"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #2

[Horace Finklestein]

How do you explain the following?:

-31 days of partying, without an apparent care in the world.
-Texts and IMs indicating KC was going about her usual, fun-filled routine.
-A new tatoo.
-The most important factor: The fact that KC was, in fact, the last person who saw Caylee AND KC cannot produce one single real human being who took Caylee off her hands (either a hostile takeover of the child or a simple hand-off to a sitter.)

If she doesn't tell us who took the child, then there is no one else besides KC who could have harmed Caylee. Do you agree with that statement at least?

Be careful in asking questions you might get banned for 'personal attacks'

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Be careful in asking questions you might get banned for 'personal attacks'

I don't get it...What do you mean? Sorry to be naive. I have been here for many, many years and I don't get it - please explain.

I am asking the poster if he/she agrees, at least, with my last statement. Is that considered a personal attack nowadays? I am also asking the poster to explain some obvious smoking guns in the case. Is that not ok?

Heck, I don't even know if this poster has a different opinion than I do...I am just asking for debate, if there is one, I guess.

I am not being facetious, I just really don't understand what you are saying. :waitasec:

 

[Jolynna]

Would you let CA have your child? I wouldn't.

There is no doubt in my mind that Caylee would rather be raised by CA than killed by her mother.

 

[notthatsmart]

How do you explain the following?:

-31 days of partying, without an apparent care in the world.
-Texts and IMs indicating KC was going about her usual, fun-filled routine.
-A new tatoo.
-The most important factor: The fact that KC was, in fact, the last person who saw Caylee AND KC cannot produce one single real human being who took Caylee off her hands (either a hostile takeover of the child or a simple hand-off to a sitter.)

If she doesn't tell us who took the child, then there is no one else besides KC who could have harmed Caylee. Do you agree with that statement at least?

If she is a pathological liar and she believes in her own lies, then she probably doesnt know what happened to Caylee. It is up to us to find the truth without her help. I am in no way going to say she is guilty simply because she lies. She is not the only one who could have harmed Caylee. A predator could have done it.

 

[RR0004]

[/B]


If she is a pathological liar and she believes in her own lies, then she probably doesnt know what happened to Caylee. It is up to us to find the truth without her help. I am in no way going to say she is guilty simply because she lies. She is not the only one who could have harmed Caylee. A predator could have done it.

No, having amnesia would keep her from remembering...being a pathological liar would just have her...well, for lack of a better word...LYING!

 

[Oakley]

No, having amnesia would keep her from remembering...being a pathological liar would just have her...well, for lack of a better word...LYING!

How true. People with severe character flaws such as pathological liars (which Casey has proven to be by numerous witnesses) are just not trustworthy but not necessarily memory deficient. Matter of fact, Casey has excellent memory recall, IMO. All evidence points to Casey - no one else, IMO.

 

[magic-cat]

[/b]


If she is a pathological liar and she believes in her own lies, then she probably doesnt know what happened to Caylee. It is up to us to find the truth without her help. I am in no way going to say she is guilty simply because she lies. She is not the only one who could have harmed Caylee. A predator could have done it.

What evidence is there that in any way points to a predator?:waitasec:

 

[RR0004]

What evidence is there that in any way points to a predator?:waitasec:

I think there was a post yesterday about that guy who had abducted the child in Orlando in 2007..tape was involved. Voila!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

How do you explain the following?:

-31 days of partying, without an apparent care in the world.
-Texts and IMs indicating KC was going about her usual, fun-filled routine.
-A new tatoo.
-The most important factor: The fact that KC was, in fact, the last person who saw Caylee AND KC cannot produce one single real human being who took Caylee off her hands (either a hostile takeover of the child or a simple hand-off to a sitter.)

If she doesn't tell us who took the child, then there is no one else besides KC who could have harmed Caylee. Do you agree with that statement at least?

