Indianagirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 61
Do you think they can Charge her with murder 1? Especially with no body? Wouldn't they have to be able to prove she killed Caylee intentionally for it to be murder 1?
Osco confirms caylee dna
- Thread starter gigi2009
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
UK Scotland: Paul Conway, 67, Glenfinnan, 10 Sept 24
- Latest: truthfinder2019
-
- Status
redmamatwo
Mommy of 1 and 1/2 kids
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
MODS: If this is a duplicate, please delete:
http://www.wesh.com/video/17354638/index.html
Interview with John Allen saying that Caylee is dead.
http://www.wesh.com/video/17354638/index.html
Interview with John Allen saying that Caylee is dead.
Theonly1
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,431
- Reaction score
- 21
Fox at 5:00 in Orlando (link not available yet) Matt Irwin says evidence from trunk "suggests" there was a decomposing body in the trunk and that Caylee cannot be ruled out. He told the reporter that the hair was tested by the FBI and that it shows there was decomposition. The reporter said (paraphrasing) "I assume you're talking about the stain." Investigator Matt backed up and said it was not the stain he was talking about but that the hair was the evidence back and OTHER evidence (maybe the stain) suggested that it was Caylee. The interview is clearer than my description here!
Cagney
Out of the corner!
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 1
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69973
There is another thread regarding this.
Sgt. Allen confirmed that the DNA was Caylee's.
There is another thread regarding this.
Sgt. Allen confirmed that the DNA was Caylee's.
Theonly1
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,431
- Reaction score
- 21
I forgot to mention, the reporter also said after speaking with Mr. Irwin to expect "additional" charges to be filed within the next few days...
Chilly Willy
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,762
- Reaction score
- 3
If the evidence shows a dead Caylee was in the trunk the case should soon be labeled a homicide rather than a missing persons investigation. That happened very early in the Laci Peterson disappearance, before any physical evidence was found.
CMorrison64
Praying for OK's 2 Angels and Little Caylee
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 0
My heart is just breaking ... deep down knew this would be the outcome, but so sad ... so terribly sad. God Bless you Caylee Marie ... may the angels keep you in their loving arms. You are loved more than you will ever know.
Casey ... rot in you know where, I'm not worried about a death penalty, the general population in prison will take care of that.
I hope the grandparents get out of their state of denial and realize their precious grandchild is gone and start to come to grips with that and realize their daughter is a sociopath.
Casey ... rot in you know where, I'm not worried about a death penalty, the general population in prison will take care of that.
I hope the grandparents get out of their state of denial and realize their precious grandchild is gone and start to come to grips with that and realize their daughter is a sociopath.
Capri
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,776
- Reaction score
- 89
I hope so too, but it may take a while. Their whole life depends on believing in this. I have no idea how they will crumble if they let down their guard and believe it for even a moment.
Finally local6 indicates that Caylee is dead, according to detectives. They name sources, and offer confirmation. This was the last hold out of news media sources. All media sources are now reporting the same - that Caylee is dead, and she was in that trunk.
http://www.local6.com/news/17362634/detail.html
http://www.local6.com/news/17362634/detail.html
Thanks for the unfortunate, but inevitable update. I think it was yesterday that you said if LE spoke in absolutes it could aid the defense. Do you feel like this confirmation is a bad thing or a good thing? Do you still think they shouldn't speak in absolutes?
thanks.
I think the media is speaking in absolutes more than LE, but I think they are taking what LE is saying and saying what LE can't, specifically. I don't mean to say the media is spinning it at all.
I think that LE maintains the same speech pattern "indicates" "probability" ... though, I would expect now that limited immunity is off the table, or especially if formal charges are filed - their speech should change and become more definite.
JMO but from this specific local 6 article....
"We have scientific evidence back from the lab -- the FBI lab -- and we have evidence that we have not yet made public that leads our investigators to believe that Caylee is deceased,"
The use of "leads our investigators to believe" is like how they were saying "indicates". Still leaves them a slight bit wiggle room without laying everything on the table.
Again, JMO
I think that LE maintains the same speech pattern "indicates" "probability" ... though, I would expect now that limited immunity is off the table, or especially if formal charges are filed - their speech should change and become more definite.
JMO but from this specific local 6 article....
"We have scientific evidence back from the lab -- the FBI lab -- and we have evidence that we have not yet made public that leads our investigators to believe that Caylee is deceased,"
The use of "leads our investigators to believe" is like how they were saying "indicates". Still leaves them a slight bit wiggle room without laying everything on the table.
Again, JMO
That makes sense. Thanks jbar I appreciate your input.
So a hair appeared in the trunk of the car. The grandfather reached in the trunk, according to the witness at the towing yard, and removed a plastic trash bag full of what was identified as pizza maggots and paper by the tow yard's witness.
It is common for cars to be towed that have perishables in them. pershables rot.
Two options come to mind:
#1- what if.. and I'm saying this due to the fact that the grandfather claimed to the towing company that they had found the daughter, but not the granddaughter, BEFORE the car was taken home and Amy's number recovered from it and Cindy called amy to actually retrieve Casey.(ie- we have Casey, BEFORE he has Casey).. so what if the hair fell from HIS arm, or was purposely planted at that time? He's an ex-cop.
