For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[beccalecca1]

I dont believe the sighting by George at all that day.

So the last time anyone saw Caylee other then the family of tale tellers ,is the nursing home people where Cindy took Caylee, or shirley when they visited and Caylee ate dinner there but then I never understood why Cindy had the whole recalling the dinner issue that fathers day.

Nothing George says in the truth imo and Cindy is not much better in my personal opinion.
I believe all the reported crying over the photo's with Caylee that day was a bit more then Cindy says. It was the last time Caylee might see her grandfather?? Who thinks like that (given how this family is always in denial we know they dont)<---my opinion yet again!

I'm not vouching for Cindy, because I think she's one of the leaders in dysfunction (along with George). BUT.... the only thing I could think is that since she's a nurse, she's probably seen a lot of people die. I'm a new nurse and I've seen countless deaths. And, there are clues to when someone begins "active dying" (which can be a long process sometimes days).

ETA: I work in a nursing home, so it helps in the experience of seeing the elderly go for natural reasons.

 

[beccalecca1]

Yes. Or the State couldn't use that pattern of calls to prove anything in their favor because phone records from other days might have indicated that she often made many calls in a short period of time to her parents or others. If the State tried to show there was something ominous about those calls, the defense could have come right back with evidence that the pattern wasn't unusual.

I don't know anything about her cell phone habits in general, just guessing as to a reason why the prosecutors didn't go there.

I think, and this is only going by memory, but she didn't have much contact with George prior to this. If she was going to talk to her parents, it was usually Cindy. So, the peculiarity in this is her attempting to frantically get ahold of George too. But, that really could play into the "they both were covering up an accident" theory.

 

[pcrum12]

OT: Hello beccalecca1. We're still here!

 

[beccalecca1]

OT: Hello beccalecca1. We're still here!

Haha! We are! I see things have lightened up a bit

 

[pcrum12]

Haha! We are! I see things have lightened up a bit

I'm just hanging around to see what transpires when they release her. Do you think she has already been released?

 

[beccalecca1]

I'm just hanging around to see what transpires when they release her. Do you think she has already been released?

Honestly, when they changed the release date I thought it was a ploy/distraction to get people away from the jail. I figured she'd probably be released on the original date.

 

[Hot Dogs]

The county wouldn't do that. She gets out tomorrow just like they said.

 

[gngr~snap]

Where was her car at? I know she ran out of gas near her house, but was it ever specified where she ran out of gas?

Monnday, June 23, 2008 Tony Lazzaro police interview
on 10/16/08 tells detectives this was day casey ran out of gas near parents' house,
she called his cell around mid-day, he saw her walking south on Chickasaw toward
the house, went to car at Anthony Lane and killian Drive, went into back yard and got
gas cans;
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0224/26984466.pdf

 

[erinleigh]

I can understand and respect the argument on why casey shouldn't have been convicted of outright murder.(I don't agree since I look at the big picture in a circumstantial case, but I'm open minded to other's beliefs).......But...... for the people who agree with the verdict can you please explain to me how you agree with the lesser charges like child abuse not resulting in a conviction. I have a severe migraine and can't recall the exact child abuse or manslaughter charges (being reminded of the charges would be appreciated and not viewed as demeaning to me-i know some people don't like being "schooled" but to answer this question we need to put it out there what factors would need to be considered to convict of the lesser charges )

My questions are
If the DT stated that casey found her child drowned with GA - and it was Casey who was on trial not GA (her fault since she didn't offer this story sooner) why would it not be considered abuse/neglience/manslaughter to refuse to render aid? Isn't that alone enough evidence?
Let's examine this.. You have a legal obligation to protect your child from harm or death if you have the ability. Finding a child in a pool not breathing deserves the right for CPR to be administered and 911 called for help. It wasn't caseys right to assume the child was dead. Drowning victims have been brought back thru resuscitation even when thought they were dead. Some have even been declared dead and "brought back". This outright refusal to try to help should be felony child abuse. The action or lack thereof resulted in assuring Caylee would die. This gift of evidence was wrapped in a bow and handed to the jury from the DT.

