wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,359
I have to say after watching Vinnie this evening one caller called in. She made a statement that is really ringing true with me and since I've not followed the case since a 1 1/2 to trial it may have been said. so here is what she said in my summation: Why kill the child at two years old? Could it be because at two or three years old, children are able to converse and say things like how school was that day or daycare.
So let's suppose that Casey thought she had to keep Caylee away from her parents until this accident that ICA is most likely responsible for was because she knew that at one time CA could say "Mommy put me in the trunk last night" or "Mommy left me in the car with my babydoll and there were bright lights." I haven't heard it but it makes the most sense to me.
We had many posts previously about how Caylee was becoming more and more verbal....she was able to communicate with her family members and CA and GA had been asking Caylee about Zach, Annabelle and someone's dog.....also KC had a parenting book open in her room with a section on tantrums was displayed.....Caylee was also hitting that stage of development when they begin to individuate from their care-provider and begin to go out on their own to successfully negotiate tasks...(ie: walking a little farther from parents at the mall to explore the environment)_ I believe that once Caylee had become more than a little doll to dress up and show off but became more independent in her voice and behaviors, kc did not want to parent this child anymore (if she ever did).....she especially didn't want her Mother to win custody .... it was more important to use the tool of keeping Caylee from CA that was the best reward kc got in this (that and witnessing her parent's pain) IMO