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

[Themis]

Charges in notorious criminal cases are highly politicized. If the general public demands the charge, it will be made regardless of if it fits the situation or not. Remember that the Public Defender is an elected official in Florida. The Public Defender and his/her team are going to do what the public wants particularily in an infamous crime such as this one.

I know the ways the world works and how political things can get. However, I don't see that happening in this case. I'm not saying it hasn't happened in the past or in other cases.

This case still seems to be progressing based on the investigation of facts and adherence to the law. What you describe is outright and total political corruption. I know it can happen, but it doesn't seem to be happening in this case. The flip side of the "political pressure/corruption" case is the "public is watching/do it right" case. We still don't allow lynch mobs whether they are fueled by politics, enabled by technology or otherwise.

PS The public defender isn't involved in this case -- yet. KC's legal counsels are not under contract to the public defender's office. Still, the prosecutor is elected. The judge is elected. The sheriff is elected. So, what difference would it make that the public defender is elected?

 

[Balthazar]

I know you didn't ask me, but KC's statements to LE are evidence. KC herself told LE there had been a kidnapping by ZG. That is the evidence.

But the key word here is setup. So what I am asking is what evidence is there that Casey setup a kidnapping scenario.

Yes, her comments to police that ZFG took Caylee are evidence - but to me, these are more evidence of lying than setting up a kidnap scenario. KWIM?

 

[Themis]

But the key word here is setup. So what I am asking is what evidence is there that Casey setup a kidnapping scenario.

Yes, her comments to police that ZFG took Caylee are evidence - but to me, these are more evidence of lying than setting up a kidnap scenario. KWIM?

Oh. I see your distinction. I would say KC did not "set up" a kidnapping scenario. She just made it up -- lied about it. On this I agree with you.

 

[marspiter]

But the key word here is setup. So what I am asking is what evidence is there that Casey setup a kidnapping scenario.

Yes, her comments to police that ZFG took Caylee are evidence - but to me, these are more evidence of lying than setting up a kidnap scenario. KWIM?

Question? Ok maybe I'm about to argue semantics here but, what is the difference between lying about a kidnapping and setting up a false kidnapping scenario? To me that's one in the same.

 

[Jolynna]

For the Prosecutors to claim that Casey faked a kidnapping, there must be significant evidence to support that allegation.

Casey has kept silent on the advice of her attorney from July 16 on. That cannot be construed as evidence of guilt. It may be that what occurred was an accident and/or there are valid reasons for withholding this information until trial which might include a SOD among many other possibilities. We don't know what the defense will be. We can only consider the evidence that has been revealed.

But, let's put your supposition to the test and list the evidence that Casey was trying to setup a fake kidnapping. I'll even help you get started with the pieces I think could fit:

1. Someone in the Anthony household looked up a missing children website.
2. Casey said that ZFG took Caylee.
3. Casey told her family that Caylee was taken to teach her a lesson.

What else can you add? Do you see premeditation of a kidnapping plot in the months prior to Caylee's disappearance?

I don't know of any other things KC did to suggest Caylee was kidnapped. When Yuri testified in Casey's first bond hearing, he said that when he first came to the house KC never said Caylee was kidnapped. Yuri said KC told him Caylee was with the nanny. But, when she went to pick up Caylee, the nanny & Caylee were gone.

I'm not convinced KC didn't decide to blame her imaginary nanny because she was trapped. The cops were on their way. And Lee had just pointed out that the cops were going to ask her to take them to Caylee. Until then the "Caylee is off with the nanny" story had been working.

I think everyone here puts more thought into making a post than KC put into her "cover story".

JMO

 

[marspiter]

Oh ok I see Themis' response and that makes some sense. She lied about it but did not physically set up a false kidnapping. It's still deceit no matter how you shake it though especially at a point when your daughter is "missing" and authorities are involved.

 

[Themis]

Question? Ok maybe I'm about to argue semantics here but, what is the difference between lying about a kidnapping and setting up a false kidnapping scenario? To me that's one in the same.

