When Baez paid the bank back wasn't that tantamount to pleading guilty?

[notthatsmart]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

 

[AZlawyer]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

What??? If you lend someone your car, that means they can use your checkbook in the glove box? Can they also steal your hubcaps?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

OK, so it's the bank. Just saw your post, thanks Intermezzo.

I remembered AH was texting or emailing friends just after she'd found out about Caylee being missing, about wanting to take Casey to court for the money, but wasn't sure who was actually suing at this point.

I think she still needs to be punished so it would make sense it AH or the bank pursued it imo. Casey can't just rip people off and use them as a short term loan.

 

[Jolynna]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

BBM

Next time you go out of town, I'll housesit. :woohoo:

 

[notthatsmart]

What??? If you lend someone your car, that means they can use your checkbook in the glove box? Can they also steal your hubcaps?

I mean seriously, don't they need Amy in this? Couldn't Casey say Amy told her to use the check book to put gas in the car, or somehow gave her permission to use the check book? Or perhaps that Amy owed Casey money?

Won't the defense get to have their say?
And won't the SA need Amy to respond?

Won't Casey have the right to look her acuser right in the eye?

We have not heard Casey's side of this story have we?

 

[cyberborg]

BBM

Next time you go out of town, I'll housesit. :woohoo:

Exactly!!! I was just going to post ...... "so if I let you stay in my house and tell you to make yourself at home .... you are going to clear me out? The same way KC cleaned out AK's checking account? And just because you make good after the fact, its all good?"

GMAB! Some folks seem to feel that KC should be given a free pass when she has a history of monetary theft? Is this a new standard for everyone or just KC?

 

[BeanE]

Who is it still pressing charges over the $700 in checks (that was already repaid), the bank, AH, or just the state? Weird. If it is AH, if I were her family I would sure be telling her not to let lawyers talk her into pursuing that further, just more time and stress for her, keeps her name in the public eye (which she claims she doesn't want) and for what? To get what?

So if someone took your checkbook and went shopping on your dime, cleaning out your checking account - in fact, overdrawing it - you wouldn't press charges.

Imagine if everyone felt that way. Theft would just run rampant.

Wow. Just... wow. I'm flabbergasted. I thought everybody except criminals was against crime.

 

[cyberborg]

Who is it still pressing charges over the $700 in checks (that was already repaid), the bank, AH, or just the state? Weird. If it is AH, if I were her family I would sure be telling her not to let lawyers talk her into pursuing that further, just more time and stress for her, keeps her name in the public eye (which she claims she doesn't want) and for what? To get what?

I would still be pressing charges! You clean out my checking account and then, after the fact, after a criminal complaint is filed you repay the money and expect to get a free pass? Don't think so. This was not just a childish prank it was theft by a person who has a repeat history of theft in a downward worsening spiral. How do you stop this criminal activity and get them back on a lawful track unless the Perp is punished and learns that you do not do that -- not to friends, not to family, not to anyone. A thief is a thief.

 

[chefmom]

I'm speechless.....

 

[LambChop]

I mean seriously, don't they need Amy in this? Couldn't Casey say Amy told her to use the check book to put gas in the car, or somehow gave her permission to use the check book? Or perhaps that Amy owed Casey money?

Won't the defense get to have their say?
And won't the SA need Amy to respond?

Won't Casey have the right to look her acuser right in the eye?

We have not heard Casey's side of this story have we?

Yes and yes. We can hardly wait.

 

[JBean]

Who is it still pressing charges over the $700 in checks (that was already repaid), the bank, AH, or just the state? Weird. If it is AH, if I were her family I would sure be telling her not to let lawyers talk her into pursuing that further, just more time and stress for her, keeps her name in the public eye (which she claims she doesn't want) and for what? To get what?

Hi Seagull. Only the state can actually file criminal charges against someone.

 

[JBean]

Don't alert on posts and respond to them as well.

 

[JBean]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

Can I borrow your car

 

[RR0004]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

Remind me never to lend you my car, NTS. <<hugs>>

 

[RR0004]

Can I borrow your car

Just saw this JB...too funny. Happy Monday!

 

[RR0004]

I would still be pressing charges! You clean out my checking account and then, after the fact, after a criminal complaint is filed you repay the money and expect to get a free pass? Don't think so. This was not just a childish prank it was theft by a person who has a repeat history of theft in a downward worsening spiral. How do you stop this criminal activity and get them back on a lawful track unless the Perp is punished and learns that you do not do that -- not to friends, not to family, not to anyone. A thief is a thief.

...and let's not also forget there is "theft by deception" charge that is also a crime (not related to this)...someone borrows something from you and never returns it would be one example. People actually want what they're promised. We have laws for a reason. Yikes!

 

[RR0004]

I would still be pressing charges! You clean out my checking account and then, after the fact, after a criminal complaint is filed you repay the money and expect to get a free pass? Don't think so. This was not just a childish prank it was theft by a person who has a repeat history of theft in a downward worsening spiral. How do you stop this criminal activity and get them back on a lawful track unless the Perp is punished and learns that you do not do that -- not to friends, not to family, not to anyone. A thief is a thief.

...and if I was Amy's mom I would be livid. You don't think the Anthony's would go after anyone who emptied their checkbook(s) (other than their daughter, of course)?