The decomposition stain found in the car was never identified as being human by an official source as far as I'm aware of. Their language has been so careful thus far that it's confusing whether they are actually saying anything or being taken out of context while answering directed questions.
#2- what if Casey was left in the car and forgotten by a drunk mother? Casey died and fell forward in the seat.. at almost three years old, perhaps she wasn't even in it safely. Car get's towed and the smell discovered by the yard owner.. "holy cow, you idiot, you towed it with someone in it!? this'll ruin me!"
Body hidden/ removed by towtruck company.
Mom too stoned to remember where her car was, doesn't want to get nailed with reckless endangerment, claims she's been missing for awhile to throw-off the timeline to push guilt in other directions. Cindy is too upset to immediately realize that the 8th was PRIOR to her trip to her father's Assisted Living facility.
Why doesn't mom push for the truth from her child when she visits, yet suggests that investigators use the "fear of god" to get her to start talking?
Mom and dad are helping create the smokescreen. To me the question isn't whether one of these two options are correct, but whether the Defense Attorney will go for options like this to plant the seed of doubt in the jurors?
The jurors will have to beleive Casey did this, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to convict her. That's ok though, the potential jurors around here are useless because they all have preconcived notions on the case due to the amount of info coming out all the tim. Juror selection will be from out of state, and some of those interviews are screwy in the 400 pages.. there's loopholes in the way some of the data was retrieved. The defense would seem to have an easy case here when you realize their goal.
All the defense attorney needs to suggest to his client(s) are that they need to maintain the smokescreen to avoid Jury clarity, and get her off the hook in the long run, quite like OJ simpson.
It is common for cars to be towed that have perishables in them. pershables rot.
Two options come to mind:
#1- what if.. and I'm saying this due to the fact that the grandfather claimed to the towing company that they had found the daughter, but not the granddaughter, BEFORE the car was taken home and Amy's number recovered from it and Cindy called amy to actually retrieve Casey.(ie- we have Casey, BEFORE he has Casey).. so what if the hair fell from HIS arm, or was purposely planted at that time? He's an ex-cop.
The decomposition stain found in the car was never identified as being human by an official source as far as I'm aware of. Their language has been so careful thus far that it's confusing whether they are actually saying anything or being taken out of context while answering directed questions.
#2- what if Casey was left in the car and forgotten by a drunk mother? Casey died and fell forward in the seat.. at almost three years old, perhaps she wasn't even in it safely. Car get's towed and the smell discovered by the yard owner.. "holy cow, you idiot, you towed it with someone in it!? this'll ruin me!"
Body hidden/ removed by towtruck company.
Mom too stoned to remember where her car was, doesn't want to get nailed with reckless endangerment, claims she's been missing for awhile to throw-off the timeline to push guilt in other directions. Cindy is too upset to immediately realize that the 8th was PRIOR to her trip to her father's Assisted Living facility.
Why doesn't mom push for the truth from her child when she visits, yet suggests that investigators use the "fear of god" to get her to start talking?
Mom and dad are helping create the smokescreen. To me the question isn't whether one of these two options are correct, but whether the Defense Attorney will go for options like this to plant the seed of doubt in the jurors?
The jurors will have to beleive Casey did this, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to convict her. That's ok though, the potential jurors around here are useless because they all have preconcived notions on the case due to the amount of info coming out all the tim. Juror selection will be from out of state, and some of those interviews are screwy in the 400 pages.. there's loopholes in the way some of the data was retrieved. The defense would seem to have an easy case here when you realize their goal.
All the defense attorney needs to suggest to his client(s) are that they need to maintain the smokescreen to avoid Jury clarity, and get her off the hook in the long run, quite like OJ simpson.
<<The jurors will have to beleive Casey did this, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to convict her>>
Not trying to be picky, but LE only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which I believe means it only has to be proven to the jury that what the prosecution is asserting is more than likely what occurred. If you consider say, Scott Peterson's trial, it really wasn't proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" because really, there could be some doubt there if you live in fantasy land. Beyond a reasonable doubt means you don't live in fantasy land and can surmise that he indeed is guilty.
I just have to wonder, if LE has this rock solid DNA evidence, what are they waiting for? During a trial, LE doesn't have to show motive and really doesn't have to prove exactly how a homicide (if it is) occurred (reference the Peterson trial, again). They just have to prove that it's more than likely the person on trial is guilty. Circumstantial evidence alone, if strong enough, is enough to convict.
Not trying to be picky, but LE only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which I believe means it only has to be proven to the jury that what the prosecution is asserting is more than likely what occurred. If you consider say, Scott Peterson's trial, it really wasn't proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" because really, there could be some doubt there if you live in fantasy land. Beyond a reasonable doubt means you don't live in fantasy land and can surmise that he indeed is guilty.
I just have to wonder, if LE has this rock solid DNA evidence, what are they waiting for? During a trial, LE doesn't have to show motive and really doesn't have to prove exactly how a homicide (if it is) occurred (reference the Peterson trial, again). They just have to prove that it's more than likely the person on trial is guilty. Circumstantial evidence alone, if strong enough, is enough to convict.
- Status