2008.06.16 James T. says he saw Caylee alive around Noon #1

[LambChop]

I have a confession to make -

Part of the reason I'm so miffed and discomboobillated by this new witness is that I have somehow convinced myself that either GA or CA are in on the crime from the beginning.

If JT is mysteriously right, it will cushion both of them from my theory and, I know, crazy vision.

It's gonna be hard for me to budge but I do want to know the truth. If JT had come forward a long time ago I would have viewed his testimony as a good thing that put more clarity as to timeline of the case.

This is parellel to KC's 31 days to me - JT's one year; KC's 31 days.

LE does not have to release any information while it is still under investigation. JT may have come forward right away, his statement may have been delayed for some reason by LE. We probably won't know when he came forward until the trial.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I don't think a 42yr old man eyeing a hot 20-something is necessarily a "dirty old man". Good-looking or sexy people are natural targets for the eyes--regardless of age.

In the context of a police statement it strikes me as weird. Not maybe in a man's own head but most intelligent forty year olds would curb it when writing a formal police report. imo only.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

As usual, she was likely coming on to him pretty strong. He got the message from her that she was available to him, maybe she thought she would flirt her way in to him making an exception and taking her check. She wasn't presenting herself as aloof and out of his reach, and you are right he was fantasizing about it, until he sized her up as a jerk to her child. He may be married or had a girlfriend so not coming forward with his colorful account in vivid detail of why and how he remembered the nearly jail bait so fondly could be good old fashioned guilt. No matter, he could have come forward and left out the gory details of how he drooled over her.

Since we're all theorizing here - maybe KC put Caylee in the trunk with her new Beanie Baby while she did the nasty with this guy. Caylee became ill and this guy feels so bad about it that he has finally spoken up but leaves out the part about his involvement.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

LE does not have to release any information while it is still under investigation. JT may have come forward right away, his statement may have been delayed for some reason by LE. We probably won't know when he came forward until the trial.

Would LE not keep the original date of JT's statement on the record of his statement? Even if LE took time to verify his statement why would they take the date the statement was made to them off the form? It is dated July 2009.

 

[LambChop]

In the context of a police statement it strikes me as weird. Not maybe in a man's own head but most intelligent forty year olds would curb it when writing a formal police report. imo only.

Maybe he was trying to make a point as to why he would notice KC compared to say...someone like Ms. Lyons walking into his shop. I think he could have walked right past Ms. Lyons in Walmart and not noticed her a week later. JMO

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Thanks for playin' along, NL. Really like the way you described that coming together...esp. relating the observed behavior from the Techbay event onto perception of seeing Casey the next time. :thumb: IMHO, the mind kinda tells itself what it expects to see sometimes...not unlike the suggestion of George seeing Casey in Tony's Jeep vs. Cindy's 4Runner 6/29 IYKWIM.

I just had a very cynical thought -

This guy is aware of techniques that bring people back into his store - he may have made this up because business is bad and he wants the attention - it's the way his mind works as evidenced by the Beanie Baby story.

 

[truckengirl]

If he is on the states witness list then I believe they have investigated his claim and they must have found it to be true. Otherwise they would not be planning to call him to the stand. Remember all the crazy tips that were called in and they do not have those people listed as a witness. This is what makes me think they have investigated his story in some way.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Would LE not keep the original date of JT's statement on the record of his statement? Even if LE took time to verify his statement why would they take the date the statement was made to them off the form? It is dated July 2009.

Right!! And he even makes an apology/excuse for not having come forward with this info earlier. So it must be his first statement.

 

[LambChop]

Would LE not keep the original date of JT's statement on the record of his statement? Even if LE took time to verify his statement why would they take the date the statement was made to them off the form? It is dated July 2009.

They would use the formal statement date. Any notes they take during an interview are considered "work product". Maybe they held up taking a formal statement because it REALLY shoots holes in the statement that was given to them by GA. Since most people who work go to lunch at a certain time I would think his observation at Walmart is important. LE may now be convinced that they have totally lost GA as a witness and he will be hostile on the stand. Then they come out with this statement from JT....makes GA's statement look pretty unreliable. Up to this point it appears as GA says KC was at home at this time and JT is saying KC is somewhere else. If there is more evidence.....that much better.

Let's hope he took a polygraph.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

If he is on the states witness list then I believe they have investigated his claim and they must have found it to be true. Otherwise they would not be planning to call him to the stand. Remember all the crazy tips that were called in and they do not have those people listed as a witness. This is what makes me think they have investigated his story in some way.

Yes; if it weren't for the fact that SA put him on the witness list I would be hard put to give his statement much credence. It's just so odd and untimely! But because he's being considered as a potential witness, I believe he must have some truth to share. As it is, I'm sitting firmly on the fence.