Because LE doesn't know when, where, how or why, added to my personal opinion of the evidence we have in the docs, I was leaning towards NG.
Because of the 31 days of her actions, including the partying, tattoo, not calling in, added to the duct tape at the site of the remains has taken me from leaning towards not guilty to undecided. I need more evidence, because with what I have in front of me, I can neither say guilty or not guilty.
KC can't say anything at this point, she could have before she lawyered up, but she didn't.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Because LE doesn't know when, where, how or why, added to my personal opinion of the evidence we have in the docs, I was leaning towards NG.
Because of the 31 days of her actions, including the partying, tattoo, not calling in, added to the duct tape at the site of the remains has taken me from leaning towards not guilty to undecided. I need more evidence, because with what I have in front of me, I can neither say guilty or not guilty.
KC can't say anything at this point, she could have before she lawyered up, but she didn't.

Casey can still say anything she chooses, lawyer or no lawyer. She just won't say anything at this point because imo it wouldn't be to her advantage. :silenced:

 

[TorisMom003]

Wouldn't the 3 pieces of duct tape across the mouth and nose not be the how? I think we have a pretty good idea of the when as well. There is only a day and a half (at most) between a known sighting of Caylee, Cindy's dads video, and a known sighting of Casey, video of movie place without Caylee in sight and NO ONE was babysitting her. Casey's tattoo and partying during those 31 days are a very good indication of why. The where could be at the Anthony home or in Casey's car as Casey had no where else private to do this to Caylee.

I would say with the evidence that has been presented so far the SA can make educated guesses as to those points. I also feel that a jury will have no problem connecting these things together. Common sense tells me that there is plenty of evidence (that we already know about) to convict Casey of 1st degree. When trial comes and more evidence is introduced then that will make it even easier for the jury.

IMO

 

[atypicalveteran]

Hi everyone!
I'm new. There are a lot of things I could say about myself but let's face it, no one (including me) is all that interested.

The other day tho, my dh and I were discussing Caylee's death and the investigation, etc., and I asked him "what convinced you (meaning him) that KC had done this and his reply was simple and to the point.

He said "no one reported Caylee missing for all that time." In this case there are so many
details, so many leads, that having it broke down that way struck me.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Casey can still say anything she chooses, lawyer or no lawyer. She just won't say anything at this point because imo it wouldn't be to her advantage. :silenced:

Yep, I agree.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Wouldn't the 3 pieces of duct tape across the mouth and nose not be the how? I think we have a pretty good idea of the when as well. There is only a day and a half (at most) between a known sighting of Caylee, Cindy's dads video, and a known sighting of Casey, video of movie place without Caylee in sight and NO ONE was babysitting her. Casey's tattoo and partying during those 31 days are a very good indication of why. The where could be at the Anthony home or in Casey's car as Casey had no where else private to do this to Caylee.

I would say with the evidence that has been presented so far the SA can make educated guesses as to those points. I also feel that a jury will have no problem connecting these things together. Common sense tells me that there is plenty of evidence (that we already know about) to convict Casey of 1st degree. When trial comes and more evidence is introduced then that will make it even easier for the jury
IMO

I respect your opinion, mine is different.
Possible drowning, drug overdose, lethal use of chloroform, and suffocation by duct tape are speculated causes of death. Dr. G. reported cause of death unknown.
Depending on how one chooses to interpret the docs, the time of death is unknown, anywhere from hours, to days, to even longer depending on one's opinion.
In my opinion, in order for the tattoo, and the partying done in that 31 days to be considered anything than normal behavior for a girl in her early 20's one has to assume Casey is guilty. I want to hear Casey's compelling reason for this behavior. Until the jury says "guilty" I am going to presume she is innocent. But thats just one of our rights that i believe in.
There is no evidence I know of that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a premeditated murder was committed at either the Anthony home or in Casey's car.
So in my opinion LE does not know where, when, how or why.
Yes I think we the evidence we have before us so far the SA can make an educated guess as to what happened, personally I do not want to give someone the DP based on a guess, educated or not. The difference between the evidence we know of and the evidence we see at trial may very well change my opinion about everything.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that the only cross examination of the evidence we know of is what our posters in here post. In the actual trial the defense lawyers will be doing the cross examination. I realize my opinion is of the minority in here, but I'm just an average person, my examinations of this evidence will pale in comparisom to what the defense will do. So basically if my weak little arguements upset anyone, when the defense at trial starts cross examining witnesses someone is going to be mad as he(doublehockeysticks).
In summary until I have more evidence I can neither find GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

 

[noonie]

I have thought about this kidnapping theory. You know, Casey and Jesse dream up a plan to kidnap for ransom, so they find a Roy Kronk type of person to help them and then something goes wrong and Jesse bails. I think the evidence fits Caylee being killed much later.

