Sources: Casey Anthony Intentionally Killed Caylee Pt. 2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Paddie...Add to your scenario of an "accident"..."Joe" had duct tape on his mouth and a motive to silence "Joe" was found prior to you taking the walk.. and accident could be ruled out pretty quickly.

I don't think we really know about the duct tape. I've searched and it's those same "sources close to the investigation"....although one named it "a neighbor".

So in my example, I'm not certain Joe had duct tape on his mouth. How about if he fixed a rip on his tattered but favorite backpack with some.

As far as motive, we all have our own opinions I guess. I don't believe Casey had a great amount of foresight - she lived for the moment, and she conned everyone while living a lie. So I don't think her "motive" was real deep. Possibly it was easier for her to coverup whatever that happened to Caylee than do the right thing. Seems to fit her style. IMO
 
It's well known that Nancy has a serious "all guilty, all the time" bend based on drastic and unsupportable leaps to conclusions. She certainly appeals to people with such a failing.

I tell law students to watch her show as a good example of a bad example.
So you are saying because I choose to watch her show, my reasoning skills are shallow and I love to leap to conclusions? Maybe I just like to watch the good example of a "bad example", too. LOL
 
So you are saying because I choose to watch her show, my reasoning skills are shallow and I love to leap to conclusions? Maybe I just like to watch the good example of a "bad example", too. LOL

SS hahahahaha

You are always a good sport!!:)

I watch that bad example fairly often. Sure my eyes are rolling up, down, back, forth - but she is hilarious.
 
She is certainly someone I would never point to as a good role model.

BTW did she ever offer a public apology to the Duke lacrosse team?

No. No apology to the four young men on Duke's lacrosse team (falsely accused of rape).

No apology to Richard Jewell (Olympic park bombing).

No apology to John Mason (runaway bride).

No apology to the Aisenbergs (baby Sabrina).

No apology to Gary Condit (Chandra Levy).

No apology to the Ramseys (Jon Benet).

No apology to the McCanns (Madeline McCann).

No apology to Richard Ricci or to his widow (Elizabeth Smart).

Etc., etc., ad nauseum.
 
PaddieAB: "A simplistic example....If I went for a walk with someone out in the wilderness - say that person was Joe. Joe stumbled on a tree root and fell over a cliff by accident, it was not my fault that Joe fell over the cliff. I don’t know if Joe is dead or alive and I can’t see or hear him down there.

So I have two options:I immediately call 911. Unfortunately Joe died on the way to the hospital. Was Joe’s death an accident? Yes he fell over a cliff. I’m not charged as I did the right thing.

OR
I walk on my merry away and don't report the accident (for whatever reason - maybe I’m scared someone will think I pushed him). I act like nothing happened and coverup the fact that Joe and I went for a walk. I tell people who wonder what happened to Joe that he told me he had planned a vacation in Barbados. When someone eventually finds Joe’s dead body it’s discovered he scrawled a note just before he died....”paddieAB left me”. So the police investigate and I’m charged with murder. Was Joe’s death an accident? Yes or no? Did I intentionally cause his Joe’s death? Yes IMO because I deliberately walked away from the accident, I led people to believe he was on vacation and thePaddieAB:"

No. You did not intentionally cause Joe's death. You should not be charged with any crime.

Actually, if you are related to "Joe" and do not get him help, leaving him to say, bleed to death, there is argument that you have a DUTY to report or try to get him help. It depends on your relationship with "Joe". You would not "intentionally" cause Joe's death, but if there is a relationship according to statute you could be charged with a lesser crime.

In Caylee's case, Casey CERTAINLY had the duty for Caylee (and the Anthony's as well).
 
So you are saying because I choose to watch her show, my reasoning skills are shallow and I love to leap to conclusions? Maybe I just like to watch the good example of a "bad example", too. LOL

No. Other people watch her show too -- just because I cited one group does not exclude others.
 
Has the Source passed any info as to why they kept this info from Dr. G.? I'm curious.
 
The problems I find with this news report are first the "sources close to the investigation" actually making these types of statements. I do agree that the investigators involved in this case in every deoartment have conducted themselves in a very professional and ethical manner. This leak doesn't match that pattern of behavior.
I also believe that these leaked statements actually hurt the prosecution more than the defense. The leak gives JB lots to complain about and drag this case on longer arguing that Casey is unable to receive a fair trial.
The reporter choosing to report info from these anonymous sources is acting solely with ratings in mind. She is playing to a sector of the public's insaitible appetite for real-life drama. The reporter has only served to give JB a good argument for Casey's sixth amendment rights being violated. Like it or not, we all are entitled to a fair trial. Her story throws yet another wrench, another wrinkle into this mess. And in my opinion that does NOTHING to help bring about swift justice for the victim (who has been completely lost in this media circus)...Caylee.
Generally, these "leaks" have occured just prior to documents/information being made public. Perhaps by the individuals who are asked to compile information that is about to be released or that has already been given the "go-ahead" for a release???

Just thinking out loud...
 
Actually, if you are related to "Joe" and do not get him help, leaving him to say, bleed to death, there is argument that you have a DUTY to report or try to get him help. It depends on your relationship with "Joe". You would not "intentionally" cause Joe's death, but if there is a relationship according to statute you could be charged with a lesser crime.

