substance and confirm that it is indeed adipocere, that would pretty much make all the rest fall into place for me. A simple little test. Especially if that test can confirm it is human adipocere. To me the one and only reason the experts for the prosecution did not confirm that this was human adipocere with a test, is because it is not human adipocere and they know it.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[21merc7]

What solid evidence was there besides one single strand of hair that could have easily fallen off of CA into the trunk after she held her dead baby?

If the body was in the trunk, so carefully wrapped up... why were their no fibres from the laundry bag found in the car?

If the body had been in the trunk for a whole month decomp fluid should have leaked onto the trunk carpet. No blood and no DNA found?

Cindy thoroughly cleaned the trunk and admitted as such. Not sure if anyone else cleaned more or not, but Cindy did. Threw out articles and washed some.

 

[natsound]

What else is in garbage but usually food waste?

One hair.... why not dozens? That hair could easily have fallen off of CA and into the trunk after she held her dead baby before she left the house and let her Dad bury her.

The hair is not conclusive the child was ever in the trunk. Only that one strand of hair got into the trunk.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but it depends on if you believe "one and one equals two" theories or not. There was a decomp hair in the trunk because it fell off a dead body. To say CA and GA were in on it and were willing to bury Caylee is not supported by any evidence at all. CA wouldn't have called 911 to report the smell of a dead body in the damn car if she had just had a hand in disposing of the dead body in the damn car.

 

[M.James]

Have I mentioned lately that I believe Casey's guilty?

State never had to prove to me that Casey killed her baby. Casey proved it herself before the trial ever started.

I was convinced of her guilt the second I heard her calm voice say that her baby had been missing for 31 days. I would have suspected something fishy had she said 3 days. I would have been suspicious had she said her two year old had been missing for several hours before she told anyone. Too many minutes missing is enough to send me into a panic and have me on the phone, and in tears.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Cindy thoroughly cleaned the trunk and admitted as such. Not sure if anyone else cleaned more or not, but Cindy did. Threw out articles and washed some.

If it is true that CA thoroughly cleaned the trunk, then the trunk evidence is all tainted, and unreliable. Neither the defense, nor the prosecution made the claim that the trunk evidence was tainted by CA cleaning it.

 

[natsound]

For example, the hair found in the trunk with apparent decomp says to you there was a body in the trunk. Yet, the FBI expert could not determine whether the hair came from a live Caylee or a dead Caylee. This leaves reasonable doubt.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

snipped

The hair with the death band proved that it came from a dead Caylee. Hair that falls off a living person does not develop a death band.

 

[LambChop]

I think these things are exactly the types of things that caused problems for the jury. I think the prosecution failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt about these things. If the prosecution had been successful in proving there was a body in the trunk, beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no room for arguments.

For example, the hair found in the trunk with apparent decomp says to you there was a body in the trunk. Yet, the FBI expert could not determine whether the hair came from a live Caylee or a dead Caylee. This leaves reasonable doubt.

Another example, the adipocere:
Fatty acids, such as the ones detected (palmitic, etc.), indicate a fat decomposition product like adipocere(grave wax) present on the paper towels::: is another part of this trial that truly baffles me. If it is a substance like adipocere then it is not adipocere.
Either it is adipocere or it is not adipocere. Why did no one test it to see if it was or it was not?
Someone asked me what would it take to get me off the fence and onto the prosecutions side of this trial. If someone would test the substance and confirm that it is indeed adipocere, that would pretty much make all the rest fall into place for me. A simple little test. Especially if that test can confirm it is human adipocere. To me the one and only reason the experts for the prosecution did not confirm that this was human adipocere with a test, is because it is not human adipocere and they know it.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

When you take circumstancial evidence one piece at a time you can say it may be viable or it may not. I can believe it, or I have my doubts. We are not talking about one piece of evidence. We are talking about overwhelming circumstancial evidence that if the jury had chosen to use JB's Postit Board and listed them one by one it would become obvious to the observer that only one person was responsible for the death of her child.

