Who is the accomplice?

[mahoneys07]

Don't u think there is a reason why none of Annies stuff is available?

 

[Friptzap]

But... prisoner's dilemma... if Casey implicates another in helping her, she'd be effectively admitting her own guilt.

I think Casey probably DID dupe one or more parties into being tangentially or ultimately complicit in her plan and the cover-up. But I think she's the only person who is guilty of causing Caylee's death.

I understand that the purpose of boards like this is to discuss and contemplate different ideas, but I sort of wish there was a thread in which we could make a case for why each respective potential accomplice is NOT guilty.
LEE:
I think Casey tricked Lee into hiding her tracks-- ie the computer crash. I don't think Lee knew what he was destroying or the truth about what Casey had done until later. I would bet he now has his own counsel and things are going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.

I wonder if Lee is trying to make a deal on Casey's behalf-- he'll talk in exchange for immunity and the DA's agreement to take the death penalty off the table. Honestly, that's what I would be doing if it was my younger sister facing the death penalty.

I think it's pretty clear that Lee is the "fixer" in this dysfunctional family. He's the one Cindy called to find Casey on July 3, causing Casey to get "upset" and flee the Lodge. He's the one George called on July 15 to go check on Cindy before she called 911. He's the one who launched his own investigation, determined to find something Casey had said was actually true. I think his first calls with Casey clearly reveal that he did NOT know what she had done. Early on, he was at the forefront, speaking publicly and involving himself in the investigation. Now he's nowhere to be seen. At some point, he realized the truth, IMO. I feel true sympathy for Lee and I guess I'm unwilling to imagine he's guilty of anything but being exploited by his sister until I see strong evidence to the contrary.

ANNIE
The evidence we've seen does indicate that Casey said she could get Xanax from Annie. We've also heard there is evidence that Caylee was drugged with Xanax. I don't think this means Annie knew Casey would use Xanax on Caylee or, at the very worst, she contemplated how dangerous it was for Casey to give Xanax to Caylee.
It's pretty common for people to share RX drugs. It's illegal and a dumb idea, but it happens all the time and usually without disastrous consequences. I imagine Annie is out of sight because her unintentional role was discovered early on and and she is turning evidence in exchange for a deal. I truly feel badly for Annie if this interpretation of her role is accurate.

Bold is mine...I haven't seen or read about this evidence. Link please.
Not being snarky,If there is evidence of this I want to read it as I have read everything else and I might have missed this. Thanx.

Um, where is this evidence that Casey got Xanax from Annie? and Where is the evidence that Caylee was drugged with Xanax?

This all sound like conjecture that is not based on fact. Please provide links. Granted we make conjecture and try to use that in theories, but these implications seem to be much more than theories as they are stated as fact.

 

[weasel]

<<Most posts are theories as to what happened and to me that is okay too>>

I totally agree and understand about posts regarding facts and evidence statements. And I respect other's theories too .... to a point.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I agree Chilly...I think it is just that simple..I dont beleive there is an accomplice.

ditto!

 

[magic-cat]

Dont think it was Lee. I dont even think she had an accomplice. She did what she did on her own.
Remember, Susan Smith had no accomplice and even her husband was standing beside her until she confessed.
She is like another S. Smith.

Yes, but Susan S. drove her children into the water in her car to drown. She did not hide the bodies, and she did not try to cover up her crime by deleting hundreds of pictures of her kids online, and deleting ALL of her online emails, and deleting her MySpace and Facebok comments. These ARE things that Casey did do.

As for Lee helping: we simply do not know. BUT, we do know that Casey was not EXPECTING to get caught by her mom the day she did, so it is improbable that she wiped her own computer that day. One way to KNOW is if Tony has informed LE of when was the last time she was SEEN using her(Cindy's) laptop at his apartment. I mean, if he saw her using it on say the afternoon of the 15th, then that is fairly strong evidence that SHE was not the one who wiped it. That leaves Lee and Tony as potential accomplices in THAT act. If Casey did not do it, then one of them did.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he was the one, according to Padilla, that convinced his parents NOT to take a lie detector test and refused to take one himself. THIS is a good indicator that there IS something to hide. Innocent people do not refuse lie detector tests in the case of a missing child-rather-they volunteer for them, so this refusal is another indicator that he has some behind the scenes involvement that may be discovered by submitting to the polygraph.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he refused to submit DNA until it was supoenaed by warrant. THIS screams something is not right here. Even Cindy and George voluntarily submitted their own DNA samples, so why is Lee fighting against ALL co-operation?

