Page 90 of 94 FirstFirst ... 40808182838485868788899091929394 LastLast
Results 2,226 to 2,250 of 2337

Thread: What Is the Defense Strategy?

  1. #2226
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    27,620
    Quote Originally Posted by RR0004 View Post
    ...a good bedtime story, Katydid. But, there is no way Casey would sit in jail while she could tell this story on the outside for big bucks.
    Nite...
    I don't know. I bet the story is worth a whole lot more right now than ever before. They could blindside the heck out of him with the duct tape and the attempted suicide and his temper tantrums. ??????
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to katydid23 For This Useful Post:


  3. #2227
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Gma Kat View Post
    You may not post often, but when you do its pretty funny
    Awww - thanks !!!!
    The above is my opinion only based on published accounts of the case.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to WolfmarsGirl For This Useful Post:


  5. #2228
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,110
    Quote Originally Posted by NavySubMom View Post
    Since the bus might be headed for GA, (I did not search this forum for this answer, sorry), does anyone know offhand why GA was the only one who testified in front of the Grand Jury? and isn't his testimony what prompted ICA's arrest? I may be wrong here. Just trying to figure out why no one else testified in front of GJ. I know that testimony is sealed, but am just confused, if the bus is headed his way, can anything he testified to ever be made public? I know the answer is probably "no", but why didn't anyone else testify in front of the GJ does anyone recall?
    That's a great question. I don't think I've ever seen it asked here before. I think, remembering back to that time, I just assumed it was because CA was in such denial and GA (at that time) was more based in reality. He was the one who talked about the smell in the car when he drove it back from the tow yard. How he prayed when he opened the trunk that his daughter or granddaughter was not in the trunk. He talked about knowing ICA had no job. On the other hand, the detectives seemed to indicate early on that CA didn't have a "real" definition of how ICA was...she was basically in la-la land.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TotallyObsessed For This Useful Post:


  7. #2229
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    11,245
    Quote Originally Posted by NavySubMom View Post
    Since the bus might be headed for GA, (I did not search this forum for this answer, sorry), does anyone know offhand why GA was the only one who testified in front of the Grand Jury? and isn't his testimony what prompted ICA's arrest? I may be wrong here. Just trying to figure out why no one else testified in front of GJ. I know that testimony is sealed, but am just confused, if the bus is headed his way, can anything he testified to ever be made public? I know the answer is probably "no", but why didn't anyone else testify in front of the GJ does anyone recall?
    BBM

    Because at that time, he was the only one who was being honest and truthful?
    Look twice - Save a Life! Motorcycles are everywhere!



  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Softail For This Useful Post:


  9. #2230
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    153
    Perhaps the DT can try to float the " pool accident " happening at Tone's apartment. Casey and Cindy have huge altercation. Casey calls Tone. Says, I know you don't want Caylee spending the night at your place, but there is so
    much drama at my house right now and I don't want my precious subject to it. So can Caylee and I spend the night? Just one night until mommy dearest
    has time to get over herself. Tone lets them stay. He gets up following morning goes about leaving for school or whatever. Casey isn't watching Caylee close enough or is showering and Caylee goes out the apartment door goes to the pool area ( because she loves pools and swimming so much ) falls in and drowns. Casey finds her. Puts her in the car and drives to Suburban DR. Tries to stage a backyard pool drowning here but it just doesn't work as
    Cindy will still blame her for it because mommy dearest has a memory like an elephant and will surely remember she put the ladder up from the prior evenings swim with Caylee. Just a possibility........and .........JMO

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Panda's eye For This Useful Post:


  11. #2231
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Panda's eye View Post
    Perhaps the DT can try to float the " pool accident " happening at Tone's apartment. Casey and Cindy have huge altercation. Casey calls Tone. Says, I know you don't want Caylee spending the night at your place, but there is so
    much drama at my house right now and I don't want my precious subject to it. So can Caylee and I spend the night? Just one night until mommy dearest
    has time to get over herself. Tone lets them stay. He gets up following morning goes about leaving for school or whatever. Casey isn't watching Caylee close enough or is showering and Caylee goes out the apartment door goes to the pool area ( because she loves pools and swimming so much ) falls in and drowns. Casey finds her. Puts her in the car and drives to Suburban DR. Tries to stage a backyard pool drowning here but it just doesn't work as
    Cindy will still blame her for it because mommy dearest has a memory like an elephant and will surely remember she put the ladder up from the prior evenings swim with Caylee. Just a possibility........and .........JMO
    I think there is too much conflicting testimony for such a story. Yes the defense can put forth their theories, but where they directly conflict with witness testimony, and while offering no direct testimony of them they will quickly be dismissed by any jury as the bull plop that they are. It's like these stories today "Could Caylee's wet bathing suit cause the chloroform"? Ummm? has anybody found a bathing suit? Was it in the car? Because LE didn't find it in the car or with her. CA did not find it? As you might imagine screaming "the bathing suit caused it" quickly loses credibility when there is in fact no bathing suit in play.

