The Possible Abuse of Caylee REVISIT

[whiteangora]

The hairdresser didn't send the photo, it was in Tony or Ricardo's cell phone and LE already had when they talked to the hairdresser who did not know about the photo and said that Casey was in on such and such date with Caylee, and she remembered Caylee having a bruise under her eye.

Excuse me, the hairdresser actually called in the tip, she said Caylee had bruises all over her arms and legs. I just re-watched Yuri's testimony.

 

[cocowiley]

And how is that? I mean, I'd convict Casey for breathing if I was blessed by God enough to end up on that jury. I'd give up toes. That being said, unless there was an indepth medical examination of Caylee prior to her disappearance, I find it hard to believe you could identify the source of a bruise just by looking.

My little boy has a cracked lip right now. Would a professional be able to tell that he tripped and smacked it on the floor, or that he popped himself in the mouth with a chair, or if he was hit? Without a physical exam?

I just find this a dangerous line of speculation, really, because no one can really know.

Now, I do find her bring Caylee into bed with her and her BFs unseemly. It's one thing if it's the child's father and they're in a co-sleeping situation, but with different men? Like I said, I just don't trust Casey to keep things G-rated around her. It was and probably always will be Casey first.

All that being said, I do wonder that if LA and CA loved Caylee that much, why they wouldn't insist on meeting the "nanny." Just once. I know Casey was the mother, but my grandmother is attached enough to my boys that she'd want to meet the person who gave them daily care. It almost seems like KC and CA had a co-parenting relationship, anyway.



I'd agree with you, but I labeled it as speculation. No one is going to take my word as gospel. Plus, we can't assume we know everything or that LE has released everything. Sometimes "innuendo" gains a foothold for a reason.

I was just responding to the people who seemed equally sure everything was innocent. My point was, we don't know.

we're not talking about A bruise, we're talking about a tip about a person seeing caylee with BRUISES on her arms AND legs and one on her eye...ONE tip, leading one to believe the BRUISES were seen all at the same time...suspicious?

dangerous speculation? the child is dead, my god, you can't get much more abusive than that!

 

[cocowiley]

Yuri actually SAW the bruises?

not playing the cat and mouse game, agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Salome]

There have been no reported instances of abuse, either by Casey's family or her friends that were around when Caylee was. What has been reported was that one time Casey left Caylee in the living room to tryst with a guy in a bedroom, pictures of Caylee in a garage where (what appeared to be) beer pong was going on, and Caylee in a yard where there were several adults with beer bottles in their hands. One gentleman stated that he slept in the same bed with Casey and Caylee, and another one said he was laying on top of the bed with Casey and Caylee was lying between them.

Never once has anyone indicated that Caylee was sexually or physically abused. As to what she endured mentally and psychologically, I guess people can speculate all they want.

George and Cindy could do nothing as grandparents to stop Casey taking her own child wherever and whenever she wanted. Could they yell and make things difficult? Probably, and more than likely tried. But in the final analysis Casey is still the parent and they are still NOT. Making statements that they should have done something is to assume that they did not, and we are simply not privy to that information.

Excellent summary of what we know from testimony. This seems like a very few instances to me that we are talking about. Not one of her friends said that Casey brought Caylee to parties often. Why would they not state this if it were the case? Not one said they ever saw her mistreat Caylee or even suggested that they thought she was capable of abuse. Why would they not state this since it was germane to the case?

I don't see any evidence that Caylee was abused. No matter how much people may think that exposing a child to adults drinking alcohol is a bad idea, the next time you're at a Christmas party and there is punch for the kids and beer/wine/punch for the adults, just try and call the cops and say that "children are being exposed to adults drinking at a party." I don't think you'll get a response (not unless the parents of the children are attempting to drive home drunk or are starting fist-fights or something).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think Casey is bad enough without trying to add more fuel to the fire. She is a narcissistic, selfish and probably sociopathic person, and she used and manipulated and lied to people, including her own family members and men she was involved with. She killed her child (or caused her child to die through some sort of accident, such as drowning--I doubt this is the case, but it is still one possibility, I suppose). I just don't see any evidence to suggest that she abused Caylee physically or allowed others to harm her.

