To all who believe Caylee is ALIVE, explain this?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
IF Caylee is alive then,

- the decomposing body in the trunk of Casey's car...the decomp that TWO different dogs hit on, Cindy A. smelled, the tow truck guy smelled and others likely smelled (incl. GA) is someone else. Unless you believe that all this info about the smell and the decomp is all made up. BTW, George Anthony believes there was a dead body in the car. He doesn't believe it's Caylee.

- If Caylee is alive then the hair showing the decomp band in the trunk of Casey's car must belong to someone else...someone who is allegedly related to the female Anthony's, (Casey or Cindy or ???). Or else the forensics are just plain wrong and it belongs to some other dead person (there was decomp on the root of the hair as well). Or else you believe the hair is a made up piece of evidence and everyone is just pretending it exists.

- The decomp 'stain' in the trunk must belong to some other dead person. Or else you believe the stain is a made up piece of evidence and everyone is just pretending it exists.

- The air test showing decomp from tests run by the Body Farm is either just plain wrong or is made up.

- The tests showing a significant amount of chloroform are either wrong or are made up (or are not wrong but just not connected at all to the case and by coinky dink just happen to have been found in the trunk in high concentrations).

THUS,

You have two choices here:

Either Caylee is alive and if this is so then some other dead person was placed into Casey's car trunk either by Casey or someone who 1. had access to that trunk and 2. had a reason to place it there AND Caylee just happened to go missing, which makes the Anthony family the most unlucky family to be hit with a coinky-dink of ALSO having a random dead body placed in their car trunk the same time their daughter/grandaughter goes missing and/or is given away and/or is given to a Nanny who 'disappears.'

Or else....

Caylee is dead and all the evidence of decomp + hair + smell (which btw, has not been refuted as being something else EXCEPT for a backpedaling Cindy Anthony) + chloroform + laptop searches of chloroform on an Casey Anthony laptop, indicates her little dead body was in that trunk.

If you believe there was a body in that trunk then one of the two scenarios above are your basic choices. Which is it?

OR

You believe there was no body in the trunk, there is no forensic evidence at all, everything in the case is simply made up by the Orlando PD, Orange County PD, FBI Crime Lab, FBI, and the Body Farm, along with Cindy Anthony (911 call), the tow truck driver and of course the two cadaver dogs.
 
GameTheory said:
Hi. Please listen to my counter-argument without thinking I am being antagonistic to you. Just debating your argument and not your belief that Caylee is alive. :blowkiss:

Let's say Casey is not worrying about the baby and she was able to go out clubbing and dancing and enjoy her time with her boyfriend because she willingly gave the baby and she is feeling safe about it.

Now two things about this theory that are problematic:

1. If she willingly gave the baby because she wanted her freedom and she wanted to live like a 22 year old without any children, why is she now choosing to sit in jail? I mean her plan was to give the baby to someone else cause she wanted her life back. Fine. But since now she is back and forth in jail and in home-confinement what is in it for her?

2. Why will the people that took Caylee keep her and risk their own lifes and personal freedom? Let's say they are a nice family with a big farm somewhere and lots of animals and they are great people and Casey gave them the baby to raise it. Why are these people risking their life and possibly being convicted for LWP holding on Caylee? If Casey told them the baby was abused at home for example and they wanted to protect the baby....well Casey has been uncovered as a pathological liar on National Tv for 2 months now. Wouldn't these people come forward and talk to LE? Also if it was an illegal adoption wouldn't these people be worried that once Casey is faced with real consequences and bored sitting in jail she can come up with any kind of fictional story and put on them terrible charges?

3. Now in science when you formulate a theory and you want that theory to be accepted as valid, there is one important element we shouldn't forget - that this theory needs to fit ALL of the other parameters, all instances, all occassions, and in the case of a police investigation all the evidence. The theory needs to stand with all the data you have. If you exclude something then that is problematic. So while your theory is possible and the best scenario we are all hoping, it doesn't fit with all the facts that are out there. One can believe Casey did give the child and only see she is not stressed about the situation but what happens if you bring into this theory the FACTS of decomposition in the car, the facts of chloroform, the facts that Casey did not have money (so she didn't sell the baby), and most importantly the LE checked all of her telephone conversations. So if this deal happened and Casey gave them the child there would have been some phone records or internet records of a kind to indicate the existence of these people that have Caylee now and communication with them. This is not an arrangement you make with someone you just met on the street.
Click to expand...


Excellent points GameTheory.

There isn't one piece of evidence to support Casey's kidnapping tale, nor any evidence to support she may be alive.
 
Evan's Mom said:
I appreciate your respect on our differing opinions, and I also respect yours.

