HOW does the State Prove it was not George?

[flourish]

Posting from a kindle dont laugh. didnt the amscot woman testify to how long the car was there? I heard George say what on the 911 call plus ca replies im talking to them which i agree was in response to george asking if she called 911...who else would be asking her that? casey lol? there was more but tired of typing on my kindle :smile:

 

[katydid23]

Thanks katydid23 for your response and for the welcome !
I promise i'm not trying to hijack this thread (lol) I just don't know anywhere else to post this.
I went back to the timeline and noted this also:
17th-GA worked-car backed in garage unknown time.
18th-GA worked-car backed in and ICA borrowed shovels from 1:30/2:30
(GA would be home at that time)
19th-GA not scheduled to work
20th-GA did not work-car backed in garage(per neighbor)around 12-2pm or 3pm (GA would be at home at this time too)

3 times car noted to back in garage and only saw casey one of those times.
Scratching my head on this !!

See, that is why I started this thread. I am concerned that there is some confusion that could be stirred up by the DT to raise reasonable doubt. The state really needs to nail down a solid timeline and show that George was not there at the time. imoo

 

[claudicici]

ITA. If GA had molested her and/or Caylee, why would she wait to report it until Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool? Also, why would GA fear molestation being discovered during an accidental death investigation?


ITA. Also, why would GA initiate a cover-up, whether botched or not, that would just bring more suspicion on the entire family than an accidental death investigation probably would?

I think the defense should have put more emphasize on that GA and KC were doing this because of CA and about how she would react not about consequences from Law enforcement.
Take GA out of the equation and I do believe that's what could have happened.

 

[BuzzieCat]

During an autopsy, if the state decided to have one, they might look at a child's
body to see if there was any evidence of abuse, [ tearing or whatnot.]

If a child was hidden and stayed hidden then they could not be checked for child abuse.

Would they check for *that* kind of abuse? I'm sure they would check the skin and bones for bruising and breakage, but would a child's drowning bring on a check for molestation? If they found fluid in her lungs, no significant bruising, no broken bones, no suspicious medical history, and the family's stories matched and didn't seem to conflict with the evidence...would they automatically check for sexual abuse if every other sign pointed to accidental drowning?

If the child is hidden, sure they can't check for child abuse, but they sure can check for what family members might have had something to do with the disappearance. If GA feared ICA reporting his supposed abuse, wouldn't he think ICA would report it if the police came around checking on Caylee's whereabouts? He would have to know that Cindy, totally out of the loop and desperately wondering what happened to her grandchild, would eventually do something to trigger an investigation. And if he told ICA to get out of the house and go into hiding, he would have no way to know whether or not she might go to the police.

ETA: I'm kind of enjoying hashing this out and all of us trying to counter anything the DT might try to claim.

 

[katydid23]

Would they check for *that* kind of abuse? I'm sure they would check the skin and bones for bruising and breakage, but would a child's drowning bring on a check for molestation? If they found fluid in her lungs, no significant bruising, no broken bones, no suspicious medical history, and the family's stories matched and didn't seem to conflict with the evidence...would they automatically check for sexual abuse if every other sign pointed to accidental drowning?

If the child is hidden, sure they can't check for child abuse, but they sure can check for what family members might have had something to do with the disappearance. If GA feared ICA reporting his supposed abuse, wouldn't he think ICA would report it if the police came around checking on Caylee's whereabouts? He would have to know that Cindy, totally out of the loop and desperately wondering what happened to her grandchild, would eventually do something to trigger an investigation. And if he told ICA to get out of the house and go into hiding, he would have no way to know whether or not she might go to the police.

ETA: I'm kind of enjoying hashing this out and all of us trying to counter anything the DT might try to claim.

First of all, I am just hashing it out too. Obviously do not believe any of it. But I am just hoping the state is ready to refute it all.

THey do not always check for abuse in accidental drownings. And they probably wouldn't have in this case. But that won't stop the DT from making the claim, imo/

THat is a very good point. How would he know he could trust her not to go to the cops. I imagine they will say that is WHY he framed her by putting the body in her trunk. He covered his own arse and framed her.

 

[Jetaime]

katydid23:
I get what you're saying, because I've personally had these feelings [especially since the SA have essentially rested]. Not that we believe this nonsense, but thank you for vehemently voicing practically everything I have been feeling throughout this trial. Most of us in this Caylee forum know soooo much more than the jurors are privy to. I know more info will 'come out' from the SA by the time both sides rest- but I know where the DT is going to go....and all it takes is just ONE juror. (#4 -ahem-). It will be interesting to see what they have up their sleeves... but I'd be lying if I said that I'm feeling as confident as I *have been* re: the outcome of this trial. :sick:
I pray to god I'm wrong.

