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.
a) Manner of death is described as circumstantial by the conclusion/opinion itself in the first paragraph. People have taken to assuming that the Medical Examiner’s report provided physical evidence of homicide and that all the other evidence in the trial was circumstantial, when, in fact, even the Medical Examiner’s report was circumstantial and the report itself clearly states how it is based on circumstantial evidence in the first paragraph of it’s conclusion/opinion.
b) Also in the first paragraph, it states that the cause of death cannot be determined with certainty, but no possible cause of death is offered anywhere in the report. So saying it cannot be determined with certainty is a misrepresentation which would tend to imply that the cause of death is determined by the report with at least some small amount of certainty. But no cause of death is given in the report - that’s not uncertainty, that’s an unknown. Since no cause of death is offered in this report the conclusion/opinion should simply state that the cause of death cannot be determined in order to be clear to the reader.
c) In the second paragraph, this conclusion/opinion notes that there is no trauma evident on the skeleton. At that age, bones are softer than those of adults and children can often suffer physical trauma without breaking bones. Therefore physical trauma can not be ruled out as a cause of death. For example, a brain injury from a fall is within the realm of possibility, but cannot be supported or ruled out without brain tissue to analyze. However, given that the conclusion/opinion only notes the absence of trauma evident to the skeleton, and does not note that there may have been trauma that is not evident, the conclusion/opinion opens up the possibility that the reader may assume that physical trauma is ruled out as a cause of death. Of course the conclusion/opinion does not rule out ANY cause of death, and, with a careful reading one can see that it technically offers absolutely no cause of death.
d) Also in the second paragraph, the duct tape is noted to have been placed prior to decomposition. One must be careful to note that it does not say that it was placed prior to death. Everyone in this case has argued all along that the duct tape is the murder weapon. But this conclusion/opinion of the Medical Examiner’s report clearly does not go so far as to conclude or speculate that the duct tape was the murder weapon - it only states that it is clear the duct tape was placed prior to decomposition.
e) Referring back to point b), the second paragraph provides an opportunity for the reader to incorrectly infer that suffocation due to the duct tape being placed over the nose and mouth is the cause of death, if they don’t clearly separate the difference between what the paragraph says, “prior to decomposition” and “prior to death”, which the paragraph does not say.
f) In the third paragraph, there is no assertion that the body was placed in the wooded area soon after being last seen alive; it says that there was no evidence inconsistent with that. The third paragraph does state that the body was placed there “months” prior to being found. These statements allow for placement in the woods any time between the second half of June and early October.
General comments:
This report was followed shortly by a homicide charge, as it’s manner of death determination of homicide provided the basis for that charge.
If this report did not offer as it’s conclusion/opinion that the manner of death was homicide, there would be no basis for a murder charge.
The combination of points b) and e) is where this conclusion/opinion is obviously designed to provide a manner of death of homicide based on a cause of death that is implied even though no explicit cause of death is given. Such subtley calls into question the integrity of the Medical Examiner’s office. A few years ago there were very prominent stories circulating in the media about M.E. offices that would give in to pressure from prosecutors to be less than forthright in their investigations in order to get arrests or convictions. One in NY, IIRC, was actually completely shut down.
Medical Examiner’s reports should never imply anything, but should state facts explicitly. M.E.’s must never base their reports on what a prosecuter desires. When an M.E.’s office starts going down this road it sometimes results in wrongful convictions and other times results in charges filed that ultimately become extremely difficult to get a conviction on, thereby wasting millions of dollars.
A few posters here have stated: Justice was served, the jury lawfully found her not guilty. Blame the prosecutors. Don’t blame the jury. Of course, they also say justice is for the accused not the victim. So it doesn’t matter how the child wound up a skeleton in a desolate swamp; justice was served. They say justice is not for the victim.
Note to all - important message received !
Speaking of justice for Caylee. I just received a VERY important message on this post.
If this was the work of a child molestor while Caylee was left unattended, there could be a child molestor on the lose at this time and no one suspects them.
That is another ingenius part of our legal system which is concerned with not convicting the wrong person. Once that happens the true perpetrator is never even searched for.
Big hat tip to person who sent me the message !
.
One of the big questions I have had.
Will the investigators close this case?
People have been convicted without the victims even being found. These jurors had more evidence than some cases, but since an insurance policy or huge estate wasn’t involved, motive wasn’t obvious enough to them for conviction.
I have no clue why a logical conclusion would find that Caylee was the victim of a homicide at the hands of her mother. Without a REASONABLE DOUBT, she was murdered, and her mother was responsible. Lucky for the beatch I wasn’t on the jury. I could have easily found her guilty of first degree murder, and sentenced her to death. The evidence was very clear.
It would require a complete lack of common sense to eliminate homicide when the body was inside a laundry bag & garbage bags.
Are you saying the cause is a natural death? Why would anyone put the child in these bags & toss her away like garbage - instead of calling 911?
