2011.03.07 Motion Hearing - *Updated* Key Ruling In! See Motions Thread (sticky)

[SoCalSleuth]

SoCal is right that it is not automatic that someone is found to be in "custody" if they are being accused of a crime. It is just one of the factors considered. In the last few years, IMO it is one of the factors that the Florida appellate courts have emphasized. But reasonable minds can differ on whether Casey was in "custody" even after the door closed at Universal. Balancing all the facts, I think she was. Hopefully tomorrow, we'll see HHJP's ruling. And a couple of years from now, maybe we'll see the Florida Supreme Court's ruling too lol.

True, the Florida appellate courts have ruled that being confronted with actual evidence of a crime "weighs heavily" toward a finding of a "custodial interrogation" if the other 3 factors are present. However, my reading of the cases indicates to me that the courts distinguish between LE knowing, in fact, an actual and specific crime has been committed-have actual evidence of that crime being committed by the suspect - and confront the suspect with the actual evidence of guilt of the crime vs. LE simply accusing the suspect of lying and indicating they believe the suspect committed a crime. Here, although LE might have thought at the time of the universal interview that KC's lying indicated that a crime had been committed -they really didn't know that as a fact or have any actual evidence of that fact. Whatever the outcome in this particular case, I know that the court will write a very well thought out decision on the issue!

 

[A_News_Junkie]

C'mon C'mon tick tock tick tock :HHJP: :HHJP:

Okay, I am gonna try my psychic skills on this ruling.........
............TIMER 55........(if we have a ruling in 55 min or less, I will post my 1-800 #)

 

[Marina2]

True, the Florida appellate courts have ruled that being confronted with actual evidence of a crime "weighs heavily" toward a finding of a "custodial interrogation" if the other 3 factors are present. However, my reading of the cases indicates to me that the courts distinguish between LE knowing, in fact, an actual and specific crime has been committed-have actual evidence of that crime being committed by the suspect - and confront the suspect with the actual evidence of guilt of the crime vs. LE simply accusing the suspect of lying and indicating they believe the suspect committed a crime. Here, although LE might have thought at the time of the universal interview that KC's lying indicated that a crime had been committed -they really didn't know that as a fact or have any actual evidence of that fact. Whatever the outcome in this particular case, I know that the court will write a very well thought out decision on the issue!

While I'm anxious to hear whether or not the Universal interview will come in I'm even more anxious to hear JBP's opinion behind his ruling. Should be interesting.

 

[Chiquita71]

SoCal is right that it is not automatic that someone is found to be in "custody" if they are being accused of a crime. It is just one of the factors considered. In the last few years, IMO it is one of the factors that the Florida appellate courts have emphasized. But reasonable minds can differ on whether Casey was in "custody" even after the door closed at Universal. Balancing all the facts, I think she was. Hopefully tomorrow, we'll see HHJP's ruling. And a couple of years from now, maybe we'll see the Florida Supreme Court's ruling too lol.

RespectfullyQuoted AZlawyer

I read the post re: Lee vs. State and when I read that "The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave" I do think that is what happened to Casey at Universal. I'm not happy to agree with that, but I do. I didn't agree with the "not feeling free to leave part", though. Because...

Casey as we talked earlier this morning and we're working a case looking for your daughter Caylee. Is that correct?
Yes
Okay were here at Universal Studios, we're sitting in a little conference room. Obviously the doors unlocked. We just closed it so we could have a little privacy and talk to you.
Uh-huh
(end snip)

...I thought I had remembered LE telling Casey she was free to leave. It was that I remembered them saying that, reading it today I see they did not tell her she was free to go. They told her the door was unlocked and they were just in the room for privacy. Trying to understand what the defense is saying, I can see their point. Casey was never directly told she could leave. The actual words, "you are free to leave" was never said. If they had told Casey she was free to leave after she took them down that hall, I think she would have. I would have.

