Page 47 of 49 FirstFirst ... 37383940414243444546474849 LastLast
Results 1,151 to 1,175 of 1204

Thread: Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #3

  1. #1151
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,717
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeysmommom View Post
    The police found Caylee with duct tape around her mouth. How can anybody even suggest an accident after knowing that.She Killed her in ice cold blood that much is a fact.
    This is not fact. Yet.

  2. #1152
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    And I will respect your decision and not debate your opinion. However, somewhere in the documents is testimony from Casey's former employer. Casey left work in 2005 before Caylee was born and she never went back. She was officially terminated in April, 2006 because of that. LE was unable to find any verification of employment after summer, 2005.
    Lanie
    Okay, I concede one point to you!
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  3. #1153
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,877
    I am shocked that post made it to the board, and will be equally shocked if this one shows up. I have been having difficulty posting in here for several days.
    Anyway, Devon, I'm not trying to score one up on anyone. I am interested in some of the debating going on because some valid points are made. To me, it is like brainstorming. I was just throwing out off the top of my head a couple of reasons Caylee might still have her swimsuit on. You are right about it being a long stretch for her still wearing it from the day before. I haven't spent any time trying to explain it away, because I don't think it is true. If it is, does she have more than one swimsuit? How many does she have? Was the one potentially found with her the same one she wore in the pool with Cindy the night before? Didn't one of Casey's friends bring a swimsuit belonging to Caylee to the Anthony's the end of July when they all got together?
    Sometimes in these back and forths, something is brought to my attention that I missed, or I am reminded of something I forgot about. I still have quite a few unanswered questions.
    About to hit submit with my fingers crossed...
    Lanie

  4. #1154
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver WA
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by maryaok View Post
    A swimming pool drowning? An accident? A coverup of a neglectful drowning, come on!!!!! That would be a cinch to defend in court. A drugging and duct tape? A lot harder to defend. Besides, why would she have duct tape on her if she drowned? No one can figure out her mind. No one.
    (bold mine) Precisely. But in KC's mind her main judge, and jury, will never be at trial. They are CA, and CA's words, what have you done. It would seem, to this young mother, never considered "fit" in her mother's eyes anyway, to spend life in prison or even to receive the DP where she is at least allowed to take her ZG tales w her must be for her a comparatively light sentence, next to any admission of negligence--for which, she is convinced she will face her mother's eternal judgment and condemnation. JMO

  5. #1155
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,227
    People can debate about accidental death, but even it may have been that, Casey has cooked her own goose. There's now no way to prove that any accident happened and then a cover up. The ladder to the pool wasn't even beside the pool on the 16th anyway. Cindy said it was the next day, and that may not even be true. After the computer searches, the thefts, and going on as if nothing happened, no one (on a jury) in their right mind would even consider accidental death.

  6. #1156
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I am shocked that post made it to the board, and will be equally shocked if this one shows up. I have been having difficulty posting in here for several days.
    Anyway, Devon, I'm not trying to score one up on anyone. I am interested in some of the debating going on because some valid points are made. To me, it is like brainstorming. I was just throwing out off the top of my head a couple of reasons Caylee might still have her swimsuit on. You are right about it being a long stretch for her still wearing it from the day before. I haven't spent any time trying to explain it away, because I don't think it is true. If it is, does she have more than one swimsuit? How many does she have? Was the one potentially found with her the same one she wore in the pool with Cindy the night before? Didn't one of Casey's friends bring a swimsuit belonging to Caylee to the Anthony's the end of July when they all got together?
    Sometimes in these back and forths, something is brought to my attention that I missed, or I am reminded of something I forgot about. I still have quite a few unanswered questions.
    About to hit submit with my fingers crossed...
    Lanie
    I know you're not trying to score points on anyone Lanie and neither am I. My last post was made tongue in cheek.

    None of us know the full facts yet and even some of what we do know seems to raise more questions than it answers. KC may well be a cold-blooded murderess, but I have taken my starting point from the position that I believe a juror has to start at, i.e. that KC is innocent of premeditated murder. When each new piece of information has become available, I have tried to consider whether there might be more than one possible explanation. If there is, I have mentally confined that information to the 'reasonable doubt pile'. As we learn more, that pile may shrink or it may grow. What I do know for sure however is that a sweet innocent child has lost her life, a family has been torn apart by tragedy and a young woman now sits in jail, alone and despised, guilty for sure of sufficient despicable acts to keep her behind bars for many years. I'm just not sure yet whether murder should be on that long list or not.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  7. #1157
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    249
    Caylee was killied for revenge toward Cindy.She is the one suffering now.

  8. #1158
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon View Post
    5)KC just didn't want Caylee and had no love for her
    I haven't formed any firm opinion on KC's relationship with Caylee, and it's possible that the mother/daughter bond was impaired in some way (possibly due to CA's interference and need for control). It may have been nearer to a big/little sister relationship than a true motherly bond, but all of KC's friends and family say she showed Caylee real affection, looked after her well, was never seen to be mean to her, interacted well with her etc. Apart from the odd expression of frustration ( and what young single mother never experiences that?), there is no evidence that I have seen that proves KC did not care for Caylee.
    To me her statement to the effect that "all you care about is finding Caylee" and her subsequent hasty addition of "that's all I care about too" is evidence that Casey was jealous of Caylee.

  9. #1159
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver WA
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by txsvicki View Post
    People can debate about accidental death, but even it may have been that, Casey has cooked her own goose. There's now no way to prove that any accident happened and then a cover up. The ladder to the pool wasn't even beside the pool on the 16th anyway. Cindy said it was the next day, and that may not even be true. After the computer searches, the thefts, and going on as if nothing happened, no one (on a jury) in their right mind would even consider accidental death.
    CA said she did not notice until the 16th, just as she did not notice the certified letter notice (nor that her daughter had been stealing, been unemployed for two years, etc). And while I have long said myself that KC likely destroyed the only evidence that could have ever proven negligence, it's insulting to say that for anyone to even consider this possibility--to not simply assume there was malice and intent before this can even be ruled out--is "not in their right mind." It isn't necessary to insult others, and I try to be respectful of their opinions even when I often disagree. JMO
    Last edited by kiki the parrot; 01-13-2009 at 08:13 PM.

  10. #1160
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ORACLE,AZ
    Posts
    348
    I do not in anyway feel that this was an accident! The point of no return has long since passed for that theory.I think this was an outright spite murder-if I can't keep her-no one can!I also think that Caylee was old enough to start talking-thus the fight.
    I do not feel that this in any

    way had to do with TL,not wanting a girl,KC was desperate for someone to take her in and love her,remember TL was not the only person she was sleeping with,and was in fact,supposed to be going to California,so she obviously did not truly love TL either,she just wanted a commitment from ANYONE.
    I do however have some real concerns about the control that JB seems to have over her,even isolating her from her family,this is typical behavior of an abusive relationship,and KC is a prime candidate to latch on to her "savior".JMO but I suspect that even the judge may suspect this,that is why he ordered her to court.

  11. #1161
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,976
    Quote Originally Posted by FORDANIEL View Post
    I do not in anyway feel that this was an accident! The point of no return has long since passed for that theory.I think this was an outright spite murder-if I can't keep her-no one can!I also think that Caylee was old enough to start talking-thus the fight.
    I do not feel that this in any

    way had to do with TL,not wanting a girl,KC was desperate for someone to take her in and love her,remember TL was not the only person she was sleeping with,and was in fact,supposed to be going to California,so she obviously did not truly love TL either,she just wanted a commitment from ANYONE.
    I do however have some real concerns about the control that JB seems to have over her,even isolating her from her family,this is typical behavior of an abusive relationship,and KC is a prime candidate to latch on to her "savior".JMO but I suspect that even the judge may suspect this,that is why he ordered her to court.
    Good post and I agree about TL, even in her IM with another guy she was saying this relationship would end up going nowhere. She did not want to go to NY and it seemed that is where TL was going to end up. I think she had several other options lined up as far as a man goes.

  12. #1162
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzieCat View Post
    To me her statement to the effect that "all you care about is finding Caylee" and her subsequent hasty addition of "that's all I care about too" is evidence that Casey was jealous of Caylee.
    Yes I agree that there are some signs of jealousy, but we don't know to whom the animosity that these feelings created was really directed. Did she blame Caylee for being the object of CA's affections, or CA for perhaps appearing to show more 'love' for Caylee than she ever had for her?

    Similarly, if she had never experienced real unconditional love from CA, maybe that is why she was unhappy in her 'belief' that JG also seemed to show more love for Caylee than for her. It may have been that their relationship was starting to show cracks when she said this, but JG's love for Caylee would have been unaffected by that. I think JG really loved KC for most of their relationship and she may have felt insecure or even 'unlovable' when things started going wrong.

    I guess we'll never know what it really means to be KC, but human emotions are complex and unpredictable and whilst this unique human ability to 'feel' can enhance our lives beyond measure, it can also take us to hell!
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  13. #1163
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver WA
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon View Post
    I know you're not trying to score points on anyone Lanie and neither am I. My last post was made tongue in cheek.

    None of us know the full facts yet and even some of what we do know seems to raise more questions than it answers. KC may well be a cold-blooded murderess, but I have taken my starting point from the position that I believe a juror has to start at, i.e. that KC is innocent of premeditated murder. When each new piece of information has become available, I have tried to consider whether there might be more than one possible explanation. If there is, I have mentally confined that information to the 'reasonable doubt pile'. As we learn more, that pile may shrink or it may grow. What I do know for sure however is that a sweet innocent child has lost her life, a family has been torn apart by tragedy and a young woman now sits in jail, alone and despised, guilty for sure of sufficient despicable acts to keep her behind bars for many years. I'm just not sure yet whether murder should be on that long list or not.
    (bold mine) ITA. My perspective as well, and the way in which I will likely continue viewing this heartwrenching case until hearing the totality of evidence. And it isn't that those of us who observe presumption of innocence or haven't yet heard sufficient proof of premeditation would ever expect or desire KC to be found not guilty of the lengthy list of other crimes (for which guilty verdicts already appear just and inevitable). It's that we're able to distinguish between individual respective crimes; and between malice and intent, and concealment or a cover-up. As best as I can figure, KC will be fortunate to spend the balance of her life behind bars just for those. I trust the SA wasn't overreaching or overcharging and has withheld considerably more solid evidence of premeditation--or even intent. JMO

  14. #1164
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by txsvicki View Post
    People can debate about accidental death, but even it may have been that, Casey has cooked her own goose. There's now no way to prove that any accident happened and then a cover up. The ladder to the pool wasn't even beside the pool on the 16th anyway. Cindy said it was the next day, and that may not even be true. After the computer searches, the thefts, and going on as if nothing happened, no one (on a jury) in their right mind would even consider accidental death.
    A juror is required to start with the presumption that the defendant is innocent, so the jury must consider any possible alternative that is put forward by the defence and also must be sure in their own minds that the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the question of accidental death is raised at the trial, all jurors would have to consider it, not just those who are not 'in their right mind'.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  15. #1165
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki the parrot View Post
    (bold mine) ITA. My perspective as well, and the way in which I will likely continue viewing this heartwrenching case until hearing the totality of evidence. And it isn't that those of us who observe presumption of innocence or haven't yet heard sufficient proof of premeditation would ever expect or desire KC to be found not guilty of the lengthy list of other crimes (for which guilty verdicts already appear just and inevitable). It's that we're able to distinguish between individual respective crimes; and between malice and intent, and concealment or a cover-up. As best as I can figure, KC will be fortunate to spend the balance of her life behind bars just for those. I trust the SA wasn't overreaching or overcharging and has withheld considerably more solid evidence of premeditation--or even intent. JMO
    Kiki, we must stop meeting like this - there's enough conspiracy theories to fill a battleship on here already!

    Re: the part I've bolded - I'm beginning to have some doubts about the state's charges myself. I have a feeling they were really hoping for either a confession or a body that told it's own story, but it appears that neither has materialised. The next few weeks could be very interesting IMO!
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  16. #1166
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon View Post
    Kiki, we must stop meeting like this - there's enough conspiracy theories to fill a battleship on here already!

    Re: the part I've bolded - I'm beginning to have some doubts about the state's charges myself. I have a feeling they were really hoping for either a confession or a body that told it's own story, but it appears that neither has materialised. The next few weeks could be very interesting IMO!
    LOL! The evidence the state has was put before a Grand Jury. I do not think the Grand Jury was convinced to proceed over nonexistant evidence the state had their fingers crossed was going to turn up.
    JMO
    Lanie

  17. #1167
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,099
    Got OT in the Questions Thread. Probably better here:

    I have toyed with the idea, but not pushed it, that one of the ideas KC had was to fake a burning "accident". Body already too decomposed for other fake situations, so fake Caylee accidently getting burnt in a gas can incident, or even torch the whole car with Caylee's body (in trunk perhaps back to a kidnapper story)? That would get rid of 2 magor problems: a decomposing corpse and a smelly car.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    _________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

  18. #1168
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    LOL! The evidence the state has was put before a Grand Jury. I do not think the Grand Jury was convinced to proceed over nonexistant evidence the state had their fingers crossed was going to turn up.
    JMO
    Lanie
    The GJ only had to decide whether there was a case to answer and if the accused should be brought to trial. The standard of proof test required is much lower than for a trial - a 51/49 level of certainty is all that is needed, as opposed to the standard required at trial which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just the evidence of KC's lies and the signs of decomp. in the car would have been sufficient to tip most people's opinions into that '51% sure' zone IMO, but proving the charge beyond a reasonable doubt is something else entirely.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  19. #1169
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,877
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki the parrot View Post
    (bold mine) ITA. My perspective as well, and the way in which I will likely continue viewing this heartwrenching case until hearing the totality of evidence. And it isn't that those of us who observe presumption of innocence or haven't yet heard sufficient proof of premeditation would ever expect or desire KC to be found not guilty of the lengthy list of other crimes (for which guilty verdicts already appear just and inevitable). It's that we're able to distinguish between individual respective crimes; and between malice and intent, and concealment or a cover-up. As best as I can figure, KC will be fortunate to spend the balance of her life behind bars just for those. I trust the SA wasn't overreaching or overcharging and has withheld considerably more solid evidence of premeditation--or even intent. JMO
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon View Post
    A juror is required to start with the presumption that the defendant is innocent, so the jury must consider any possible alternative that is put forward by the defence and also must be sure in their own minds that the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the question of accidental death is raised at the trial, all jurors would have to consider it, not just those who are not 'in their right mind'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devon View Post
    The GJ only had to decide whether there was a case to answer and if the accused should be brought to trial. The standard of proof test required is much lower than for a trial - a 51/49 level of certainty is all that is needed, as opposed to the standard required at trial which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just the evidence of KC's lies and the signs of decomp. in the car would have been sufficient to tip most people's opinions into that '51% sure' zone IMO, but proving the charge beyond a reasonable doubt is something else entirely.
    I don't know how convinced the Grand Jury was. While they do not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as a jury in a criminal trial does, that does not mean they were only convinced to the bare minimum. I could use these same arguments listed above to argue Scott Peterson is not guilty.
    I have not come to a conclusion Casey acted with intent, and then tried to twist evidence as it comes out to fit my theory. I have no vested interest in accident or deliberate. So far, the evidence, and all the evidence, not just a piece of it here and there, has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt Casey deliberately, with malice, intent, and some form of premeditation, killed Caylee. Believe it or not, I was able to come to this conclusion by extending presumption of innocence, and knowing the difference between concealing an accident and covering up a crime. I also came to this by considering ALL the evidence I was aware of, even including some stuff that is still rumor at this point. The rumor evidence I pick and choose from is not based on whether or not it fits my theory, but whether or not I think it is likely to be true. I discarded the duct tape over the mouth for a long time, even though it fits my theory, because at the time it came out it seemed to be bs. However, since it keeps coming up over and over, I am taking it into consideration.
    I would also like to point out, legally, a charge of murder one does not have to include premeditation. There are several conditions other than premeditation that can result in a person being charged and convicted of first degree murder. This has been posted all over this forum quite a few times.
    Just for the record, I do not think this was a deliberate killing for the sole reason I am ignorant of how the judicial system works, just as I also do not think people supporting the accident theory are not in their right mind.
    Lanie

  20. #1170
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, Penninsula
    Posts
    17,667
    Quote Originally Posted by impatientredhead View Post
    I have the same question but about the interior of the Anthony home. I am starting to wonder very seriously about the idea that Caylee died in that room the night of the 15th while Casey texted away with Tony.
    I have given much thought to this myself.

  21. #1171
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, Penninsula
    Posts
    17,667
    Quote Originally Posted by bessie View Post

    <snipped>
    On the other hand, you might be right. She came up with the staged drowning idea on her own. GA's call is irrelevant. His story was accurate, and the tart mom had a customary lapse of memory.


    Regarding the flurry of calls, I doubt they were cries of help. Why? She would've left voice messages. Of course, if she did leave vm's, the A's knew something happened that day and they've been lying ever since. Unless she lied her way out of that, too. "I thought she had drowned. But, no, no, she was okay. I gave her mouth-to-mouth. Really, mom."
    Why weren't any of her calls returned? Has this been discussed?

  22. #1172
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I don't know how convinced the Grand Jury was. While they do not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as a jury in a criminal trial does, that does not mean they were only convinced to the bare minimum. I could use these same arguments listed above to argue Scott Peterson is not guilty.
    I have not come to a conclusion Casey acted with intent, and then tried to twist evidence as it comes out to fit my theory. I have no vested interest in accident or deliberate. So far, the evidence, and all the evidence, not just a piece of it here and there, has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt Casey deliberately, with malice, intent, and some form of premeditation, killed Caylee. Believe it or not, I was able to come to this conclusion by extending presumption of innocence, and knowing the difference between concealing an accident and covering up a crime. I also came to this by considering ALL the evidence I was aware of, even including some stuff that is still rumor at this point. The rumor evidence I pick and choose from is not based on whether or not it fits my theory, but whether or not I think it is likely to be true. I discarded the duct tape over the mouth for a long time, even though it fits my theory, because at the time it came out it seemed to be bs. However, since it keeps coming up over and over, I am taking it into consideration.
    I would also like to point out, legally, a charge of murder one does not have to include premeditation. There are several conditions other than premeditation that can result in a person being charged and convicted of first degree murder. This has been posted all over this forum quite a few times.
    Just for the record, I do not think this was a deliberate killing for the sole reason I am ignorant of how the judicial system works, just as I also do not think people supporting the accident theory are not in their right mind.
    Lanie
    I was certainly not trying to suggest that you didn't know the judicial system but just stating that the GJ has a much lower hurdle to jump. As I said before, I fully respect your opinion, more so because you have shown that you are considering the evidence carefully, rather than allowing any emotional response to dictate your conclusions as I feel some people are prone to do.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    when we set out to deceive!

  23. #1173
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,632
    Quote Originally Posted by Whisperer View Post
    Why weren't any of her calls returned? Has this been discussed?
    Didn't she receive a call around 3:05pm from George's cell, which, as I recall was unusual, as what has been investigated was, this was only 1 of 2 calls he had made to her in a 2 month timeframe? I assumed Cindy did not take her calls as a result of the argument the night before. She called Cindy at work & on her cell.


