Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) You can find traces of chloroform in lots of places. It is not an uncommon compound and can be find where chlorinated (read: pool) water is present. I believe this even came up in the trial as one of the expert witnesses showed that there were trace elements of chloroform on a barbie doll he borrowed from a co-worker.
2) No one could conclusively state that human remains were in the trunk. They only had the smell, which is highly debatable and open to interpretation as evidenced by the people who said it was indistinguishable from garbage.
1- There weren't traces of chloroform. The contents on chloroform in that trunk were very much above the average you would find in the environment. One can reasonably conclude that searches for chloroform on computer+high levels of chloroform in trunk=chloroform being used in the homicide. Well that's if you can conclude that 2+2=4, which many on this very thread (and those on the jury) seem incapable of doing.
2-Have you ever smelled a dead body? The smell is so distinctive, those that have smelled it before would know that smell in an instant. Let's just assume though, that all of the detectives were wrong, because I know that's where you'll go. Do you also assert that the cadaver dogs, which pointed out that there was a dead body in the trunk of that car, were also wrong? And you are forgetting that Casey Anthony abandoned that car. Why would she abandon it if that smell was just garbage?
1- There weren't traces of chloroform. The contents on chloroform in that trunk were very much above the average you would find in the environment. One can reasonably conclude that searches for chloroform on computer+high levels of chloroform in trunk=chloroform being used in the homicide. Well that's if you can conclude that 2+2=4, which many on this very thread (and those on the jury) seem incapable of doing.
2-Have you ever smelled a dead body? The smell is so distinctive, those that have smelled it before would know that smell in an instant. Let's just assume though, that all of the detectives were wrong, because I know that's where you'll go. Do you also assert that the cadaver dogs, which pointed out that there was a dead body in the trunk of that car, were also wrong? And you are forgetting that Casey Anthony abandoned that car. Why would she abandon it if that smell was just garbage?
There was also the testimony of Arpad Vass about his tests showing that decomposition had occurred in the trunk, based on high levels of inorganic elements such as calcium.
He also testified that the decomposition smell in the air samples he tested was "extremely overwhelming" and he actually jumped back at the first whiff.
Vass is a senior research scientist at Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and studied at "The Body Farm."
1- There weren't traces of chloroform. The contents on chloroform in that trunk were very much above the average you would find in the environment. One can reasonably conclude that searches for chloroform on computer+high levels of chloroform in trunk=chloroform being used in the homicide. Well that's if you can conclude that 2+2=4, which many on this very thread (and those on the jury) seem incapable of doing.
That's still highly debatable. Hell, even the prosecutions own experts were not consistent with their testimony. Dr. Vass said the levels of chloroform were "shockingly high" and then another expert, Dr. Rickenbach said that the levels he found were were low and could have come from many household chemicals. Another said that gasoline could mix with other chemicals and found chloroform. The next problem you run into is that none of the materials needed to make chloroform were found and the prosecution couldn't produce any receipts to show Casey had purchased any of them. The chloroform evidence, like almost everything else, was full of holes.
Quote:
2-Have you ever smelled a dead body? The smell is so distinctive, those that have smelled it before would know that smell in an instant. Let's just assume though, that all of the detectives were wrong, because I know that's where you'll go.
As we saw in this case, the smell of death being "distinctive" is pretty subjective. Personally I have never smelled a highly decomposed dead body, but that is why we have science and there was again, conflicting testimony about whether a dead body was ever in that trunk.
Quote:
Do you also assert that the cadaver dogs, which pointed out that there was a dead body in the trunk of that car, were also wrong?
Possibly. When the K-9 Deputy was cross examined he admitted that it was possible the dog could have given a false alert. The very same dog also failed to give indication that a body was located where Caylee's remains were found.
Quote:
And you are forgetting that Casey Anthony abandoned that car. Why would she abandon it if that smell was just garbage?
I could answer your question with another by asking why, if a body had been in there, that Casey wouldn't have tried to destroy the evidence in a different manner.
That's still highly debatable. Hell, even the prosecutions own experts were not consistent with their testimony. Dr. Vass said the levels of chloroform were "shockingly high" and then another expert, Dr. Rickenbach said that the levels he found were were low and could have come from many household chemicals. Another said that gasoline could mix with other chemicals and found chloroform. The next problem you run into is that none of the materials needed to make chloroform were found and the prosecution couldn't produce any receipts to show Casey had purchased any of them. The chloroform evidence, like almost everything else, was full of holes.
Just because there weren't any receipts doesn't mean she never bought the necessary materials. She could have paid cash, and like many other people :gasp: thrown the receipts away! The lack of receipts means nothing.
Anyway, you can make chloroform at home with several household items-and if you were out buying them no one would find it odd. It's also pretty easy, even a high school drop out like Casey could master it.
[/quote]
As we saw in this case, the smell of death being "distinctive" is pretty subjective. Personally I have never smelled a highly decomposed dead body, but that is why we have science and there was again, conflicting testimony about whether a dead body was ever in that trunk. [/quote]
So because the woman that worked at the check cashing place said it just smelled like garbage we should take her word for it over several experts, and individuals who HAVE smelled a decomposed body? Casey's friend also testified that they didn't smell anything...yet they were in the car when the body wouldn't have been in such an advanced state of decomposition.