So singling out one piece of evidence or two is really not significant if it is circumstancial because you are just not seeing the whole picture. Some will believe the evidence some will not. It's the totality of the circumstances that we must consider that will get you to the point that she did it. jmo

 

[natsound]

Cindy thoroughly cleaned the trunk and admitted as such. Not sure if anyone else cleaned more or not, but Cindy did. Threw out articles and washed some.

Just thinking out loud (well, on the keyboard), but didn't others who testified say the trunk was not thoroughly cleaned?

 

[Mrs. Holmes]

Thank you.

Unlike you, I don't feel I need to connect the dots. I don't need searches for how to make chloroform on the Ants computer to tie FCA to the chloroform. That would just be lagniappe (extra) as we say in Louisiana.

The evidence proved there was a ridiculous level of chloroform in FCA's trunk and that Caylee Marie was in that trunk. That is all I need.

I believe Caylee was sedated more than once by chloroform and more than likely other things as well but that doesn't matter either. Why? Because it only takes once and it is felony child abuse. There are times that Caylee was not around FCA and she wasn't with Grama. Where was she? This is written somewhere in all the pages and pages of documents and I really don't want to dig through them but I remember reading it.

I believe if that evidence was there (that the baby was not accounted for and left alone possibly drugged) the prosecution would have brought it to the surface to support their claims.

The baby's hair strands were tested for a huge list of drugs and they all turned up negative.

 

[LambChop]

If it is true that CA thoroughly cleaned the trunk, then the trunk evidence is all tainted, and unreliable. Neither the defense, nor the prosecution made the claim that the trunk evidence was tainted by CA cleaning it.

I doubt she cleaned it with chloroform.

 

[Mrs. Holmes]

When you take circumstancial evidence one piece at a time you can say it may be viable or it may not. I can believe it, or I have my doubts. We are not talking about one piece of evidence. We are talking about overwhelming circumstancial evidence that if the jury had chosen to use JB's Postit Board and listed them one by one it would become obvious to the observer that only one person was responsible for the death of her child.

So singling out one piece of evidence or two is really not significant if it is circumstancial because you are just not seeing the whole picture. Some will believe the evidence some will not. It's the totality of the circumstances that we must consider that will get you to the point that she did it. jmo

I agree. I can not come up with a big enough list of circumstancial evidence to agree with guilty. What is on your list? Almost everything that the prosecution brought forward became moot during cross examinations and expert witnesses.

IMO

 

[natsound]

IMO there comes a time when you have to look at the totality of the evidence, even in a serious murder case like this one, when so much is on the line. There are very, very small windows of opportunity and arguments over evidence that can be made. But in this case, they amount to arguing that the world is flat. We don't see it, we only see pictures of a globe and believe all the textbooks that tell us it's round. But we don't really know, do we, unless we go up in space and look for ourselves!

If we dissect and nitpick and split too many hairs, then IMO we let guilty people go free. That is not the result anyone wants.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Please explain what you think happened. Thanks.

**The following is a theory I had come up with before the trial began

When KC found Caylee's drowned body in the pool, she immediately went into the denial stage. She lay Caylee down near her little mailbox to play. Late that afternoon, she wrapped Caylee in her blanket, in a cocoon fashion and placed 3 pieces of duct tape on the blanket to ensure it didn't unfold, even placing a heart shaped sticker on the tape to show she loved her. While KC was wrapping Caylee in the blanket, a single strand of Caylee's hair caught on KC's watch. She placed the blanket wrapping Caylee, inside the laundry bag and carried her out to the car, placing her in the trunk. While placing her in the trunk, the single strand of hair slipped off her watch and fell into the trunk. She went back inside and gathered a few of Caylee's things and placed them in a plastic garbage bag. She had grabbed 2 bags, but only needed one and she placed it inside the first one. She then took this out to the trunk of her car. She drove around the corner to the wooded area. She took Caylee and the plastic bag with her things into the woods. She took the extra garbage bag out and laid it on the ground, somewhat under the log. She took the wrapped Caylee from the laundry bag and laid her on the garbage bag. She tied the plastic bag with her things so they wouldn't get lost, then took the plastic bag and the laundry bag and layed them beside her. In her denial stage, she thought she was laying Caylee down in a nice safe place, wrapped in a womblike way. She drove away and went to her boyfriends. Between the animals, bugs, and the tropical storm, the scene as KC had left it had changed drastically. The duct tape that had been keeping the blanket from unfolding, had been dislodged from animal activity, tropical storm, and deterioration, coming to rest next to Caylee's skull, and became attached to the hair mass and the mandible from root growth and weather conditions. The "garbage" in the trunk was not trash, but garbage (it became trash after being cleaned and placed in the drying room), was the cause of the horrendous odor.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[LambChop]