 

[Bev]

There is absolutely zero evidence of that child being abused. Zero. There is anecdotal evidence that KC was a good mother. Frankly, I think this hairdresser was trying to interject herself into the case.

 

[MomofBoys]

dangerous speculation? the child is dead, my god, you can't get much more abusive than that!

Well, of course. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Casey wouldn't be capable of it. MY post about the dangerous speculation was in reference to accusing GA and CA. There's nothing to indicate they were abusing her.

 

[essies]

I don't know how CA can reconcile her belief that KC was a "sociopath" and "mother of the year". I simply don't see how you can be both. Now, I know she made her "mother of the year" statement after Caylee went missing and had entered the land of denial concerning KC. Still, it seems that CA has spent quite a bit of time in this place of denial throughout the years. I think it is her way of coping with a husband who has apparently turned out to be more of a ball and chain than a helpmate and a daughter who would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. And that's fine if that is what gets you through the day! However, when an innocent, defenseless child enters the picture-you can't stay in denial. You are obligated (especially since you told your daughter she couldn't adopt the baby out) to be that child's advocate.
You can't just make sure she has all the Disney costumes available and a ton of toys. If you suspect your daughter is a sociopath, at the very least a habitual liar, then you (as your grandchilds advocate) needs to check out certain details-especially if they don't ring true!! If your daughter says she has a job-but is always out of money and stealing from you and even her daughter's piggybank - then you need to check out this job-for the sake of your grandchild. If your daughter is taking your grandchild to the nanny-you need that info(for emergency purposes, if nothing else). If your daughter gives you that info-you need to check it out-you know she's a liar!! If she won't give you that info-you need to follow her-yes that's right follow her!! You bear a respnsibility to the grandchild that you told the daughter to bring home and raise under your roof!! Maybe not a legal responsibility, but a moral responsibility none the less!!
To not do this means you have let your grandchild down, so that you can live comfortably in your own world. To not do this means you have turned a blind eye-that's negligence (a form of abuse)!!:furious:

 

[Devon]

I wonder why people have this notion that only children who have been abused are killed by their parents? I suppose this makes us feel better about ourselves to think that anyone who does something like this is a "sociopath" or a "psychopath" or mentally ill instead of accepting the fact that human beings are capable of the most awful, terrible behavior to others and especially children who cannot protect themselves. Until we're able as humans to admit and accept the fact that we are ALL capable of committing horrendous acts, we'll never be able to do anything about fixing the problem.

Loving, good parents can snap or kill their children for reasons known only to themselves, it isn't always the child abusers or the rotten parents who do this kind of thing.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[cocowiley]

Well, of course. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Casey wouldn't be capable of it. MY post about the dangerous speculation was in reference to accusing GA and CA. There's nothing to indicate they were abusing her.

for the third and last time, I NEVER accused george and cindy of anything, except for being blind to casey's ways..i really wish people would quit using one of my quotes then go on to say that it's wrong to accuse GA and CA when I never did.

if you want to say that accusing george and cindy is dangerous speculation then do so without the use of my name or quote. thank you.

 

[impatientredhead]

Excuse me, the hairdresser actually called in the tip, she said Caylee had bruises all over her arms and legs. I just re-watched Yuri's testimony.

I don't think that is in conflict with what I said, I said the photo came from a different source.

Melich also said a witness he interviewed remembered seeing bruises on Caylee's body and a mark under her eye without knowing that Melich had a photo showing similar marks on the toddler, who has been missing more than a month.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389246,00.html

 

[Salome]

How would you classify Caylee sleeping in the same bed with her mother and her mother's boyfriend -- a boyfriend, mind you, whom the tart mom had known for merely a month or two?

Unless Ricardo stated that Caylee was in the bed when they had sex, I take it to be a report that they all three slept in the same bed.

