Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It has Immie, the hair can be traced as matenrally linking Cindy, Caylee and ICA as the donors....excluding GeorgeWhen I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.
I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since she was reported as missing. I don't want her to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.
On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.
Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, a some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?
Immie
It has also been established that the hair has never been processed, excluding Cindy and ICA
And the length is consistant only with Calyee at the time of June 16th
I'll take your word for that although that is not what has been reported here. It was reported that the hair was of the maternal line but that doesn't mean it was Caylee's and as BH pointed out, hair would be expected in the trunk of both Casey and Caylee. This does not prove murder.
I have read Dabs post about the stain. Had not heard that yet. Again, it seems to prove that the body was in fact in the trunk, but, does it prove that Casey had anything to do with it? Although, I would want to know how the hell she could not have known it was there. If there was an odor why the hell didn't she check the trunk of the car?
Immie
So it's okay for you to put out hypotheses (maybe she did this, maybe she did that), but that makes me wrong and you right. Got it.
How do you know Casey wasn't close to her parents? Got inside information no one but you knows about? According to all the testimony thus far, they were extremely close--so close in fact that Casey 'maybe' felt smothered and needed to lie to escape from the house occasionally to be able to act like a young woman instead of a coddled child who still had Winnie The Pooh decorations in her bedroom at 16 years old.
Not so Maggie, evidence has come in to a rocky relationship.
(bolded) Or....she was a Spiteful bitch who hated that her mother frowned upon her bad mothering skills and left to party and behave like a childless woman
So they say... That's another thing the prosecution did not prove. They based that assumption on George and Cindy's testimony, period, neither of whom had any proof to back their statements either. Just their say-so.
The defense didn't even say otherwise.
The exclusion of Cindy and Casey was not reported here and I watched a little of the "expert witness" on the hair. Are you saying it was excluded because of length as mentioned in your earlier post?
And again, Caylee's hair would be expected to be in the trunk. The fact that it was there does not prove anything at all by itself. Granted there is other evidence.
Immie
Yes, the length and that both woman have had processed hair the sample did not.
Again it was the (death) banded sample, not just any hair.
God damn dude, it has already been made known to everyone...those in the court room, the jury, the Tv viewers, the hobos down the street...at the time the searches were done on CASEY'S computer for chloroform, it was proven that George and Cindy Anthony BOTH were at work!!!!
Anyone can access their home computer from work, and they all had access to the desktop in the Anthony home. But that's beside the point. The search for chloroform could have been an innocent attempt to find out what her boyfriend was driving at when he posted that YouTube thing about chloroforming your girlfriend. Operative words here: COULD HAVE BEEN. So once again, different interpretations can be made of that search. The prosecution chose the one convenient to their case.
Lee Anthony's Interview with LE July 29, 2008
http://humbleopinion.net76.net/interviews/lee anthony.pdf
Page 18/Line 19
LA -- "Yes. Uhm, this was uhm, around midnight. I went and picked up uhm, my
sister's laptop. Uhm, well it's actually my mom's laptop, but you know, my sister
was, she's had it for that past month or so."
Technically, according to Lee Anthony, the laptop was not Casey's.
Just an FYI on that laptop. And the other computer, the desk top -- was not just Casey's. It has been described and referred to numerous times as the "family computer."
So, the facts are that Casey didn't own a computer of her own.
And yes, a home computer can be accessed from anywhere, but I don't know if that would leave a trail on the hard drive or not.
Wrong.
The State doesn't mind if the fact the actual test was done comes in or not. What they don't want to come in is why Agent Savage asked for it.
You should really spend some time reading the case files. They can be quite enlightening.
Did I hear right?
Was there just testimony that there was no DNA profile that fit Caylee Anthony found in the trunk of the car?
If so, the fact that Caylee was in that trunk makes about as much sense as the State's theory that Casey Anthony handled the body of her daughter a minimum of 5 times without leaving one shred of forensic evidence.
Especially when you toss in the supposed outline of a body. How does that happen? How can a body lie in a trunk long enough to leave an outline, but leaves no DNA?
This case baffles me.
Not actually. JB made the point there was no blood. No one said there was
Good work R.D.