You might think that a good Samaritan law (as made famous by Seinfeld and friends) would expose you in your state. That was a mythical application.

You would be no more exposed in the above example than if you had discovered Caylee's body but not reported it.
 
It's well known that Nancy has a serious "all guilty, all the time" bend based on drastic and unsupportable leaps to conclusions. She certainly appeals to people with such a failing.

I tell law students to watch her show as a good example of a bad example.
Wait a sec, I resemble that remark. :crazy:


No. No apology to the four young men on Duke's lacrosse team (falsely accused of rape).

No apology to Richard Jewell (Olympic park bombing).

No apology to John Mason (runaway bride).

No apology to the Aisenbergs (baby Sabrina).

No apology to Gary Condit (Chandra Levy).

No apology to the Ramseys (Jon Benet).

No apology to the McCanns (Madeline McCann).

No apology to Richard Ricci or to his widow (Elizabeth Smart).

Etc., etc., ad nauseum.


Hummmmm Wudge, if you don't watch, just how in the dickens would you know this info?????????:waitasec: (not being a smartie here, but I haven't replied to a post of yours before this one).
 
Actually, if you are related to "Joe" and do not get him help, leaving him to say, bleed to death, there is argument that you have a DUTY to report or try to get him help. It depends on your relationship with "Joe". You would not "intentionally" cause Joe's death, but if there is a relationship according to statute you could be charged with a lesser crime.

In Caylee's case, Casey CERTAINLY had the duty for Caylee (and the Anthony's as well).

It would be argued by a lawyer that Paddie as a human being with a reasonable knowledge that a fall off the cliff would cause some sort of bodily harm to Joe, and that acting against that reason to leave Joe to fend for himself was further exacerbating any injuries Joe suffered in the fall. Paddie could be charged with negligent homicide. If they find him not guilty in a criminal court for Joe's death, that still leaves Joe's family to seek damages for Paddie's negligence in Joe's death and they would more than likely be awarded tons.
 
Wudge,

How about he EMTS in Britain that debated whether or not to save the poor guy that called for help?

They were charged.

BTW, you are on Target with Nancy. She only cares about her ratings. Not the people.
 
It's well known that Nancy has a serious "all guilty, all the time" bend based on drastic and unsupportable leaps to conclusions. She certainly appeals to people with such a failing.

I tell law students to watch her show as a good example of a bad example.

Wudge are you a law professor? Just curious because you stated you "tell law students to watch her show as a good example of a bad example".
 
Wait a sec, I resemble that remark. :crazy:





Hummmmm Wudge, if you don't watch, just how in the dickens would you know this info?????????:waitasec: (not being a smartie here, but I haven't replied to a post of yours before this one).

Nancy was on Court TV for a good number of years. It was there that she spoke about most of the cases I referenced.

If I know that she is going to have a particular person on her own show (such as Dr. Wecht or Dr. Lee), I might tune in for a short while or read the transcript of the show (most likely).
 
You might think that a good Samaritan law (as made famous by Seinfeld and friends) would expose you in your state. That was a mythical application.

You would be no more exposed in the above example than if you had discovered Caylee's body but not reported it.

For those of you who care on this lovely Saturday afternoon, this is what must be met to give rise to criminal charges in the fact scenario mentioned before by PaddieAB:

OMISSIONS must meet 3 requirements:
1) Legal duty to act
2) Knowledge of facts giving rise to duty (or duty to learn facts)
3) Reasonably possible to perform

i. There are at least four situations where failure to act may constitute a legal breach of duty (can be held criminally liable):
1) when a statute imposes a duty (driver involved in accident must stop at scene)
2) When there’s a status relationship between the parties (parent/child, husband/wife, master/servant, captain/crew, innkeeper/customer)
3) When there is a contractual duty of care for another (lifeguard or nurse)
4) When there is a voluntary assumption of care for another and subsequent seclusion of person to keep aid away. [Jones v. U.S. (1962)]
5) When a person creates a risk of harm (or peril) to another. (Caused the dangerous situation to arise, even if innocently done)
6) Duty to control the conduct of others (parent to child)
7) Duty of a landowner to care for invitees

Where person is under legal duty and victim dies, many times actor is guilty of involuntary manslaughter—sometimes murder.

In Caylee's case, the A family (in my opinion) would be under legal duty to act if Caylee was say, drowning in the pool.

The ONLY caveat of which I am aware is the "innocent bystander" who has no legal duty to report or come to the aid. The ordinary bystander, who has no previous involvement with the peril, has no duty to act.
But if you have no duty to act, yet take it upon yourself to aid, you assumed the duty!


I stand by my statement that in your fact scenario that we'd need to know the relationship between the parties.

At common law, failure to disclose information about a felony to proper authorities constituted a misdemeanor--Misprison of a felony. The federal misprison statute prohibits active concealment, but not simple disclosure, of a known felony.

Ta!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
1,644
Total visitors
1,837

Forum statistics

Threads
606,693
Messages
18,208,540
Members
233,933
Latest member
Fangirl88
Back
Top