  12. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to faefrost For This Useful Post:


  13. #2232
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,926
    Um is anyone as angry as I am about the new motion to allow KC to tell her story through a third party?

    I mean that makes me angry. So she is going to tell a new story/lie which I am thinking involves her father. I am convinced they are going to use George as a way to drum up reasonable doubt and I bet George is okay with this and this is why we are not seeing him inthe court room anymore and why KC showed little emotion when he testified.

    I just can't believe she wants to tell a new story and then not have to be cross examined.

    MOO

  14. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Mendara For This Useful Post:


  15. #2233
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern Adirondack Mountains
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Mendara View Post
    Um is anyone as angry as I am about the new motion to allow KC to tell her story through a third party?

    I mean that makes me angry. So she is going to tell a new story/lie which I am thinking involves her father. I am convinced they are going to use George as a way to drum up reasonable doubt and I bet George is okay with this and this is why we are not seeing him inthe court room anymore and why KC showed little emotion when he testified.

    I just can't believe she wants to tell a new story and then not have to be cross examined.

    MOO
    Can you think of anything KC has done the way it's "supposed to be done"???
    My posts are my opinion only.....

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Baznme For This Useful Post:


  17. #2234
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Mendara View Post
    Um is anyone as angry as I am about the new motion to allow KC to tell her story through a third party?

    I mean that makes me angry. So she is going to tell a new story/lie which I am thinking involves her father. I am convinced they are going to use George as a way to drum up reasonable doubt and I bet George is okay with this and this is why we are not seeing him inthe court room anymore and why KC showed little emotion when he testified.

    I just can't believe she wants to tell a new story and then not have to be cross examined.

    MOO
    This would be hearsay, which is why I believe Baez withdrew the doctors from the witness list..but he's still at it. If he insists then the only way this could happen is IF ICA takes the stand first, then they can go and testify to her state of mind/consciousness of guilt...

    His Honor kept asking, what is the exception to the hearsay rule...I don't remember a definate answer from Baez...JMHO

    Justice for Caylee

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to LiveLaughLuv For This Useful Post:


  19. #2235
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,381
    Quote Originally Posted by TotallyObsessed View Post
    That's a great question. I don't think I've ever seen it asked here before. I think, remembering back to that time, I just assumed it was because CA was in such denial and GA (at that time) was more based in reality. He was the one who talked about the smell in the car when he drove it back from the tow yard. How he prayed when he opened the trunk that his daughter or granddaughter was not in the trunk. He talked about knowing ICA had no job. On the other hand, the detectives seemed to indicate early on that CA didn't have a "real" definition of how ICA was...she was basically in la-la land.
    I guess this might be a question for the lawyer's thread, but does the DT also know what GA testified to in front of the GJ......are they able to view that testimony, does anyone know? I do recall his interview with the detectives at the very beginning, and he was being honest it seemed. I just wonder if there is something he testified to in the GJ that has never been made public through evidence already released, etc., that we will never hear about? maybe all he testified to there was found out in another way and will be brought in at the trial by the SA. So curious as to how this will all play out.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NavySubMom For This Useful Post:


  21. #2236
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bytown
    Posts
    9,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Panda's eye View Post
    Perhaps the DT can try to float the " pool accident " happening at Tone's apartment. Casey and Cindy have huge altercation. Casey calls Tone. Says, I know you don't want Caylee spending the night at your place, but there is so
    much drama at my house right now and I don't want my precious subject to it. So can Caylee and I spend the night? Just one night until mommy dearest
    has time to get over herself. Tone lets them stay. He gets up following morning goes about leaving for school or whatever. Casey isn't watching Caylee close enough or is showering and Caylee goes out the apartment door goes to the pool area ( because she loves pools and swimming so much ) falls in and drowns. Casey finds her. Puts her in the car and drives to Suburban DR. Tries to stage a backyard pool drowning here but it just doesn't work as
    Cindy will still blame her for it because mommy dearest has a memory like an elephant and will surely remember she put the ladder up from the prior evenings swim with Caylee. Just a possibility........and .........JMO
    Hi,
    Casey's cell phone pings and computer usage tell a different story. And I believe TonyL and his roomates would be the first to dispel that story.