But Casey did agree when LE stated "we are working a case looking for your daughter Caylee. Is that correct?" And Casey says yes. So, when she is first brought in the room she is told this is about the case she is asking them to work, that Caylee is missing.

And ah, couple more questions came up I need to ask you about. Remember our, how I opened this whole thing in the morning.
Yeah
About saying that you know we need to get complete truth and the snowball effect and...and...
Absolutely
...how it goes? Okay. Um, we're about halfway down that hill, three quarters down that hill and its a pretty big snowball. Which means there is a lot of stuff going on right now.
Uh-huh
And I can tell you just for certainty everything you've told me so far has been a lie. I can tell you with certainty and let me explain why. Since I left you this morning.
(end snip)

Being blind to who we are talking about and understanding that hindsight is 20/20. I can see the argument for the defense here. Right away she is accused of lying. She is "challenged repeatedly." As the conversation continues I would not think, even Casey would think she could just walk out the door. Plus, weren't they her ride?

The evidence they presented "against her" were her lies. They did not have any evidence other than her lies. At the end, you can tell they are tying to get her to confess. You can tell they have made up their minds that Caylee is dead and Casey knows at least, where she is. If not why, she is no more.

I thought that when I read it the first time a least a year ago. I did not think the officers were wrong or doing anything wrong. I felt the same as they, Casey was the key to finding Caylee and they were doing what needed to be done to accomplish that. They stated as such. I am on their side.

But, if this is what the judge is ruling on and it means whether or not Casey had her rights violated. If the judge rules this is so, I understand that.

Casey felt this, she knows this. What she has to say makes them seem awful if you think she is innocent. When she complains that she was "arrested on a ****ing whim" and that they just want her to confess to something she didn't do-she is telling her 'truth' again. They saw through her, and had the nerve to confront her with her lies. In Casey court, they are already convicted of being her enemy. How happy her surprise to find out what was against her own sociopathic rules, was also against the law?

This, imo is why she now scribbles. Being a defense lawyer can be the wet dream of a true sociopath, yes? In this worldwide case against herself, Casey can stand up with the law and show everyone else they are wrong. Through this craft that is called "law" Casey does see the tools of her freedom. On paper, in classroom debates and here on the internet-she has an argument. I see now the defense can always have an argument. There are and will always be two sides to every story.

And, now I think I understand where a jury comes in-to balance the two sides of the story. Very interesting.

I want Casey to have a fair trial. If she murdered Caylee, she will be found guilty by a jury of her peers. I do not envy them the task. They will sit and give much more thought to Casey's life than she gave to Caylee's.

Thank you to everyone who knows law and everyone who posts at Websleuths. The information you share is invaluable.

PS: I am fine with whatever HHJP makes his ruling. I was upset during the last hearing but I understand more now. :blowkiss:

:twocents:

 

[believe09]

This is an interesting discussion-IIRC LE was pretty certain that they would be able to get the truth from her...I mean it is tough to imagine she was not "breakable" given that she didnt ever report the child missing and then carefully took them to a place of work that was fictitious. Not that Universal is fictitous, but that her employment was.

I mean, from a 30 thousand foot viewpoint, I think it was reasonable to expect an explanation from the mother of a missing child who never reported her missing....they must have been further intrigued when she fell flat on her face at Universal. At the time she was the last person to have seen the child. More than a month previous. They were simply following up on her alibis and explanations right?

Why would she need to be mirandized for that? She was volunteering certain information and they were following up on it.

 

[wenwe4]

When were the first words "I am placing you under arrest" uttered by any LE officer? Just because the officers were attempting to put the picture together - given the information they were being given and them asking the questions of 'what part of that makes sense to you?' essentially; does not mean KC was under arrest! I do not believe she was under arrest until October. Officers have the right to detain people or handcuff them for the LEO's safety and the detainee. (FGS - this isn't Gitmo).

 

[jon_burrows]

It would be interesting to know if Susan Smith was mirandized at any time before she admitted to strapping her sons in their car seats and letting the car role into a lake.

