This thread is for the posters that believe Caylee is still alive

[Katie526]

I can't imagine what everyone who has this child dead would say if she was found alive.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Against my better judgement..so do I.

My reasons for believing so
1. Hair that was found in trunk has not been identified conclusively as that of Caylee.

2. No body yet found. Note... Yet

3. Too many people in KC's life traveling around the time Caylee went missing.

4. Interviews with prople involved too vague.

5. Still other possibilities as to where Caylee might be.

6. If LE had evidence to prove Caylee is indeed dead KC would have already been charged with murder.

I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time!

I so hope that you're right and I appreciate very much you listing the reasons that you believe so. Unfortunately, I don't agree. I'll explain why by referencing your points:

1. The hair allegedly has the "death ring". Since the hair has allegedly been determined to either belong to Casey or Caylee, and Casey is not dead, that leaves only one logical conclusion.

2. Many cases have been tried successfully without a body. Decomposition, cadaver dog hits, hair with death rings, etc., can likely add up to a conviction, IMO.

3. Casey is a young person (and not exactly stable). Young people often move around a lot. But I definitely see where you're coming from on this point and it does, indeed, warrant looking into.

4. I can't really comment on this as I don't know what has been divulged to LE in the various interviews. I think that there is a lot of evidence that we have yet to see.

5. I think that this links up with #2.

6. LE doesn't need to prove just that Caylee is dead. If they want to get a conviction, they have to prove that Casey did it. I believe that they are quite able to prove death at this point. They're just trying to line up the evidence that implicates the murderer. ETA: I also agree with the poster below that states that they are waiting to charge her until they have as much evidence as possible. No need to start the clock ticking while you're still chasing down information.

All of this is, of course, my opinion. I find it refreshing to see a post about Caylee being alive that takes the time to outline some reasons.

I TRULY hope that Caylee might still be alive and that I can eat my hat on this one!

 

[pb6656]

I understand that their is "evidence" but it's not evidence until submitted to the court.

I have heard this a couple times now. I don't get it. If it cannot be considered evidence until it is presented to the court, then how come people can be charged with "tampering with evidence"?

 

[tabbykiki]

My reasons for believing so
1. Hair that was found in trunk has not been identified conclusively as that of Caylee.
The hair has been identified as either Casey's or Caylees. The hair has the brown decomposing band on it that has been discussed to the nth degree here and on t.v. Since we know Casey is alive, it's Caylees.

2. No body yet found. Note... Yet
True but that doesn't mean she's alive.

3. Too many people in KC's life traveling around the time Caylee went missing.
What does this have to do with whether she's alive or dead?

4. Interviews with prople involved too vague.
Did you read through the 400 + pages of released documents? I didn't find anything vague about those interviews at all.

5. Still other possibilities as to where Caylee might be.
True, but NOTHING credible. There's also a reward for $250 for a "live" Caylee. No one has given any credible tips on where she is. With that big of a reward, it surprises me.

6. If LE had evidence to prove Caylee is indeed dead KC would have already been charged with murder.
False. Prosecutors are doing their best in compiling all of the evidence. As soon as they bring her up on charges, the defense attorney (JB) has a right to a speedy trial. That means prosecutors will be forced to trial quickly (either 60 or 90 days- I can't remember which). They are taking their time so as not to run into issues such as double jeopardy.

There are my answers.

 

[Cagney]

Against my better judgement..so do I.

My reasons for believing so
1. Hair that was found in trunk has not been identified conclusively as that of Caylee.

Snipped.....

The hair was identified using mitochondrial dna, and it shows decomposition....It belongs to someone in the Anthony family. I.E, Cindy, Casey, Caylee, Lee.....Since we have seen that 3 of the 4 are living, breating, walking...We can assume that the person that the hair belonged to was Caylee and she is no longer alive.

 

[whiteangora]

I understand that their is "evidence" but it's not evidence until submitted to the court.

Not exactly. The evidence of stealing and forging didn't stop an arrest warrant.
Still nice to have an early morning chuckle over Baez's inane comment tho.

 

[princess]

bump...here it is....gotta love that search feature on the top right corner of the forums.

I have quite a few Friends who believe she may be alive..

 

[Katie526]

Not defending Casey, but was doing what a normal 22 year old does. She had a baby at 19? She wanted to give her up for adoption and her mother wouldn't allow it. It's a lot for a 22 year old to be a mother, not that she didn't create that situation herself, but still, it's a lot. Her friends are out having fun and she has a child. She seems from photos and video to be a very loving mother to Caylee so we cannot criticize her for being in a bar with her friends or partying. May so after Caylee went missing but not in general.