[/quote]
Possibly. When the K-9 Deputy was cross examined he admitted that it was possible the dog could have given a false alert. The very same dog also failed to give indication that a body was located where Caylee's remains were found.
[/quote]
I must have missed that in the testimony. Do you have a link?
[/quote] I could answer your question with another by asking why, if a body had been in there, that Casey wouldn't have tried to destroy the evidence in a different manner.[/quote]
First, answering my question with another isn't answering anything at all. Why do you think she abandoned her car then, seriously?
Secondly, Too much attention drawn if say, she lit the car on fire to destroy evidence. Casey's lies were lies of omission and avoidance. Just dumping the car could be left to interpretation, setting it on fire gives a clearer answer.
Last edited by StephM; 07-29-2011 at 06:25 PM..
Reason: sorry, my dumb iphone doesn't seem to be capable of using the quote feature properly
Just because there weren't any receipts doesn't mean she never bought the necessary materials. She could have paid cash, and like many other people :gasp: thrown the receipts away! The lack of receipts means nothing.
Anyway, you can make chloroform at home with several household items-and if you were out buying them no one would find it odd. It's also pretty easy, even a high school drop out like Casey could master it.
There would still be receipts even with a cash purchase and the store would, at least for a short, while have a record of the transaction and given the media coverage you would think someone would have come forward. It's true of course that the lack of evidence does not mean she is innocent but the burden of proof is still there and the prosecution getting ahold of that evidence would have helped close a major hole in the case.
[/quote]So because the woman that worked at the check cashing place said it just smelled like garbage we should take her word for it over several experts, and individuals who HAVE smelled a decomposed body? Casey's friend also testified that they didn't smell anything...yet they were in the car when the body wouldn't have been in such an advanced state of decomposition.[/quote] Again, what something smells like is highly subjective, hence you have people claiming the smell was there and others who say the smell wasn't there. At best the smell test should have been used to backup scientific evidence. Left to stand on it's own, it's basically useless.
Quote:
I must have missed that in the testimony. Do you have a link?
Quote:
Under cross-examination, defense attorney Jose Baez asked Forgey why he didn't videotape the search. He also questioned whether Gerus had another agenda to make the alerts. "The dog wants to please you," said Baez. "That's his motivation."
"I suppose that's right," answered Forgey, as jurors took notes.
Baez also introduced evidence that Gerus did not indicate the presence of a body on the spot where Caylee Anthony's remains were found – in a wooded area near her grandparents' home.
First, answering my question with another isn't answering anything at all.
That's because it wasn't meant to answer it but rather introduce counter logic.
Quote:
Why do you think she abandoned her car then, seriously?
I honestly have no idea, and that's assuming that she was the one who did it as George and Cindy both had access to the car.
Quote:
Secondly, Too much attention drawn if say, she lit the car on fire to destroy evidence. Casey's lies were lies of omission and avoidance. Just dumping the car could be left to interpretation, setting it on fire gives a clearer answer.
True, but she could have tried to clean the trunk as well. It may not have worked well, but it was an option.
Judge Strickland and the DOC have been going around and around on the the one year probation issue from the January 2010 court case when Casey Anthony was found guilty of stealing checks from her BFF Amy Huizenga.
This morning, state corrections officials said they thought they properly applied Anthony's probation while she was in jail, but added that they are willing to adjust it and have her serve probation now if the court wants to clarify her sentence.
Late this afternoon paperwork was prepared to be signed Monday by Judge Strickland requiring Casey Anthony to return to Orange County to serve one year probation for the check fraud charges. You cannot serve probation in jail. Probation starts when you leave jail.
[quote=Bosco55David;20237677]That's still highly debatable. Hell, even the prosecutions own experts were not consistent with their testimony. Dr. Vass said the levels of chloroform were "shockingly high" and then another expert, Dr. Rickenbach said that the levels he found were were low and could have come from many household chemicals. Another said that gasoline could mix with other chemicals and found chloroform. The next problem you run into is that none of the materials needed to make chloroform were found and the prosecution couldn't produce any receipts to show Casey had purchased any of them. The chloroform evidence, like almost everything else, was full of holes.
Rickenbach also testified that he wouldn't have expected Any chloroform after that amount of time, so the levels must have been extremely high to begin with.
As we saw in this case, the smell of death being "distinctive" is pretty subjective. Personally I have never smelled a highly decomposed dead body, but that is why we have science and there was again, conflicting testimony about whether a dead body was ever in that trunk.
In addition to the smell, there was testimony of inorganic elements in the trunk symptomatic of decomposition. Conflicting testimony, so what. Is there a forensics issue these days when there isn't conflicting testimony.
I could answer your question with another by asking why, if a body had been in there, that Casey wouldn't have tried to destroy the evidence in a different manner.
Now you're into defending Casey by asking why she didn't do things differently. I'm sure given a chance for a do-over, she, along with other murderers, would do lots of things differently.
Is it really that difficult to understand why some of the jurors would want to keep their identity secret? Really? Surely, I am not the only one to read the news.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