In my opinion, Lee does have something to hide, but what that something is has yet to be seen. Perhaps it will be revealed in the trial and through evidence that LE has collected, but his ACTIONS say to me, I am somehow involved in this and am complicit in SOMETHING to do with this case.

 

[diane952]

Don't u think there is a reason why none of Annies stuff is available?

yes..she may be the one to bring Casey down...

 

[weasel]

I probably should apologize for not being truly respectful of other's theories. That said, I apologize and will try harder to be more tolerant.

 

[weasel]

<<She did not hide the bodies>>

Huh? Wasn't that the whole point of pushing them into the lake?

 

[weasel]

<<Also concerning Lee: the fact that he refused to submit DNA until it was supoenaed by warrant>>

I always thought he was probably just trying to be a pain in the *advertiser censored** to LE. Just my opinion as I do not know the A's, but I must say they stick together. I think GA is being honest and it must be really hard for him to have to tell LE what he knows while at the same time try to defend Casey.

 

[TxLady2]

Yes, but Susan S. drove her children into the water in her car to drown. She did not hide the bodies, and she did not try to cover up her crime by deleting hundreds of pictures of her kids online, and deleting ALL of her online emails, and deleting her MySpace and Facebok comments. These ARE things that Casey did do.

As for Lee helping: we simply do not know. BUT, we do know that Casey was not EXPECTING to get caught by her mom the day she did, so it is improbable that she wiped her own computer that day. One way to KNOW is if Tony has informed LE of when was the last time she was SEEN using her(Cindy's) laptop at his apartment. I mean, if he saw her using it on say the afternoon of the 15th, then that is fairly strong evidence that SHE was not the one who wiped it. That leaves Lee and Tony as potential accomplices in THAT act. If Casey did not do it, then one of them did.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he was the one, according to Padilla, that convinced his parents NOT to take a lie detector test and refused to take one himself. THIS is a good indicator that there IS something to hide. Innocent people do not refuse lie detector tests in the case of a missing child-rather-they volunteer for them, so this refusal is another indicator that he has some behind the scenes involvement that may be discovered by submitting to the polygraph.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he refused to submit DNA until it was supoenaed by warrant. THIS screams something is not right here. Even Cindy and George voluntarily submitted their own DNA samples, so why is Lee fighting against ALL co-operation?

In my opinion, Lee does have something to hide, but what that something is has yet to be seen. Perhaps it will be revealed in the trial and through evidence that LE has collected, but his ACTIONS say to me, I am somehow involved in this and am complicit in SOMETHING to do with this case.

I believe in Tony's statement, he said that Casey was using her laptop when Amy brought Cindy to the apt. to look for Casey. When Lee came later, the laptop was plugged in, and had the Blue Screen on it. As for wiping it, I don't know who is responsible for that.

I don't know what to believe about this paternity issue. Until I see proof, I'm not going to believe that Lee or George is Caylee's father. This incest thing was started LONG before LP mentioned it... I read allegations of it in the very beginning of this case. I also don't believe that Lee or George helped Casey hide the body, or otherwise had anything to do with Caylee's death. I don't think she had an accomplice, period. She would not want anyone possibly ratting her out.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I probably should apologize for not being truly respectful of other's theories. That said, I apologize and will try harder to be more tolerant.

:blowkiss:

 

[weasel]

Aww, thanks Truth.

 

[magic-cat]

<<She did not hide the bodies>>

Huh? Wasn't that the whole point of pushing them into the lake?

No, the point was to kill them...

 

[magic-cat]

I believe in Tony's statement, he said that Casey was using her laptop when Amy brought Cindy to the apt. to look for Casey. When Lee came later, the laptop was plugged in, and had the Blue Screen on it. As for wiping it, I don't know who is responsible for that.

