Presumed Guilty by Jose Baez

Author:Jose Baez [BAEZ, JOSE]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781937856397
Publisher: Benbella Books

CHAPTER 16

THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE WAS GARBAGE

NUMEROUS TIMES I heard this case being referred to as a circumstantial case, but I never thought of it that way. I always looked at it as a forensic case rather than a factual one. The reason is the only real, factual witnesses who were relevant were George and Cindy. Even Lee wasn’t particularly relevant to exactly what happened to Caylee.

All the other evidence in the case came down to science.

Science was the key factor in determining Casey’s guilt or innocence—it always has been and always will be.

To better understand the prosecution’s case in terms of the forensics, the best and clearest way is for me to break it down into two strands. The first strand has to do with the information the police investigators gleaned from going over Casey’s car after it came back from the tow yard.

The second strand comes from the recovery site of Caylee’s body off Suburban Drive. (I’ll present that evidence in the next chapter.) But first, let’s talk about Casey’s car, and why what was in the trunk was so crucial to the prosecution.

The prosecution based its entire case on a theory that after Casey killed Caylee, she dumped her into the trunk of her car for a couple of days and drove her to the woods where she disposed of her body.

Shortly after Casey was arrested, Deputy Charity Beasley went and picked up her car. She secured it with evidence tape, made sure everything was sealed, and followed the tow truck to the forensics bay.

With the car in hand, the prosecution had to somehow prove there had been a body in the trunk and that it was Caylee’s. Since it was Casey’s car, the link was obvious. But knowing what I know now, it’s interesting to see the lengths to which the prosecution had to go to make its case.

The areas the prosecution dealt with to try to prove its case that there was a body in the trunk had to do with cadaver dogs, a stain, hairs, and the air in the trunk of Casey’s car.

Their first line of “evidence” came from the dogs, who, the prosecution contended, alerted to the trunk of the Casey’s car and in the backyard of the Anthony home.

Deputy Jason Forgey arrived with his dog, Gerus, who supposedly alerted to human decomposition in both the trunk and the backyard. Later that day, Forgey went to the Anthony home and deployed Gerus, who again alerted in the backyard. He then called in another cadaver dog by the name of Bones. Bones went to the backyard and alerted as well.

The next day the crime scene investigators returned with their two cadaver dogs and found—nothing. This time neither dog alerted. How do we account for this? What’s the explanation? How can a dog find evidence of decomposition one day and nothing the next?

There are several reasons, all having to do with the nature of cadaver dogs.

The first reason is that a cadaver dog can be inconsistent.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.