Posted on 07/09/2011 3:32:01 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen
From the Medical Examiner’s Report on Caylee Anthony: _________________________________________________________
Conclusion/Opinion: As often is the case with a skeletonized individual, the exact cause of death cannot be determined with certainty. The manner of death is an opinion based on available information, including circumstances surrounding the death, information from the scene, and examination of the skeletal remains.
The circumstances of death are that this toddler child, with no known medical history, was not reported missing to authorities for approximately 30 days. This child’s remains were eventually found in a wooded, overgrown area, discarded with two trash bags and a laundry bag. Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair. This duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible in place.
The clustering of vertebrae at the scene separate from the location of the bags and skull indicate animal activity occurring at this location after decomposition started, but before complete disarticulation of the skeleton. This indicates the body was put in this location prior to complete skeletonization. The roots growing into the vertebrae and bags indicate that the body was placed there months prior to being found. There is nothing inconsistent with the body being placed there soon after the date of being last seen alive.
It is, thus, my opinion that, although the cause of death cannot be determined with certainty, the manner of death is homicide.
Here’s one, talking about desperate investigations, when they brought Casey to the medical facility to hear the TV broadcast when they found the body. These are hundreds of pages of deposition of two officers at the facility, aparently Baez was concerned about the treatment. It looks like investigators desperate to know whether or not Casey actually committed the crime, and this is in December of 2008. If they knew that she did it they never would never have done this.
Here are the two links if you can’t get to them from above.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6629068/Casey-Anthony-Bill-Richardson
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6629027/Casey-Anthony-Tammy-Uncer-transcript-1-june-2009
” A nurse would understand that wouldn’t they? Who was the nurse? “
The nurse was Cindy Anthony, now slated for an Emmy award for the best performance on tv of a faking grieving relative-—no wait a second, both George and Cindy were very believable as grieving grandparents and the only person left with access to the car was slutmom!
So much compelling evidence is ignored by people like you enamored with what is called the csi effect. Slutmom even claimed she spoke to Csylee on July 15th.
What the prosecution failed to show was how desperate a criminal slutmom was. She HAD to leave the Anthony house at the point she did. But she had no money and nowhere to go. Wait, you say, she could go to Tony’s. Not for the night. Not with Caylee. He forbid it. She was desperate to keep Tony, to convince him not to go without her. In her mind, she had no choice. Her diary entries speak volumes.
Well, there you have it! The smoking gun, the admission of guilt. The statement that ties it all together. /s
You know, once you made the argument that if you go to bed and wake up to fresh snow, although you did not see it snow, you can conclude it did—and you stated, no, it could have been trucks brought in filled with snow—I am only responding to you so that others of sound mind can get a glimpse into the kind of absurd reasoning the jurors must have engaged in.
The fake conversation slutmom claimed occurred with Caylee weeks after Caylee was killed is one more compelling piece of evidence against her. I do concede some of the evidence presented by the state did not impress me-—dogs alerting where no video was taken, and the trainer saying in essence “trust me, my dog alerted.”. But your response kind of indicates the general obtuseness of your thinking. It’s as though you cannot combine all of the proven facts and circumstances as a whole picture. You can’t see the forest as you attempt to dissect all of the csi type trees.
And you probably would never bring common sense into the equation. But for fun here’s an offer-—go to 5 used car lots, open 100 trunks and tell me if you find one unclean or badly stained. Common sense tells me dealers will do whatever it takes to detail a car thoroughly. To do otherwise is to work against yourself. So Lee lied about this one issue, or was wrong. Got a big stain or a bag of garbage in your trunk?
There are classes you can take in logic. There used to be, and probably still is, a game called wffnproof that teaches logic, so it can be a learned skill.
“No one makes an accident look like a murder” such a simple concept but beyond the common sense of this jury. I would be curious about the life choices of people lacking the common sense gene, like the jury and you.
LOL My wife warned me that by playing with your head you’d probably take it serious and go bonkers. My first thought had been to explain that we live so far south that if there was that much snow on the ground there is no way unless the earth had switched axis. You see, I don’t take you seriously. The jury spent 44 hours in the courtroom and was focused on this case for weeks and weeks. Then they were instructed on what legal grounds they could come to a verdict. It’s preposterous to think that we could come to a conclusion in the same way they did.
>>“No one makes an accident look like a murder”<<
Unless someone is trying to make it look like murder to cover for someone else. Casey took Caylee with her to friends and left them in the care of them while she went and partied. The room mate of her boyfriend was one of those. Why do you assume Casey did it rather then one of those friends? The body was then put in the trunk and George helped after realizing that Casey had not reported it to protect her.
You see. I can speculate just as you can. The difference is that you speculate that she did it for sure and the jury and others of us say the prosecution didn’t prove that.
” The jury spent 44 hours in the courtroom”
Now you say Moronsky
And that makes me smile
I haven’t seen Moronsky
In a little while
But looking back unto your posts
I saw that you felt you really shined
Giving me a taste of arguing with a penguine
(or a bear for that matter)
You believe its reasonable doubt byspeculating that slutmom, the ever loyal noble friend, risk her life at trial to cover for someone else. Oh wait, not noble, threatened, and they can carry out that threat while she’s in jail, yeah cuz it’s law enforcement covering up their use of the child in a ritual sacrifice done during promotion festivities—yeah that’s the ticket....
That’s the second time you have tried the freepmail route and I’ll say it again. It’s chickensheite.
Is that the way you make most of your decisions? By making assumptions. And no, I would think that you used freepmail because you knew that it was a form of getting personal and would be chastised by the powers that be.
You probably thought that by telling me what your IQ is was going to impress me. It didn’t. I’ve had discussions with flaming liberals and atheists who have higher IQ’s then you do. In fact, the liberal colleges are replete with high IQ liberals and atheists. It could generally be said that it’s those of high IQ who have put this country in the situation it is in today.
>>You simply don't have the ability to reason very well.<<
Debating or reasoning skills are not tied to IQ. I have witnessed that high IQ has no direct correlation to common sense. It does seem to have a direct correlation to deviousness and deceit however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.