I don't know what to believe about this paternity issue. Until I see proof, I'm not going to believe that Lee or George is Caylee's father. This incest thing was started LONG before LP mentioned it... I read allegations of it in the very beginning of this case. I also don't believe that Lee or George helped Casey hide the body, or otherwise had anything to do with Caylee's death. I don't think she had an accomplice, period. She would not want anyone possibly ratting her out.

Someone can act as an accomplice after the fact, in helping to destroy evidence and muddying the trail. If Lee were an accomplice then I think that it would have been after the fact not in the crime itself. I think they call it aiding and abetting?

 

[magic-cat]

I believe in Tony's statement, he said that Casey was using her laptop when Amy brought Cindy to the apt. to look for Casey. When Lee came later, the laptop was plugged in, and had the Blue Screen on it. As for wiping it, I don't know who is responsible for that.

Respectfully snipped.

So, if Tony has stated the truth then one of two things happened. Either Tony crashed it or Lee did...one of them is responsible IF Tony has stated the truth and she was using her computer right when they showed up to take her away...OR she had just done it her own self, but I doubt this. If she was "using" it and remember she had no idea mom was on her way, she had no reason to suspect that there was ANY hurry to crash her computer...I mean the computer which she STOLE from her mother and took with her when she left.

 

[jademonkey]

Yes, but Susan S. drove her children into the water in her car to drown. She did not hide the bodies, and she did not try to cover up her crime by deleting hundreds of pictures of her kids online, and deleting ALL of her online emails, and deleting her MySpace and Facebok comments. These ARE things that Casey did do.

As for Lee helping: we simply do not know. BUT, we do know that Casey was not EXPECTING to get caught by her mom the day she did, so it is improbable that she wiped her own computer that day. One way to KNOW is if Tony has informed LE of when was the last time she was SEEN using her(Cindy's) laptop at his apartment. I mean, if he saw her using it on say the afternoon of the 15th, then that is fairly strong evidence that SHE was not the one who wiped it. That leaves Lee and Tony as potential accomplices in THAT act. If Casey did not do it, then one of them did.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he was the one, according to Padilla, that convinced his parents NOT to take a lie detector test and refused to take one himself. THIS is a good indicator that there IS something to hide. Innocent people do not refuse lie detector tests in the case of a missing child-rather-they volunteer for them, so this refusal is another indicator that he has some behind the scenes involvement that may be discovered by submitting to the polygraph.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he refused to submit DNA until it was supoenaed by warrant. THIS screams something is not right here. Even Cindy and George voluntarily submitted their own DNA samples, so why is Lee fighting against ALL co-operation?

In my opinion, Lee does have something to hide, but what that something is has yet to be seen. Perhaps it will be revealed in the trial and through evidence that LE has collected, but his ACTIONS say to me, I am somehow involved in this and am complicit in SOMETHING to do with this case.

In this case I wouldn't want to take a lie detector test. Think about this, for years you've been lied to about people and jobs that don't really exist, all these half truths as some things did exist, conversations, emails from bosses that don't exist, it's all twisted.

Now take a lie dectector while your questioning everything in your head as to it being a lie casey told you or is it a reality. I mean I would be sooo confused I wouldn't know which way was up. I can see saying something naturally because you've believed it for so long and then two seconds later start putting other pieces of info together and then realizing that might be a lie. Maybe you start thinking did Casey say that or did I assume it, maybe I heard it on media, maybe mom told me.

One things for sure these people's minds can't be straight on details with everything flying so fast and so many directions. Lies, media, friends, Casey, Lawyers etc....

Let's just say, even innocent in this scenario I would be afraid to take it.

 

[karenmamo]

Remember Lee was gone for two hours to retrieve kc's belongings from TonE's apt. He did not take time to carefully pack up her stuff. He stated her things were all neatly packed. So what did he do for apx 90 mins?...sit and shoot the bull with TonE???!!
IMO, Lee cleaned up that computer. What was there that Lee had to attempt to get rid of? I have trouble coming up with answers to that question that just sticks out there with bells and whistles all over it.
??? What was he trying to hide?

 

[lillygator]

how did Lee know to go over there and what to get? Was this in the reports?