 

[Just Jayla]

katydid23:
I get what you're saying, because I've personally had these feelings [especially since the SA have essentially rested]. Not that we believe this nonsense, but thank you for vehemently voicing practically everything I have been feeling throughout this trial. Most of us in this Caylee forum know soooo much more than the jurors aren't privy to. I know more info will 'come out' from the SA by the time both sides rest- but I know where the DT is going to go....and all it takes is just ONE juror. (#4 -ahem-). It will be interesting to see what they have up their sleeves... but I'd be lying if I said that I'm feeling as confident as I *have been* re: the outcome of this trial. :sick:
I pray to god I'm wrong.

You knows what's odd to me...I believe if this trial were not as followed as it is, it could be cut and dry DP verdict as any other DP verdict in this country is. There's something about high profile cases that trigger me to think pesimisticly (thanks OJ). The last lady we put to death here did not even kill the victims herself (she hired killers), and with no fanfare she was given lethal injection after 6 years on death row. Very few people outside of Virginia can even name her.
But, perhaps this jury is not seeing the high profile aspect as much as we do and they will simply see what LDB sees. One can hope, even if that one is just me.

 

[Donjeta]

Let's say what JB alleged was true. Caylee died accidently and George demanded it be covered up. What is the motive for that? How does one get from the leap that he abused KC to he hid the body? Why would it be assumed that KC would tell on George even if he did molest her? She would call 911 and say her child drowned, oh and by the way, my father molested me when I was a child. If she didn't tell anyone all those years why was George supposed to think that this would cause her to spill the beans now? One doesn't have anything to do with the other, does it?

IMO she would have been a lot more likely to spill the beans about the child abuse if the police was investigating the family because they have a disappearance of a child than if they have a drowning accident. Everything will be dug up if a child just vanishes in thin air.

That is the point. I think they are going to try and say he was framing Casey.
And they may even say he was a pedophile, and Casey was threatening to turn him in. and bla bla bla...

It would have made more sense to kill Casey then IMO. If he framed Casey for Caylee's murder he was just begging for her to spill the beans on him.

That is exactly why the DT will fine tune their story a bit. We have seen already that they have been leaving little clues implying George was framing Casey.

WHY would he do that if he was truly covering for her? I think they are planning another bombshell, blindsiding opening for their Case In Chief. And they are going to get ugly with George. It was NOT an accident at all, and George was in charge of the whole evil event. And he was blaming it all on poor little Casey.And she has been sitting in 'protection' and not prison all of this time.

It could backfire. If they change the story after having the jury may think they're just making it all up along the way to make it fit whatever comes up. They would ask themselves, why didn't they say in the OS that she was sitting in 'protection' scared for her life (why would you feel safer waiting for a death penalty trial is a bit of a mystery?). Instead they said she was in la-la-land and thought everything was A-okay due to her past shattering experiences and that's why she invented all these imaginary characters. It may not go over too well since it's a completely different story.

Yup, that is what they said in their OS. HOWEVER, there are clues that they are now going with a more aggressive case against George. They have consultants, like LKB and Janie W. who are out on the media tour. And these 'consultants' are floating the theory that George was framing Casey. They imply that he put the duct tape on her little face,l then kept it in the home on purpose, even used it on camera from news station filming him. They imply that he changed her clothes, putting the wrong size shorts on, before putting her in the trunk to frame Casey. They have to go with the 'framing' scenario because no one would believe an ex cop would do all of those stupid things unless it was a frame up.

They cannot go with the old accident story because everyone laughed in their faces.

But I thought the defense says she was never in the trunk, it was Grandma's hair, and a dead squirrel eating a raw hamburger with a bag over its head, and cleaning products and the dogs shouldn't testify because they're dogs?

IDK, if I was the jury it wouldn't seem right to me that the defense is fighting evidence that they need to be true in order for their story to fit the facts as well. If they say George put Caylee or decomposition materials in the trunk to¨frame Casey why are they fighting the evidence that there was decomposition in the trunk?

I just feel like I'm asked to believe ten impossible things before breakfast.

If they had gone with the story that George killed Caylee and ICA covered up for him, scared and confused and not knowing what to do it would have made more sense but I'm not sure how they could make that leap now after the OS said something totally different.

