[Freeda]

Originally Posted by robertj1954

Does anyone have any thought on the defense moving for a mistrial based upon the State's Video showing the duct tape super imposed over Caylee's face via photoshop, and then dissolving the facial image down to the recovered skull?

If I understand it correctly, this video also contained an image of the defendant Casey? If this is correct information. Then could the trial be fatally flawed based on an inflammatory visual that would unfairly bias the jury? That is the defense position. They objected to it being shown to the jury but the judge allowed it. Did the judge make a mistake? What say the informal jurors of TOTV?

I wonder the same thing; and I have seen some of this visual on a blog, but am not sure if what I saw is the same form in which it was allowed into evidence, since on tv we don't see alot of the exhibits. In the version that I saw, it was a photo of Caylee and a broading smiling Casey sort of looking down at her; and then the superimposing of a piece of duct tape across Caylee's mouth and change of the face to the skull; all done for the purpose of showing that a single piece of duct tape would be wide enough to cover both Caylee's mouth and nose. I wonder if a court of appeals might not think it was unduly inflammatory and prejudicial (personally, I feel it was) to use this photo with Casey in it, making it look like she is smiling at the ensuing scenario shown about Caylee/duct tape; and I wonder why the Court didn't make them crop Casey out, which could easily have been done; and I wonder why the state didn't want to do this itself; I think the state took a big risk of unnecessarily creating reversible error, which could result in a new trial.

I still haven't made up my mind about Casey's guilt, and won't until her defense is presented, but alot of thought I have been having as the trial has progressed is about the duct tape; and this has been eating at me because of having to try to actually visualize scenarios of what might have happened; and in doing so it forces a look at how a criminal mind might think; which I find upsetting. The idea that there are psychopathic people among us, and that some of them are parents, is terribly disturbing to me; and cases like this force us to confront this.

I initially felt strongly, probably mainly because of my bias that I just don't want to think that a parent could willingly harm their child, that this was an accident of some sort with a poorly conceived coverup gone bad; either a drowning (doubtful) or an accidental over-dose sedating of Caylee with chloroform or some similar agent. Of course, the third possibility, which is the one advanced by the prosecution, is deliberate, premeditated murder using the duct tape, probably after sedating the child, as an instrument of suffocation.

My problem, the more I have thought about the duct tape, is that I have started to think that it doesn't fit very well except with premeditated murder. I wonder what you all think about this, or what I may be missing in my ideas below?

First of all, let's say was a drowning, followed by a panicked decision to make it look like Caylee had been abducted and (in case the body was ever found) murdered by the 'nanny'; then I have problem with someone who was totally innocent of any murderous or abusive tendency or thinking, but who was now in a position of trying to decide how to make it 'look like' a child had been murdered, coming up with the idea "I know what I'll do! I'll put duct tape over her mouth and nose, so they'll think 'the nanny' abducted her and suffocated her using duct tape." It's hard for me to imagine a perfectly innocent person even being able to dream up with that bizarre idea as to how a child could be murdered; and, further appalling to imagine being able to be able complete the physical act of applying duct tape across your drowned child's mouth and nose.

Let's say that, instead, it was a sedating of Caylee with chloroform so that the mother could party with friends; not intending to kill her, though; and that Caylee accidently died from being oversedated. In that case, once the chloroform had been administered and the child was unconscious or on the way to becoming unconscious, was the duct tape applied to Caylee's mouth as a part of the sedating plan? If so, why? - for what purpose? To try to keep the child quiet in case she woke up prior to the mother returning? The problem with that is that even keeping the child's mouth closed wouldn't prevent her from making noise; it might somewhat muffle or lessen the noise, yes; but the child could still be heard - and the child would I think become even more upset, hysterical and noisy if she found her mouth taped; and wouldn't even a small child (she was almost 3 years old), in that situation, try to pull it off, and perhaps injure herself in doing so? Further, wouldn't a reasonable person, knowing that children's noses can become 'stuffy' - especially when they are crying - worry that covering a child's mouth could accidently lead to suffocation? Further, if not intending any harm, I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be reasonable to apply duct tape to the delicate, fragile lips and skin of a 2 year old and then expect to be able to remove the tape without damaging and irritating the child's skin; not to mention how to get it out of her hair (since the remains were found to have the duct tape also in Caylee's hair). So I can't clearly see why the duct tape would fit with the idea of Casey intending to only sedate, but not smother, her child; and I have alot of doubt that she would have duct taped her child's mouth shut just to keep her quiet in case she woke up from being sedated. And, just as above, if the child was oversedated and died just from the sedation alone, and no duct tape was applied until AFTER the 'accidental' death from oversedation (or, for that matter, from any other form of 'accidental' death), then the same problem as explained above in discussing the drowning scenario exists - who but a truly depraved person would even be able to think of/come up with the idea of using duct tape to 'stage' the apparent - but not actual - suffocation murder of a little child? What loving parent could bear to apply the tape, for whatever reason, to their dead child's face?

These problems are weighing on me, as I hate to even accept the thought that anyone - particularly a parent - could have intentionally suffocated a child; but although I am still not sure, nor convinced beyond reasonable doubt, of what happened, I am more than before thinking that when the duct tape was placed, it was never intended to be removed, and that that's also why the tape was partially stuck to the baby's hair, ie, it doesn't matter if it's stuck to the hair if you don't plan to try to remove it.

I feel it is likely that when the body was disposed of, it was believed that it would never be found; maybe it had been poorly buried and then surfaced later. I think that Casey has alot of explaining to try to do.

Still remains to be seen.