2010.01.15 Letter to Judge Strickland WFTV

[JBean]

Please don't link to innocent people

 

[Miss Anarchy]

If you look at the Orange County Comptroller's site and do a public records search it will show you that alot of the info in the letter, while it is true, doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with the case.

The website for the Official Records search is http://www.occompt.com/.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Please don't link to innocent people

did you mean me? my post? i am so sorry! I removed the link to the Dr's website. I didn't know it wouldn't be allowed since it's a business website. So sorry. embarrassed.

 

[JBean]

did you mean me? my post? i am so sorry! I removed the link to the Dr's website. I didn't know it wouldn't be allowed since it's a business website. So sorry. embarrassed.

No not you. I removed the links i was referring to.
Don't be embarrassed, be happy.

 

[Tulessa]

No not you. I removed the links i was referring to.
Don't be embarrassed, be happy.

You and Kimster are awesome. I keep waiting to get banned for my blunders, but you guys quietly show me the correct path. O/T but needed to be said.:blowkiss:

 

[mitzi]

The other night I couldn't sleep and stayed up till all hours flipping channels. I've never been interested in crime cases, CSI or the law, until this case (Caylee stole my heart). So I have been watching programs on ID channel, and things like Forensic Files, Murder by the Book, etc.

The other night was an episode about a woman who had been receiving typed letters from a stalker and was eventually murdered. They suspected her husband, who tried to blame his step-son and others. A hand written letter was received by the police department claiming he was a serial killer and that her husband had NOT killed this woman, it was him.

They brought in a guy named Dr. Robert A. Leonard who they introduced as one of the founders of Sha Na Na, remember that group from the 70's that performed as if they still lived in the 50's? As a young child I was in LOVE with those guys so this episode really intrigued me.

He now has a PhD in Linguistics and was asked to come in and analyze the letters, both the batch of typed stalker letters which preceeded her murder, and the handwritten letter claiming the husband didn't do it.

What he noticed was something they said was very rare in both sets of letters, and GEE I wish I could remember what it was called. Ironic rhetoric? Or something. I remember an example: he'd say "She wanted to break up with me so I broke her neck, and he did this in several places in both sets of letters. Just brilliant deduction work in his analysis. They eventually confiscated the husband's computers and lo and behold - he'd been writing both sets of letters and of course, was the killer.

I wish Dr. Leonard would be interested enough to come and analyze this.

Edited to add video I just found of the episode I watched the other night
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/solved-forensic-linguistic.html

Interesting story. I just discovered that I have ID myself, so have been watching lots of programs, and let me tell you, I have seen alot of cases and trials where there is waaaaaaay less circumstantial evidence than in Caylee's case, and those defendents get convicted, even so. I especially like to see what jurors have to say after they give a guilty verdict. Alot of their reasons for guilty have nothing to do with forensics. Sometimes it seems like the smallest thing pushes them over the edge to guilty. LKB is all about "junk science", but truthfully, the dang 31 days will do KC in alone. JMO

Sorry for the OT

 

[debbie0604]

Interesting story. I just discovered that I have ID myself, so have been watching lots of programs, and let me tell you, I have seen alot of cases and trials where there is waaaaaaay less circumstantial evidence than in Caylee's case, and those defendents get convicted, even so. I especially like to see what jurors have to say after they give a guilty verdict. Alot of their reasons for guilty have nothing to do with forensics. Sometimes it seems like the smallest thing pushes them over the edge to guilty. LKB is all about "junk science", but truthfully, the dang 31 days will do KC in alone. JMO

Sorry for the OT

I agree with you. I think the defense is hoping that they can get a jury who will get lost in all the forensic evidence that will be displayed at trial and also hope that once the forensic experts take the stand that they (the defense team) will be able to "bog down" the jury and have them confused. I think the fact that not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days and the smell in the car, etc etc - the jury will not be able to get past that...

That's why this letter to me and all it contains is bunk IMO....I think whoever sent it is desperate. JMO