 

[5stars]

I just don't see this as true.Casey was on tv everywhere,not just Orlando.It was first reported it was the 9TH OF JUNE CAYLEE WAS MISSING.THAT IS THE DAY HE SAW HER.

 

[LambChop]

I just don't see this as true.Casey was on tv everywhere,not just Orlando.It was first reported it was the 9TH OF JUNE CAYLEE WAS MISSING.THAT IS THE DAY HE SAW HER.

Maybe he was afraid of being the next one under the bus. Look at what they did to Kronk. If he heard she is trying to come up with another suspect.....

 

[BondJamesBond]

Yes, as mad as I am, that made me laugh. Bond has charm. His post made me consider though that JT should/would have remembered a little girl's t-shirt that said "Big trouble comes in small packages" would he not?

It seems like, based on his description of their behavior, he would note the shirt in his comments to LE. He does not.

*bold & color by me* If I made you laugh...well, then...my work here is done, Woe. :cheerful:

And to do the unthinkable by rewarding the social commentary & characterization of JT as dirty-old-man...as I read the instructions on the back of my "Man Card" :deal: it says that membership requires I provide at least a cursory response to impuned character of another member in good standing. So....:whistle:...lemme add my :twocents: Of course, everyone's entitled to their own view, but - in the interest of full disclosure - if what JT wrote in his statement affords him DOM status...well...you won't be hearing much from me for awhile, 'cause I've gotta get to confession and......its prolly gonna involve bathroom & meal breaks for the priest. Hey...what'd you expect from Bond? :martini:

FWIW, I can understand JT didn't win any friends w/ the way he chose to make his statement...tossing in the been-burned-by-women-before aspects rinces:, etc. But, IMHO, it appears to me that he is being very, very candid about precisely WHAT he observed and WHY he observed it. IOW...why Casey's visit & specific behaviors stood out so much so that - even though he didn't know who she was - he recognized her again a week later when just passing her by in a trivial/casual situation. In fact, his word choice (e.g. "cleavage") seems to be relatively tame when you consider what might be considered more crude options. Add to it...(pulling out my Man Card again)...I think he may have been attempting to assert "hot pants" to describe the shorts she was wearing...but...IIRC, it came out, "hot shorts"...which admittedly sounds more like a commentary on how the shorts looked on Casey vs. a description of a particular type of clothing IYKWIM. Ironically, not unlike Casey'isms (word salad) we've heard for months now. So...I'm prolly up to a buck & change of my :twocents: by now...but IMHO, JT was offering up things that he felt qualified him to make the statements & observations he did. BTW...I don't recall Tony R. getting any wire-brushing for his comment about always feelin' like the girl after his interludes w/ Casey...which IMHO is in an entirely different league vs. JT's commentary.

And that concludes today's seminar. Man Club Members are now required to close by reciting the creed with me:

"I'm a man. But I can change. If I have to...I guess."

And may God Bless America. :usa: Amen. Drive safely! Good night everybody. Please send your cards, letters and donations to our sponsor.

ETA: I'm willing to bet that this only scratches the surface of what we'll hear from JT. Given the potential for his timing to see Caylee...LE would be all over interviewing him again & again to extract details. The statement would only reflect what he wrote of his own accord...IOW...its nothing like an interactive interview that I'm sure we'll hear about later. Plenty of time to ask detailed questions about what Casey & Caylee were wearing...the 'beanie baby', get JT's credit card transactions, receipts, cell pings, etc., etc. :thumb:

 

[nyvictoria]

Would LE not keep the original date of JT's statement on the record of his statement? Even if LE took time to verify his statement why would they take the date the statement was made to them off the form? It is dated July 2009.

There's nothing I've seen that indicates the date was taken off the form. It seems to me JT neglected to write the date. That said, the notary's date is July 2009. I'm sure LE know exactly what date he came in to give his statement. I would think they spoke to him on the phone prior to him coming in to give his official statement. Who knows? There may even be a taped interview we haven't seen yet.

The fact that LE disclosed it under discovery makes me think there's something to it. But, it does sound a tad off to me. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

There's nothing I've seen that indicates the date was taken off the form. It seems to me JT neglected to write the date. That said, the notary's date is July 2009. I'm sure LE know exactly what date he came in to give his statement. I would think they spoke to him on the phone prior to him coming in to give his official statement. Who knows? There may even be a taped interview we haven't seen yet.

The fact that LE disclosed it under discovery makes me think there's something to it. But, it does sound a tad off to me. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

Oh, nyvictoria, you made me think of something. Because you're right ~ it looks like the date may have purposefully been left blank. I noticed that the Maitland Police came to JT's business to get his statement. Certainly they wouldn't have brought a notary with them. He could have made this statement as early as a couple of weeks after the WalMart sighting, been fact-checked by LE, et al, and then after everything checked out they had him come in to have his statement notarized. This could help explain the date discrepancy, couldn't it?