I've answered as many questions in that thread as I can(even though none were addressed to me directly) and freely admit that I have no concrete evidence, just hope.
I'm not one you PM'd either, but if you or anyone else has contacts in Puerto Rico(anywhere else for that matter), you certainly don't need anyone else's input on helping if they don't answer your pleas for specific contacts.
I want and appreciate any help offered to at least send the flyers and help get the word out.
It's obvious from another thread that news of Caylee isn't being broadcast heavily like on Nancy Grace
Click to expand...

The A's are free to travel anywhere in the world on the Find Caylee donations dime to look for her. Why havent they done that? If it were my kid I wouldnt be home to see protesters I would be too busy actually following leads if LE wasnt.
 
Hi all! So glad to finally be able to register, and I am so grateful for this thread.

Here is my thinking on the case, which I hope to be able to articulate without offending anyone. I am not sure if Caylee is dead or alive. I agree that it looks bad. However, I have a huge mountain of reasonable doubt. There are four things about this case I know for sure:

1- Caylee is an adorable Angel and she will always be in my heart, no matter what happens.
2- Casey is a liar and a thief.
3- Caylee is missing.
4- There was a dead body in the trunk of Casey's car.

Now, here is why I have reasonable doubt:

Many people here on this board, in the media, and in the general public have made the statement "I trust LE 100%".

This is a dangerous attitude for citizens of a democracy to take. Trusting authority completely is just asking for tyranny. There are many reasons to take the pronouncements of LE skeptically, not least of which they have made many honest mistakes, or mistakes born of incompetence and a desire to quickly close a case, high profile or otherwise.

But in many instances LE have made corrupt "mistakes". Remember the Riley Fox case? I bet the Sheriff in that case told the media many lies about Kevin Fox in a corrupt desire to be re-elected. Kevin Fox is sitting home today, innocent as can be while the real murderer has had years of freedom while the evidence grows cold.

LE has said that there are "indications" "suggestions" that Caylee was in the trunk, dead. There is no reason, if they have the reports back from the labs and they show Caylee to be dead, for them NOT to come right out and say: "Caylee was dead in the trunk. No question". Forensic science of this sort does not 'indicate' anything. Caylee is either dead or alive. Period.

Lies, distortions, and spin in the media-(remember "WMD"?)

Chloroform

Media reports have taken the leaks about chloroform and run with them. According to NG and the rest of the media the trunk had "significant amounts" of and the air was "saturated" with chloroform. The whole world now thinks Casey either used the chemical to drug Caylee or to murder her. But could that possibly be true?

Chloroform is an ingredient in many pesticides. If Casey had used it on Caylee, there would have been NO INSECT ACTIVITY in the trunk of her car at the tow yard. But according to the testimony of the tow yard employee, we know that there was. If the trunk was "saturated" at the time of testing, how much moreso must it have been at the tow yard?

ZG/Samantha/the script

How do we know that Casey ever changed her story on this score? First, LP said that Casey told him the script story in the living room of the Anthony home. When he told NG about it, he added that he told Casey he didn't want to know from ZG. Casey then told him to get out of her house. NG was outraged that she would have the gall to tell him that about her parents home.

Then, someone must have pointed out to LP that he had earlier said that Casey never said ONE WORD to him about the case while he was down in Orlando. So then RD comes out with the story that Casey told him the story as they rode alone to her attorney's office.

That version must not have worked out too well either as LP NOW says (on Fox the other afternoon) that CINDY told him the story. How are we to find this supposed change in Casey's story credible? I don't think we can until we have proof.

Now, many people on this board and in the general public have said "Presumption of Innocence only applies in a court of law!! The public can think/say whatever they want"

Technically, that is true. But *who* in a court of law is it most crucial that they apply this principle? The jurors, of course. And where do the jurors come from? The public. If it is ok, if it is allowed, if the public *allows* themselves to presume the guilt of every person LE investigates or even arrests for crimes then how is any accused person to ever hope to receive a fair trial from an untainted jury?

Remember Sam Shepherd? The US Supreme Court overturned a guilty verdict saying pre-trial publicity had tainted the jury's deliberations.

Remember Richard Jewel? The FBI had him tried and convicted and the media went right along with the witch hunt. Some of them are very sorry they did that but it hasn't seemed to have changed the way they operate.

All I am saying is things are not always as they seem. Authorities can lie, authorities can make mistakes and the public has a solemn duty not to turn into a lynch mob and convict a person of murder before all of the facts are laid bare, before the accused has a chance to confront and cross-examine the evidence against her, and certainly not on the word of sensationalist media who seem in many instances to have a blatant disregard for the truth.


(sorry for such a long first post)
 
In fairness, someone just did PM me regarding my question and I appreciate it.