I just finished reading the book her husband wrote. She was polygraphed more than once and was asked to go to the police station multiple times for questioning.

The cases are very similar. Her boyfriend of the day didn't want children. She cried with no tears. She left them with anyone that would watch them while she went to a bar.

The lake was searched twice with divers and they didn't find the car. LE confronted Susan and told her they knew she was lying about the carjacking. She finally broke down and told the truth. She had to tell the divers where the car was located (exact spot in lake) in order for them to find the car. Visibility was only about 12 inches (I think) in the water.

If it had not been for her confession she probably would have gotten away with murder. They had no evidence at all until she admitted what she did.

 

[Chiquita71]

This is an interesting discussion-IIRC LE was pretty certain that they would be able to get the truth from her...I mean it is tough to imagine she was not "breakable" given that she didnt ever report the child missing and then carefully took them to a place of work that was fictitious. Not that Universal is fictitous, but that her employment was.

I mean, from a 30 thousand foot viewpoint, I think it was reasonable to expect an explanation from the mother of a missing child who never reported her missing....they must have been further intrigued when she fell flat on her face at Universal. At the time she was the last person to have seen the child. More than a month previous. They were simply following up on her alibis and explanations right?

Why would she need to be mirandized for that? She was volunteering certain information and they were following up on it.

Respectfully Quoted believe
BBM

Exactly. They didn't know who(or what)they were dealing with. And, that is exactly imo what Casey is trying to show them. They don't know who they are dealing with. But she does not realize her real "fight" will be with the jury and she cannot place blame on them.

I am on the prosecutions side and I totally agree with you, but I do not mind giving the defense anything they need. Casey is fighting for her life, I believe that because I believe she will be found guilty. She has been given the fighting chance that Caylee never had and I don't guess, I know that is what makes most decent folk so mad. :furious:

Casey had some clip art that said, "why do we kill people who kill?" What Casey doesn't understand is that when we "kill people who kill" it is after they get a chance to defend themselves unlike those they have murdered.


:websleuther:

 

[denjet]

You're probably right as usual, but what bothers me is that LE didn't know what crime had happened or if a crime had happened here. A baby was missing, but they didn't know if she was dead, if the mother was just hiding her and it was some sort of domestic dispute, or if this was just a domestic dispute over a car and the baby was okay somewhere. Wouldn't that factor in somehow? It's not like they found her with blood on her hands or with a murder weapon. They had no idea what was going on here and were trying to figure that out. It makes it a lot more shaky to me, anyway. And aren't people, when they are truly arrested, usually charged right away with something? I don't think she was even charged with anything until a lot later down the road...anyway, it muddies the water for me, I'm just not sure it does the same for people like you or HHJP.

ITA!

Originally Posted by Bee Charmer:
Aedrys, excellent point. IMO, there has to be some leeway accorded to LE in their investigation of a complaint. This family called them to investigate the "kidnapping" of Caylee so how is it possible that now LE is being criticized for doing what they were summoned for?

Have we hamstrung our police officers this much in this Country?

ITA!

Originally Posted by doogiesgirl:
I have no legal knowledge to go on so...

I have to say that I find police completely intimidating. Just the sight of them. But KC showed no signs of fear or intimidation. She didn't cry and say "I want to see my parents, or I don't want to talk anymore right now", no she continued on answering questions with complete lies. So at the end of it all, when you look at the big picture, the A's called LE to help them, KC said she wanted LE's help - and at no point did she say...."enough, please leave" or anything like it. So, in my mind....it stands.

... and ITA!

IMO it's a sad state of affairs, especially where a missing child is involved, that police cannot investigate without fear that if they're questioning people to gather information, they have to be aware that if they are talking to someone who may end up being a suspect and eventually arrested, that anything a potential suspect says that seems incriminating may just be thrown out because some defense lawyer is going to cry foul and come up with the BS that this defense team has come up with ...