 

[Oakley]

*bold & color by me* If I made you laugh...well, then...my work here is done, Woe. :cheerful:

And to do the unthinkable by rewarding the social commentary & characterization of JT as dirty-old-man...as I read the instructions on the back of my "Man Card" :deal: it says that membership requires I provide at least a cursory response to impuned character of another member in good standing. So....:whistle:...lemme add my :twocents: Of course, everyone's entitled to their own view, but - in the interest of full disclosure - if what JT wrote in his statement affords him DOM status...well...you won't be hearing much from me for awhile, 'cause I've gotta get to confession and......its prolly gonna involve bathroom & meal breaks for the priest. Hey...what'd you expect from Bond? :martini:

FWIW, I can understand JT didn't win any friends w/ the way he chose to make his statement...tossing in the been-burned-by-women-before aspects rinces:, etc. But, IMHO, it appears to me that he is being very, very candid about precisely WHAT he observed and WHY he observed it. IOW...why Casey's visit & specific behaviors stood out so much so that - even though he didn't know who she was - he recognized her again a week later when just passing her by in a trivial/casual situation. In fact, his word choice (e.g. "cleavage") seems to be relatively tame when you consider what might be considered more crude options. Add to it...(pulling out my Man Card again)...I think he may have been attempting to assert "hot pants" to describe the shorts she was wearing...but...IIRC, it came out, "hot shorts"...which admittedly sounds more like a commentary on how the shorts looked on Casey vs. a description of a particular type of clothing IYKWIM. Ironically, not unlike Casey'isms (word salad) we've heard for months now. So...I'm prolly up to a buck & change of my :twocents: by now...but IMHO, JT was offering up things that he felt qualified him to be making the memories & observations that he was making & recalling in his statement. I don't recall Tony R. getting any wire-brushing for his comment about always feelin' like the girl after his interludes w/ Casey...which IMHO is in an entirely different league vs. JT's commentary.

And that concludes today's seminar. Man Club Members are now required to close by reciting the creed with me:

"I'm a man. But I can change. If I have to...I guess."

And may God Bless America. :usa: Amen. Drive safely! Good night everybody. Please send your cards, letters and donations to our sponsor.

ETA: I'm willing to bet that this only scratches the surface of what we'll hear from JT. Given the potential for his timing to see Caylee...LE would be all over interviewing him again & again to extract details. The statement would only reflect what he wrote of his own accord...IOW...its nothing like an interactive interview that I'm sure we'll hear about later. Plenty of time to ask detailed questions about what Casey & Caylee were wearing...the 'beanie baby', get JT's credit card transactions, receipts, cell pings, etc., etc. :thumb:

You are adorable! :blowkiss:

 

[momtective]

You are adorable! :blowkiss:

I'm raying: for 12 just like him on the jury!

 

[nyvictoria]

Oh, nyvictoria, you made me think of something. Because you're right ~ it looks like the date may have purposefully been left blank. I noticed that the Maitland Police came to JT's business to get his statement. Certainly they wouldn't have brought a notary with them. He could have made this statement as early as a couple of weeks after the WalMart sighting, been fact-checked by LE, et al, and then after everything checked out they had him come in to have his statement notarized. This could help explain the date discrepancy, couldn't it?

Great catch ExpectingUnicorns!!!!! That explains it then. By the time they vetted him it could certainly have been quite a while before he gave a formal written statement.

Makes it a little bit more believable, doesn't it? Although I'm still not sure what I think of him. As long as LE and the State have faith in his statement, I guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt. :waitasec:

 

[Gma Kat]

My problem with his statement - since when does wal-mart not have automatic doors?:waitasec:

- That's not really professional to talk about how hot your customer is.

- And....I don't know the whole statement sounded made up to me? I dunno

Our Walmart does not have automatic doors, they have manual doors and they keep one propped open at all times on each side of the foyer. Usually people who have carts already use this propped open door to push their carts through and everyone else ends up having to use the manual doors. Don't know if this holds true where KC/Caylee were seen. Just info that possibly they did not have automatic doors.

 

[BondJamesBond]

As long as LE and the State have faith in his statement, I guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt. :waitasec:

*snipped*

:clap: :clap: :thumb: :clap: clap:

You know this guys gonna catch 9-kindzahell for being within 2-degrees of knowing anything about this case...nevermind potentially bein' the last person to see Caylee alive!

So....if/when you can find it in your reasoning to filter out what maybe the saltier part of his statement...look beyond the fact that he's human (and a guy :whistle and if/when you think you can see your way to that...say a prayer for him for what he must be (and will be) going through.

Note that he even wrote about his conscience bothering him about maybe having had the opportunity to change Caylee's fate. When/if you can filter through all of that...IMHO, I think you'll see a guy standing up for justice for Caylee.