Brini
Future Irene Adler
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,522
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm curious...in what prior cases have you had direct access to a copy of the FBI lab results?
Prior cases? Like what?:None.
I'm curious...in what prior cases have you had direct access to a copy of the FBI lab results?
Prior cases? Like what?:None.
I'm curious...in what prior cases have you had direct access to a copy of the FBI lab results?
Just wondering ... you have a copy of that? Those FBI lab results?
Hi. Please listen to my counter-argument without thinking I am being antagonistic to you. Just debating your argument and not your belief that Caylee is alive. :blowkiss:
Let's say Casey is not worrying about the baby and she was able to go out clubbing and dancing and enjoy her time with her boyfriend because she willingly gave the baby and she is feeling safe about it.
Now two things about this theory that are problematic:
1. If she willingly gave the baby because she wanted her freedom and she wanted to live like a 22 year old without any children, why is she now choosing to sit in jail? I mean her plan was to give the baby to someone else cause she wanted her life back. Fine. But since now she is back and forth in jail and in home-confinement what is in it for her?
2. Why will the people that took Caylee keep her and risk their own lifes and personal freedom? Let's say they are a nice family with a big farm somewhere and lots of animals and they are great people and Casey gave them the baby to raise it. Why are these people risking their life and possibly being convicted for LWP holding on Caylee? If Casey told them the baby was abused at home for example and they wanted to protect the baby....well Casey has been uncovered as a pathological liar on National Tv for 2 months now. Wouldn't these people come forward and talk to LE? Also if it was an illegal adoption wouldn't these people be worried that once Casey is faced with real consequences and bored sitting in jail she can come up with any kind of fictional story and put on them terrible charges?
3. Now in science when you formulate a theory and you want that theory to be accepted as valid, there is one important element we shouldn't forget - that this theory needs to fit ALL of the other parameters, all instances, all occassions, and in the case of a police investigation all the evidence. The theory needs to stand with all the data you have. If you exclude something then that is problematic. So while your theory is possible and the best scenario we are all hoping, it doesn't fit with all the facts that are out there. One can believe Casey did give the child and only see she is not stressed about the situation but what happens if you bring into this theory the FACTS of decomposition in the car, the facts of chloroform, the facts that Casey did not have money (so she didn't sell the baby), and most importantly the LE checked all of her telephone conversations. So if this deal happened and Casey gave them the child there would have been some phone records or internet records of a kind to indicate the existence of these people that have Caylee now and communication with them. This is not an arrangement you make with someone you just met on the street.
I appreciate your respect on our differing opinions, and I also respect yours.
I've answered as many questions in that thread as I can(even though none were addressed to me directly) and freely admit that I have no concrete evidence, just hope.
I'm not one you PM'd either, but if you or anyone else has contacts in Puerto Rico(anywhere else for that matter), you certainly don't need anyone else's input on helping if they don't answer your pleas for specific contacts.
I want and appreciate any help offered to at least send the flyers and help get the word out.
It's obvious from another thread that news of Caylee isn't being broadcast heavily like on Nancy Grace
What's a piccie?
Just wondering ... you have a copy of that? Those FBI lab results?
I saw them on the news. I'll see if I can search out a copy.
[/B]
Excellent points GameTheory.
There isn't one piece of evidence to support Casey's kidnapping tale, nor any evidence to support she may be alive.
Photo. Actually, they broadcast a few photos. One of a normal hair, one death-banded... I don't remember what the other was.
I saw them on the news. I'll see if I can search out a copy.
Would this include a link as to where to see the picture of banded hair, curious to see what it looks like. TIA
Photo. Actually, they broadcast a few photos. One of a normal hair, one death-banded... I don't remember what the other was.
Hi all! So glad to finally be able to register, and I am so grateful for this thread.
Here is my thinking on the case, which I hope to be able to articulate without offending anyone. I am not sure if Caylee is dead or alive. I agree that it looks bad. However, I have a huge mountain of reasonable doubt. There are four things about this case I know for sure:
1- Caylee is an adorable Angel and she will always be in my heart, no matter what happens.
2- Casey is a liar and a thief.
3- Caylee is missing.
4- There was a dead body in the trunk of Casey's car.
Now, here is why I have reasonable doubt:
Many people here on this board, in the media, and in the general public have made the statement "I trust LE 100%".
