BuzzieCat
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 17
That's making it sound like she stole only in response to Caylee's death. I could search for a link if I must, but it's my understanding that Casey had been stealing from her mother's bank account and even once from her grandfather's account, before anything happened to Caylee.The 'one instance' is in regards to everything that related to the one event in her life. Her child died, she went on a shopping spree with someone else's money, it has become publicly known her child is gone, then we find out her child is dead, etc etc. We can't go back through the years and say "This year she was arrested for DUI, this year she was arrested for stealing, this year she was arrested for murder, this year she was arrested for domestic violence, this year she was arrested for check fraud, etc etc. Everything stemmed from a very short period of time.
Now I realize that she hasn't been convicted for that stealing, only for the stealing that happened after Caylee died, but the stealing itself can be shown not to have been a grief response since there was pre-death stealing.
I'm just not sure why, when faced with Casey making up the nanny story, LE would be expected to ignore that, not follow up with her about her lies, and instead investigate others. Why would Casey's lies about the imagi-nanny make LE think that Casey and/or Caylee had been abused? I'm also not sure how investigating GA or LA would have brought anything to light. Even if one or the other of them did abuse Casey, the physical evidence of that must be long gone. The DT's OS is not evidence and has not been proven. Casey herself denied that there had been an accident - LE asked her, meaning they were willing to entertain the idea of an accident. Also, how would they investigate a possible accident? Caylee's body wasn't found until way too late to see if she drowned.That is true that none of that happened in this case... but if LE had looked into other scenarios they could've come up with what the DT stated in OS. I mean, we truly don't know if the accident is true, if the murder is true, etc. We just don't, although many of us have our beliefs. But, if LE did investigate other aspects of this case, we may have come up with other information proving more so one of the theories. But, they focused on Casey after day 1. So, we don't know if there is other information out there supporting the drowning or supporting the murder.