Casey Anthony is back in jail. She was arrested last night and that arrest was shown live on Nancy Grace. It appears that she had many well wishers cheering as she was lead to the police car. Now my question. Why didn't Cindy Anthony soon follow. She has to be guilty of at least tampering with evidence. She knew, per her own admission, that it smelled like a dead body yet she removed items from that car (before police arrived) and washed them. She knew what she was doing and she should be sharing a cell with Casey. Maybe then she can help her "learning disabled" daughter get her stories straight.
Maybe I am not understanding the new evidence. They have proven that there was hair in the car, they have proven that hair was Caylee, they have proven that the hair came from a dead body, and they have proven that a dead body was in the car. Help me out, what am I misunderstanding?
I would also like to ask Cindy Anthony; How much help was Casey in finding Caylee before her re-arrest? Were you just about ready to storm the house that is holding her? Then those nasty police came and hampered your investigation.
4 comments:
They haven't PROVEN anything yet. A lot of the forensic "science" evidence that state bureaus of investigation and the feds come up with are are, frankly, junk. Arson investigation, for example, has come under intense scrutiny in recent years as we are learning how little they really can determine about fire origin. The feds used to state as "scientific fact" that they could prove bullets came from a certain box based on lead comparisons. We now know that was totally bogus. Hair and fiber microscopic examinations are absolutely worthless. Looking at hair under a microscope, it is impossible to determine the difference between a human hair and a dog hair. So until we learn more about this air test thing, I will remain very skeptical.
Hair in the car certainly doesn't prove anything. I would be curious to find out all of the bizarre places that my hair could turn up, but my car or the car of someone I spend a lot of time with would be a place I would be surprised NOT to find a hair. As for this "scientific testing" that "proves" there was a dead body in the car, honestly I've never heard of that and am highly suspicious of how that test actually works, whether it's really widely accepted in the scientific community (the test for admissibility in court), and how reliable it actually is. I just don't think that test alone provides sufficient evidence for a murder charge. Usually without a body, you need really clear proof, like such a large quantity of the victim's blood that the victim couldn't possibly be alive, before you can really file a murder charge. Or a confession, of course. Or an eyewitness. But that air test to show decomposition probably can't cut it.
Now, having said all that, I'm sure that Casey is a terrible mother up to her eyeballs in this. And Cindy sounds like a terrible mother. Especially if this stuff about her strong-arming Casey into keeping the kid when Casey wanted to give her up for adoption is true. At least Casey recognized that Cindy had raised a seriously messed-up person who had no business raising a child. If only Cindy could have recognized her own appalling failures as a mother. I don't know if they can make an obstruction case against Cindy or not, but they probably need to get a little more evidence of the underlying crime (Caylee's disappearance and probable murder) before they can really prove what Cindy did to obstruct their finding it. I would be stunned if the prosecutors there aren't working on making an obstruction charge against Cindy stick. But it doesn't do them any good to file the charge until they really can make it stick.
About the only thing you and I agree on is that it doesn't do them any good to file the charge until they really can make it stick.
The scientific evidence his a history of making cases. It is when the material is mishandled that it breaks cases.
I read the other day that they can tell if a hair is from a live person or a dead person.
I could be wrong but I think they reported that the hair was Caylee's and it came from a dead person. I know you don't think the tests are accurate but........
Hair tests are accurate as long as there is a follicle from which to test DNA. The worthless hair evidence I was talking about is when they claim to do a microscopic comparison between two hairs. That evidence has no merit. I don't believe there is any way to determine whether hair is from a dead or live person. Based on my knowledge of DNA testing, I think you may have misheard that.
Do some research on the old bullet lead comparisons and you'll see that I'm telling the truth on that. Arson investigations, also, are coming under fire (pun fully intended). There was a famous Texas case, defendant's name was Williams, where the guy was executed based on arson investigation and that's being re-opened now to reconsider whether the scientific evidence put on by the state really had any merit at all. Even fingerprint analysis isn't as strong as people generally think. There are no standards for how many points need to match, so some people declare a match at 6 points where some insist on 10 or more. We're even learning more about the DNA randomness statistics that experts rely on when testifying about the likelihood of the evidence matching the defendant without being his. Turns out there may be a greater likelihood of random matches than we have always thought.
Often times, the investigators feel pressure to come up with new scientific processes, which is admirable, but then they use "evidence" from those processes before they're really fully vetted as being accurate and reliable. The bottom line is that real world forensic science is absolutely nothing like what's on CSI.
And, really, my only point was just because the state investigative agencies say their testing shows this, we shouldn't take that as "proving" the case until the defense has had a chance to cross-examine those testers, review their testing to make sure evidence was mishandled, and consult other experts to see if the type of testing really exists and is scientifically accepted as valid.
A spokesman for the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility, also known as the Body Farm, said investigators were testing the air found in the trunk of the car for chemical compounds only found in cadavers.
Post a Comment