This is a dangerous attitude for citizens of a democracy to take. Trusting authority completely is just asking for tyranny. There are many reasons to take the pronouncements of LE skeptically, not least of which they have made many honest mistakes, or mistakes born of incompetence and a desire to quickly close a case, high profile or otherwise.
But in many instances LE have made corrupt "mistakes". Remember the Riley Fox case? I bet the Sheriff in that case told the media many lies about Kevin Fox in a corrupt desire to be re-elected. Kevin Fox is sitting home today, innocent as can be while the real murderer has had years of freedom while the evidence grows cold.
LE has said that there are "indications" "suggestions" that Caylee was in the trunk, dead. There is no reason, if they have the reports back from the labs and they show Caylee to be dead, for them NOT to come right out and say: "Caylee was dead in the trunk. No question". Forensic science of this sort does not 'indicate' anything. Caylee is either dead or alive. Period.
Lies, distortions, and spin in the media-(remember "WMD"?)
Chloroform
Media reports have taken the leaks about chloroform and run with them. According to NG and the rest of the media the trunk had "significant amounts" of and the air was "saturated" with chloroform. The whole world now thinks Casey either used the chemical to drug Caylee or to murder her. But could that possibly be true?
Chloroform is an ingredient in many pesticides. If Casey had used it on Caylee, there would have been NO INSECT ACTIVITY in the trunk of her car at the tow yard. But according to the testimony of the tow yard employee, we know that there was. If the trunk was "saturated" at the time of testing, how much moreso must it have been at the tow yard?
ZG/Samantha/the script
How do we know that Casey ever changed her story on this score? First, LP said that Casey told him the script story in the living room of the Anthony home. When he told NG about it, he added that he told Casey he didn't want to know from ZG. Casey then told him to get out of her house. NG was outraged that she would have the gall to tell him that about her parents home.
Then, someone must have pointed out to LP that he had earlier said that Casey never said ONE WORD to him about the case while he was down in Orlando. So then RD comes out with the story that Casey told him the story as they rode alone to her attorney's office.
That version must not have worked out too well either as LP NOW says (on Fox the other afternoon) that CINDY told him the story. How are we to find this supposed change in Casey's story credible? I don't think we can until we have proof.
Now, many people on this board and in the general public have said "Presumption of Innocence only applies in a court of law!! The public can think/say whatever they want"
Technically, that is true. But *who* in a court of law is it most crucial that they apply this principle? The jurors, of course. And where do the jurors come from? The public. If it is ok, if it is allowed, if the public *allows* themselves to presume the guilt of every person LE investigates or even arrests for crimes then how is any accused person to ever hope to receive a fair trial from an untainted jury?
Remember Sam Shepherd? The US Supreme Court overturned a guilty verdict saying pre-trial publicity had tainted the jury's deliberations.
Remember Richard Jewel? The FBI had him tried and convicted and the media went right along with the witch hunt. Some of them are very sorry they did that but it hasn't seemed to have changed the way they operate.
All I am saying is things are not always as they seem. Authorities can lie, authorities can make mistakes and the public has a solemn duty not to turn into a lynch mob and convict a person of murder before all of the facts are laid bare, before the accused has a chance to confront and cross-examine the evidence against her, and certainly not on the word of sensationalist media who seem in many instances to have a blatant disregard for the truth.
(sorry for such a long first post)
They Who?
That's why we have voir dire.
I wouldn't serve on any jury where I had an opinion, or even knowledge. I would disqualify myself.
If I had no ethics, and lied about that, the lawyers from both sides ask questions that would tend to reveal that. Those potential jurors are disqualified.
The last case where I was called was a civil suit between some lawyers and the CEO of a small company. We were asked whether we have any history with lawyers or corporations. I answered affirmatively to both, but said I believed I could be fair. They disqualified me, and every other potential juror who answered affirmatively. And, that's fine.
Then, there are the alternates. If an opinionated juror gets past vior dire, s/he might be kicked off and replaced when any bias becomes evident.
Then, there are the discussions of evidence. In the last case where I was foreperson, several of us changed our minds during the evidentiary discussions.
I'm sure that fails, somtetimes. But, it's the best we have, to date.
They Who?
Who's hating? Read the whole thread... [btw it's a good idea to read through the entirety of the documents too]
What if? Applies to both sides of this case ... Hence the reason we should be working together and not against.
Yet that's been said before.