Well, lord, which was it? Was the bone buried by a wild coyote or a highly trained retriever?
A flood. In this instance, a flood happened. A hurricane went through; the area flooded.
Here’s my take on the “It was George” theory (aka “The glove didn’t fit!”)
What kind of asshole would George have to be to:
A. Actively kill or allow to die by accident his own granddaughter?
B. Watch your daughter be investigated, arrested, and sit in jail while you go through this trial.
C. Let your own daughter take the rap for it, which could include the death penalty.
George might be a creeper, but you’d pretty much have to be a complete psychopath to watch your granddaughter die, hide the body, cover up the crime, and then throw your own kid under the bus for it.
Can you imagine that conversation? “Sorry, honey, but I killed your daughter. I wasn’t watching and she drowned. So I buried her in the backyard. You pretend to look for her for a month and we’ll pretend like we don’t know anything about it. Then you get arrested, go through a trial and go to jail for the rest of your life. See? Daddy’s got your back!”
George was a COP. That makes no sense.
Does the fact that no DNA was found on the duct tape not bother those who are sure Anthony is guilty? To make the leap from the mere presence of duct tape with the skeletal remains to Anthony thus obviously used it to suffocate her daughter is preposterous. Also, if the duct tape was attached to the bones when found, how did that happen? How did the skin decompose, and the duct tape then magically reattach itself to the bones? Mind you, I’m not saying she didn’t use duct tape to kill her child, just that the duct tape evidence as presented doesn’t prove very much at all.
At no point did I realize that the duct tape was the assumed murder weapon. Haven’'t been watching the trial, though.
The tape being attached to the bone after the skin decomposed doesn’t seem strange to me at all. Especially given the damp environment and the flooding … wadded-up paper will stick to rock, too.
So she was smart enough to look for chloroform and put the body in plastic bags, but not smart enough to use gloves?
Even her parents attorney expressed that they didn’t believe she was innocent last night. They just don’t want her to get the death penalty.
She was the last one seen with an alive Caylee.
6 people identified the smell in her car as that of a decomposing human.
Hair was found with post mortum banding in her trunk.
2 cadaver dogs hit independently on the smell in the trunk and in a specific spot in the back yard.
According to Dr.Vass, there was a high concentration of chloroform in Casey’s trunk.
She lied her ass off and partied for 31 days, knowing her child was dead.
She has 6 felony convictions related to honesty.
The child’s body was wrapped in trash bags and dumped (hidden?)in a wooded area
She claims the child drowned yet she never called 911 or tried in any way to save the child. She just wrapped and tossed the body out like trash.
Yeah, I think she’d guilty.
Hey, plenty of people are saying the mother must be a psychopath based on her supposedly cold behavior
I think they may have overstated the use of duct tape as the murder weapon - it still being there and ‘attached’ to the skelatal remains is certainly head scratching. (I havent seen pictures, the impression I got was a strip of tape (mouth/nose size) which is what bugs me, I likely don’t have enough details). But even if they have the “how” it was done incorrect (or this detail of it) does not raise reasonable doubt, IMHO, as to Casey’s involvment here - its the likely ‘best’ theory on how they could come up with given the evidence.
IOW, given the level of decomp, the time period and no admission, we won’t know the actual cause of death - ever. Given the evidence (duct tape, chloroform searches, evidence of chloroform, etc - ) its a reasonable theory as to the cause. We would need the defense to produce actual evidence of a different cause that fits the details we do know to get to something else - but that still wouldn’t explain Casey’s behaviour.
The presence, or lack there of, of DNA on the duct tape doesn’t concern me given the esposure to the elements.
Yes, but did she kill your kid, hide the body, cover up the crime and sit and watch while you went to trial and prison for it?
I don’t think she’s a psychopath but I don’t know how else to explain her behavior after her daughter died. Is it “compartmentalizing” when you put something horrific or something you’re ashamed of out of your mind? A defense mechanism?
If I was responsible for the death of someone I loved, I’d have to put it away somewhere or I’d go crazy.
I was referring to Caylee’s DNA, not Casey’s. What I’m getting at is that if the tape was at some point attached to Caylee’s skin, it seems there should have been DNA.
And how do we know Casey did the chloroform search, for that matter, or that it was she who put the body in a bag?
We know the following -
1.) the searches were done and that casey had access to that computer
2.) Casey acted suspicious around the contents of the trunk at one point to George
3.) the trunk of Casey’s car had evidence of chloroform and decomp
If Casey had acted more ‘normal’ or had reported the car stolen, or any other number of scenarios, we would all likely see her as the victim here. It is, at this point anyway, the sum of the evidence that points no where other than Casey.
ETA: DNA breaks down pretty quickly when exposed to the elements - espeically ‘trace’ evidence that would have been left in this case
ETA2 : is there any doubt that that is Caylee’s body? what would DNA prove?
Yeah, it’s a reasonable theory. But I don’t see any surefire evidence that proves Casey carried it out. Plausible, but not proven. And correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you are saying the defense has to have a completely different “story” to explain the evidence, rather than just raising doubt as to the prosecution’s theory.
ETA: just saw your post about DNA breaking down. I know nothing about how long that takes, but if it can happen quickly, then I would agree that the lack of DNA isn’t relevant.
I don’t think this necessarily follows. I’m not even sure what the established facts about the tape are at this point. Is this one of those things that the opposing expert witnesses were going back and forth on? Or is it something on which both side’s expert witnesses agree?
My understanding is that DNA is not “super-evidence” that simply defies the laws of nature and can always be reliably collected and used into perpetuity. It seems reasonable to me that not-particularly-long exposure to the sunlight, weather, insects, etc. could render a piece of evidence free of usable DNA.
Is it the case that the tape was found completely “sterile”, in a sense? That there was no organic material of any kind on it? Or were there indeterminate DNA fragments on the tape, but nothing at all usable for forensic analysis?
She should be hanged or shot.
My understanding is that people are routinely convicted on similar levels of evidence – Scott Peterson being a notable example.
(bolding mine) - Sorry if thats the impression I gave - reasonable doubt is what they have to raise - but so far, they haven’t actually attacked the cause of death directly, nor have they raised any theory that fits any of the available evidence (as) presented. IMHO, simply saying “someone else did it some other way” doesn’t raise reasonable doubt, or we would never get any convictions.
Questioning lack of DNA, diference in how long the body might have been in the location, etc - doesn’t do anything to cause me to doubt the prosecutions theory (so far). They would be far better served if one of their experts had said "I could find no evidence of x, y or z instead of differing on ‘levels’ of evidence.
Fair enough.
We know someone did both. This is about where the chain of coincidences becomes ‘I wouldn’t believe this in a movie’ implausible: someone did the web search, and then (according to the defense) her child happened to drown, she told no one and gave no sign anything was wrong, then reported her missing, made up a story about a kidnapping, and then the body happened to turn up near her parents’ house.
At least some of the chloroform searches were done when no one but Casey was at home.
I think the stench in Casey’s car is the smoking gun. Her mom mentioned the smell when she made the 911 call, and George choked up when he testified about the smell at the tow yard and wondering if Casey’s or Caylee’s body was in the trunk.