I don't think it's a good parenting decision on Casey's part, that's for sure, but I don't think it means that sexual or any other abuse was occurring, which is what the poster of this thread, and others here, are alleging. How long she had known him is not relevant to the accusation that abuse was happening (although it does speak to the fact that it wasn't a responsible decision). I never defended Casey as a responsible parent -- I just said that I don't think we have enough evidence of abuse to have this kind of speculation that begins with the assumption that it definitely happened.

 

[Charge Them All]

I absolutely despise the entire family, BUT I don't think it is fair at this point to lay that much blame on them. I think while Caylee was alive they loved her very much, but when they realized she was no longer alive (and I believe they knew that first night) they decided to save Casey. And in doing so, they turned their backs on Caylee and for that, I hate them. Bottom line, I think Caylee and her memory were far more abused in death than life. But, who knows. There have been so many strange things in this case I wouldn't be suprised to hear otherwise.

 

[technicalconfusion]

And how is that? I mean, I'd convict Casey for breathing if I was blessed by God enough to end up on that jury.

:floorlaugh:

My little boy has a cracked lip right now. Would a professional be able to tell that he tripped and smacked it on the floor, or that he popped himself in the mouth with a chair, or if he was hit? Without a physical exam?

My son, when he was 10 months old, was rushed to the ER for a febrile seizure. He was at the sitter, we were working. By the time I got to the hospital, he was one worked up baby.

Doc thought he had meningitis. Long story short - an infectious disease doctor was examining him and thought he was abused, because he had broken blood vessels behind his eyes. I'm like um, he's been seizing, projectile vomiting thru no fault of his own and crying hard for hours....They were going to investigate us - for all I know they did - we were all quarantined for 4 days!

So ya just never know.

All that being said, I do wonder that if LA and CA loved Caylee that much, why they wouldn't insist on meeting the "nanny." Just once. I know Casey was the mother, but my grandmother is attached enough to my boys that she'd want to meet the person who gave them daily care. It almost seems like KC and CA had a co-parenting relationship, anyway.

My mom never met my sitter (she's housebound) but she had her number and the sitter had hers.

 

[njustice]

We don't know the extent of the activities that Casey and her flavor of the night did in bed - it's all assumption to this point

I know of some families that let their young children sleep in bed with them - difference here, Casey it was whatever guy she was with (we know of Ricardo and Tony) - Casey wasn't stable in any means and to have a random guy in bed and Caylee there too, is not something that should have happened

We do know that Caylee was exposed to Casey's 'parties' and was showing behavior that was not like a 2 1/2 year old

So was that okay too?

I might add she only dated Ricardo for two months...and, he wasn't a close friend but a boyfriend. A two year old girl shouldn't be sleeping in the same bed with a strange man for so many reasons. ..

 

[Elphaba]

Why did it take Caylee going missing for this person to report the bruises?

 

[MomofBoys]

for the third and last time, I NEVER accused george and cindy of anything, except for being blind to casey's ways..i really wish people would quit using one of my quotes then go on to say that it's wrong to accuse GA and CA when I never did.

if you want to say that accusing george and cindy is dangerous speculation then do so without the use of my name or quote. thank you.

Uh, I didn't?

 

[DotsEyes]

The parties. When I was a child, a thousand years ago, all the kids went to all the parties with the adults. No one would leave their children at home with a sitter - a sittere was unheard of and a sure sign that the parents were no good. The kids would play and eventually fall asleep in the piles of fur coats tossed on the bed in the master bedroom. We would be carried to the car and put on the backseat, without seat belts (there were none) after the adults were finished dancing drinking and partying. Our dads drove half drunk and we would wake up in our party clothes the next day. No one ever lost a kid. So, I really do not see a problem with having kids at an adult party and I do not consider it abusive in the least, not to mention the fact that I do not think the A's were even aware of Caylee being at parties with mommy.