Maybe I wasn't clear. My point was not whether or not they should be passing this info on to LE/FBI/whomever. That's not for me to debate. If they say they're passing it on to them and getting no response, okay.

The tip in reference was just a city name. My post was an effort to obtain additional information on the tip so that anyone who does have contacts there could offer their assistance. Same would hold true, I think, for people with contacts in TX or wherever.

I'm not saying I believe Caylee is still alive but for those who do, I'm simply saying, I would suggest, respectfully, that there are people here who might be willing to assist with your efforts if you let them or can provide additional information as to how it would best help you.
 
seekingjustice** said:
[/B]

Excellent points GameTheory.

There isn't one piece of evidence to support Casey's kidnapping tale, nor any evidence to support she may be alive.
Click to expand...

Well according to you non believers .. she doesn't do anything that's not in for her ... so perhaps you should answer your own quention?

Keep in mind this girl has been fibbing for since tjhose who could testify can talk ... suddenly that makes her a baby killer. I JUST don't buy it.

I buy the lying ,,, but I don't buy that's the theory behind what made her a baby Killer ...

However, there are many other theorotical options on this thread, ones of which we aren't sharing publicly due to the emmence criticim and whole hearted lack of others to beleve and come aboard.

how saddening for a small child ... and those who'd rather spend their time focused on convction rather that depiction.
 
Brini said:
Photo. Actually, they broadcast a few photos. One of a normal hair, one death-banded... I don't remember what the other was.
Click to expand...

Not in this case ... The "piccies" weren't evidence of the case at hand they were of ... how it could depictied! How is that evidence? I'm confused?
 
Seranade said:
Hi all! So glad to finally be able to register, and I am so grateful for this thread.

Here is my thinking on the case, which I hope to be able to articulate without offending anyone. I am not sure if Caylee is dead or alive. I agree that it looks bad. However, I have a huge mountain of reasonable doubt. There are four things about this case I know for sure:

1- Caylee is an adorable Angel and she will always be in my heart, no matter what happens.
2- Casey is a liar and a thief.
3- Caylee is missing.
4- There was a dead body in the trunk of Casey's car.

Now, here is why I have reasonable doubt:

Many people here on this board, in the media, and in the general public have made the statement "I trust LE 100%".

This is a dangerous attitude for citizens of a democracy to take. Trusting authority completely is just asking for tyranny. There are many reasons to take the pronouncements of LE skeptically, not least of which they have made many honest mistakes, or mistakes born of incompetence and a desire to quickly close a case, high profile or otherwise.

But in many instances LE have made corrupt "mistakes". Remember the Riley Fox case? I bet the Sheriff in that case told the media many lies about Kevin Fox in a corrupt desire to be re-elected. Kevin Fox is sitting home today, innocent as can be while the real murderer has had years of freedom while the evidence grows cold.

LE has said that there are "indications" "suggestions" that Caylee was in the trunk, dead. There is no reason, if they have the reports back from the labs and they show Caylee to be dead, for them NOT to come right out and say: "Caylee was dead in the trunk. No question". Forensic science of this sort does not 'indicate' anything. Caylee is either dead or alive. Period.

Lies, distortions, and spin in the media-(remember "WMD"?)

Chloroform

Media reports have taken the leaks about chloroform and run with them. According to NG and the rest of the media the trunk had "significant amounts" of and the air was "saturated" with chloroform. The whole world now thinks Casey either used the chemical to drug Caylee or to murder her. But could that possibly be true?

Chloroform is an ingredient in many pesticides. If Casey had used it on Caylee, there would have been NO INSECT ACTIVITY in the trunk of her car at the tow yard. But according to the testimony of the tow yard employee, we know that there was. If the trunk was "saturated" at the time of testing, how much moreso must it have been at the tow yard?

ZG/Samantha/the script

How do we know that Casey ever changed her story on this score? First, LP said that Casey told him the script story in the living room of the Anthony home. When he told NG about it, he added that he told Casey he didn't want to know from ZG. Casey then told him to get out of her house. NG was outraged that she would have the gall to tell him that about her parents home.

Then, someone must have pointed out to LP that he had earlier said that Casey never said ONE WORD to him about the case while he was down in Orlando. So then RD comes out with the story that Casey told him the story as they rode alone to her attorney's office.

That version must not have worked out too well either as LP NOW says (on Fox the other afternoon) that CINDY told him the story. How are we to find this supposed change in Casey's story credible? I don't think we can until we have proof.

Now, many people on this board and in the general public have said "Presumption of Innocence only applies in a court of law!! The public can think/say whatever they want"

Technically, that is true. But *who* in a court of law is it most crucial that they apply this principle? The jurors, of course. And where do the jurors come from? The public. If it is ok, if it is allowed, if the public *allows* themselves to presume the guilt of every person LE investigates or even arrests for crimes then how is any accused person to ever hope to receive a fair trial from an untainted jury?

