Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #8

[The Shoat]

..but what if the accident involved ( like many suggest) a drugged Caylee?

Yes ... this would be the only accident she wouldn't report, knowing that she would be considered responsible for Caylee's death -- I don't know if she knew the whole "child abuse leading to death" is a murder one in FL, but she would know she was in a lot of trouble.

 

[Kelroy]

Here's something I wondered when this story broke three years ago, but for some reason it hadn't occurred to me again until now: Why, when Casey finally had to admit she didn't have Caylee, did she say she disappeared 31 days prior? Since she decided to make up a nanny and use a kidnapping story, wouldn't it have been more believable to tell her family that Caylee had been kidnapped, say, the day before? Then the fact that she had been utterly remorseless the past month wouldn't have looked so terrible--and, you know, it sounds better to tell the police "my daughter was just kidnapped!" rather than "my daughter was kidnapped . . . a month ago!" I guess we can surmise she said "31 days ago" because that's when the death actually occurred, but if she was determined to make up an outlandish story, why stick with that date? I know that's the last time anyone else saw Caylee, but Casey could have said--like she said all along--that Caylee was with the nanny.

Obviously the story quickly fell apart, and the point is moot now; I guess I'm just wondering what on earth she was thinking. The very first thing that set off flags for anyone was the "31 days ago" thing, so what purpose did she have for saying it? Or am I missing something totally obvious?

Oh--and I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't been following this trial too long. Why does Casey set June 9 as the original date in the 911 calls? And June 16 is only 30 days prior to July 15, right? (Have I just revealed myself to be a total idiot?)

 

[GeekyGirl]

Here's something I wondered when this story broke three years ago, but for some reason it hadn't occurred to me again until now: Why, when Casey finally had to admit she didn't have Caylee, did she say she disappeared 31 days prior? Since she decided to make up a nanny and use a kidnapping story, wouldn't it have been more believable to tell her family that Caylee had been kidnapped, say, the day before? Then the fact that she had been utterly remorseless the past month wouldn't have looked so terrible--and, you know, it sounds better to tell the police "my daughter was just kidnapped!" rather than "my daughter was kidnapped . . . a month ago!" I guess we can surmise she said "31 days ago" because that's when the death actually occurred, but if she was determined to make up an outlandish story, why stick with that date? I know that's the last time anyone else saw Caylee, but Casey could have said--like she said all along--that Caylee was with the nanny.

Obviously the story quickly fell apart, and the point is moot now; I guess I'm just wondering what on earth she was thinking. The very first thing that set off flags for anyone was the "31 days ago" thing, so what purpose did she have for saying it? Or am I missing something totally obvious?

Oh--and I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't been following this trial too long. Why does Casey set June 9 as the original date in the 911 calls? And June 16 is only 30 days prior to July 15, right? (Have I just revealed myself to be a total idiot?)

That's a very good question. I would tend to think it was because she knew that a lot of her lies during that time frame could be easily disproved, but on the other hand, it appears that she was consciously trying to create "evidence" that Caylee was alive during those 31 days too (purposely admonishing a nonexistent Caylee during phone calls). I sometimes think we give her too much credit for having a cohesive long term plan. The more I learn about her, the more I tend to believe she was extremely impulsive and didn't really think much of anything through before opening her mouth.

 

[karen in New York]

Don't know where to put these questions - so I chose this thread
Why did Baez bring up the blanket that was not in evidence that contained blood?
And when people talk about the autopsy photos, was there anything besides bones, plants, and dirt? I am just wondering what the jury is viewing.
So many missing pieces of this puzzle and a strange timeline.

 

[TexasLori]

That's a very good question. I would tend to think it was because she knew that a lot of her lies during that time frame could be easily disproved, but on the other hand, it appears that she was consciously trying to create "evidence" that Caylee was alive during those 31 days too (purposely admonishing a nonexistent Caylee during phone calls). I sometimes think we give her too much credit for having a cohesive long term plan. The more I learn about her, the more I tend to believe she was extremely impulsive and didn't really think much of anything through before opening her mouth.

You know, I keep coming back to her being impulsive too. At least when it comes to her planning of this "disappearance." Its seems to me she flew by the seat of her pants and said whatever came out of her mouth once her mother got involved on Day 31.