I, too, say that the prosecution did not prove their case. Here in Tennessee a Janet March’s wife “disappeared” in August 1996. No body has ever been found and no evidence of foul play was ever found, yet the prosecution was able to convict her husband of murder in 2005.
I’m glad you brought up natural death. Notice the conclusion of the report states “no known medical history”. There are many cases of death with children every year where they die of natural causes from undiagnosed diseases. So, it is possible the death was natural. I tend to think the chances of that are remote, but they are not zero.
It is very common for people to feel guilty when someone dies under circumstances where they feel they MIGHT be held accountable, even though they did not murder them. For example, an elderly person under your care where you stand to inherit from them.
In this case, Casey lived a partying lifestyle with men who were partiers. It is entirely plausible that she could have been with one of these boneheads and her daughter at the same time, but let Caylee completely out of her sight while she did some crazy things or involved Caylee in some of the crazy things. Suddenly, someone abducts or attacks Caylee, threatens Casey, or Caylee has a fall, a strangulation in a cord, sometimes ignorant people toss babies around (check out youtube for videos), all sorts of things where Casey should know better. Perhaps she and her friend are snorting coke and do not want to call 911. Suddenly she feels very guilty, because she was guilty of negligent homicide, or her friend tells her she is, or her parents tell her she is - who knows ? This would set the whole game in motion to appeal for help with hiding the body. Caylee actually may have died naturally from an undiagnosed condition and Casey may only think that she has guilt. There are countless plausible possibilities that a public who is very angry with Casey refuse to even think about. Based on what I’ve read, it’s even quite possible that Caylee died while under the care of one or both of the parents - and George said to her on no uncertain terms that she should have been watching Caylee and she was going to jail, then offering to help hide the body and get her off. He could have reasoned that once the wooded area was searched, they could hide the body there because the searchers would not search there twice. We have absolutely nothing that proves that this was not what happened.
That’s why I tried to show the subtle deception in the M.E. report here - this report, if you go through sentence by sentence, stands on it’s head to IMPLY (not outright say) that the duct tape is the murder weapon. And it worked, because everyone BELIEVES the duct tape is the murder weapon BECAUSE THE M.E. SAID SO - BUT THEY M.E. NEVER DID SAY SO.
The M.E. report says the tape must have been applied BEFORE DECOMPOSITION. It is SILENT - IT SAYS NOTHING - about whether it was applied BEFORE DEATH.
It therefore IMPLIES (because it does not SAY this explicitly) that the tape could have been applied EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER DEATH.
The report makes the reader think the duct tape was the murder weapon - IF YOU READ IT’S CONCLUSION ABOVE - it never actually says that the duct tape WAS, IN FACT, the murder weapon.
That’s a real hum-dinger of an autopsy, IMHO.
That should read “Perry March’s wive, Janet”.
But why would you put duct tape on a dead child’s mouth?
You’d put it on her while she was still alive. To keep her quiet.
After she is dead is serves no purpose.
So I think she was duct taped prior to dying.
Here’s a task for you.
REASONABLY explain how this body got to the location and condition described above WITHOUT it being a homicide.
If I give 6 weeks of my life (that I will never get back), sequestered, to do my civic duty...the evidence presented is sketchy, virtually every major witness is guilty of perjury and there is conflicting testimony by all the “expert” witnesses, I will be in jail myself.
I don't believe that convicting a person to life in prison or death should be a matter of...probability. Anthony did not present a sympathetic character.
The prosecution, for whatever reason, over charged and failed to prove their case. I read that there is an election coming up so the DA went for the “Gold”.
That being said...I think if Anthony didn't do it herself...she definitely knows what happened. Even with the lame defense...the prosecution couldn't get a conviction.
Not meaning to butt into the conversation..
I just wonder if you have indisputable evidence that the mom transported the child’s body there?
I say that in sincerity. If there was evidence that you saw or heard, I’d be interested.
I guess that is why I asked earlier..will the investigation continue?
Sorry, I tried to do a courtesy ping, but kept misspelling your moniker.
She was the mother.
She was the primary caregiver.
She was the last one seen with the child.
She didn’t report her child missing.
She repeatedly lied about what happened.
Absent any new information pointing AWAY from her, I have Casey Anthony for manslaughter
Well, we can agree on a few things.
She was the mother, she didn’t report her child missing. and she is a liar.
But how do we know that she was the primary caregiver? Looks to me like the parents had a big part of the little girl’s upbringing. I am not pointing a finger at them. I have no idea what kind of people Ms Anthony ran around with. Having a “wild child” on my life..I know how very little control you have.
How do you know that Anthony was the last one to see the child? Did you see something I did not?
Not really. While I'm not suggesting this is my theory, if the death was the result of negligence on Casey's part, she may have wished to stage it to look like an abduction and murder...ergo, the post-mortem use of duct tape.
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.