Remember Sam Shepherd? The US Supreme Court overturned a guilty verdict saying pre-trial publicity had tainted the jury's deliberations.

Remember Richard Jewel? The FBI had him tried and convicted and the media went right along with the witch hunt. Some of them are very sorry they did that but it hasn't seemed to have changed the way they operate.

All I am saying is things are not always as they seem. Authorities can lie, authorities can make mistakes and the public has a solemn duty not to turn into a lynch mob and convict a person of murder before all of the facts are laid bare, before the accused has a chance to confront and cross-examine the evidence against her, and certainly not on the word of sensationalist media who seem in many instances to have a blatant disregard for the truth.


(sorry for such a long first post)
Click to expand...

That's why we have voir dire.

I wouldn't serve on any jury where I had an opinion, or even knowledge. I would disqualify myself.

If I had no ethics, and lied about that, the lawyers from both sides ask questions that would tend to reveal that. Those potential jurors are disqualified.

The last case where I was called was a civil suit between some lawyers and the CEO of a small company. We were asked whether we have any history with lawyers or corporations. I answered affirmatively to both, but said I believed I could be fair. They disqualified me, and every other potential juror who answered affirmatively. And, that's fine.

Then, there are the alternates. If an opinionated juror gets past vior dire, s/he might be kicked off and replaced when any bias becomes evident.

Then, there are the discussions of evidence. In the last case where I was foreperson, several of us changed our minds during the evidentiary discussions.

I'm sure that fails, somtetimes. But, it's the best we have, to date.
 
Why not allow LE to officially rule everyone out? Why not take lie detector tests and willingly allow the results to be used in court later? (They have not ruled anyone out officially to my knowledge.)

Why not put the tips out there to the public if it is believed that LE isn't following up on them? Why not take out full page ads in the papers in those places? Why not put out sketches of the people? Descriptions? Vehicle plate numbers? REAL NAMES? Why not get the information out to the people who live in those places? Who is stopping you from going there to track her down?

If the people who say that Caylee is alive can explain this to me, please do. I would love to know the answers to these questions.
 
JustInCase said:
They Who?
Click to expand...

They who? Death banded? Optimism ... Skeptisism ... a good media vertue ... "They"

See the evidence ... ?

I can't wait to hear everything said about you all ... by everyone who ever knew you!

Not because they speak the truth ... just because I'm investigator and so are we ... lol

Imagine what could be said/uncovered there for just a moment.

NM we're all perfect.
 
Brini said:
That's why we have voir dire.

I wouldn't serve on any jury where I had an opinion, or even knowledge. I would disqualify myself.

If I had no ethics, and lied about that, the lawyers from both sides ask questions that would tend to reveal that. Those potential jurors are disqualified.

The last case where I was called was a civil suit between some lawyers and the CEO of a small company. We were asked whether we have any history with lawyers or corporations. I answered affirmatively to both, but said I believed I could be fair. They disqualified me, and every other potential juror who answered affirmatively. And, that's fine.

Then, there are the alternates. If an opinionated juror gets past vior dire, s/he might be kicked off and replaced when any bias becomes evident.

Then, there are the discussions of evidence. In the last case where I was foreperson, several of us changed our minds during the evidentiary discussions.

I'm sure that fails, somtetimes. But, it's the best we have, to date.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it is not possible for a jury to be tainted by negative pre-trial publicity? Are you saying this has never happened? If it is not possible to taint a jury, then "change of venue" would not be in the legal lexicon. Sure it's the best we have, I have great respect for juries. But they are human after all and "tainting" a jury is a real and recognized concern.
 
JustInCase said:
Who's hating? Read the whole thread... [btw it's a good idea to read through the entirety of the documents too]

What if? Applies to both sides of this case ... Hence the reason we should be working together and not against.


Yet that's been said before.
Click to expand...

YOU SAID...it scares you, in an election year, that "us people" believe everything we hear. which does imply that because we are so gullable, that we are not capable of making a good political choice.

you made the statement, care to back it up?

I have read the entirety of the docs, would that qualify me to be a better voter? :confused:
 
I wasn't going to post this but I didn't see it on any other thread (I really didn't look hard either )
But if this judge says that law enforcement can lie, ect.... during the course of an investigation it does tend to put some doubt into what has been released

Just my opinion

Please respectfully take a listen

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/My...1&locale=EN-US
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 3,212 (members: 193, guests: 3,019)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
3,019
Total visitors
3,212
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,122
Messages
18,040,406
Members
229,881
Latest member
Rooroo1254321
Back
Top