 

[SMK]

Theory on what happened to Caylee.

When KC found Caylee's drowned body in the pool, she immediately went into the denial stage. She lay Caylee down near her little mailbox to play. Late that afternoon, she wrapped Caylee in her blanket, in a cocoon fashion and placed 3 pieces of duct tape on the blanket to ensure it didn't unfold, even placing a heart shaped sticker on the tape to show she loved her. While KC was wrapping Caylee in the blanket, a single strand of Caylee's hair caught on KC's watch. She placed the blanket wrapping Caylee, inside the laundry bag and carried her out to the car, placing her in the trunk. While placing her in the trunk, the single strand of hair slipped off her watch and fell into the trunk. She went back inside and gathered a few of Caylee's things and placed them in a plastic garbage bag. She had grabbed 2 bags, but only needed one and she placed it inside the first one. She then took this out to the trunk of her car. She drove around the corner to the wooded area. She took Caylee and the plastic bag with her things into the woods. She took the extra garbage bag out and laid it on the ground, somewhat under the log. She took the wrapped Caylee from the laundry bag and laid her on the garbage bag. She tied the plastic bag with her things so they wouldn't get lost, then took the plastic bag and the laundry bag and layed them beside her. In her denial stage, she thought she was laying Caylee down in a nice safe place, wrapped in a womblike way. She drove away and went to her boyfriends. Between the animals, bugs, and the tropical storm, the scene as KC had left it had changed drastically. The duct tape that had been keeping the blanket from unfolding, had been dislodged from animal activity, tropical storm, and deterioration, coming to rest next to Caylee's skull, and became attached to the hair mass and the mandible from root growth and weather conditions. The "garbage" in the trunk was not trash, but garbage (it became trash after being cleaned and placed in the drying room), was the cause of the horrendous odor.

It is possible. Insofar as the theory of GA in there, maybe it is the defense strategy, their idea. I see that you believe Caylee was not in the trunk, and it was the garbage which smelled. But what of the decomposition traces, or do you dispute these?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

You sent me to read this and I did, I noticed though that you didn't address how GA, CA and LA wound up under the bus? Why caylee spent approx 3 days in the trunk? Why Casey laid her out in the yard and then LATER in the afternoon went back for her? Why Casey spent 31 days partying and stealing from her friends ( and please don't say it's because she had no money to live on, she's spent the last 2 years at least ripping her family off)?

This is of course, just a theory, and I did try to touch on as much of the evidence in this trial as I could. There are 20,000 pages of discovery, and to touch on everything is impossible.

I didn't address CA, GA, and LA wound up under the bus because I didn't know GA was being thrown under the bus until OS, and I do not think CA and LA have been thrown under the bus.

In the theory, Caylee was only in the trunk long enough to drive around the corner, and was never in the trunk for 3 days.

In the theory, KC immediately went into denial, and did not comprehend her child had drowned. This explains all KC's actions, laying Caylee down, wrapping her up, lying for months, partying, the tattoo, etc.

I think KC was in the denial stage until Dec 11th.

As always my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[SMK]

Here's something I wondered when this story broke three years ago, but for some reason it hadn't occurred to me again until now: Why, when Casey finally had to admit she didn't have Caylee, did she say she disappeared 31 days prior? Since she decided to make up a nanny and use a kidnapping story, wouldn't it have been more believable to tell her family that Caylee had been kidnapped, say, the day before? Then the fact that she had been utterly remorseless the past month wouldn't have looked so terrible--and, you know, it sounds better to tell the police "my daughter was just kidnapped!" rather than "my daughter was kidnapped . . . a month ago!" I guess we can surmise she said "31 days ago" because that's when the death actually occurred, but if she was determined to make up an outlandish story, why stick with that date? I know that's the last time anyone else saw Caylee, but Casey could have said--like she said all along--that Caylee was with the nanny.

Obviously the story quickly fell apart, and the point is moot now; I guess I'm just wondering what on earth she was thinking. The very first thing that set off flags for anyone was the "31 days ago" thing, so what purpose did she have for saying it? Or am I missing something totally obvious?