    The cell phone pings indicate Casey was at the Anthony home or close to it.
    Casey did not leave and drive towards TL's apartment until after 4pm on June 16
    ----------------------------------------------------



    --------------------------------------------------
    "There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first is excellent, the second good, and the third useless.

    --Niccolo Machiavelli"

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Intermezzo For This Useful Post:


  23. #2237
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bytown
    Posts
    9,893
    Quote Originally Posted by NavySubMom View Post
    Thank you for that, I read the article, I am still confused as to why he testified, did he volunteer, was he chosen for some specific reason, did the SA choose him....do we even know? does anyone on the forum know? I just find it bizarre he might be blamed, but he was the only A who testified at that timeframe. But this whole thing is so bizarre....
    George was subpoenaed to testify at the Grand Jury. Mark Nejame accompanied George that day.
    IIRC, from news articles, he was to testify to the smell in the car and the gas can events of June 24
    ----------------------------------------------------



    --------------------------------------------------
    "There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first is excellent, the second good, and the third useless.

    --Niccolo Machiavelli"

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Intermezzo For This Useful Post:


  25. #2238
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bytown
    Posts
    9,893
    Quote Originally Posted by NavySubMom View Post
    I guess this might be a question for the lawyer's thread, but does the DT also know what GA testified to in front of the GJ......are they able to view that testimony, does anyone know? I do recall his interview with the detectives at the very beginning, and he was being honest it seemed. I just wonder if there is something he testified to in the GJ that has never been made public through evidence already released, etc., that we will never hear about? maybe all he testified to there was found out in another way and will be brought in at the trial by the SA. So curious as to how this will all play out.
    The Grand Jury testimony is sealed.
    There was a motion filed by Jeff Ashton to unseal and obtain the Transcript of George's Grand Jury testimony .something about inconsistent testimony.
    Judge Strickland Granted the Prosecutions motion.
    I also remember Baez wanted to get his hands on George's grand jury testimony as well, arguing..if the state gets it then he should have it also.

    http://www.wftv.com/news/20991571/detail.html Sept 18, 2009
    Prosecution Wants George Anthony's Grand Jury Testimony

    http://www.wftv.com/news/21218784/detail.html
    Judge: Hand Over George Anthony Testimony October 6, 2009

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html Judge Strickland's Order

    Thread where we discuss Motion for Transcript of George's Grand Jury Testimony
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4267265"]Motion for George's Grand Jury Transcript MERGED - Page 9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
    Last edited by Intermezzo; 04-20-2011 at 02:48 PM.
    ----------------------------------------------------



    --------------------------------------------------
    "There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first is excellent, the second good, and the third useless.

    --Niccolo Machiavelli"

  26. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Intermezzo For This Useful Post:


  27. #2239
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool Branch
    Posts
    5,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Baznme View Post
    You can argue that was when he was trying to do right by Caylee but also spin it that he threw his daughter under the bus to save himself.. If you ignore a lot of facts.

    BBM


    Cyber - I'm not sure I get what you mean by this.



    Nevvvvvermind.........I reread it and it makes sense now.
    Sorry I compacted the sentence too much.

    I meant that if you take the DT spin that GA could have done it you can read GA testifying at the GJ two ways.

    1. That GA was doing the right thing for Caylee, for once OR

    2. That GA was throwing ICA under the bus to protect himself, since the DT theory is that he could be the Perp.

    So it fits both motives. Hope that helps.
    Disclaimer: All posts are my own humble opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.



    Justice for Caylee

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cyberborg For This Useful Post:


  29. #2240
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,605
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfmarsGirl View Post
    What is bothering me is the fact that the DT tried to get one of their experts to testify to the possibility that one of Caylee's wet, chlorine-soaked swimsuits might have caused a chemical reaction with something else, thereby releasing chloroform.

    However, they were trying to prove this theory as a 'hypothetical' one.

    If they would have been able to prove this chemical reaction was possible in the hypothetical swimsuit scenario, does it not make sense that they could also prove it is possible that baby Caylee, recently drowned in a pool of chlorinated water, could produce the same chloroform?