I dont want to argue evidence of circumstantial case and discussions of how SA didn't prove their case and sketchy evidence ect for this particular post. I want to keep it a friendly debate where we question each other to get answers. I really want to understand why anyone would agree with casey not being held legally accountable for her role in Caylee's accident resulting in death. If the drowning is true......and it was her daughter who needed aid....and Casey was there...and did NOTHING.....how does that equal full aquittal.

Finally, Why do some feel the jury made a the right choice and should be respected for their difficult task when they flagrantly disregarded the one thing the DT did give them to convict. Is it acceptable to deny conviction when they were told by the defendant attorneys she did nothing to save her daughter..just went inside and uploaded photos on the computer? Casey may not have testified but her lawyers can't just make up a story for her. She "legally" had to have given them that story so in essentially that is her "confession" in open court.

Where am I wrong in my thinking?

 

[sacrablue]

My guess is she was trying to arrange for her parents to watch Caylee that night. She'd been staying over at TL's without Caylee. I heard someone on some site say TL told her not to bring Caylee overnights. Does anybody have any confirmation on that?



Does anybody have the internet history for that time to see what sites were visited?

I have been watching testimony of Mr. Lazzaro. Tony seems like a very stand up guy. The best of all of Casey's many boy friends IMO. Well spoken and polite. Now if he prefered not having Caylee over I can see a real big problem. Casey was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. Warlordess Mommy #2 Cindy and strict George on one side and a potential soul mate on the other. Caylee was not fitting well in either envirionment. Very frustrating for Casey I am sure. Young smart attractive girl saw no future the way things were going. Where was the middle ground? Where was the comfort zone?

 

[Chablis]

the county wouldn't do that. She gets out tomorrow just like they said.

12:01 est

 

[sacrablue]

12:01 est

12:01 est AM lol's

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I can understand and respect the argument on why casey shouldn't have been convicted of outright murder.(I don't agree since I look at the big picture in a circumstantial case, but I'm open minded to other's beliefs).......But...... for the people who agree with the verdict can you please explain to me how you agree with the lesser charges like child abuse not resulting in a conviction. I have a severe migraine and can't recall the exact child abuse or manslaughter charges (being reminded of the charges would be appreciated and not viewed as demeaning to me-i know some people don't like being "schooled" but to answer this question we need to put it out there what factors would need to be considered to convict of the lesser charges )

My questions are
If the DT stated that casey found her child drowned with GA - and it was Casey who was on trial not GA (her fault since she didn't offer this story sooner) why would it not be considered abuse/neglience/manslaughter to refuse to render aid? Isn't that alone enough evidence?
Let's examine this.. You have a legal obligation to protect your child from harm or death if you have the ability. Finding a child in a pool not breathing deserves the right for CPR to be administered and 911 called for help. It wasn't caseys right to assume the child was dead. Drowning victims have been brought back thru resuscitation even when thought they were dead. Some have even been declared dead and "brought back". This outright refusal to try to help should be felony child abuse. The action or lack thereof resulted in assuring Caylee would die. This gift of evidence was wrapped in a bow and handed to the jury from the DT.

I dont want to argue evidence of circumstantial case and discussions of how SA didn't prove their case and sketchy evidence ect for this particular post. I want to keep it a friendly debate where we question each other to get answers. I really want to understand why anyone would agree with casey not being held legally accountable for her role in Caylee's accident resulting in death. If the drowning is true......and it was her daughter who needed aid....and Casey was there...and did NOTHING.....how does that equal full aquittal.

Finally, Why do some feel the jury made a the right choice and should be respected for their difficult task when they flagrantly disregarded the one thing the DT did give them to convict. Is it acceptable to deny conviction when they were told by the defendant attorneys she did nothing to save her daughter..just went inside and uploaded photos on the computer? Casey may not have testified but her lawyers can't just make up a story for her. She "legally" had to have given them that story so in essentially that is her "confession" in open court.

Where am I wrong in my thinking?

The reason I think the jury could not convict on count 2 aggravated child abuse, and count 3 aggravated manslaughter of a child is because the jury did not believe GA's testimony. In not believing GA's testimony, they could not reasonably conclude that KC was exclusively the caretaker on the 16th, GA was there as well. With both GA and KC there, and the distrust of GA's testimony, there was reasonable doubt as to who was at fault, KC or GA.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Actually, now I can see why the state did not want to go into detail about her phone calls on the 16th,

Then why didn't the defense bring it up? Probably because it makes no sense even for all their contradictions.

as the calls lean toward an accident having happened and the State sure did not want anyone to think that, even if true, IMO...