Oh--and I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't been following this trial too long. Why does Casey set June 9 as the original date in the 911 calls? And June 16 is only 30 days prior to July 15, right? (Have I just revealed myself to be a total idiot?)

I think it is because IF the body were found, it would match the "31 days ago". Look like Zanny killed her. As far as pretending at times to have spoken to Caylee, she was just winging it, hoping the body would NOT be found. I do not see a premediated plan here. No planning, just a wing and a prayer.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Due respect here but, are you kidding? The duct tape just kind of floated around and found its' place in her hair and mandible? As far as the horrendous odor, if it was garbage turned trash after drying, why does the car still smell after 2 years!? Decomp is unmistakeable!! It doesn't smell anything like "garbage". C'mon......I can only support denial so far.

It is just a theory. If one believes that the duct tape had been used for murder and wrapped around her head, and one believes she was in the trunk for 3 days, and one believes the stain in the trunk was human decompositional fluid that caused the odor, then my theory would be unbelievable to them. I respect those opinions, but I disagree with them based on what I have heard in the testimonies so far. As far as denial, I had a friend whose daughter committed suicide at age 22, and this friend did not acknowledge her daughters death for nearly 2 years.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[BG4pip]

Here's something I wondered when this story broke three years ago, but for some reason it hadn't occurred to me again until now: Why, when Casey finally had to admit she didn't have Caylee, did she say she disappeared 31 days prior? Since she decided to make up a nanny and use a kidnapping story, wouldn't it have been more believable to tell her family that Caylee had been kidnapped, say, the day before? Then the fact that she had been utterly remorseless the past month wouldn't have looked so terrible--and, you know, it sounds better to tell the police "my daughter was just kidnapped!" rather than "my daughter was kidnapped . . . a month ago!" I guess we can surmise she said "31 days ago" because that's when the death actually occurred, but if she was determined to make up an outlandish story, why stick with that date? I know that's the last time anyone else saw Caylee, but Casey could have said--like she said all along--that Caylee was with the nanny.

Obviously the story quickly fell apart, and the point is moot now; I guess I'm just wondering what on earth she was thinking. The very first thing that set off flags for anyone was the "31 days ago" thing, so what purpose did she have for saying it? Or am I missing something totally obvious?

Oh--and I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but I haven't been following this trial too long. Why does Casey set June 9 as the original date in the 911 calls? And June 16 is only 30 days prior to July 15, right? (Have I just revealed myself to be a total idiot?)

I agree with those who say there are big pieces of this puzzle we do not know. But, based on what we do know, my best guess is that she thought her situation through enough to realize no one could corroborate her claim the child was alive after mid-June, but not enough to realize her partying for those 31 days would make the kidnapping story unbelievable. [The defense team seems to suffer the same shortness of vision. Abuse by George does not corrborate the accidental drowning theory. The defense contends an abuse victim develops a denial mechanism strong enough to explain how Casey could go dancing after her child drowned. But if you accept that contention, it also explains how she could go dancing after she killed her child. It does not favor drowning over murder.]

 

[claudicici]

Yes ... this would be the only accident she wouldn't report, knowing that she would be considered responsible for Caylee's death -- I don't know if she knew the whole "child abuse leading to death" is a murder one in FL, but she would know she was in a lot of trouble.

I always think she was waaaaay more concerned about the trouble she would be in with her mother,what her mother would think of her,that her mother would never forgive her.I don't think she was worried about the legal aspect.I don't think she was thinking about that IMO

 

[claudicici]

I think it is because IF the body were found, it would match the "31 days ago". Look like Zanny killed her. As far as pretending at times to have spoken to Caylee, she was just winging it, hoping the body would NOT be found. I do not see a premediated plan here. No planning, just a wing and a prayer.

yes,I agree,no planning at all.I think the "31" days also proves that KC always ties a little truth into her lies.I think that's an important fact to consider regarding the defense theory.IMO that theory is a KC fabricated story and she must have insisted for the Defense to use it.

