Caylee Anthony 3 year old General discussion #106

[impatientredhead]

I would like to share something about this case that keeps bringing me back to less hope.
Sure, we know that the dogs MAY have smelled human decomposition. We also know that the Cindy mentioned the smell in the 911 call, a detective in court said that he smelled the decomp.

In the video, many forensics people were working on that car. Wouldn't those people have also recognized the smell? If the smell lingers as most posters here attest to, then they could probably walk a jury behind the car and let them smell for that matter.

LE needs to prove that the smell was associated with a particular person. Right? I guess, I am having trouble understanding all the kidnapping stories (believe me, I have tried to think of ways that this could be positive) and other theories unless a lot of people just don't trust LE.

I have read all the threads here and I keep coming back to the first evidence. Does anyone else understand what I am so poorly trying to say?

What we were told in our case was "sometimes there is no question what happened and at whose hands, but that doesn't mean it there is enough evidence to proceed at trial".

There are more forensics tests coming back (like the air sample sent to the bodyfarm), the dogs are admissable but not something they will want to hinge an entire case on. The kidnapping stories make no sense whatsoever.

 

[ketel0ne]

I believe Fox35 streams the 5pm news in Orlando. If I am wrong don't shoot me.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/

 

[Foxxtrot]

It's just sad that our "system" tends to error on the side of defendants IMO..it seems as though their rights are of the utmost importance. JMO.

Their rights are upheld until they are actually convicted. Casey hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

That is the way our justice system works. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[bluedevil21]

Yes but who is preserving hers? And her right to justice? And her right to be found??? Not that family and not her own mother!

unfortunately, there is no definitive constitutional "right" to justice or to be found. but there are constitutional protections in terms of protecting the safety, health, and general public welfare. i think keeping casey anthony behind bars just may fall under those provisions...

 

[LI_Mom]

I would like to share something about this case that keeps bringing me back to less hope.
Sure, we know that the dogs MAY have smelled human decomposition. We also know that the Cindy mentioned the smell in the 911 call, a detective in court said that he smelled the decomp.

In the video, many forensics people were working on that car. Wouldn't those people have also recognized the smell? If the smell lingers as most posters here attest to, then they could probably walk a jury behind the car and let them smell for that matter.

LE needs to prove that the smell was associated with a particular person. Right? I guess, I am having trouble understanding all the kidnapping stories (believe me, I have tried to think of ways that this could be positive) and other theories unless a lot of people just don't trust LE.

I have read all the threads here and I keep coming back to the first evidence. Does anyone else understand what I am so poorly trying to say?

Between the smell, the cadaver dogs alerting at the car AND backyard, the DNA tests & the fact that Caylee went missing without the mother saying a word for 31 days.... that's a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence against Casey.

Even without a body, it doesn't look so good for this mother of the year.

 

[Tracy1]

You mean, like, her right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Yep! Thats what I meant.

 

[SelmaClue]

It's just sad that our "system" tends to error on the side of defendants IMO..it seems as though their rights are of the utmost importance. JMO.

Everyone's rights are important.
Maybe that's the problem you're having with it all?
Defendants have rights.
That's why they are labeled "defendants" ....... because
they have a right to defend themselves, and the law
has an obligation to uphold the defendant's rights.

I know what you're saying (I think), though.
Maybe (and I could be wrong) you're thinking that if there's
enough circumstantial evidence in YOUR mind, the law should
agree that it's enough to suffice to turn the defendant into
the guilty party?

I'm not trying to be shmart-arse.
I'm just asking, because I can't think of any other reason
for what you've posted.

 

[Blink34]

unfortunately, there is no definitive constitutional "right" to justice or to be found. but there are constitutional protections in terms of protecting the safety, health, and general public welfare. i think keeping casey anthony behind bars just may fall under those provisions...

I agree, and that makes me think as I have said for a week this is or is in the process of GJ.. There is a reason a guardian ad litem has not been appointed in this case, and for me, there can only be one reason for that based on what she is charged with and the size of the bond..imo

 

[GizzySmith]

I found this little definition about a hold on a bail bond site. Thought it was interesting and it might help with understanding a hold. The example given is just an example and there is no reason to believe that it pertains to this case.

A hold is a detainer placed on you by another governmental agency which requires you be held pending clearance of the hold. Example: If you had unpaid traffic tickets you could be held in jail until they were paid or you served them out with jail time.

Pasted from <http://www.abailbonds.com/FAQ.htm>

 

[ketel0ne]

WATTS: Well, that's a good question, Greta, and I'm sure investigators are taking a look at that. They obviously haven't released that information to us because it's part of their ongoing investigation. But now, remember, the last phone call she made was 7:20 to Amy. There's no incoming or outgoing calls on Casey's cell phone, Greta, until 11:00 AM the next day.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Steph, thank you.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402721,00.html

That's what I went with. But again facts in this case are like sands through the hour glass.

 

[suspicious mind]

Honestly people, I don't care who ya are. If your child is kidnapped, and you are fearful of going to the authorities b/c you were threatened, you STILL go to the police in private and the whole thing would be handled behind the scenes...the FBI and police have people trained to deal with these situations. The plice would not have arrested her, and this would not have become some media circus. The so called kidnappers would never have known the police were involved AT ALL!!!! Please , no matter what the theory , you can't get around the fact that she didn't act on Caylee's "abduction" and that she told not a single soul , including her own family what was going on, instead putting on charades to everyone and living it up!

 

[Tracy1]

I found this little definition about a hold on a bail bond site. Thought it was interesting and it might help with understanding a hold. The example given is just an example and there is no reason to believe that it pertains to this case.

