Sidebar Discussion #5

[com n sense]

I got the to the top of page 2. The instant I saw them put down Ashton and then start to defend Casey, I didn't read anymore. I knew what it was going to be, another person giving excuses for what Casey did and what a bad man Ashton is. No thank you. I've heard enough of that carp! Why is always put down Ashton, then poor Casey? Everytime I've read a pro-Casey article, there ALWAYS has to be a bad comment towards Ashton and then poor Casey, here's why she did what she did. It seems no one can just write something about Casey. They have to throw a comment in there about how bad Ashton was. Geez.

Also, I wanted to comment on the guest thing. Things have been so slow, that often I do read as a guest and only log in if I want to thank a post or say something (sometimes both). So I think that is what is going on too. We're obsessed and don't want people to realize it's us sitting there, reading, and hoping for a big news break, LOL. I swear, I'm not obssessed or anything! Really!

IMO they need to put down Ashton because KC was the one who made her & Caylee on opposite sides.
I remember when I first heard her say "they are on Caylee's side "to Kristina in that famous jail house video. I remember thinking there is only one reason a mother would feel she is on the opposite side of her child.
Hate, jealousy & envy come to mind.
You can not be for Casey & Caylee at the same time so you must go after the ones who love Caylee to be on Casey"s side.

 

[SoSueMe]

Hey everyone! Just a quick note about the guests on Websleuths. Many times there are workshops, classes, groups, etc., that descend upon WS to review a case. Like others have pointed out, some of the guests are actually members that for whatever reason, perhaps convenience, prefer not to sign in. Regardless, all guests are welcome so please, let's treat them as guests and not speculate as to who they might be. Sound good?

I also saw a post asking about social media sleuthing and we might have an area for you real soon in that regard. Please hold tight, we're working on it.


:blowkiss:

Thanks!
Sue

 

[ZsaZsa]

Thanks chefmom - now I definitely won't read it! Since I can't believe there is anyone out there outside of Cindy who believes OCA is innocent, and even then I think she knows the truth but refuses to face it, what I wonder is if this kind of complete junk is published just to keep the case alive and being talked about so by the time OCA gets off parole, someone will still hopefully be interested in reading or listening to her interview...

As if!!! :twocents:

Even CA does not believe she was innocent. You don't have to concoct stories and lie under oath if you believe that person to be innocent...

 

[bayouland]

BBM: It could be exactly that. Ot, it could just as easily be because some people like to incite. They don't even have to believe their own words...as long as they succeed in baiting others, their purpose is served.

JMO

JMO but I really don't see that post as bait. I think it was just from a poster who probably feels FCA is not guilty.

 

[bayouland]

Even CA does not believe she was innocent. You don't have to concoct stories and lie under oath if you believe that person to be innocent...

Agree. To me, Cindy and George both knew, early on.

JMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

Even CA does not believe she was innocent. You don't have to concoct stories and lie under oath if you believe that person to be innocent...

Agree ZsaZsa - I was just trying to slip CA's name in there and not start pages of CA discussion because you know how we all get about that subject once we get started....

I don't want to be in a grouchy mood all weekend because I've started grinding my teeth about all the carp she pulled during the last three years....:furious:

 

[logicalgirl]

Agree. To me, Cindy and George both knew, early on.

JMO.

OMG I wish I hadn't started.....:banghead::banghead:

 

[bayouland]

OMG I wish I hadn't started.....:banghead::banghead:

No, it is okay....we always like hearing what you have to say.

 

[NavySubMom]

Hey everyone! Just a quick note about the guests on Websleuths. Many times there are workshops, classes, groups, etc., that descend upon WS to review a case. Like others have pointed out, some of the guests are actually members that for whatever reason, perhaps convenience, prefer not to sign in. Regardless, all guests are welcome so please, let's treat them as guests and not speculate as to who they might be. Sound good?

I also saw a post asking about social media sleuthing and we might have an area for you real soon in that regard. Please hold tight, we're working on it.


:blowkiss:

Thanks!
Sue

As far as my original post about the number of guests, I was simply making an observation about something I noticed. If observations of that type are not allowed on this forum about that particular matter, I will refrain from making them.

I have, however, on the other hand, observed laudatory posts during the trial about the very large number of guests at any given time, that the servers were crashing, etc., and it was noticed by posters and admin how great that was, etc., so I thought I would mention what I noticed these past few days and was just wondering if something was up.

I will not post about it again.

 

[logicalgirl]

As far as my original post about the number of guests, I was simply making an observation about something I noticed. If observations of that type are not allowed on this forum about that particular matter, I will refrain from making them.

I have, however, on the other hand, observed laudatory posts during the trial about the very large number of guests at any given time, that the servers were crashing, etc., and it was noticed by posters and admin how great that was, etc., so I thought I would mention what I noticed these past few days and was just wondering if something was up.

I will not post about it again.

Hi NavySubMom - saw your question and wondered about the same. Mind you there are a ton of people who used to post here with great regularity up til the end of the trial who may be just peeking in to see what's new, without logging in.