 

[gypsyblue]

If you accidentally over chloroform your child and immediately think (Oh chit I better add duct tape.....um....not....) then immediately add duct tape to stage a kidnap, you call 911 to further your staging. I cant see kc thinking smart and far enough ahead to cover her azz and stage duct tape, yet dispute her own coverup with the failure to call and cry kidnap, and use items from her home to dump her in....these actions do not coincide....

imo Caylee was murdered with the duct tape, and dumped to rot in the woods.....and kc's kidnap theory only came when kc was shoved in a corner....

jmooc

 

[SMK]

yes,I agree,no planning at all.I think the "31" days also proves that KC always ties a little truth into her lies.I think that's an important fact to consider regarding the defense theory.IMO that theory is a KC fabricated story and she must have insisted for the Defense to use it.

So there may be a grain of truth in the molestation story, at least some crossing of the line. I can believe it, because of the family dynamics (over-bearing and dominant mother, weak father, favored daughter but not given correct loving discipline). Is this what you mean? If so, I agree.

 

[SMK]

If you accidentally over chloroform your child and immediately think (Oh chit I better add duct tape.....um....not....) then immediately add duct tape to stage a kidnap, you call 911 to further your staging. I cant see kc thinking smart and far enough ahead to cover her azz and stage duct tape, yet dispute her own coverup with the failure to call and cry kidnap, and use items from her home to dump her in....these actions do not coincide....

imo Caylee was murdered with the duct tape, and dumped to rot in the woods.....and kc's kidnap theory only came when kc was shoved in a corner....

jmooc

Unless you are trying to play it both ways, from cowardice or indecision or what have you: " I want to add duct tape IN CASE she is found, and then I will say she was kidnapped. But let me put it off for as long as possible. Maybe it will go on so long that in the end, no one will know what happened. "

 

[GeekyGirl]

If you accidentally over chloroform your child and immediately think (Oh chit I better add duct tape.....um....not....) then immediately add duct tape to stage a kidnap, you call 911 to further your staging. I cant see kc thinking smart and far enough ahead to cover her azz and stage duct tape, yet dispute her own coverup with the failure to call and cry kidnap, and use items from her home to dump her in....these actions do not coincide....

imo Caylee was murdered with the duct tape, and dumped to rot in the woods.....and kc's kidnap theory only came when kc was shoved in a corner....

jmooc

And thinking that Casey had the means, patience and opportunity to make chloroform, which suggests a high degree of premeditation, and then, as you pointed out, uses items from her own home to dump the body does coincide? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. MOO

 

[Cheewawa007]

Where was the bottle containing the syringe found? Was there male DNA found in the bottle & that is why it wasn't introduced as evidence? TIA

 

[gypsyblue]

Unless you are trying to play it both ways, from cowardice or indecision or what have you: " I want to add duct tape IN CASE she is found, and then I will say she was kidnapped. But let me put it off for as long as possible. Maybe it will go on so long that in the end, no one will know what happened. "

in her own trash bags, blanket and laundry bag?....nah ... not seein it....

jmo

 

[SMK]

This is of course, just a theory, and I did try to touch on as much of the evidence in this trial as I could. There are 20,000 pages of discovery, and to touch on everything is impossible.

I didn't address CA, GA, and LA wound up under the bus because I didn't know GA was being thrown under the bus until OS, and I do not think CA and LA have been thrown under the bus.

In the theory, Caylee was only in the trunk long enough to drive around the corner, and was never in the trunk for 3 days.

In the theory, KC immediately went into denial, and did not comprehend her child had drowned. This explains all KC's actions, laying Caylee down, wrapping her up, lying for months, partying, the tattoo, etc.

I think KC was in the denial stage until Dec 11th.

As always my entire post is my opinion only.

This kind of denial IS possible. I have seen it first hand in my own family (someone not accepting a cancer death as real, even a month after the funeral). What you set forth is not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[gypsyblue]

And thinking that Casey had the means, patience and opportunity to make chloroform, which suggests a high degree of premeditation, and then, as you pointed out, uses items from her own home to dump the body does coincide? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. MOO

my point was it was not an accident involving the use of chloroform..... it was a murder .... duct tape was added to Caylees face.

and yes the murder and disposal of her child with use of items from her home does absolutely coincide... hence one of the reasons she is on trial..... jmo