    So, was the swimsuit thing just an attempt to prove this reaction was possible? If so, I say they are going to go with the drowning baloney.

    I am more and more sickened as the days go by.

    And as far as throwing KC on the stand. I think the DT might just be so delusional as to think, once the jurors gaze into those gorgeous (cough, cough), snake eyes that sit so closely on the sides of KC's ample nose, the jury will have no choice but to believe she is truly beautiful (cough, cough, small seizure here) and that she could do no wrong.

    Sickened more and more by the hour now.

    I think they have a problem explaining the amount (levels) of chloroform in the trunk. Both decomposition and chlorine can cause it but not the vast amount that was found according to Dr. Vass. Evidenced imo by the DT going into heavy questioning about the exact measurement and how that was done for the chloroform. The instruments used never gave an exact reading for that by weight, measurement, etc. is what I am getting from the defense team and imo that is what they will play on. How do you know a combination of decomp, chlorine, urine, dryer sheets, etc. did not cause such a high level when you don't even know the exact level? As Dr. Vass has stated decomp wouldn't cause that much chloroform to be present vs. the DT saying there were a number of things present to cause that much chloroform. It just seems to be an accurate guess to me based on what the defense has indicated they are suggesting and the experts they are trying to use to validate those theories.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to strach304 For This Useful Post:


  31. #2241
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,017
    Quote Originally Posted by strach304 View Post
    I think they have a problem explaining the amount (levels) of chloroform in the trunk. Both decomposition and chlorine can cause it but not the vast amount that was found according to Dr. Vass. Evidenced imo by the DT going into heavy questioning about the exact measurement and how that was done for the chloroform. The instruments used never gave an exact reading for that by weight, measurement, etc. is what I am getting from the defense team and imo that is what they will play on. How do you know a combination of decomp, chlorine, urine, dryer sheets, etc. did not cause such a high level when you don't even know the exact level? As Dr. Vass has stated decomp wouldn't cause that much chloroform to be present vs. the DT saying there were a number of things present to cause that much chloroform. It just seems to be an accurate guess to me based on what the defense has indicated they are suggesting and the experts they are trying to use to validate those theories.
    I don't recall Dr. Vass accurately pinpointing the exact measurement but didn't he say it was more than 10,000 units more than what he expected to find?

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  33. #2242
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    I think there is too much conflicting testimony for such a story. Yes the defense can put forth their theories, but where they directly conflict with witness testimony, and while offering no direct testimony of them they will quickly be dismissed by any jury as the bull plop that they are. It's like these stories today "Could Caylee's wet bathing suit cause the chloroform"? Ummm? has anybody found a bathing suit? Was it in the car? Because LE didn't find it in the car or with her. CA did not find it? As you might imagine screaming "the bathing suit caused it" quickly loses credibility when there is in fact no bathing suit in play.
    BBM

    Maybe there WAS a bathing suit and it was needing to be disposed of. Maybe that's what was flushed- by Casey- causing the plumbing problem Cindy and George had. The one that flooded a corner of Caylee's room.
    Just a speculation.

    Rest in Peace, Robbi 1980-2012

  34. #2243
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    I don't recall Dr. Vass accurately pinpointing the exact measurement but didn't he say it was more than 10,000 units more than what he expected to find?
    Yes, that's what I remember too.

    Rest in Peace, Robbi 1980-2012

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to AbbieNormal For This Useful Post:


  36. #2244
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by AbbieNormal View Post
    BBM

    Maybe there WAS a bathing suit and it was needing to be disposed of. Maybe that's what was flushed- by Casey- causing the plumbing problem Cindy and George had. The one that flooded a corner of Caylee's room.
    Just a speculation.
    So whatever happened to the alleged wet bathing suit in the trunk? CA stated she took pants out. I don't recall LE finding a bathing suit in the trunk. And KC hadn't been home since the 16th. So where be this bathing suit?

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SoCalSleuth For This Useful Post:


  38. #2245
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The beautiful roundabout of Context, Veracity, and JUSTICE
    Posts
    11,434
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth View Post
    So whatever happened to the alleged wet bathing suit in the trunk? CA stated she took pants out. I don't recall LE finding a bathing suit in the trunk. And KC hadn't been home since the 16th. So where be this bathing suit?
    The nanny has it.

