Who is the accomplice?

[LCoastMom]

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

Lee had offered to go get her phone and LE shut him down. (per LE interview)
I'm sure he was hoping to find something (anything) that would lead them to Caylee, the sooner the better.

Lee went over to get the rest of her 'stuff' after LE picked up the phone. LE would have told TL someone would be back for her things, so TL packed it up and then Lee showed up and they talked for a while (the missing 90 mins) during the course of conversation Lee and TL swapped numbers in case either had any more questions.

KC spoke briefly with TL the morning she was arrested, he could have told her then that he gave Lee his number. Which is why KC kept insisting that Lee had TL's number in the call from jail.

 

[karenmamo]

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

.....old age and bad memory...but...I think it was in the interviews.
Maybe someone can find a link.

 

[Taed]

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.

The incident with Susan Smith was in October 1994. There was no MySpace nor Facebook. The web was barely anything at that time, much less a place where people would post pictures. And only a small percentage used Internet email, though a fair number did have access to email within their company or via services like America OnLine (though they didn't really connect to email provided by other services).

So, comparing those actions to the Susan Smith case is not something that is relevant.

 

[nancy botwin]

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.

I said "The evidence we've seen does indicate that Casey said she could get Xanax from Annie"
Source: IM conversation with SpecialAgentJag4 (Computer Forensic Report pg. 18) line: "I could call my friend Annie and get some Xanax"

I remember another online conversation in which Casey said "I can hit up my friend Annie for some Xanax, we'd be a good time."
Source: Orlando Sentinel article confirms Casey discussed getting Xanax from Annie in two different conversations released in evidence.

To me, this is evidence that Casey said she could get Xanax from Annie.

I also stated in my post "We've also heard there is evidence that Caylee was drugged with Xanax."
LP has toted the Zanni the Nanny theory on NG. There are a lot of blog rumblings about unconfirmed tests showing Xanax in the car, hair evidence etc. There are also unofficial reports, (again, blog rumblings) and the most recent Globe article, etc that witnesses are coming forward and saying they witnessed Casey drugging Caylee so that she could party.

The purpose of my post was to address accomplice theories. Annie has been excoriated online for her silence, presumably because people are connecting these disembodied pieces of info about her possible link to Xanax and the possible link between Xanax and Caylee's death. To my knowledge, there is no official evidence that Casey actually GOT Xanax from Annie, just that she told at least two people she could. To my knowledge there is no official evidence that Caylee was drugged with Xanax, but we have HEARD such evidence exists.

I was saying that if we accept these pieces of evidence and inferences as true, I feel Annie's role should be regarded as accidental and I also feel this could help explain her silence.

 

[LCoastMom]

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. Thank you for stating this (bold) so well. With all the time LA put into helping LE early in the investigation it bothers me that so many people here are now maligning him. The man has lost his niece, his sister and his family is broken beyond repair. I wish everyone would try being a little kinder to the victims in this case.

Question regarding LDT's, like most things they are only as reliable as the person administering/reading it. And we know they can be 'fooled'. Has any of your reading commented on quality training? Have you seen the newer program that can read our speech for truthfulness? If it's consistent it would be a great help to LE.

One example I watched used Susan Smith's plea to bring her boys back and found even that full of deception, even though there were no questions or comments about what had happened to them.

 

[LCoastMom]

There are also unofficial reports, (again, blog rumblings) and the most recent Globe article, etc that witnesses are coming forward and saying they witnessed Casey drugging Caylee so that she could party.

I'm sorry, let me put my eyes back in my head. There are named witnesses who saw her drug her child and none of them did anything about it? Please tell me the 'next generation' is not so callus that this actually happened.:shocked2:

 

[catnron]

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 agree with you all the way, and I am so happy you posted this.

 

[Themis]

Themis. Thank you for stating this (bold) so well. With all the time LA put into helping LE early in the investigation it bothers me that so many people here are now maligning him. The man has lost his niece, his sister and his family is broken beyond repair. I wish everyone would try being a little kinder to the victims in this case.