And how do you figure that May I ask politely???

 

[RR0004]

I respect your opinion, mine is different.
Possible drowning, drug overdose, lethal use of chloroform, and suffocation by duct tape are speculated causes of death. Dr. G. reported cause of death unknown.
Depending on how one chooses to interpret the docs, the time of death is unknown, anywhere from hours, to days, to even longer depending on one's opinion.
In my opinion, in order for the tattoo, and the partying done in that 31 days to be considered anything than normal behavior for a girl in her early 20's one has to assume Casey is guilty. I want to hear Casey's compelling reason for this behavior. Until the jury says "guilty" I am going to presume she is innocent. But thats just one of our rights that i believe in.
There is no evidence I know of that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a premeditated murder was committed at either the Anthony home or in Casey's car.
So in my opinion LE does not know where, when, how or why.
Yes I think we the evidence we have before us so far the SA can make an educated guess as to what happened, personally I do not want to give someone the DP based on a guess, educated or not. The difference between the evidence we know of and the evidence we see at trial may very well change my opinion about everything.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that the only cross examination of the evidence we know of is what our posters in here post. In the actual trial the defense lawyers will be doing the cross examination. I realize my opinion is of the minority in here, but I'm just an average person, my examinations of this evidence will pale in comparisom to what the defense will do. So basically if my weak little arguements upset anyone, when the defense at trial starts cross examining witnesses someone is going to be mad as he(doublehockeysticks).
In summary until I have more evidence I can neither find GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

I do respect your opinion so I'll ask...instead of disputing the evidence as we know the defense will do...can you think of how Caylee died? Because if there are no other reasonable explanations for the jury to consider...and they will need to have that IMO when deciding her fate...the verdict no doubt will be guilty. JMHO

 

[smart blonde]

After everything I have seen, heard and read (which is just about everything available to the public) I can unequivocally say I find Casey Marie Anthony, GUILTY, on all charges.

 

[smart blonde]

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

[/b]


If she is a pathological liar and she believes in her own lies, then she probably doesnt know what happened to Caylee. It is up to us to find the truth without her help. I am in no way going to say she is guilty simply because she lies. She is not the only one who could have harmed Caylee. A predator could have done it.

Sure, anyone could have done it.

But, a preditor would have had to, somehow, take the child out of KC's custody.

"A pathological liar is usually defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. Pathological lying is often viewed as coping mechanism developed in early childhood and it is often associated with some other type of mental health disorder..."

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/confront_a_liar/public/pathological-compulsive.html

From what I gather, a pathological liar would not believe his or her own lies. I think if you believe in self-created fantasy, then you have some other type of psychological disorder that goes far beyond lying.

So, it comes down to the fact that KC knows how Caylee left her hands and she is lying about it.

If anyone could come up with one, logical reason why KC would be lying about how an alive-and-well Caylee left the hands of her mother other than to protect KC's own self, then I would love to hear it!

If a preditor took Caylee and now an innocent KC is looking at death row, why wouldn't KC simply state the facts about how the bad guy got little Caylee?

 

[Tuffy]

Hi everyone!
I'm new. There are a lot of things I could say about myself but let's face it, no one (including me) is all that interested.

The other day tho, my dh and I were discussing Caylee's death and the investigation, etc., and I asked him "what convinced you (meaning him) that KC had done this and his reply was simple and to the point.

He said "no one reported Caylee missing for all that time." In this case there are so many
details, so many leads, that having it broke down that way struck me.

Hi atypicalveteran! My hubby and I came to the same conclusion around the same time. When we first caught this story on the news. 31 days! Your toddler is missing? You wait that long to get help for your poor, kidnapped baby? Um...No.

Then we watched C & G on Greta. Again, huh? Nothing adds up about all of the stories from these people.

I think most people will look at this case that way. I think they will have a hard time finding people to be on the jury that think differently.

BTW- Welcome to the board!