I believe there are components of Fabreze that could release chloroform, along with the gasoline and the garbage items.

There is no chloroform in Fabreze and if you ask them at corporate headquarters they will tell you so, as they have answered inquiries made by some of the WSer's here. There is zero proof, zero. It was tested as pure chloroform on that one carpet sample, not gasoline, not garbage. That is what was proven by the state, not gasoline, not garbage. Not proven to be anything in the trunk by the defense experts. Only that there was chloroform but that it could not be connected to anything that was visibly seen in the trunk. jmo

 

[Mrs. Holmes]

Oh yeah! The cadaver dog hits were clear-cut evidence IMO. That's what they're for, for goodness sakes!

The cadaver dog hits also back up the drowing theory. I believe there was a hit on the trunk of the car? That could have been because an item that was on the dead baby did end up in the car at one point but not necessarily the body.

 

[natsound]

**The following is a theory I had come up with before the trial began

When KC found Caylee's drowned body in the pool, she immediately went into the denial stage. She lay Caylee down near her little mailbox to play. Late that afternoon, she wrapped Caylee in her blanket, in a cocoon fashion and placed 3 pieces of duct tape on the blanket to ensure it didn't unfold, even placing a heart shaped sticker on the tape to show she loved her. While KC was wrapping Caylee in the blanket, a single strand of Caylee's hair caught on KC's watch. She placed the blanket wrapping Caylee, inside the laundry bag and carried her out to the car, placing her in the trunk. While placing her in the trunk, the single strand of hair slipped off her watch and fell into the trunk. She went back inside and gathered a few of Caylee's things and placed them in a plastic garbage bag. She had grabbed 2 bags, but only needed one and she placed it inside the first one. She then took this out to the trunk of her car. She drove around the corner to the wooded area. She took Caylee and the plastic bag with her things into the woods. She took the extra garbage bag out and laid it on the ground, somewhat under the log. She took the wrapped Caylee from the laundry bag and laid her on the garbage bag. She tied the plastic bag with her things so they wouldn't get lost, then took the plastic bag and the laundry bag and layed them beside her. In her denial stage, she thought she was laying Caylee down in a nice safe place, wrapped in a womblike way. She drove away and went to her boyfriends. Between the animals, bugs, and the tropical storm, the scene as KC had left it had changed drastically. The duct tape that had been keeping the blanket from unfolding, had been dislodged from animal activity, tropical storm, and deterioration, coming to rest next to Caylee's skull, and became attached to the hair mass and the mandible from root growth and weather conditions. The "garbage" in the trunk was not trash, but garbage (it became trash after being cleaned and placed in the drying room), was the cause of the horrendous odor.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Why would she do all that? Who goes into denial immediately when they find their child dead? Who would hide their child's dead body unless they had something to do with the child's demise?

 

[LambChop]

The cadaver dog hits also back up the drowing theory. I believe there was a hit on the trunk of the car? That could have been because an item that was on the dead baby did end up in the car at one point but not necessarily the body.

SA did a very good job of painting a picture of what KC was doing on the 16th. About the only time she was not texting, on the computer, or on her phone was in the late afternoon hours when pings show her away from the A's residence. If something happened during this timeframe when she wasn't texting or on the phone but was still away from the residence how did Caylee die by drowning. Unless the trunk was full of water I don't see how this is possible.

So what you are saying is that Caylee drowned and yet KC continued to text, make phone calls and work on the computer while her child lay dying. Interesting. jmo