 

[wonders]

I mean seriously, don't they need Amy in this? Couldn't Casey say Amy told her to use the check book to put gas in the car, or somehow gave her permission to use the check book? Or perhaps that Amy owed Casey money?

Won't the defense get to have their say?
And won't the SA need Amy to respond?

Won't Casey have the right to look her acuser right in the eye?
We have not heard Casey's side of this story have we?

She sure will. IMO she will glare at her accusers eyes. IMO the accuser will also look at the accused in the eyes. The question then for me is: Will KC hang her head in shame? No.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

ha ha
my post was only about the check fraud charges.

my understanding is, as I posted, that the bank made the amount good to AH right off the bat, then the Anthony family or the defense also repaid the amount early on. So I was always surprised the check fraud case didn't end there. I don't know if it is AH or the state who are continuing to press charges, I stopped following that. I was always pretty shocked anyone would press charges over the checks during the time when Caylee was missing, but that's just me. But if someone wants to continue to pursue charges like after the amount is made good to them, that is certainly their business.

The facts are simple, KC broke the law. 13 charges for 4 checks leads me to believe that the prosecution is using the check fraud case as leverage against KC, with the murder trial. That is what I have a problem with. She should be treated the way any first time offender would be in a normal check fraud case. No more no less. If it is normal for the state to bundle the charges, accept a plea, make her pay restitution and let her off with time served and or probation, then that is what should take place. The premeditated murder charge is another separate case entirely. Trying to convict KC of multiple felonies to help the prosecution in the murder case seems wrong to me. If the murder case against her has evidence so weak that the prosecution feels they need to bolster the murder evidence with multiple felony convictions of fraud, then I think they need better evidence. If the state wants the fraud charges to assist in proving KC is dishonest, I understand, however, one conviction of fraud proves to me she is dishonest, 4 or 13 convictions of fraud does not prove to me she is any more dishonest than one conviction does. At trial, I don’t know how it will play out. If I was a juror and learned she had written 4 checks but was convicted of 13 felonies for writing those 4 checks, it may have the opposite affect on me. I would wonder how and why she was convicted of 13 felonies while only writing 4 checks.
I would hope that every person who wrote 4 fraudulent checks does not receive 13 convicted felonies, with 5 year sentences attached and is not now serving 65 years in our prison systems, that we the tax payers are paying for, and will continue to pay for the duration of those years. Even if it was a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, I would not want to pay for 65 years of imprisonment for the writing of four fraudulent checks. Paying for them to spend their life in prison for murder, the answer there is yes, I would want to pay for that to keep them off the streets. If KC is convicted of murder, I feel the same way about her, keep her off the streets for the rest of her life. If on the other hand, KC is innocent, and the convictions of fraud are what pushes the jurors to wrongfully convict KC of murder, then that would be doubly horrific for Caylee. Not only would her murderer still be roaming the streets free to kill another innocent child, but her own loving mother would be facing the DP or Life in prison. As always MOO

 

[RR0004]

The facts are simple, KC broke the law. 13 charges for 4 checks leads me to believe that the prosecution is using the check fraud case as leverage against KC, with the murder trial. That is what I have a problem with. She should be treated the way any first time offender would be in a normal check fraud case. No more no less. If it is normal for the state to bundle the charges, accept a plea, make her pay restitution and let her off with time served and or probation, then that is what should take place. The premeditated murder charge is another separate case entirely. Trying to convict KC of multiple felonies to help the prosecution in the murder case seems wrong to me. If the murder case against her has evidence so weak that the prosecution feels they need to bolster the murder evidence with multiple felony convictions of fraud, then I think they need better evidence. If the state wants the fraud charges to assist in proving KC is dishonest, I understand, however, one conviction of fraud proves to me she is dishonest, 4 or 13 convictions of fraud does not prove to me she is any more dishonest than one conviction does. At trial, I don’t know how it will play out. If I was a juror and learned she had written 4 checks but was convicted of 13 felonies for writing those 4 checks, it may have the opposite affect on me. I would wonder how and why she was convicted of 13 felonies while only writing 4 checks.
I would hope that every person who wrote 4 fraudulent checks does not receive 13 convicted felonies, with 5 year sentences attached and is not now serving 65 years in our prison systems, that we the tax payers are paying for, and will continue to pay for the duration of those years. Even if it was a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, I would not want to pay for 65 years of imprisonment for the writing of four fraudulent checks. Paying for them to spend their life in prison for murder, the answer there is yes, I would want to pay for that to keep them off the streets. If KC is convicted of murder, I feel the same way about her, keep her off the streets for the rest of her life. If on the other hand, KC is innocent, and the convictions of fraud are what pushes the jurors to wrongfully convict KC of murder, then that would be doubly horrific for Caylee. Not only would her murderer still be roaming the streets free to kill another innocent child, but her own loving mother would be facing the DP or Life in prison. As always MOO

First...Baez could have requested a bench trial. Baez could request a plea deal. You have no idea what will happen at sentencing. She could very well get credit for time served. But regardless, she will have a record when she faces her next court date.

PS- I suppose you don't believe in the 3 strike rule, either. Now that's some serious stuff.