So, she called to tell her parents about an accident that she supposedly then denied for the next three years (and which George actually discovered anyway)? Doubt it.

 

[cluciano63]

Then why didn't the defense bring it up? Probably because it makes no sense even for all their contradictions.



So, she called to tell her parents about an accident that she supposedly then denied for the next three years (and which George actually discovered anyway)? Doubt it.

I am not saying it was an accident or wasn't an accident...just that the phone log could lead one to believe it was and that she was calling her parents for help...obviously the defense could not use it, it did not match their story, but you could say the same for the state, IMO...

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

George says she told him they were not coming home. they were staying WITH the nanny and Cindy already knew this.

Oh yeah. Though in one interview he did say she told him she might be late and would call later if she stayed out overnight.

Why would they automatically think she was calling them to babysit?CA had been keeping Caylee every night except the June 1,7 and 9th KC moved out of her house *June 2nd I think. I do believe KC did have Caylee during the day,* I need to verify that

Isn't there some testimony somewhere that CA was getting tired of doing that and wanted KC to take here share of the load?

Anyway, I don't recall any interviews where there ever even questioned about the calls, which all seemed to be either hangups or voicemails. Does anybody know if this has ever been answered?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I dont believe the sighting by George at all that day.

So the last time anyone saw Caylee other then the family of tale tellers ,is the nursing home people where Cindy took Caylee, or shirley when they visited and Caylee ate dinner there but then I never understood why Cindy had the whole recalling the dinner issue that fathers day.

Nothing George says in the truth imo and Cindy is not much better in my personal opinion.
I believe all the reported crying over the photo's with Caylee that day was a bit more then Cindy says. It was the last time Caylee might see her grandfather?? Who thinks like that (given how this family is always in denial we know they dont)<---my opinion yet again!

Except those 911 calls show Cindy had no idea anything happened till then.

 

[gngr~snap]

Then why didn't the defense bring it up? Probably because it makes no sense even for all their contradictions.



So, she called to tell her parents about an accident that she supposedly then denied for the next three years (and which George actually discovered anyway)? Doubt it.

And the 18th!
she murders s l o w l y...
GA didn't see Caylee the 16th
neither did CA.
The grandparents lie like ICA does.

10:52:03 a.m. Caseys cell ph call to Cindys cell ph
12:33:17 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Georges work (Lexus) ph
12:34:49 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Cindys cell ph
12:35:01 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Anthony hm ph
12:36:08 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Georges cell ph = 0 secs.
12:36:31 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Georges cell ph = 3 secs.
1:09:51 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Cindys cell ph = 88 secs.
1:11:49 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Anthony hm ph
4:11 back in the area of Tony L.s apartment.
4:13:26 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Georges work ph = 81 secs.
6:39:01 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Cindys cell ph = 456 secs.
6:55:26 p.m. Anthony hm ph call to Caseys cell ph = 60 secs.
6:55:26 p.m. Caseys cell ph (voice-mail retrieval) = 60 secs.
6:57:42 p.m. Caseys cell ph call to Anthony hm ph = 157 secs.

 

[gngr~snap]

Oh yeah. Though in one interview he did say she told him she might be late and would call later if she stayed out overnight.



Isn't there some testimony somewhere that CA was getting tired of doing that and wanted KC to take here share of the load?

Anyway, I don't recall any interviews where there ever even questioned about the calls, which all seemed to be either hangups or voicemails. Does anybody know if this has ever been answered?

It was a sob story to her mom (SP)
CA brought it on herself.

Yuri Melich even had to tell the woman CA was FOS!
CA had tried to steal her house.
She lied about the $45,000 KC supposedly spent and she put a wedge between Shirley and Rick.
CA oozes evil

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1643165/Plesea-Shirley---Statement

 

[Just Jayla]

Where was her car at? I know she ran out of gas near her house, but was it ever specified where she ran out of gas?

I don't remember the name of the street, maybe someone else already answered-but IIRC, it was a residential cut-through street between Chickasaw and Colonial Drive or Goldenrod.