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.
.
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?
Here’s a task for you.
REASONABLY explain how this body got to the location and condition described above WITHOUT it being a homicide.
Ping for tomorrow
A few possible points, taken from the website http://www.justice4caylee.org/t1208-who-s-who-in-the-anthony-case :
Early police investigators included a team from the Sex Offenses unit;
The Sawgrass Apartments, where Casey said the nanny lived, was home to the employer of Casey’s sometime ‘boyfriend’ Lazaro/Lazzaro/Lazarro and this person, who was a ‘director’ of ‘Society Entertainment’ also did some work for that ‘Fusion’ club which Casy frequented and where she met Lazaro.
Casey had expressed an interest in possibly having Caylee ‘adopted’.
Did Casey sell or ‘rent’ her child to pornographers or child predators? Therefore she didn’t want to expose them to the police? Did those people kill Caylee?
I hope the police don’t give up investigating. This whole case is so odiferous.