Although lying might be one way of trying to set up a kidnapping scenario, I think I understood that Princess Rose was looking for something more; like an anticipated ransom demand -- phone call or something like that. As I recall, there was something about a script, instructions and a promise to return the child. Still, the only source of this was KC. Perhaps underlying this somewhat strident "discussion" is the concept that there needs to be "independent corroboration" for some types of evidence? Well, the statement of a co-conspirator implicating another co-conspirator would need independent corroboration. However, a statement of the principle perpetrator doesn't necessarily need independent corroboration. Therefore, there doesn't need to be a real ransom note. Besides, we already know that the kidnapping story was a lie and we agree on that. (At least, I think we do.)

 

[marspiter]

Well I'm personally on the fence about alien abduction from Martian Nannies myself. Sorry that was an unnecessary joke, but felt a need for some humor.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Question? Ok maybe I'm about to argue semantics here but, what is the difference between lying about a kidnapping and setting up a false kidnapping scenario? To me that's one in the same.

So true. IMO, she set up a false kidnapping scenario the moment she started spouting off about Caylee being kidnapped. She used the words, she set it up. She even went as far as to say Caylee had called her. She said ZFG had a key to the A house, knowing items found with Caylee would tie the two. And we can't forget the one story she told of being jumped in the park and given the "script". She's spoke of this imaginanny for a long time. She researched the "One Tree Hill" episode with the nanny kidnapping. There's the duct tape that usually only kidnappers use. She TOLD PEOPLE Caylee had been kidnapped. If that isn't setting it up to look like a kidnapping, I don't know what is.

 

[Balthazar]

Question? Ok maybe I'm about to argue semantics here but, what is the difference between lying about a kidnapping and setting up a false kidnapping scenario? To me that's one in the same.

Setting up a false kidnapping scenario would include pre-planning and possibly actions that would lead police to believe that the child had been kidnapped along with a story.

In Casey's case, it seems she just pulled the ZFG story out of the air when confronted by Cindy. I don't see that she thought out ahead of time how to make this look like a kidnapping nor had she planned to claim it was a kidnapping. I don't think Casey thought her mom was going to catch up to her and put her in a position where she was forced to come up with a story.

In contrast, in Susan Smith's case, she rolled her car into a lake with both boys inside, then told police that she had been carjacked and that the unsub had taken off with both of her sons. She got on national TV and cried and plead for their return, she gave interviews, she had a well thought out story that was only discredited by the fact that the traffic light she claimed she was carjacked at would not turn red if there were no other cars around - that's what gave her away. But it's that kind of detail, that the average person would not have known and she had no way of knowing. Up until she was caught in this lie she acted the role of the mother of a kidnapped child.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Setting up a false kidnapping scenario would include pre-planning and possibly actions that would lead police to believe that the child had been kidnapped along with a story.

In Casey's case, it seems she just pulled the ZFG story out of the air when confronted by Cindy. I don't see that she thought out ahead of time how to make this look like a kidnapping nor had she planned to claim it was a kidnapping. I don't think Casey thought her mom was going to catch up to her and put her in a position where she was forced to come up with a story.

In contrast, in Susan Smith's case, she rolled her car into a lake with both boys inside, then told police that she had been carjacked and that the unsub had taken off with both of her sons. She got on national TV and cried and plead for their return, she gave interviews, she had a well thought out story that was only discredited by the fact that the traffic light she claimed she was carjacked at would not turn red if there were no other cars around - that's what gave her away. But it's that kind of detail, that the average person would not have known and she had no way of knowing. Up until she was caught in this lie she acted the role of the mother of a kidnapped child.

BBM.

She did tell LE about the fake kidnapping, does it matter how long she thought about it before ? I don't think it does. She was even asked by Yuri if she wanted to change any part of her statement before it was recorded, he knew at that time her story sounded suspicious. She was given numerous chances to change her story, to tell the truth and she was not having it. She even gave a description and full name of this kidnapper to LE and anyone who would listen.

Even Susan S. didn't have the guts to give a full name !