I'm just wondering how often this happens ... parents, family and the last persons to see the missing child are ALWAYS questioned so the police have something to go on in their search ... jeeze ... :banghead:

 

[logicalgirl]

:sigh: :waiting:

 

[denjet]

Last night I was reading the book Mommy's Little Girl by D Fanning my daughter had given me. Even though I am finding some facts are loosely reported, I do remember seeing a video like what was written on pages 193-194.

JB was speaking at the July 20, 2008 vigil and said that his client at no time refused to speak with law enforcement and then directed "everybody's attention to the arrest report, which clearly states that the police were called out on the fifteenth of this month, and she spoke with them immediately on that day, and then on the following day, practically the entire day she spent with law enforcement. Only upon being arrested and might be detained that she invoked her right to counsel, as I think anyone would do in this country. We are focused on trying to find Caylee."

This morning, I searched all over and have not been able to find an article or video that includes JB's statement, but did find this -
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67680&page=23
Leila post #559
Is this the same cam still camped out in the G'parents' yard? Geezils!
I think it is! Earlier tonight, Geraldo was interviewing the attorney, Jose Baez, and investigator, Joe Matthews, who were seated on what appeared to be patio chairs on a driveway. I presumed it was the driveway at the home of George and Cindy Anthony. In fact, I think I recognized George crossing the driveway in the background at one point.

So, Fox News may be camped there.

I hope someone else remembers this too. During this period of time the whole focus was on finding Caylee, even though ICA was lying with every breath she took.

I hope HHBP lets everything in.

Awesome! Thanks for bringing this up ... More than once Jose has said something similar and so have the Anthonys ! And Cindy also said it on National and Local TV!
Wonder if that can come in? They were never mirandized either !!
Your post made me think about possible future prosecution of Cindy and her lawyers pulling the same thing ... I hope the fact that her words ARE going to come in at this trial, both as the investigation unfolded and her sworn deposition ...

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I'm going to lunch. When I get back, I expect a ruling in favor of Caylee.

 

[Chiquita71]

ITA!



ITA!



... and ITA!

IMO it's a sad state of affairs, especially where a missing child is involved, that police cannot investigate without fear that if they're questioning people to gather information, they have to be aware that if they are talking to someone who may end up being a suspect and eventually arrested, that anything a potential suspect says that seems incriminating may just be thrown out because some defense lawyer is going to cry foul and come up with the BS that this defense team has come up with ...

I'm just wondering how often this happens ... parents, family and the last persons to see the missing child are ALWAYS questioned so the police have something to go on in their search ... jeeze ... :banghead:

Respectfully Quoted Websleuths

I think when this is seen in the bigger picture, the trial-this won't matter to the jury. In fact, one of my questions is: will this angle be dropped once the defense gets a ruling on this? In other words, aren't they arguing what LE did was wrong just to get certain statements left out of trial, yes? So, as others have pointed out, that's okay it won't matter. There are so many other statements that will be allowed in.

As far as what rulings like this will do in making LE's difficult job that much more difficult: LEO should and probably will always do what they know to be best and right. They have the control at the start of an investigation and the defense attorneys come later. The way this all works, as I see it, there is no way of anticipating what a (unusual)defense attorney will go after to save a(guilty)client.

Meaning, no matter what LE does or doesn't do they will always be attacked by defense attorneys who are willing to attack LE. I'm saying this for the first time in my life because I just learned this, I just learned that defense attorneys are allowed to go after LE. I do not say this stuff because I agree with it, I say it because I have just learned this and now I am trying to apply it to what I was taught.

Because a lot of what I was taught about "they way things are" are not turning out to be so much that way. :waitasec:

Casey is right. She is a big deal. Just not a deal anyone would want to be. And where I thought Jose and CM and "the rest" were insane or inept and I wondered how they moved through the world as such, I find there is a place for them in society.