Question regarding LDT's, like most things they are only as reliable as the person administering/reading it. And we know they can be 'fooled'. Has any of your reading commented on quality training? Have you seen the newer program that can read our speech for truthfulness? If it's consistent it would be a great help to LE.

One example I watched used Susan Smith's plea to bring her boys back and found even that full of deception, even though there were no questions or comments about what had happened to them.

IF AND WHEN science ever develops a reliable testing mechanism, whether it is a machine, chemicals, light sensor or anything else that is based in hard science and can repeatedly and reliably detect when a person is telling the truth or a lie, then that is the day we will no longer need juries or a judge in a judge alone trial acting as trier of fact. We will simply ask the right questions and get the facts with the machine to tell us if it is true or not. The problem is, we would need a time machine so we could go back in time to examine all parts of the event; in slow motion, repeatedly. The "truth" or a "lie" is often not even the result of "deception", a willful attempt to deceive the other person. Often the difference between a lie and a mistake is simply that the person telling of the event wrongfully perceived it! What happens if I thought I saw a green light and it really was red? I'm telling the truth when I say the light was green, because in good faith, I truely believe it! Another example is misinterpretation of an event. What happens if I look out my windows (living in a coastal area) and see a white cloud-like substance rolling in from the ocean? I think it is morning or evening fog. In fact, I'm inside my house with the air conditioning on and cooking smells and I don't know it's not fog, it is fire smoke! So, the truth is a concept that cannot easily be determined by whether or not the heart is beating faster, the skin tenses or gets moist or the breathing rate speeds up. It could be the person being tested is a little stressed because they want a cigarette break or a physical comfort break. The answer is we don't have any quick way to tell if a person is lying or not. We still have courts. For that matter, we still have politicians! :crazy:

 

[Pondering Mind]

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?

I really don't think Lee crashed Casey's computer. We still don't know for sure that Casey didn't know that Cindy was coming. It is possible that Amy or one of the guys called Casey and warned her, not knowing the gravity of the situation at the time and CASEY crashed it. There is so much that has not been made public yet.

 

[LCoastMom]

IF AND WHEN science ever develops a reliable testing mechanism, whether it is a machine, chemicals, light sensor or anything else that is based in hard science and can repeatedly and reliably detect when a person is telling the truth or a lie, then that is the day we will no longer need juries or a judge in a judge alone trial acting as trier of fact. We will simply ask the right questions and get the facts with the machine to tell us if it is true or not. The problem is, we would need a time machine so we could go back in time to examine all parts of the event; in slow motion, repeatedly. The "truth" or a "lie" is often not even the result of "deception", a willful attempt to deceive the other person. Often the difference between a lie and a mistake is simply that the person telling of the event wrongfully perceived it! What happens if I thought I saw a green light and it really was red? I'm telling the truth when I say the light was green, because in good faith, I truely believe it! Another example is misinterpretation of an event. What happens if I look out my windows (living in a coastal area) and see a white cloud-like substance rolling in from the ocean? I think it is morning or evening fog. In fact, I'm inside my house with the air conditioning on and cooking smells and I don't know it's not fog, it is fire smoke! So, the truth is a concept that cannot easily be determined by whether or not the heart is beating faster, the skin tenses or gets moist or the breathing rate speeds up. It could be the person being tested is a little stressed because they want a cigarette break or a physical comfort break. The answer is we don't have any quick way to tell if a person is lying or not. We still have courts. For that matter, we still have politicians! :crazy:

TY more thoughts to ponder!:clap:

 

[chizap]

I really don't think Lee crashed Casey's computer. We still don't know for sure that Casey didn't know that Cindy was coming. It is possible that Amy or one of the guys called Casey and warned her, not knowing the gravity of the situation at the time and CASEY crashed it. There is so much that has not been made public yet.

How do you "crash" a computer? intentionally- just curious

 

[Oakley]

How do you "crash" a computer? intentionally- just curious

One way would be to delete the operating system files.

 

[truemystery]

If there is ONE thing in this entire case that i want to know more about........ ONE thing where I think there is a clue but I just can't put my finger on it.............It's the Lee and Casey phone conversation from jail.

It's driving me crazy.

 

[Pondering Mind]

One way would be to delete the operating system files.