 

[Themis]

OH! :idea:

Say Princess Rose is right ... and Marspiter and company are right. KC didn't pre-plan the kidnapping scenario. But, there was some physical evidence. The kidnapping explanation was just the convenient lie. WHY kidnapping? Because of the duct tape. What other story would fit with the duct tape? KC knew she had duct taped Caylee's mouth and nose shut. (By the way, if it was just done to keep the mouth in the right anotomical position, why horizontally across the mouth opening and nose and not vertically to keep the jaw from staying in an open position? Also, if to keep fluids from leaking, then why not tape the eyes, ears, anus and urethera? Those areas would also leak.) The WAY she taped it is consistent with trying to make the child shut up -- forever. For that, she needed to grab the tape. That's pre-meditation, if that happened. But, the story she told -- first to Lee and then to the family and LE was of a kidnapping. It was the only scenario that would even possibly explain the duct tape. KC did not set up the kidnapping first and then disclose the story. The kidnapping story had to follow the duct taping.

THE FACT that KC invented the kidnapping story before the body was found proves that KC knew Caylee was dead and had duct tape on her mouth and nose. This may be some evidence or proof that KC knew Caylee's cause of death was smothering from the duct tape.

 

[Jolynna]

I know the ways the world works and how political things can get. However, I don't see that happening in this case. I'm not saying it hasn't happened in the past or in other cases.

This case still seems to be progressing based on the investigation of facts and adherence to the law. What you describe is outright and total political corruption. I know it can happen, but it doesn't seem to be happening in this case. The flip side of the "political pressure/corruption" case is the "public is watching/do it right" case. We still don't allow lynch mobs whether they are fueled by politics, enabled by technology or otherwise.

PS The public defender isn't involved in this case -- yet. KC's legal counsels are not under contract to the public defender's office. Still, the prosecutor is elected. The judge is elected. The sheriff is elected. So, what difference would it make that the public defender is elected?

BBM

Exactly!

When the prosecutor's office makes a charge, jobs and reputations are put on the line. Going for an expensive death penalty conviction is a huge expense and risk.

My opinion is that prosecutors are more likely to wimp out than to overreach.

 

[Brini]

Charges in notorious criminal cases are highly politicized. If the general public demands the charge, it will be made regardless of if it fits the situation or not. Remember that the Public Defender is an elected official in Florida. The Public Defender and his/her team are going to do what the public wants particularily in an infamous crime such as this one.

No. The D.A. goes with the evidence. If the evidence pointed to manslaughter, that is the charge that would have been filed, primarily. If the evidence pointed to accidental death, that is the charge that would have been filed.

The public may clamor for a charge. But, if a Murder I charge is filed with NO evidence of same, the D.A.s office will be made a laughing stock in court. And, re-election would be endangered.

 

[marspiter]

Not only that but she also had the chance to change her story during the civil proceedings and she refused to answer any questions. I don't know I think I will stand by my original reaction. Whats the difference between lying about it and physically doing something?

I don't see the difference really other then semantics if your trying to argue she didn't set up a kidnapping theory.

She clearly told police thats what happened. She told witnesses thats what happened. She's on numerous tapes claiming that's what happened. There's the duct tape, leading police to the Nannies house the list goes on and on.

To me I think she was grasping for an excuse and the kid napped by nanny seemed to be the flavor of the month for her.

So yes she did try to create a kid nap scenario, but it wasn't very effective. The question was if she was setting it up not how effective it was.

 

[marspiter]

Yeah Themis has a point. A kidnapping would certainly be a good excuse for the duct tape.

 

[Brini]

YOU claimed that there was evidence that Casey was trying to setup a fake kidnapping, so I asked you to explain what that evidence is as I don't really see it.

This is quoted from you post above:

"KC DID attempt to set up a fake kidnapping. KC was not able to do it with any competence. She claimed that she kept silent to protect the baby, whose life was in danger. That was, as we know, a lie. And, not a well-crafted one."

So I am asking you for EVIDENCE that Casey attempted to setup a fake kidnapping. What evidence would the prosecution use to prove that Casey tried to setup a fake kidnapping? Without substantive evidence, they cannot make that claim and I'm saying, I don't see anything substantial enough to prove that is what she was doing. You say Casey DID attempt to set up a fake kidnapping, so I'm asking you for the evidence that shows that.

1) She REPORTED to LE (OCSO and the FBI) that her child was kidnapped.
2) She knew her child was not kidnapped, and that she was dead.
3) She knew there was no Zanny the Nanny.

Princess, how much clearer can one be? She reported a kidnapping that did not happen, and a kidnapper who did not exist!