I bet some parents don't even know that their own children are doing the same thing. It's just not open in public like Caseys actions are. I think Casey is protecting someone or was and it went wrong somewhere.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Not everyone believes this little girl is dead and with the lack of evidence I would hate to think any of you would be on the jury. Reminds me of the Salem witch trials. We live in America, here you are suppose to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. I hate to think that if Caylee is found alive that narrow minded, quick to convict people will have crucified this family for nothing more than an overwhelmings popular opinion.

Those air tests will be evidence, the detectives statements about the "death smell" will be evidence, the hair with the "death rings", the cadaver dog hits, etc., will all be evidence. Therefore, there is no lack of evidence. IMO, there MAY just be a lack of evidence about who is responsible and what the circumstances were. And for all of the evidence we've heard, I'm sure that there is so much more that we haven't.

You are 100% correct, though, in your statement that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

[monoxide]

So why is everyone blaming Amy? Not all 22 year olds act like that especially those with children

 

[tabbykiki]

I have heard this a couple times now. I don't get it. If it cannot be considered evidence until it is presented to the court, then how come people can be charged with "tampering with evidence"?

What is comical about this statement is that I just seen an interview with JB and he said the same exact thing. It's the first time I've ever heard such a ridiculous statement. I wouldn't believe or repeat anything out of his mouth as credible IMO.

Definitions of evidence on the Web:

* your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling"
* attest: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome manifest a high level of architectural sophistication"; "This decision demonstrates his sense of fairness"
* testify: provide evidence for; "The blood test showed that he was the father"; "Her behavior testified to her incompetence"
* an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear"
* tell: give evidence; "he was telling on all his former colleague"
* (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

[Alyzabeth]

I still believe Caylee is alive. I haven't seen anything to prove otherwise. I think she is in another country. I think the dead body that was alledgedly in Casey's car is the reason she sent Caylee away.
I have no idea what is going on with this case, it is sometimes too far out there to even comprehend, but one thing I feel sure of, is that Caylee is alive somewhere.
I will not believe, in 1000 years that Casey hurt her intentionally or otherwise. There is too much evidence; friends, videos, pictures, family, all saying she was a loving and attentive mother.
Anyway, until someone starts talking about how she treats/treated animals, I won't believe she is capable of harming another human being in a physical way. Research has shown there is a direct connection between some types of mental illness and animal abuse/human violence.
If she doesn't have a history of animal abuse, animal neglect, torturing or killing animals, I am going to keep believing she is a good person.

 

[Katie526]

I have heard this a couple times now. I don't get it. If it cannot be considered evidence until it is presented to the court, then how come people can be charged with "tampering with evidence"?

I'm not sure about that.

Admissibility
Evidence comes in four basic forms:

Demonstrative evidence
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
REAL EVIDENCE
Testimonial evidence
Some rules of evidence apply to all four types and some rules apply to one or two of them. All of these forms of evidence must be ADMISSIBLE, though, before they can be considered as probative of an issue in a trial.

Basically, if evidence is to be admitted at court, it must be relevant, material, and competent. To be considered relevant, it must have some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact. It need not make the fact certain, but at least it must tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of some fact. Once admitted as relevant evidence, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will determine the appropriate weight to give a particular piece of evidence. A given piece of evidence is considered material if it is offered to prove a fact that is in dispute in a case. Competent evidence is that evidence that accords with certain traditional notions of reliability. Courts are gradually diminishing the competency rules of evidence by making them issues related to the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.


Real Evidence
Real evidence is a thing. Its existence or characteristics are considered relevant and material to an issue in a trial. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case, such as a murder weapon, the personal effects of a victim, or an artifact like a cigarette or lighter belonging to a suspect. Real evidence must be relevant, material, and competent before a judge will permit its use in a trial. The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites (and any additional ones that may apply), is called laying a foundation. In most cases, the relevance and materiality of real evidence are obvious. A lawyer establishes the evidence's competence by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Establishing that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called AUTHENTICATION.

Demonstrative Evidence
Evidence is considered "demonstrative" if it demonstrates or illustrates the TESTIMONY of a witness. It is admissible when it fairly and accurately reflects the witness's testimony and is otherwise unobjectionable. Maps, diagrams of a crime scene, charts and graphs that illustrate profits and losses are examples of demonstrative evidence.

