Quote from Leila
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 10,726
http://www.wftv.com/video/26171628/index.html#
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...hxtYFYQjRZ_7hQ
From your link above.................
"Richard Crique works in a mortuary. He is one of the searchers that spent days looking for Caylee. He told investigators about one of the first times he searched near the area where Caylee's remains were found.
"It just hit me. I got a whiff of something that didn't belong there," said Crique. But he told detectives that water kept him and other volunteers = from doing a thorough search. "Describe the water," said one of the investigators."It was clear. About knee deep," said Crique."
Other searchers have also stated there was water in the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found.The second search done by Texas Equasearch in early November tried to search that area and called off the search as they almost lost one of their ATVs. I remember Tim Miller being interviewed on the last day of the search and saying how they had hoped to search that area but it was too dangerous to attempt it with that much water there. There was no way Tim Miller could have known then that a little more than a month later, the water would have receded and Caylee's remains were found there. There's too many people who've stated the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found was under water for several months.
JB is so obsessed with the remains site, I think he's basing his entire defense on something that didn't happen. He wants to present to the jury that sometime after Casey was in jail, someone placed Caylee's remains where they were found. But, he has no way of proving that was the case, and the facts suggest that Caylee's remains were likely placed there in mid to late June 2008 and remained there until their discovery on Dec. 11, 2008. It's like JB is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. "
__________________
I agree Leila.
The jury is going to hear from Tim Miller, the jury is going to be shown many photos that depict the magic spot as Judge Perry calls it, thoroughly under water. Others like Danny Ibison and Richard C. are going to further testify that they could not search, as they had to abort their attempts as the area was knee deep in water.
OK that is a very, very clear idea that will remain in the jury's mind, the PHOTOS.
Then if someone else gets on the stand and claims they did not think the area was under water, or Jose tries to work that into his opening and or closing statements. He may as well be asking of the hardworking, taxpaying members of the jury, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?
They are going to of course believe what they saw with their own eyes, a swamp like area in the photo.
This would be like asking the Scott Peterson jury members , after listening to Amber Frye's columnious tapes, are you going to belive me or your lying ears?
If it looks like water from the ground and areal photos.....it was water, even a child on a jury would not be convinced otherwise.
As usual, the defense brings up matters that absolutely work against their claims. They just never learn. The last time they did this, Jose brought up Henry Lee as a reason the judge should allow the defense experts to be alone with the evidence.....they wound up with not only
OCSD being in attendance, but also
staff from the state's attorney office and
for the entire day to be videotaped!!!
Defense expert Bill Sheaffer summed it up, with the age old, "Be careful what you wish for; because you just might get it".
The jury may not know what to make of Joe and his letter he sent in to authorities. I n the words of my late Grandmother, "I don't know what possessed him to do such a thing". I believe Mr. Miller is going to be very compelling for them. If the jury hears from Mr. Miller, Baez is not going to be in need of another expert, he is going to be in need of a miracle.
The only thing that Baez said that is true, imo, is that Joe did insert himself front and center by sending in that letter. The domino effect that letter started is astounding. Looking back on it now I am sure he regrets how flippant his decision to write was and what a poor understanding he had of the ramifications of what if he is wrong had.
Whenever my husband and I are arguing, and I know he has got me on something, how I stall for a second to think up my next point, is I always say....honey....what if you are wrong? Then we both laugh and it is squashed.
In criminal law, what if you are wrong is a much more present and real question that demands an answer....that is for Mr. Mason, for his edification this morning.
I wish Joe would have held on to his letter and just asked himself that one simple question.
I like to close with you just can't make this stuff up,so,
does anyone recall Jose actually did ask someone; reporters maybe, are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?
I belive the photos!
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/20480714/detail.html
Love having you both here.