Well....Maggie...we're waiting...what's your say now??
Still going with the pool chlorine??
I merely put out food for thought, just as you do. But we're all supposed to unquestionably BELIEVE you, cuz you think of yourself as the new Queen of USMB.
Meow
The DUCT TAPEBut the prosecution didn't offer any other weapon that would have killed her other than MAYBE she was chloroformed, which was unproven. So the defense is merely making that point because they are making drowning the cause of death. Get it?
On the outside of the duct tape, whose DNA was on that duct tape? All of the Anthony's have been excluded.
And the underside of the duct tape -- you know, the tape that the State says was placed on Caylee's mouth and is the murder weapon? There was no DNA at all found on it, in fact Caylee Anthony was excluded from the sticky part of that tape. How does one suffocate by having tape placed over their nose and mouth and not leave DNA?
I don't think the State has proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt, but now let's see what evidence the Defense has to offer.
There was no tissue to sample, it was all decomposed = no DNA to test. It's phony data
It was in the elements for 6 months as well
Exactly what I was thinking. I heard that and thought 'THAT'S YOUR DEFENSE!!!!'
I continue to think it's downright hilarious that so many of you think that peanut gallery comments from blog sites are gospel. Cheney Mason did not say, nor did he intimate, any such thing. But carry on. It takes my mind off a few more serious things I should be thinking about.
Get off your high horse.
The first comment was mine, and right on. The second sourced comment was funny. You are one piss poor sport
The DUCT TAPEBut the prosecution didn't offer any other weapon that would have killed her other than MAYBE she was chloroformed, which was unproven. So the defense is merely making that point because they are making drowning the cause of death. Get it?
On the outside of the duct tape, whose DNA was on that duct tape? All of the Anthony's have been excluded.
And the underside of the duct tape -- you know, the tape that the State says was placed on Caylee's mouth and is the murder weapon? There was no DNA at all found on it, in fact Caylee Anthony was excluded from the sticky part of that tape. How does one suffocate by having tape placed over their nose and mouth and not leave DNA?
I don't think the State has proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt, but now let's see what evidence the Defense has to offer.
There was no tissue to sample, it was all decomposed = no DNA to test. It's phony data
It was in the elements for 6 months as well
Then how come CSI teams can discern dna when they dig up a body years later for some kind of proof? Or is that only on TV? I've actually seen segments on Dr. G where that occurred.
And I'm supposed to know when you're "joking" how?
Especially when you're usually quite insulting and unreasonable whenever anyone has a different opinion, in this thread and everywhere else.
Not true, if you mean me. However, I think in this case, the circumstantial evidence can all be explained away and that is all that the defense must do. They don't have to find the real killer... um if it is not Casey.
As I said, I have not watched the trial, but from what I have seen the prosecution has not done their job very well. We will just have to wait and see.
Immie
Um, apparently you DID miss the DT's opening statement. They profess to know Caylee drowned in the family pool, an accident. According to them, they don't really have to explain away anything. Caylee is dead from an accident. And yes, the trial is still going to have to go on, because ICA, apparently, at this point, is the ONLY witness they have to testify to their so-called story, and she's a pathological liar. Doesn't look good for ICA, nor should it, based upon the evidence.
Just curious, what does the "I" represent in front of "CA" (Casey Anthony)?
The DUCT TAPEBut the prosecution didn't offer any other weapon that would have killed her other than MAYBE she was chloroformed, which was unproven. So the defense is merely making that point because they are making drowning the cause of death. Get it?
Place there by whom? You're still in a pickle, as is the prosecution.
the duct tapebut the prosecution didn't offer any other weapon that would have killed her other than maybe she was chloroformed, which was unproven. So the defense is merely making that point because they are making drowning the cause of death. Get it?
place there by whom? You're still in a pickle, as is the prosecution.
The DUCT TAPE
Place there by whom? You're still in a pickle, as is the prosecution.
It's a circumstantial case. She's will likely get stuck for it, but she won't get the death penalty.
The duct tape is just circumstantial. The body was so decomposed, it was impossible to tell whether it was actually wrapped around the baby's head. I mean, we all know it probably was, but the evidence doesn't PROVE that.