As far as this happening often, maybe there should be some new training in dealing with sociopaths? Like, establish within a certain amount of time, they are not dealing with a "normal" person who has done wrong. You can tell by the questions at the end of the universal interview LE is running in that direction. That Casey is a normal human being who, scary enough is capable of the worst of actions, but then has remorse and regret. They ran through every case of how this could have happened. They got to the "unless you are just a cold monster" part which is close to realizing. But, you can tell they feel they will crack her when LE states, "something terrible that happened" and Casey says, "the terrible thing that happened..." but then changes right away the subject back to dropping Caylee off with the nanny.

Was she going to crack? :dunno: But if she is a sociopath, and they were trying to deal with a non sociopath that was a no win situation. I have to say, that if they thought/knew Caylee was gone-why push so hard right then and there? Except they thought they had her...at the end of the hall. Again, if they had known-walked away-and figured out "what" she was maybe they could have come at it all different? Maybe this will help in future cases?

With the Ramsey's(imo), Haleigh Cummings, and the (sadly)millions of other cases where in my opinion it is the parents who are the murders of their children: maybe we need to have a new way LE handles cases like this? I know the family is suspected as a given and innocent families do not mind nor go after LE for doing so: they want their child found. Liars and deceivers always make it difficult for those telling the truth. No matter what a good person does right, a liar can always come along with "their story" of what happened. It has always been the role of those hearing the story to figure out who is telling the truth.

There are easier paradigms than this, folks. FYI. :ufo: This is duality...and it is just...everywhere. :sigh:

:twocents:

 

[Spangle]

The only thing being tossed would be her admitting she lied to them. Everything else, she all ready told them at least once.

What the Jury would really loose, is getting the hear/see her boldness in lying the the cops who are trying to find her daughter. Going so far as to take the officers to her fake workplace. That says alot. A picture worth a thousand words, times a million.

How is that part of the story any different then the partying, etc that she did since Caylee's death?? It shows her mindset. At what part are the officers not allowed to use the walk/talk that she did that day??? And on what bases?

While I understand the fine line of being arrested, but not arrested... In this case it's rather blurred. She is supposedly trying to find her daughter and she is supposedly trying to give as much info to the cops as she possibly can. She agreed to work with the cops. She willingly went with them that morning. That she complained about being arrested on a whim, to me shows she didn't expect to be arrested for lying to the cops. That lying was nothing to be upset over, no big deal. If that was her thinking, then she wouldn't have felt threatened in that room. She would have felt innocent(safe), since lying isn't an issue to her.

If I remember correctly, she says very little in that room. It's more or less them retelling what happened that day, and the end results. They went here, they went there.. nothing found. Nothing backed up her story. Went to work, found out she didn't work there. She agrees that she lied to them all along. Well, she says it wasn't all lies.. but she doesn't say what part of it was truth, and what part is lies.

Are the officers not going to be allowed to testify about that day at all?

 

[LancelotLink]

I would hope that HHJBP would deny the whole thing, and the Universal portion without prejudice. This way, if they want to file another motion, they would have to prove that she felt intimidated and in virtual custody. And the only way to do that, IMO is for her to take the stand.
A monkey can dream...

 

[LancelotLink]

The only thing being tossed would be her admitting she lied to them. Everything else, she all ready told them at least once.

What the Jury would really loose, is getting the hear/see her boldness in lying the the cops who are trying to find her daughter. Going so far as to take the officers to her fake workplace. That says alot. A picture worth a thousand words, times a million.

How is that part of the story any different then the partying, etc that she did since Caylee's death?? It shows her mindset. At what part are the officers not allowed to use the walk/talk that she did that day??? And on what bases?

While I understand the fine line of being arrested, but not arrested... In this case it's rather blurred. She is supposedly trying to find her daughter and she is supposedly trying to give as much info to the cops as she possibly can. She agreed to work with the cops. She willingly went with them that morning. That she complained about being arrested on a whim, to me shows she didn't expect to be arrested for lying to the cops. That lying was nothing to be upset over, no big deal. If that was her thinking, then she wouldn't have felt threatened in that room. She would have felt innocent(safe), since lying isn't an issue to her.