 

[monoxide]

Those air tests will be evidence, the detectives statements about the "death smell" will be evidence, the hair with the "death rings", the cadaver dog hits, etc., will all be evidence. Therefore, there is no lack of evidence. IMO, there is just lack of evidence about who is responsible and what the circumstances were. And for all of the evidence we've heard, I'm sure that there is so much more that we haven't.

You are 100% correct, though, in your statement that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Even Cindy's statement on 911 call will be evidence. I assume if she says otherwise she'll be in trouble

 

[tabbykiki]

Not defending Casey, but was doing what a normal 22 year old does. She had a baby at 19? She wanted to give her up for adoption and her mother wouldn't allow it. It's a lot for a 22 year old to be a mother, not that she didn't create that situation herself, but still, it's a lot. Her friends are out having fun and she has a child. She seems from photos and video to be a very loving mother to Caylee so we cannot criticize her for being in a bar with her friends or partying. May so after Caylee went missing but not in general.

I bet some parents don't even know that their own children are doing the same thing. It's just not open in public like Caseys actions are. I think Casey is protecting someone or was and it went wrong somewhere.

But you are defending Casey. She acts like a murderer IMO.

 

[jbar]

Guts can be wrong. Science cannot.

 

[Katie526]

But you are defending Casey. She acts like a murderer IMO.

Can you tell me what shows she acts like a murderer.

 

[librarian_mama]

I believe Caylee is in PR or near there. I think she went somewhere with someone around the time Amy, and the others took their vacation.

Why? What reason does Amy have? The problem I have with these threads is that when people discuss that Caylee is dead, they cite concrete reasons--i.e. Casey's lies, her actions afterwards, etc. If you want to explore the argument that Caylee is alive, what are some logical reasons for this opinion? I'd love for her to be alive in PR--I just can't blindly hope, though. Give us your argument, or there's not much point in exploring this angle.

 

[tabbykiki]

I still believe Caylee is alive. I haven't seen anything to prove otherwise. I think she is in another country. I think the dead body that was alledgedly in Casey's car is the reason she sent Caylee away.
I have no idea what is going on with this case, it is sometimes too far out there to even comprehend, but one thing I feel sure of, is that Caylee is alive somewhere.
I will not believe, in 1000 years that Casey hurt her intentionally or otherwise. There is too much evidence; friends, videos, pictures, family, all saying she was a loving and attentive mother.
Anyway, until someone starts talking about how she treats/treated animals, I won't believe she is capable of harming another human being in a physical way. Research has shown there is a direct connection between some types of mental illness and animal abuse/human violence.
If she doesn't have a history of animal abuse, animal neglect, torturing or killing animals, I am going to keep believing she is a good person.

Wow. Let's hope that you are never selected to be on a jury. Just because someone acts a certain way and they seem loving doesn't mean they didn't kill anyone. Look at Scott Peterson. Everyone says he was the "perfect husband". We all know that was only when people were watching.

What's going to convict Casey IMO is all of the evidence in this case, circumstancial especially.

 

[momtective]

I'm not sure about that.

Admissibility
Evidence comes in four basic forms:

Demonstrative evidence
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
REAL EVIDENCE
Testimonial evidence
Some rules of evidence apply to all four types and some rules apply to one or two of them. All of these forms of evidence must be ADMISSIBLE, though, before they can be considered as probative of an issue in a trial.

Basically, if evidence is to be admitted at court, it must be relevant, material, and competent. To be considered relevant, it must have some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact. It need not make the fact certain, but at least it must tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of some fact. Once admitted as relevant evidence, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will determine the appropriate weight to give a particular piece of evidence. A given piece of evidence is considered material if it is offered to prove a fact that is in dispute in a case. Competent evidence is that evidence that accords with certain traditional notions of reliability. Courts are gradually diminishing the competency rules of evidence by making them issues related to the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.


Real Evidence
Real evidence is a thing. Its existence or characteristics are considered relevant and material to an issue in a trial. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case, such as a murder weapon, the personal effects of a victim, or an artifact like a cigarette or lighter belonging to a suspect. Real evidence must be relevant, material, and competent before a judge will permit its use in a trial. The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites (and any additional ones that may apply), is called laying a foundation. In most cases, the relevance and materiality of real evidence are obvious. A lawyer establishes the evidence's competence by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Establishing that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called AUTHENTICATION.

Demonstrative Evidence
Evidence is considered "demonstrative" if it demonstrates or illustrates the TESTIMONY of a witness. It is admissible when it fairly and accurately reflects the witness's testimony and is otherwise unobjectionable. Maps, diagrams of a crime scene, charts and graphs that illustrate profits and losses are examples of demonstrative evidence.

Exactaly!