A hold is a detainer placed on you by another governmental agency which requires you be held pending clearance of the hold. Example: If you had unpaid traffic tickets you could be held in jail until they were paid or you served them out with jail time.

Pasted from <http://www.abailbonds.com/FAQ.htm>

Thanks for the information!

 

[bluedevil21]

In a recent case called Creech v. State of Florida, a Florida appellate court said that before a judge can increase someone's bond, the prosecution must first prove that there has been a substantial change in circumstances or additional evidence uncovered since the person's bond was originally set. A judge cannot increase someone's bond simply because he believes that the conditions of bond that were previously set by another judge were too lenient.

Depending on the evidence LE has collected they may be able to argue that circumstances have changed, they now have reason to believe the child is deceased (if they are ready to go with that), or that Casey is at risk of harm to herself or others.

I think there is a grandjury convened, and supposedly no one has initiated the process to get her out anyway. Could just be a publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]

i agree totally; especially about the publicity stuntiness of this reality tv circus act. and yes, i made up the word stuntiness.

 

[Lanie]

What about Caylee Anthony's constitutional rights?????

What about that?

I hear people bending over backwards to support Casey's rights without a thought for that little girl that is dead, at worst, or given away, at best!

What about Caylee????:furious:

I responded to bluedevil, but the thread closed before I got it posted, so I will respond to you.

LE, prosecutors, judicial system in general are all Government agencies, and by law they have to respect the rights of all citizens of this country. What kind of place would this be to live if they didn't?
As far as Caylee's rights, that is what this investigation is all about, trying to protect her rights, and if she is gone, doing whatever can be done within the law to seek justice for her.
There are people here who have stated they would like to beat the truth out of Casey, drug the truth out of Casey, etc, and more power to all of you, but in doing so you have to understand you would be breaking the law, and hopefully be willing to accept the consequences of that.
As unfair and unjust as this may seem in this case, and also in others out there, without some kind of system in place, there would be utter chaos. Take homeland security, for instance. :furious: Look what a mess that is turning out to be. It's all well and good to live in a cocoon where we imagine it is only affecting those evil terrorists, but the truth is it is really easy to charge pretty much anyone with a terroristic act and then deny them of their rights, without any evidence to back it up. I find that very scary.
Lanie

 

[Tracy1]

I have checked myself, Tracy.
My posts are not insulting.
They merely disagree with your thoughts.

And I ditto that. Mine are not insulting, they may disagree with yours. Same same.

 

[suspicious mind]

Yes but who is preserving hers? And her right to justice? And her right to be found??? Not that family and not her own mother!

that's exactly why Casey is where she is, and I hope she stays there!

 

[impatientredhead]

I think what people are getting upset about is the at a minimum appearance that protecting Casey's rights is being done so at the cost of finding Caylee, who no one protected.

On a global picture, of course I don't want Casey's rights violated and I don't want our rights infringed upon based on the emotion of a case. On a specific case level I would like to see her waterboarded until she tells someone where Caylee is. I don't think it should actually be done of course.

 

[Stoelly]

Everyone's rights are important.
Maybe that's the problem you're having with it all?
Defendants have rights.
That's why they are labeled "defendants" ....... because
they have a right to defend themselves, and the law
has an obligation to uphold the defendant's rights.

I know what you're saying (I think), though.
Maybe (and I could be wrong) you're thinking that if there's
enough circumstantial evidence in YOUR mind, the law should
agree that it's enough to suffice to turn the defendant into
the guilty party?

I'm not trying to be shmart-arse.
I'm just asking, because I can't think of any other reason
for what you've posted.

No, that's not it at all. How many times have you read about a case where a murderer gets away with it because of a technicality? (for example, he/she wasn't read their mirand rights, or the bloodied knife with the defendents fingerprints all over it and the victims blood all over it needs to be excluded from evidence because the search warrant wasn't valid???) These are laws that were made to make sure that defendents had rights until they were proven guilty and these same rights are now being used in ways that were never intended.

 

[Tracy1]

I responded to bluedevil, but the thread closed before I got it posted, so I will respond to you.

LE, prosecutors, judicial system in general are all Government agencies, and by law they have to respect the rights of all citizens of this country. What kind of place would this be to live if they didn't?
As far as Caylee's rights, that is what this investigation is all about, trying to protect her rights, and if she is gone, doing whatever can be done within the law to seek justice for her.
There are people here who have stated they would like to beat the truth out of Casey, drug the truth out of Casey, etc, and more power to all of you, but in doing so you have to understand you would be breaking the law, and hopefully be willing to accept the consequences of that.
As unfair and unjust as this may seem in this case, and also in others out there, without some kind of system in place, there would be utter chaos. Take homeland security, for instance. :furious: Look what a mess that is turning out to be. It's all well and good to live in a cocoon where we imagine it is only affecting those evil terrorists, but the truth is it is really easy to charge pretty much anyone with a terroristic act and then deny them of their rights, without any evidence to back it up. I find that very scary.
Lanie

Good post and another way to look at it. I am just so sad for Caylee...and the circus that has erupted around her disappearance. So sad.

 

[J-me]

I found this little definition about a hold on a bail bond site. Thought it was interesting and it might help with understanding a hold. The example given is just an example and there is no reason to believe that it pertains to this case.

A hold is a detainer placed on you by another governmental agency which requires you be held pending clearance of the hold. Example: If you had unpaid traffic tickets you could be held in jail until they were paid or you served them out with jail time.

Pasted from <http://www.abailbonds.com/FAQ.htm>

We still don't know.. the HOLD could be b/c Amy said she was pressing charges...