If I remember correctly, she says very little in that room. It's more or less them retelling what happened that day, and the end results. They went here, they went there.. nothing found. Nothing backed up her story. Went to work, found out she didn't work there. She agrees that she lied to them all along. Well, she says it wasn't all lies.. but she doesn't say what part of it was truth, and what part is lies.

Are the officers not going to be allowed to testify about that day at all?

In one part of the interview, was she not asked why they were there and did she not say she wanted to come there to pass out pictures of her missing child?

 

[Solace]

The only thing being tossed would be her admitting she lied to them. Everything else, she all ready told them at least once.

What the Jury would really loose, is getting the hear/see her boldness in lying the the cops who are trying to find her daughter. Going so far as to take the officers to her fake workplace. That says alot. A picture worth a thousand words, times a million.

How is that part of the story any different then the partying, etc that she did since Caylee's death?? It shows her mindset. At what part are the officers not allowed to use the walk/talk that she did that day??? And on what bases?

While I understand the fine line of being arrested, but not arrested... In this case it's rather blurred. She is supposedly trying to find her daughter and she is supposedly trying to give as much info to the cops as she possibly can. She agreed to work with the cops. She willingly went with them that morning. That she complained about being arrested on a whim, to me shows she didn't expect to be arrested for lying to the cops. That lying was nothing to be upset over, no big deal. If that was her thinking, then she wouldn't have felt threatened in that room. She would have felt innocent(safe), since lying isn't an issue to her.

If I remember correctly, she says very little in that room. It's more or less them retelling what happened that day, and the end results. They went here, they went there.. nothing found. Nothing backed up her story. Went to work, found out she didn't work there. She agrees that she lied to them all along. Well, she says it wasn't all lies.. but she doesn't say what part of it was truth, and what part is lies.

Are the officers not going to be allowed to testify about that day at all?

The interesting thing about the Universal tape, imo, is the end of it where she listens to Appie Wells and opens up a bit and then he asks her how much schooling she has and she LIES and says Velencia College.

The tapes are important, but not crucial, but important for the jury to get insight into KC's personality and how much she really does lie and how little she thinks of this whole thing. She is quite sure at the end of the Universal interview that she has aced it.

Again, I do not understand this DISORDER - sociopath - does it have built into it, challenged IQ. She just lies constantly no matter what, when there is no need - it is constant. To her own detriment.

 

[LancelotLink]

Last night I was reading the book Mommy's Little Girl by D Fanning my daughter had given me. Even though I am finding some facts are loosely reported, I do remember seeing a video like what was written on pages 193-194.

JB was speaking at the July 20, 2008 vigil and said that his client at no time refused to speak with law enforcement and then directed "everybody's attention to the arrest report, which clearly states that the police were called out on the fifteenth of this month, and she spoke with them immediately on that day, and then on the following day, practically the entire day she spent with law enforcement. Only upon being arrested and might be detained that she invoked her right to counsel, as I think anyone would do in this country. We are focused on trying to find Caylee."

This morning, I searched all over and have not been able to find an article or video that includes JB's statement, but did find this -
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67680&page=23
Leila post #559
Is this the same cam still camped out in the G'parents' yard? Geezils!
I think it is! Earlier tonight, Geraldo was interviewing the attorney, Jose Baez, and investigator, Joe Matthews, who were seated on what appeared to be patio chairs on a driveway. I presumed it was the driveway at the home of George and Cindy Anthony. In fact, I think I recognized George crossing the driveway in the background at one point.

So, Fox News may be camped there.

I hope someone else remembers this too. During this period of time the whole focus was on finding Caylee, even though ICA was lying with every breath she took.

I hope HHBP lets everything in.