In doing so, she made a horrible mistake. By claiming that Caylee was kidnapped, she gave the FBI cause to become involved in the case, after 48 hours.

That was a good chunk of her downfall. They DO have the best labs in the world. They even consult for Interpol.

 

[MissJames]

There is a case here in North Carolina that was all over the news here a number of years ago (about 2001) involving a woman who killed her infant child and placed it in the trash. She killed her baby in a bathroom by suffocating her baby. While she was pregnant she did what she could to conceal her pregnancy much the way KC did. To all of her friends she only looked like she had gained a few pounds. She was already a larger girl and did not look visibly pregnant (unlike Casey).

The night she gave birth she was up partying and drinking heavily with friends. She woke up after everyone else had gone to bed and delivered her baby in the bathroom of the apartment where the party was. She then suffocated the infant by placing one of her hands over the mouth and nose as well as compressing the chest with her other because she felt compressing the chest would cause a quicker death (she was right). Once she delivered and killed the infant she proceeded to place the infant in a trash bag and put it in the trunk of her car. She then cleaned the bathroom (the next morning there was an odor of bleach according to the individuals there and they just figured someone got sick and cleaned it)

She left the baby in the trunk and left early in the morning before anyone awoke and proceeded to go to work. I believe the baby was in her car for 2 days. She waited to dump the body in the dumpster until trash pick up for the business she worked for. The body was found by workers at the landfill and an investigation was launched. The defendant came to the police and gave a fictitious story about a girl she knew in college who was pregnant and that she though it was her baby.

After an investigation into these claims the police started looking more at her. In the end and to make this long story short she plead guilty to second degree murder. I can assure you she was guilty of first degree murder and it was certainly premeditated based on my knowledge of the case.

Given that premeditation can take place in mere moments before the act I would say placing the body in the car does not indicate a lack of premeditation, but actually helps to show that persons frame of mind and supports premeditation. They knew what they did and are now trying to cover it up. Which IMHO covering up a crime speaks volumes about someones guilt.

This could come pretty close to what KC did with Caylee. If she killed Caylee the afternoon of the 16th,or even that morning [depending on GA's story being true] ,she knew she was running out of time to dispose of the body .CA would be coming home.Maybe those phone calls were to find out when she should expect them home .Since no one answered she couldn't take a chance of CA finding her there so she put Caylee in the trunk and went off to meet TL. She probably didn't realize how quickly a body would decompose.That became a real problem.She needed to get rid of the mess fast so dumped her in a convenient spot. Maybe she intended to come back...who knows.But soon the smell became an issue so she had to dump the car ,and quick.I think KC always intended to go back and "clean up" so to speak,but really couldn't figure a good plan out.Like a lot of us do when faced with a big problem....we ignore it.So she put off finding a better place to dump Caylee.She probably couldn't stomach the thought of dealing with all that decomp again.And she just left the car,probably couldn't stomach the thought of dealing with that smell again.
Eventually the gig was up.
Everything still points to KC and the body placement has no connection ,IMO as to wether it was premeditated or not.

 

[Brini]

Oh ok I see Themis' response and that makes some sense. She lied about it but did not physically set up a false kidnapping. It's still deceit no matter how you shake it though especially at a point when your daughter is "missing" and authorities are involved.

I would say filing a false official report to LE of a kidnapping IS the setting up of a false kidnapping scenario. That's why filing false police reports is illegal. When one files a report, the LE assumption is that the reported crime must be investigated.

I also think that by claiming kidnapping, thus letting the FBI in the door under the Lindburg law, KC, yet, again, gave an example of her non-existent planning skills.

The woman can barely plan a trip to the bathroom!

 

[Themis]

Remember KC's reaction at the jail when she was told the body was found -- remains -- skull and scattered bones. KC's apparent reaction was to double over. Usually, doubling over is sign of stomach problems -- like an unsettled stomach that might retch. Can you imagine what KC's last memories were of Caylee with the badly decomposing body? Enough to make her retch? Enough so the mere recall of it -- triggered by finding the body -- could have re-triggered a retching reaction? This could be physical evidence that KC was directly involved with the decomposing body. This involuntary physical response is triggered by memory. Maybe those tapes are important.