    Sorry, sorry. As with the idea that GA was the perp, the phantom bathing suit exists only in the minds of the defense, and only with the goal of creating "reasonable doubt" in ONE juror's mind. Reasonable doubt + one juror = mistrial. (The fact that they are apparently aiming for a mistrial rather than for exoneration is another story. One plays the game with the cards one is dealt, I suppose.)

    All it took was DCS throwing the bathing suit concept out there in one hearing to get folks wondering about it, and that's all the defense team wants to do to the jury--create avenues of doubt. At this point they don't even seem too concerned about whether it's "reasonable" or not...
    You can hold back from the suffering of the world. You have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature.
    But perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could have avoided.
    Franz Kafka

    Be not simply good. Be good for something.
    HDT

  39. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ynotdivein For This Useful Post:


  40. #2246
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,017
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth View Post
    So whatever happened to the alleged wet bathing suit in the trunk? CA stated she took pants out. I don't recall LE finding a bathing suit in the trunk. And KC hadn't been home since the 16th. So where be this bathing suit?
    That's the thing - what bathing suit? The DT suggested it may have been a bathing suit dumped in the trunk - at one time - and now we are thinking there actually was a bathing suit! There was no bathing suit.

    But the rest of the story is if there had been a bathing suit, the chloroform levels from the chlorine in the pool (not the Anthony's because they didn't use it) mixed with a few Febreeze sheets would not have caused those levels. Sure, and just how big is the bathing suit of a two year old?

    But there was no bathing suit.

  41. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  42. #2247
    SubtleGrace's Avatar
    SubtleGrace is offline Zaylee Rose born 1/2/11. In loving memory of Zahra and Caylee. Love you angels.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO, Wyoming, Portland, OR
    Posts
    241
    Going from the clue that "something happened too long ago", adding the fact that we don't know who Caylee's father is......

    What if the defense theory is that Casey was raped, and Caylee's murder was some sort of PTSD episode, or even that Caylee's father murdered Caylee and framed Casey?
    IMO, MOO and all that jazz....

  43. #2248
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,808
    What if, what if, what if.

    The State will take the what if's and ram them down the defense's throat without much trouble at all.

    If Cheney stumbled during these hearings, wait till the trial.

  44. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Solace For This Useful Post:


  45. #2249
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    That's the thing - what bathing suit? The DT suggested it may have been a bathing suit dumped in the trunk - at one time - and now we are thinking there actually was a bathing suit! There was no bathing suit.

    But the rest of the story is if there had been a bathing suit, the chloroform levels from the chlorine in the pool (not the Anthony's because they didn't use it) mixed with a few Febreeze sheets would not have caused those levels. Sure, and just how big is the bathing suit of a two year old?

    But there was no bathing suit.
    Of course there's no bathing suit! Just like there's no nanny, no kidnappers threatening everyone's safety, no job at universal or anywhere else for that matter, blah blah blah. Never, in the annals of criminal events, has there been such a convoluted history and story, especially emanating from a very simple scenario--young single mother sick of being young single mother wants to snare young single guy that doesn't want kids either, so young mother kills kid. End of story.

  46. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SoCalSleuth For This Useful Post:


  47. #2250
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by ynotdivein View Post
    The nanny has it.

    Sorry, sorry. As with the idea that GA was the perp, the phantom bathing suit exists only in the minds of the defense, and only with the goal of creating "reasonable doubt" in ONE juror's mind. Reasonable doubt + one juror = mistrial. (The fact that they are apparently aiming for a mistrial rather than for exoneration is another story. One plays the game with the cards one is dealt, I suppose.)

    All it took was DCS throwing the bathing suit concept out there in one hearing to get folks wondering about it, and that's all the defense team wants to do to the jury--create avenues of doubt. At this point they don't even seem too concerned about whether it's "reasonable" or not...
    That is exactly it. The defense just wants doubt no matter how crazy or illogical it sounds. They don't understand that it has to be REASONABLE doubt. They haven't come anywhere near reasonable with any explanation so far. It's just ridiculous theory after ridiculous theory. They jury would have to leave their brains at the door to believe the DT and acquit Casey at this point.

    I sure hope someone is doing tests with tiny bathingsuits to disprove that craziness should the defense bring it up at trial!

  48. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aedrys For This Useful Post:


Page 90 of 94 FirstFirst ... 40808182838485868788899091929394 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Access to Casey's Car - Defense Strategy?
    By dreamerlin in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 02:09 AM
  2. Defense What is their strategy? #1
    By FIND'HER in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 676
    Last Post: 05-13-2009, 10:31 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •