Will they charge George with Caylee's murder?

New Posts

norest4thewicked

norest4thewicked

True Crime Writer
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
6,127
Reaction score
725
Website
www.facebook.com
My husband just came up with this interesting scenario and I thought I would share it.

Would the state open up the case now and investigate George's part in this? If Casey and George were both there when Caylee died, maybe they should put her on the stand and ask her what she witnessed. You can't have it both ways. If they both were there, (supposedly) why can't they investigate this? If the jury found her guilty because of "some horrible accident that got out of control" then why shouldn't he be investigated. There is still a dead child and no one is being held responsible.

Why or why not do you think they would do this?
 
The jury's verdict is no more evidence than Mr Baez's opening statement.
 
I think that would be another injustice.

I don't want a state with 10%+ unemployment to spend anymore on them.

Besides, ICA and CA would be happy and that would be enough to make me be against it.
 
norest4thewicked said:
My husband just came up with this interesting scenario and I thought I would share it.

Would the state open up the case now and investigate George's part in this? If Casey and George were both there when Caylee died, maybe they should put her on the stand and ask her what she witnessed. You can't have it both ways. If they both were there, (supposedly) why can't they investigate this? If the jury found her guilty because of "some horrible accident that got out of control" then why shouldn't he be investigated. There is still a dead child and no one is being held responsible.

Why or why not do you think they would do this?
Click to expand...

They should investigate George. LE dropped the ball when they didn't investigate him in the first place.
 
No, because the State does not believe George had anything to do with Caylee's death/murder. If they had, they would already have charged him when they charged Casey.
 
No way. The State isn't as unusual as these jurors. They know who killed Caylee.
 
I hate to keep bringing up OJ in comparison but, they never did look for another killer, did they.

I say not a chance.
 
GA didn't disappear for 31 days and leave with Caylee. He was home. As far as we know, he never lied (unlike Cindy Anthony). I think GA's only crime was trying to appear to be going along with Cindy so she wouldn't get upset.
 
IANAL but no, IMO. There is nothing to indicate that George had anything to do with it. What would they do to investigate, ask Casey and Cindy, who both are proven liars? The only thing that indicated George had anything to do with it was the defense team in their opening statement which, I might add, they were unable to prove a lick of. I would sure hate to see anyone sent to prison because of claims made by Casey. In addition, why should she walk and George be sent to prison when they were supposedly both involved (which I don't believe)?
 
No. Not a chance. There is NO evidence GA hurt Caylee.
Even with TONS of evidence, they could not get a conviction for Casey.
No way George will be charged.
JMO
 
Well, apparently they proved something, because she was acquitted.
I don't think they will investigate George, and I don't think there will be any other charges against either George or Cindy for anything. I think LE will just leave them alone and let them get on with their lives.
 
SA won't charge George with murder. There is no evidence whatsoever that he killed anyone.
 
If the State couldn't prove Casey went crazy to party and killed her child, there is no way they can prove George did it. jmo
 
norest4thewicked said:
My husband just came up with this interesting scenario and I thought I would share it.

Would the state open up the case now and investigate George's part in this? If Casey and George were both there when Caylee died, maybe they should put her on the stand and ask her what she witnessed. You can't have it both ways. If they both were there, (supposedly) why can't they investigate this? If the jury found her guilty because of "some horrible accident that got out of control" then why shouldn't he be investigated. There is still a dead child and no one is being held responsible.

Why or why not do you think they would do this?
Click to expand...

The jury acquitting Casey has nothing to do with her not having committed the crime. And it is in no way evidence that George had anything to do with it. The state cannot charge people with murder without evidence and the Grand Jury indicted Casey, not George.
 
We here at Websleuths and also others who have followed this case have been appalled that George had lied to protect Casey and apparently this jury is mad that he told the truth because how dare he say anything against his daughter. Therefore, he must be guilty of something, right? Ugh. Makes no sense.

What was Casey on trial for again? Because it totally seems like Caylee was forgotten yet again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 118 more.
Total: 4,056 (members: 119, guests: 3,937)

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
3,937
Total visitors
4,056
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,155
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top