 

[katydid23]

katydid23:
I get what you're saying, because I've personally had these feelings [especially since the SA have essentially rested]. Not that we believe this nonsense, but thank you for vehemently voicing practically everything I have been feeling throughout this trial. Most of us in this Caylee forum know soooo much more than the jurors aren't privy to. I know more info will 'come out' from the SA by the time both sides rest- but I know where the DT is going to go....and all it takes is just ONE juror. (#4 -ahem-). It will be interesting to see what they have up their sleeves... but I'd be lying if I said that I'm feeling as confident as I *have been* re: the outcome of this trial. :sick:
I pray to god I'm wrong.

The DT's OS was a big joke to all of us here. But I have seen how it actually worked on some people who know nothing about this case. He convinced a small percentage of the population that Casey is just a victim and it was all on George. So they are going to pour it on during their CIC and aim to convince just 1 or 2 of the jurors. And they can muddy up the waters with the duct tape and the car confusion, imo. It scares me to.

 

[katydid23]

You knows what's odd to me...I believe if this trial were not as followed as it is, it could be cut and dry DP verdict as any other DP verdict in this country is. There's something about high profile cases that trigger me to think pesimisticly (thanks OJ). The last lady we put to death here did not even kill the victims herself (she hired killers), and with no fanfare she was given lethal injection after 6 years on death row. Very few people outside of Virginia can even name her.
But, perhaps this jury is not seeing the high profile aspect as much as we do and they will simply see what LDB sees. One can hope, even if that one is just me.

I AGREE. Having this national spotlight makes every detail like a Supreme Court Issue or something. It is crazy.

 

[txsvicki]

I think the defense should have put more emphasize on that GA and KC were doing this because of CA and about how she would react not about consequences from Law enforcement.
Take GA out of the equation and I do believe that's what could have happened.

Baez sure used all the sensational hearsay that was in the media for the defense opening. By mouthing "I love you" today, Cindy debunked Casey telling cops at Universal that her mother said she'd never forgive her, which may not have been true.

 

[katydid23]

IMO she would have been a lot more likely to spill the beans about the child abuse if the police was investigating the family because they have a disappearance of a child than if they have a drowning accident. Everything will be dug up if a child just vanishes in thin air.

TRUE.


It would have made more sense to kill Casey then IMO. If he framed Casey for Caylee's murder he was just begging for her to spill the beans on him.

TRUE


It could backfire. If they change the story after having the jury may think they're just making it all up along the way to make it fit whatever comes up. They would ask themselves, why didn't they say in the OS that she was sitting in 'protection' scared for her life (why would you feel safer waiting for a death penalty trial is a bit of a mystery?). Instead they said she was in la-la-land and thought everything was A-okay due to her past shattering experiences and that's why she invented all these imaginary characters. It may not go over too well since it's a completely different story.

---I think it is going to be more of a shift in focus thsn an entirely different story. They are already kind of doing that by hanging the duct tape and car keys on George. They are already trying to implicate him in those ugly parts of the 'tragedy.' And WHY would he ever plant the body in the trunk unless he was framing her. But you do notice how often they try and put the car in Georges hands?


But I thought the defense says she was never in the trunk, it was Grandma's hair, and a dead squirrel eating a raw hamburger with a bag over its head, and cleaning products and the dogs shouldn't testify because they're dogs?

IDK, if I was the jury it wouldn't seem right to me that the defense is fighting evidence that they need to be true in order for their story to fit the facts as well. If they say George put Caylee or decomposition materials in the trunk to¨frame Casey why are they fighting the evidence that there was decomposition in the trunk?

But Defense Teams do that a lot. They always say Our client didnt do it, but if he did, he wouldnt have done it that way, and we don't think the incident even happened, but if it did, SODDI anyway.

 

[katydid23]

Baez sure used all the sensational hearsay that was in the media for the defense opening. By mouthing "I love you" today, Cindy debunked Casey telling cops at Universal that her mother said she'd never forgive her, which may not have been true.

I hope the jury saw her do that. It says to the jury that Cindy loves her daughter but still will say the truth, even if it is not pretty. They will tend to believe that Cindy is not being vindictive, even though Casey is trying to destroy George and Lee. imoo

 

[chicklet]

Apparently the thread I started is Under Review so I can't post a link to the portion of the Dr. Drew HLN show that mentioned GA's ex wife telling Dr. Drew that GA has his own serious lying issues. This is only a portion of the program...much more was discussed.

http://drdrew.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/08/

Anyone who has Comcast cable can watch the full episode online...it's the June 8th show of Dr. Drew on HLN.