    "There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions, and those who won't" ..... Josh Billings

  24. #1174
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver WA
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by FORDANIEL View Post
    I do not in anyway feel that this was an accident! The point of no return has long since passed for that theory.
    (respectfully snipped)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I don't know how convinced the Grand Jury was. While they do not have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as a jury in a criminal trial does, that does not mean they were only convinced to the bare minimum. I could use these same arguments listed above to argue Scott Peterson is not guilty.
    I have not come to a conclusion Casey acted with intent, and then tried to twist evidence as it comes out to fit my theory. I have no vested interest in accident or deliberate. So far, the evidence, and all the evidence, not just a piece of it here and there, has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt Casey deliberately, with malice, intent, and some form of premeditation, killed Caylee. Believe it or not, I was able to come to this conclusion by extending presumption of innocence, and knowing the difference between concealing an accident and covering up a crime. I also came to this by considering ALL the evidence I was aware of, even including some stuff that is still rumor at this point. The rumor evidence I pick and choose from is not based on whether or not it fits my theory, but whether or not I think it is likely to be true. I discarded the duct tape over the mouth for a long time, even though it fits my theory, because at the time it came out it seemed to be bs. However, since it keeps coming up over and over, I am taking it into consideration.
    I would also like to point out, legally, a charge of murder one does not have to include premeditation. There are several conditions other than premeditation that can result in a person being charged and convicted of first degree murder. This has been posted all over this forum quite a few times.
    Just for the record, I do not think this was a deliberate killing for the sole reason I am ignorant of how the judicial system works, just as I also do not think people supporting the accident theory are not in their right mind.
    (bold mine) And IMO the time has not yet come for arriving at a conclusion of an intentional, much less malicious, premeditated murder. Those who are said to be arguing against this around here are not so much arguing "for" a negligence theory as we are arguing "against" being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of anything PRIOR to hearing the totality of evidence ie everything to be presented at trial. Between now and then, while exploring theories, we are STILL willing to reserve judgment. (Big difference.)

    Re Florida criminal court statutes relating to first degree felony murder. For State to prove the crime of first degree felony murder, prosecution must prove Caylee’s death occurred as a result of, and while, Casey was engaged in the commission of another crime; or,

    Caylee’s death occurred as a consequence of, and while, Casey was attempting to commit another crime; or,

    Caylee’s death occurred as a consequence of, and while, KC, or (her) accomplice were escaping the immediate scene of a crime.

    In order to prove the murder was “premeditated”, prosecutors must show KC had “conscious intent” to kill Caylee at the time of the murder. (The law doesn't “fix” the exact time period between “formation” of the premeditated intent and “killing”.) Only then, after hearing the totality of evidence presented at trial is a jury able to decide whether the prosecution proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that premeditation existed at the time of Caylee’s death.

    If KC is convicted of Capital Murder I understand she'll then face a separate court proceeding where a jury will hear testimony in order to determine whether she should get death, or life in prison. But it is the judge who will ultimately decide, based upon jury’s vote. It is then up to FL State Supreme Court, w/in 60 day period, to ratify a sentencing court judge’s decision.

    JMO

  25. #1175
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788

    Wishy Washy Poster Alert!

    I'll preface by saying my theory changes almost as quickly as I read the theories on this thread! But tonight, I'm leaning heavily toward the accident theory. Here's why:reeseeva posted a link to some docs on the 'questions to members' thread in regard to a question I had about the alledged fight between KC and her mother on June 15th. In that doc was an interview between EE and JG. JG provides a glimpse into KC's head. He talks about her having "one toe in reality..." and what he thinks she would do should an accident happen to Caylee.....

    From my own limited observations of the things KC said, did etc. from the time LE was called by CA, I have come to believe KC has Borderline Personality Disorder. I have experience with that! Imo, BPDs believe their own lies, no matter how farfetched and removed from reality they happen to be. I wouldn't be surprised if KC could pass a polygraph.

    The premeditation theory is hard for me because of the air tests which put the level of decomp in the trunk at 2.6 days. Does someone premeditate a murder and have no plan for the body?

    Sorry sleuthers....I'm being called away! Just want to say, I respect BOTH sides of theorizers....I have thick skin...so roast away at my newly developing theory if you wish...No worries! I reserve the right to switch sides by the time I get back from dinner!

Page 47 of 49 FirstFirst ... 37383940414243444546474849 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #5
    By JBean in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1089
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 12:10 AM
  2. Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #4
    By chicoliving in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 694
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 02:59 AM
  3. Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #2
    By PrayersForMaura in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 04:58 PM
  4. Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #1
    By PrayersForMaura in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 683
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 01:47 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
  •