 

[Themis]

Yes, but Susan S. drove her children into the water in her car to drown. She did not hide the bodies, and she did not try to cover up her crime by deleting hundreds of pictures of her kids online, and deleting ALL of her online emails, and deleting her MySpace and Facebok comments. These ARE things that Casey did do.

As for Lee helping: we simply do not know. BUT, we do know that Casey was not EXPECTING to get caught by her mom the day she did, so it is improbable that she wiped her own computer that day. One way to KNOW is if Tony has informed LE of when was the last time she was SEEN using her(Cindy's) laptop at his apartment. I mean, if he saw her using it on say the afternoon of the 15th, then that is fairly strong evidence that SHE was not the one who wiped it. That leaves Lee and Tony as potential accomplices in THAT act. If Casey did not do it, then one of them did.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he was the one, according to Padilla, that convinced his parents NOT to take a lie detector test and refused to take one himself. THIS is a good indicator that there IS something to hide. Innocent people do not refuse lie detector tests in the case of a missing child-rather-they volunteer for them, so this refusal is another indicator that he has some behind the scenes involvement that may be discovered by submitting to the polygraph.

Also concerning Lee: the fact that he refused to submit DNA until it was supoenaed by warrant. THIS screams something is not right here. Even Cindy and George voluntarily submitted their own DNA samples, so why is Lee fighting against ALL co-operation?

In my opinion, Lee does have something to hide, but what that something is has yet to be seen. Perhaps it will be revealed in the trial and through evidence that LE has collected, but his ACTIONS say to me, I am somehow involved in this and am complicit in SOMETHING to do with this case.

With a great deal of respect for your opinions, Magic-Cat, I have a couple of comments. :blowkiss:

First, There are a lot of people who have spent time looking into the debate on polygraphs and have come to the conclusion that polygraphs are junk science. The science behind the testing is not sufficient to show that it can determine when the subject hooked up to the machine is lying. The fact that polygraphs are not admissible in court supports this conclusion. I am one of those, so I wouldn't take a polygraph under any circumstances. It doesn't mean I have something to hide.

Second, there is nothing wrong with asking law enforcement to show they have probable cause and get a search warrant for the DNA. This is a matter of privacy, also a protected right of the individual; to be free from searches and seizures that lack probable cause. There is nothing wrong with this and LA's declining to voluntary offer up his DNA does not show any evidence that he is guilty of anything. Now, if he has prior military service since after about 1990, the military service has his DNA. The military decided to collect all military members' DNA for battlefield identification. Come to think of it, the military would have the DNA on file for the Marine at Twenty-nine Palms, CA. :waitasec:

 

[Themis]

I am pretty sure that what LawLady was telling us is that this is standardized language in these indictments and we shouldn't theorize about possible hidden meanings included therein.

That being said, the confusion may be from the fact that the language you are quoting, Magnolia, is taken directly from the Florida statute as one of the enumerated ways to accomplish the commission of the named crime.

That being said, I believe the language of the indictments includes every possible way the statutes describe the particular crime for this reason:

If a statute says you can do a felony by the actions of A,B, or C ....why leave out C? in the indictment.
What if the trial takes an unforeseen turn. You don't want to hear `a jury say....They didn't prove A or B, they proved C and we didn't have that as an option to convict.
That omission of language in the indictment would also open doors to potential defenses which are doors easily slammed shut by simply tossing in the statutory language.

I honestly do not believe the language in the indictments tells us anything other than the crimes with which Casey is charged.
This is not a criticism of NG :Banane59:at all and of course, just my humble o.

MiraclesHappen, I know you know this, so I'm commenting for the other WSers. :blowkiss:

It seems likely it would be standard language. This is language of of "aiding and abetting." One who aids and abets a principle (the criminal who acted and actually did the crime) is just as guilty as the principle. That's not just my moral opinion, it is the law. An "aider and abettor" who encourages a crime can be convicted of that crime and is subject to the same penalties as the person who actually commits the crime. This is not a widely known fact in criminal law. So, when writing criminal charges, it is not unusual to write in the aider and abettor language. Charges give notice to the defendant of the crime. If there is some element that is not charged, unless the jury can squeeze it into a lesser included offense, she could be tried and not convicted because she wasn't given notice of that element! Therefore, it is better to add the language if there is probable cause to support it at the time of charging the crime.