 

[Donjeta]

---I think it is going to be more of a shift in focus thsn an entirely different story. They are already kind of doing that by hanging the duct tape and car keys on George. They are already trying to implicate him in those ugly parts of the 'tragedy.' And WHY would he ever plant the body in the trunk unless he was framing her. But you do notice how often they try and put the car in Georges hands?

They totally tried to distance Casey from that car yesterday when talking about the maternally related hair in the trunk. Assuming that the death banding is junk science and it came from a living person it makes much more sense to me that it would be Caylee's or Casey's since they used that car most of the time but JB blamed Lee or Cindy's mom, never breathed a word about the car probably being full of Casey hair.

But Defense Teams do that a lot. They always say Our client didnt do it, but if he did, he wouldnt have done it that way, and we don't think the incident even happened, but if it did, SODDI anyway.

Yep, they do, and it often sounds like desperate deflection to me. Might as well admit you're guilty.

I suppose it has to work sometimes or they wouldn't do it.

 

[Studio_Medic]

Exactly. A cop wouldn't have even tried to cover up a tragic accident.

Two words: Drew Peterson

 

[chicklet]

Two words: Drew Peterson

Exactly! I think that assuming anyone who has been in law enforcement is innocent of any wrong doing or too smart to do stupid things is sort of like assuming that priests would never hurt a child. There is also the LE officer that killed his pregnant girlfriend and left this toddler alone with the body.

 

[TigerBalm]

Two words: Drew Peterson

:waitasec:
What tragic accident did Drew Peterson cover up?

He covered up a murder to look like an accident.

 

[Studio_Medic]

It appears that the main defense strategy will be GEORGE DID IT. And Kronk helped at the end. And Cindy left the ladder up...

They are even going to imply that George is framing Casey because he was abusing Caylee and did not want to be exposed, imo.

So does the state have any solid evidence that can prove his innocence and her guilt?

Their 'evidence' :

George had control of the duct tape.

He had keys to the Pontiac.

He had access to all of the burial items.

He knew about the burial site.

He attempted suicide.

He did not call LE when he left the tow yard.

He had no response when he first 'learned' about Caylee being missing.

He went secretly to LE and gave incriminating evidence about Casey.

Casey has all the symptoms of abuse survivor.

Don't forget as a former detective he would know that large quantities of Chloroform will break down DNA/RNA evidence.....hence why no DNA was found in the trunk but Chloroform was........

 

[Soulmagent]

George covering up this murder simply defies logic. WHY on earth would he do that? He had nothing to gain! IF he had been involved at all, he would have called 911 and given Caylee a respectful funeral. Why would he have thrown Caylee in the woods? Cindy would have murdered him when she found out and he knew it. If there is one true-ism in this whole case, it was that George didn't want to get Cindy all stirred up and going off on him. He could have GUARANTEED that if he had discarded her beloved granddaughter as trash he would have been chewed up and spit out right beside her. NO WAY would George have been involved in a cover-up - not for Casey, not for anybody.

If Caylee was sexually abused of course he would want to hide that. Not that I believe that but it happens and it would be a good motive to hide an accidental death. Setting Casey up for that sounds iffy but heck maybe GA hates her like the rest of the world does.(in theory)

That didn't work in the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Just saying.

I was under the impression that case was very far from resolved. I also compare this case to that one in some aspects it might be interesting to so social historys compared on both familys.

But then again she came back and forth from the house driving the car, and George saw her at least once. And he had keys to that car. And she was actually staying nights in the same town, 10 minutes away. George was an ex-detective, so they may make the case he followed her or figured out where her car was.

Also, when she talked about the smell of the car she blamed George for using the car and hitting a dead animal. And she told Tony that she called her Dad and asked him to pick up the car from Amscott. That is going to be used against George right there. imoo

So it is not wild speculation that he might have had access to the car. ESPECIALLY because she was seen driving other cars herself at earlier times.

I just think we should all be ready for some aggressive, bruising testimony against George. imoo

This is a very good thread Katydid. GA does look like a reasoonable suspect if the defence can pull off loose ends reasonable doubt can be deduced by the jury.

Like say (speculation )GA had purchased brakes for Caseys car on the 17th of june and thats why the jacks stands were in Caseys car on the 24th. The DT had someone check the car and the new brakes are on the car which is now in evidence.

That would be something to create doubt. Just a theory ,to point out the defence team may have something that could quicky change the direction of this case.
Which could be backed up with evidence that of course the SA wouldnt want us to hear.