Here ya go!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQp_-iEJ5s[/ame]

marker 0:10

 

[LolaMoon08]

It would be interesting to know if Susan Smith was mirandized at any time before she admitted to strapping her sons in their car seats and letting the car role into a lake.

I just finished reading the book her husband wrote. She was polygraphed more than once and was asked to go to the police station multiple times for questioning.

The cases are very similar. Her boyfriend of the day didn't want children. She cried with no tears. She left them with anyone that would watch them while she went to a bar.

The lake was searched twice with divers and they didn't find the car. LE confronted Susan and told her they knew she was lying about the carjacking. She finally broke down and told the truth. She had to tell the divers where the car was located (exact spot in lake) in order for them to find the car. Visibility was only about 12 inches (I think) in the water.

If it had not been for her confession she probably would have gotten away with murder. They had no evidence at all until she admitted what she did.

BBM- When this case first started, I too thought Casey was another Susan Smith, but it didn't take too long for me to figure out that these two women are nothing alike and their cases are nothing alike. Susan Smith is a pathetic, horrific human being. Casey Anthony is a monster!!

I don't think Tony had anything to do with Casey murdering Caylee. She was stringing along a few men (Mark and Ricardo to name two) and I believe she had every intention of making her way out to California by Caylee's third birthday. Casey was not in love with Tony... Casey does not even know what love is... she is incapable of it... he was simply convienient for Casey at the moment. Someone Casey could use for her own personal benefit. He was a place to stay and Casey knew she could mold herself into what she believes a perfect little housewife is. Cook for her man. Clean the house for her man. And lay with him every night. He'll be happy and she will get what she needs out of him for that moment.

I don't even know if I believe Casey murdered Caylee because she couldn't find anyone to watch her that day? It may have played a small role in it... but Casey had murder on her mind way before she even met Tony. Tony never said that he didn't want children, he said he only wanted boys. I do believe he was joking. I had a boyfriend in my early 20's who jokingly said if he had any girls that he would send them up the river. Tony was not ready to have children... and he was honest with Casey that his apartment was not the ideal place for Caylee to be. I don't think a lot of college kids apartments are ideal for children of any age. I commend Tony for thinking about Caylee's well being... which Casey was incapable of doing. If Casey was thinking of Caylee's well being, she would have left Tony and attempted to find a more suitable, mature man who would have no problem accepting Caylee in his life... but not our Casey! Casey loved the fact that Tony was more interested in HER and not Caylee. It was probably a feeling she hadn't felt since Caylee was born. Someone loved Casey more than Caylee. Caylee was not the center of attention. Casey was.

I think the differences between Tony and Susan Smiths boyfriend are huge. Tony was a young guy trying to go to school and work to better himself and simply wasn't ready to have children (a mature decision if you ask me). Susan Smiths boyfriend was a rich, established man who didn't want a woman who was carrying extra baggage. He broke up with Susan. Rejected Susan. Tony never did that with Casey.

Heck, even when Susan Smith was lying during that first press conference (I remember it well) and was accusing a black man of carjacking her car and taking those precious boys... she was crying. I believed her! She looked like a mother should look when her children are missing and she is worried about them... which it was her capability to have emotions that made her confess.

Casey on the other hand can not even muster up a tear for Caylee. In three years she has shown no emotion (other than the occasional poking of the eye and holding her breath to make her face get red) when it concerns Caylee. Only herself. Casey can not even fake emotion for Caylee because she completely lacks emotion when it comes to Caylee. She is one of the most scary people I have ever witnessed. I do put her up there with the more monsterous serial killers... simply because I believe Casey had every intention of killing her parents too and if she is capable of killing her own child, and her own parents, Casey is capable of killing anyone. She is truly evil!

 

[beach]

My stomach is churning waiting on this Order to be published. :nerves:

I'm gonna do us all a favor - I need to wash my car, so I will go do that. I am sure the minute I leave it will be posted. lol