For all the armchair lawyers defending this monster, I would love to hear you explain this.
Posted on 06/04/2011 4:56:35 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
An FBI forensic expert said a hair removed from the trunk of Casey Anthony's car is consistent with hair from a dead body.
That was the testimony of Karen Korsberg Lowe Saturday in Anthony's sensational murder trial.
The 25-year old Orlando mother is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.
FBI expert Lowe said she examined a light-brown, 9-inch-long hair for this case.
She said the hair was similar to one pulled from Caylee's brush and was not similar to a hair sample from Casey Anthony.
Ms Lowe also said the hair showed characteristics consistent with decomposition.
Anthony is charged with first-degree murder.
Prosecutors say the girl was suffocated after duct tape was placed over her mouth.
The defence contends she accidently drowned in her grandparents' swimming pool.
Anthony's attorney challenged Ms Lowe's qualifications as an expert in microscopic hair examinations.
Earlier, crime scene investigator Gerardo Bloise showed the court where he had found a hair in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car.
The investigator searched Anthony's car on July 17, 2008 for clues about the fate of her missing daughter. On Friday, he testified that the odour of human decomposition wafted from the interior as soon as he opened the door.
Gerardo Bloise said: 'My professional opinion is that it was human decomposition.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
For all the armchair lawyers defending this monster, I would love to hear you explain this.
Casey killed her daughter and was able to party hard for a whole month before her parents and brother finally put their foot down and demanded to know where Calee was.
A whole month.
“Consistent with”, is pretty weak.
Casey is a sociopath, its as simple as that. Everything out of her mouth is a lie..makes up the names of people who don’t exist, makes up the name of a Nanny that doesn’t exist, which makes me wonder, where was she taking Caylee all of those times she supposedly was taking her to that Nanny? Poor baby girl was probably put in that trunk a bunch of times. She throws her family under the bus to save her own ass. She wants to make us believe that George Anthony is the greatest actor ever, putting up missing flyers, talking about taking Caylee swimming when she comes back, the whole time knowing she is already dead..BS..can’t wait to see this crazy chick get what’s coming to her
Your title overstates what the witness said, imo.
Another pebble on the scale. It all adds up.
It’s not my title. Are you one of the Casey Anthony defenders?
If so, THAT is what’s weak.
Coffin flies were found in the car trunk. Drip, drip, drip.
If it’s not Caylee’s hair, then please defend Casey, Perry Mason.
Explain which dead body the hair came from?
No, it is not weak.
It’s a legal term of art.
You cannot say, legally, that it is her hair. Even if everything points to it being hers.
So you have to say consistent with.
That fits into the rest of the case.
Remember the DNA in the Simpson case. They said it was his DNA subject to a miniscule chance that it was someone else’s. They cited the statistical probability that it was anyone else’s DNA on the planet. Forget the numbers but it was like a chance in a billion or some such. But they had to state it that way instead of saying it was his blood, period.
They went on to point out that this blood was found in several places it should not have been, and they showed that Simpson had suffered some kind of injury to his hand, and projected that he dripped his own blood at these various parts of the total crime scene.
I know he was aquitted because “if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit” and because of jury nullification, but the blood evidence made him guilty as sin.
But for legal purposed they had to state qualifiers when they presented the blood evidence.
Well, Geraldo says she’s innocent and being railroaded, so I guess he sides with certain people here. Now that’s a side I’d hate to be on.
Wrong. “Consistent with” is the legal standard. The defendant is skewered with this physical evidence.
If that's the case, she's guilty as hell
Actually, the nanny is a real person whose name Anthony got off an apartment application.
Th poor woman, who did nothing wrong, has had her life ruined, lost her job, had death threats made against her, and so on, just so little miss party girl can try to cover her sorry butt!!
This case touches many more lives than just that one screwed up family.
Really? People are defending her? All I need to know is this woman didn’t report her daughter missing for a month. How does anybody explain that? The brief part of the trial I saw makes me think mom and dad don’t believe her anymore.
I think she’s guilty, but didn’t she claim her and her father took the body in the car to get rid of it?
Have they explained why if she drowned she was found with duct tape on her mouth and nose?
Have you seen courtroom photos of this monster lately? With her hair in a dirty-looking bun and her ears sticking out? Almost idiotic in her evil.
Interestingly, why is no one providing her with a makeup expert and good-looking clothes? Seems like everybody - including her ridiculous lawyers - are throwing her under the bus. Love your moniker!
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.