BUT, there is the question of social sleuthing as I agree we are all quite nervous about how much of our general questioning conversation is being taken as social networking stats. For me it is interesting the mods have been thinking about it and are going to address it and I'm looking forward to what they come up with. I didn't find anything wrong with your :waitasec: now that we know what we know post verdict. Just IMO. At the same time we know we have a TOS of manners people, please!:great:

 

[chefmom]

So.... How 'bout this weather.... huh? :winkaway:

 

[TotallyObsessed]

So.... How 'bout this weather.... huh? :winkaway:

*snort*

Way to change the subject.....

 

[mac66]

I'm watching the interview on Dr. Phil with Baby Lisa's parents. The mother reminds me so much of Cindy A. and daughter. The phrases and wording of her sentences are similar, i.e. "What nobody knows". They all read the same booklet on how to kill your little girl and not get caught.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I'm watching the interview on Dr. Phil with Baby Lisa's parents. The mother reminds me so much of Cindy A. and daughter. The phrases and wording of her sentences are similar, i.e. "What nobody knows". They all read the same booklet on how to kill your little girl and not get caught.

awwwwww man I forgot to set my recorder.

 

[GiantPickle]

Thanks chefmom - now I definitely won't read it! Since I can't believe there is anyone out there outside of Cindy who believes OCA is innocent, and even then I think she knows the truth but refuses to face it, what I wonder is if this kind of complete junk is published just to keep the case alive and being talked about so by the time OCA gets off parole, someone will still hopefully be interested in reading or listening to her interview...

As if!!! :twocents:

Do you really think CA really thinks she's innocent ? I totally think she knows she's guilty but doesn't want anyone else to think bad about her precious snowflake.

 

[Julie111475]

Thanks everybody for the replies to my question, re: the duct tape. I knew that it was not a typical brand that was used, but I just couldn't remember if it was said if the A's had more than one roll in their home when it was searched. There was so much back and forth about the duct tape during the trial (obviously to deliberately confuse the jury) that I think I just thought maybe it was brought up in one of GA's over explanations of things and I wasn't sure if I had maybe missed it. I absolutely do agree that FCA did intentionally and completely by herself use that tape on Caylee, and I also think that a lot/or all of it took place right at their home. I guess that it's still just hard to imagine to this day a grandfather hanging up missing persons posters with the murder weapon that your very own daughter used to kill your granddaughter. Again I really appreciate all of the replies and hopefully no one misunderstood my question as baiting anyone.

 

[FLmom777]

Anybody see anything about it reporting for it's monthly probation attendance? I would think it should be no later than today.

 

[logicalgirl]

Do you really think CA really thinks she's innocent ? I totally think she knows she's guilty but doesn't want anyone else to think bad about her precious snowflake.

No I don't think she does - and I don't know that it's so much about thinking anything bad about FCA. But CA thinks she and FCA were "the same" and it don't think she can admit to herself that her own flesh and blood would do such a terrible thing. So I think she "knows" but is a long way from admitting it to herself let alone the world - and so we see all the carp she's said and done. Anything to not admit the truth.

 

[chefmom]

Thanks everybody for the replies to my question, re: the duct tape. I knew that it was not a typical brand that was used, but I just couldn't remember if it was said if the A's had more than one roll in their home when it was searched. There was so much back and forth about the duct tape during the trial (obviously to deliberately confuse the jury) that I think I just thought maybe it was brought up in one of GA's over explanations of things and I wasn't sure if I had maybe missed it. I absolutely do agree that FCA did intentionally and completely by herself use that tape on Caylee, and I also think that a lot/or all of it took place right at their home. I guess that it's still just hard to imagine to this day a grandfather hanging up missing persons posters with the murder weapon that your very own daughter used to kill your granddaughter. Again I really appreciate all of the replies and hopefully no one misunderstood my question as baiting anyone.

No worries, Julie! There is a thread on here about the duct tape, and another about the gas cans with much discussion about the duct tape. Also, one about Henkle tape. We have all tried, over the years, to make sense of this mess, and we have each just had to look at what we found and draw a conclusion. At one point I thought the duct tape may have been to keep fluids from coming out of her mouth. But, after seeing so much other evidence and hearing Dr. G's findings, I came to the decision that it seemed to be a deliberate act. All of the different stories and theories simply added to the confusion. I decided that the simplest explanation was true. We enjoy respectful discussion of this case.

 

[RR0004]

Okay, here's my understanding of the duct tape. Although it was never made a big deal, apparently a number of rolls of this unique tape went "walkies" from a security job George was at a number of years ago.

This brand of tape just isn't around anymore...and with it's unique markings it was pretty easy to point to the Anthony household, particularly when the Caylee is missing posters were stuck up with the same type. But I don't know that it was exactly the same roll of tape that was used. It most certainly was from the same unique group. My understanding is that the duct tape on Caylee was too degraded to be able to say it was on the same roll, but I may be mistaken.

BBM- I never heard about that. How did that come to be known?