:waitasec:
What tragic accident did Drew Peterson cover up?
He covered up a murder to look like an accident.
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.
Ok I will agree with you on that but what I was trying to say was in response to
"A cop wouldn't have even tried to cover up a tragic accident".......just saying that not everyone who is in law enforcement is to be trusted.
I am have been in EMS for over 27 years and I have seen a lot of dishonesty from law enforcement and EMS as well........Just because someone wears a badge doesn't make then anymore honest, morally or ethically right than you or I.
it comes down to this: if the original reason he covered up the crime was to protect ICA from getting arrested for child neglect, would he really sit by and not do anything when she was charged with murder, told the SA would seek the DP AND sat in jail for 3 years? It just defies common sense.
And I haven't even gotten into his knowing of CPR, his knowledge of evidence from being a cop (a cop would not let a dead body sit in a trunk for that long OR use materials from their house OR dump their precious grandchild's body a block and a half from their home. He would have put her body where it would have been never found- including RK.
It think there is PLENTY of evidence that it is not GA. JMOO
JMO but I think the point of "a cop wouldn't" wasn't about trust, it wasn't that all cops are too honest to do that, it was more that covering up an accident would be a really stupid thing to do and even more so if you're a cop and know how crimes get investigated and solved.
Quoting coloradoteacher, where I think this train of thought started from:
Of course there maybe cops who are stupid as well as dishonest but I think we can safely say that GA didn't cover up the tragic drowning accident in order to save Casey from child neglect charges by putting Caylee's body in her trunk to decompose. He'd have to know he was begging for more trouble, not avoiding any.
main thing imo is why would GA cover up an accident drowning for ICA? what does he have to gain by that? and in the process cover it up but make it look like ICA did it? makes no sense to me. even *if* he really did sexually abuse her it makes no sense that he would do this. not to mention the amount of time and money he put into looking for caylee.
I agree I don't think any of us think that GA covered it up......I think we all know who the real culprit is, but we need to be prepared for the DT theories as silly as they may seem. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt in just one juror and it's over.
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.
I think Casey herself will, In all her glory.
They also have computer expert of their own I believe, to discuss his Escort Services hits ion the computer.
And members of the family and friends will discuss his affairs and his gambling and lying, and volatile temper. imo/
From the facts presented, it is not reasonable to assume GA did it. This is exactly my gripe with the term "Reasonable Doubt". People consistently get it confused with "Beyond the shadow of a a doubt. I hope the jurors don't do this and slip GA in their heads as a perp. It is to be expected to have doubts in any case presented butthe question is, is your doubt reasonable? IMO, no.
Where did the term "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" originate? Mr. Baez would like everyone to take that stance and that is what he is hanging his hat on. For every doubt you have about ICA not being the perp, ask yourself is this thought a reasonable one? Then refresh yourself using Dr. G's words. She explained reasonable doubt w/o using the term.
ITA with your post. However, I do have a doubt that ICA was the only one having access to duct tape, car, laundry bag, computer, and whatever else, even the Winnie The Pooh blanket and the "bear" CA was sleeping with. To me that DOUBT is REASONABLE. Is it not?
My opinion only
Wasn't there a FBpost or Myspace from Amy saying "you took my duct tape?" If so, why in the world didn't the SA admit that into evidence?
Take care, Robin
ITA with your post. However, I do have a doubt that ICA was the only one having access to duct tape, car, laundry bag, computer, and whatever else, even the Winnie The Pooh blanket and the "bear" CA was sleeping with. To me that DOUBT is REASONABLE. Is it not?
My opinion only
ITA with your post. However, I do have a doubt that ICA was the only one having access to duct tape, car, laundry bag, computer, and whatever else, even the Winnie The Pooh blanket and the "bear" CA was sleeping with. To me that DOUBT is REASONABLE. Is it not?
My opinion only
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.