Sleeping with mommy and beau du jour. Never. Never. Never. I don't know about the laws where all of you live, but this kind of behavior will get your kids yanked from you faster than being a drug addict in Louisiana. An example of how much society dislikes this behavior is that divorced parents could lose even joint custody if one parent could show that the other lived in "open concubinage". (Nights out, all night sleep overs or live ins). I doubt seriously that CA or GA ever knew that KC exposed Caylee to this type of sleeping arrangement.

Physical abuse. During my career I learned a bit about child abuse and one of the things that is helpful to differentiate abuse from accidents is when the bruises, cuts, etc. occur on the front of the child. These are from falling, running into things, etc. The suspicious injuries are those that occur on the back of the child, legs, arms, back, etc., because when children fall backward, they tend to land on their butt, not the back of their knees, legs, thighs, upper arms, back or neck. I can not imagine that GA and CA would see signs of physical abuse and not make a HUGE deal out of it.

They were trying to figure out how to take Caylee away from KC. If they knew she was in bed with the beaux du jour, being physically abused and taken to 'sex" parties, they would have had enough to begin the process and would have done so.

JMHO

 

[msinformed]

I don't know how CA can reconcile her belief that KC was a "sociopath" and "mother of the year". I simply don't see how you can be both. Now, I know she made her "mother of the year" statement after Caylee went missing and had entered the land of denial concerning KC. Still, it seems that CA has spent quite a bit of time in this place of denial throughout the years. I think it is her way of coping with a husband who has apparently turned out to be more of a ball and chain than a helpmate and a daughter who would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. And that's fine if that is what gets you through the day! However, when an innocent, defenseless child enters the picture-you can't stay in denial. You are obligated (especially since you told your daughter she couldn't adopt the baby out) to be that child's advocate.
You can't just make sure she has all the Disney costumes available and a ton of toys. If you suspect your daughter is a sociopath, at the very least a habitual liar, then you (as your grandchilds advocate) needs to check out certain details-especially if they don't ring true!! If your daughter says she has a job-but is always out of money and stealing from you and even her daughter's piggybank - then you need to check out this job-for the sake of your grandchild. If your daughter is taking your grandchild to the nanny-you need that info(for emergency purposes, if nothing else). If your daughter gives you that info-you need to check it out-you know she's a liar!! If she won't give you that info-you need to follow her-yes that's right follow her!! You bear a respnsibility to the grandchild that you told the daughter to bring home and raise under your roof!! Maybe not a legal responsibility, but a moral responsibility none the less!!
To not do this means you have let your grandchild down, so that you can live comfortably in your own world. To not do this means you have turned a blind eye-that's negligence (a form of abuse)!!:furious:

Oh, essies, we are for sure, "riding the same bus."

See my post - #72, this thread

 

[BleuEyes]

Cindy and George blew a gasket when they saw JG sitting on a bed with Casey
and Caylee watching tv. And they were engaged at the time.

I'm sure C/G would have been livid if they had been aware that KC, Caylee and
b/f of the month were sleeping in the same bed.

Now, IMO, having your child sleep with you and your b/f is not appropriate, ever!
I think it puts the child in an uncomfortable situation and it could lead to the
child mimicing this behavior later on to their own peril.

As far as KC's friends saying she was a good mother, I don't put a lot of stock in
their opinions. Most of them didn't have children so what would they really have to
judge by?? With so many children/teens growing up in dysfunctional families they
may have just felt because they didn't witness physical abuse that everything in
Caylee's life was just hunky dory. It's like Cindy saying KC would be named
MOTY........just not feeling confident in the assessment.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Yes, CA bought all the "right" things for Caylee ....... loads of toys, clothes, prepared and decorated a beautiful room for her, but I just believe deep down, she wasn't THAT committed to her granddaughter and her well-being. She had way too much other baggage/garbage to deal with daily.

I'm going to have to agree. Something in my gut tells me CA wanted to be the grandmother not Caylee's primary caregiver. I have a feeling she never missed a chance to remind KC of that either. CA strikes me as wanting to hold emotional control over KC and Caylee, but she wasn't up to raising another kid. JMO