Thank you lacey, I am technology challenged and perhaps used the wrong terminology. I know that it can be done, just don't know what you call it! :blowkiss:

 

[Reality Orlando]

I really don't think Lee crashed Casey's computer. We still don't know for sure that Casey didn't know that Cindy was coming. It is possible that Amy or one of the guys called Casey and warned her, not knowing the gravity of the situation at the time and CASEY crashed it. There is so much that has not been made public yet.

What I wonder about is this: When you say "crash" a computer, are you refering to just erasing files or do you literally mean destroying the hard drive? I'm fairly computer literate, but sitting here right now, I wouldn't know how to "crash" my computer in the sense of completely destroying the hard drive so everything on it is unretrievable. I would think it would take someone with knowledge on how to do that specifically.

 

[butwhatif?]

If there is ONE thing in this entire case that i want to know more about........ ONE thing where I think there is a clue but I just can't put my finger on it.............It's the Lee and Casey phone conversation from jail.

It's driving me crazy.

You mean the one after they found out the calls were recorded? The super-cryptic one?

 

[Fandy]

If there is ONE thing in this entire case that i want to know more about........ ONE thing where I think there is a clue but I just can't put my finger on it.............It's the Lee and Casey phone conversation from jail.

It's driving me crazy.

I also posted about this in the Lightbulb moments thread....someone told me how it was answered, but another poster said the answer wasn't positively sure....:banghead: so I am with you, back to square one :waitasec: this is a strange code-like conversation that I could never find a plausible answer to.

 

[Lanie]

What I wonder about is this: When you say "crash" a computer, are you refering to just erasing files or do you literally mean destroying the hard drive? I'm fairly computer literate, but sitting here right now, I wouldn't know how to "crash" my computer in the sense of completely destroying the hard drive so everything on it is unretrievable. I would think it would take someone with knowledge on how to do that specifically.

Well, to completely destroy the hard drive so everything on it is unretrievable, you literally have to do just that; remove the hard drive and physically destroy it.
You can WIPE the hard drive, but a comp tech can still retrieve a lot of data from it. There are programs available that claim to completely delete everything from a hard drive, but a competent comp tech can still retrieve some data from it.
Hope that helps.
Lanie

 

[Friptzap]

I said "The evidence we've seen does indicate that Casey said she could get Xanax from Annie"
Source: IM conversation with SpecialAgentJag4 (Computer Forensic Report pg. 18) line: "I could call my friend Annie and get some Xanax"

I remember another online conversation in which Casey said "I can hit up my friend Annie for some Xanax, we'd be a good time."
Source: Orlando Sentinel article confirms Casey discussed getting Xanax from Annie in two different conversations released in evidence.

To me, this is evidence that Casey said she could get Xanax from Annie.

I also stated in my post "We've also heard there is evidence that Caylee was drugged with Xanax."
LP has toted the Zanni the Nanny theory on NG. There are a lot of blog rumblings about unconfirmed tests showing Xanax in the car, hair evidence etc. There are also unofficial reports, (again, blog rumblings) and the most recent Globe article, etc that witnesses are coming forward and saying they witnessed Casey drugging Caylee so that she could party.

The purpose of my post was to address accomplice theories. Annie has been excoriated online for her silence, presumably because people are connecting these disembodied pieces of info about her possible link to Xanax and the possible link between Xanax and Caylee's death. To my knowledge, there is no official evidence that Casey actually GOT Xanax from Annie, just that she told at least two people she could. To my knowledge there is no official evidence that Caylee was drugged with Xanax, but we have HEARD such evidence exists.

I was saying that if we accept these pieces of evidence and inferences as true, I feel Annie's role should be regarded as accidental and I also feel this could help explain her silence.

So it is as I stated all conjecture and we have no evidence that either has actually occurred.

 

[nancy botwin]

So it is as I stated all conjecture and we have no evidence that either has actually occurred.

You insinuated that I misrepresented information and I did not. This thread is entitled "Who is the accomplice," so most posts engaging the topic will likely involve discursive conjecture.
I think Annie's getting a bad rap and I simply wanted to talk the idea out with others interested in the subject.