Caylee Anthony 2 year old General Discussion #56

[CW]

Continue posting here please.

[mamaks5]

Wedavis, thats what I'm wondering. There are a number of people stating she moved out on the 9th and grandma Cindy said she had her on Father's day. What was happening between the two dates? Why isn't Cindy stating what happened on Fathers Day, such as were her and Casey on good terms? Was it an hour visit or a overnight visit and so on...

[TravelingBug]

Originally Posted by mamaks5

Wedavis, thats what I'm wondering. There are a number of people stating she moved out on the 9th and grandma Cindy said she had her on Father's day. What was happening between the two dates? Why isn't Cindy stating what happened on Fathers Day, such as were her and Casey on good terms? Was it an hour visit or a overnight visit and so on...

Why isn't Cindy stating why she'd say to 911 that her daughter had not been around in a month when not only had she been there (and caught by dad at 2:25 on the 24th since they know the minute) and interacted with her father, but also STOLEN from them in the process?

[Leila]

Originally Posted by TravelingBug

Why isn't Cindy stating why she'd say to 911 that her daughter had not been around in a month when not only had she been there (and caught by dad at 2:25 on the 24th since they know the minute) and interacted with her father, but also STOLEN from them in the process?

For some reason, both Cindy and George seem to feel that if they say it, it makes it true and we should believe it!

I'd love, as I'm sure we all would, to see a good interviewer ask Cindy and George the hard questions...........the last time Caylee was seen by anyone outside the immediate family was on Father's Day at the assisted living facility where Cindy's father resides......ask Cindy and George what happened that day.

Ask Cindy what led her to write that blog entry on her MySpace page on July 3rd.

Ask Cindy why she's told several different stories regarding who Caylee's father is.

Ask George why he didn't amend the police report after he found that it was Casey that stole the gas cans.

Ask Cindy and George why they maintain they hadn't seen Casey in a month when George reported he saw her on June 24th in his home.

Tell Cindy and George that others have risen to the challenge of putting pizza in the trunk of a car for a length of time.......it dries up to the consistency of shoe leather and doesn't smell........why did the 1998 Pontiac smell so bad?

There's hundreds of questions! I'd like to see Mark Fuhrman interview George and Cindy.

[Sherbie]

Originally Posted by mollymalone

I remember typing that earlier from Lee's comments on Shep's show.

Yes, Lee said that the young man didn't know he was the father.
Cindy now says that the young man knew and that he and Casey decided mutually that his family wouldn't know about Caylee.

Molly, I brought this over from the last thread because I wanted to thank you for responding. I was pretty sure that Lee had said in his interview today that Caylee's dad didn't know he was her father, but I'm so tired this evening that I was questioning it after hearing Cindy claim again that he did know and had an agreement with Casey.

Sooooo....brother says father of Caylee didn't know he was the father. Cindy says he did and agreed not to be part of Caylee's life. Hmmmm. If there really were some agreement with the father, surely Lee would know about that and not say that the guy didn't even know he was Caylee's dad.

I'm not sure what to think about this family -- I keep trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they can't both be right about this. That leaves me to believe neither of them are telling the truth!

Thanks again, Molly! You saved me a lot of digging...sure do appreciate it!!

[st. crispian]

Originally Posted by Sherbie

Molly, I brought this over from the last thread because I wanted to thank you for responding. I was pretty sure that Lee had said in his interview today that Caylee's dad didn't know he was her father, but I'm so tired this evening that I was questioning it after hearing Cindy claim again that he did know and had an agreement with Casey.

Sooooo....brother says father of Caylee didn't know he was the father. Cindy says he did and agreed not to be part of Caylee's life. Hmmmm. If there really were some agreement with the father, surely Lee would know about that and not say that the guy didn't even know he was Caylee's dad.

I'm not sure what to think about this family -- I keep trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they can't both be right about this. That leaves me to believe neither of them are telling the truth!

Thanks again, Molly! You saved me a lot of digging...sure do appreciate it!!

But then remember the story that the father got into a car wreck and died as he was driving to Caylee's birthday party. I don't remember which family member/friend dropped this tidbit, but I believe it was stated as fact.

[mollymalone]

Originally Posted by st. crispian

But then remember the story that the father got into a car wreck and died as he was driving to Caylee's birthday party. I don't remember which family member/friend dropped this tidbit, but I believe it was stated as fact.

That was Casey's version, and Cindy repeated that one as well.

[FLbeachdawg]

Originally Posted by mollymalone

That was Casey's version, and Cindy repeated that one as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st. crispian View Post
But then remember the story that the father got into a car wreck and died as he was driving to Caylee's birthday party. I don't remember which family member/friend dropped this tidbit, but I believe it was stated as fact.

Actually from my understanding it was Tony's roommate who said that Casey had told them that the father died in an accident on the way to Caylee's bday. But Cindy said he just died in an accident and Casey had shown her the obituary...but that he was never an active part of her life....I would say that going to her bday was an "active part of her life". So, personally, from the article I remember reading, it was pointed out to be contradictory in what Casey had told the new BF Tony about Caylee's dad and what she had told her parents. It seemed like she was seeking sympathy from Tony. I could have missed Cindy claiming the same thing...but I have not seen that thus far...she's just mentioned the accident...not the bday party part.

[nnglas]

Originally Posted by st. crispian

But then remember the story that the father got into a car wreck and died as he was driving to Caylee's birthday party. I don't remember which family member/friend dropped this tidbit, but I believe it was stated as fact.

I think the boyfriend or the boyfriends roommate said this. I am sure it was one of them.

[olive]

Originally Posted by nnglas

I think the boyfriend or the boyfriends roommate said this. I am sure it was one of them.

That is what CASEY told the boyfriend. She told her family something different. She probably told Tony that to get attention and sympathy. (cause she is a psychopath)

[mollymalone]

Originally Posted by Sherbie

SNIP

I'm not sure what to think about this family -- I keep trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they can't both be right about this. That leaves me to believe neither of them are telling the truth!

Thanks again, Molly! You saved me a lot of digging...sure do appreciate it!!

You are welcome! There's a definite disconnect between more than just these two versions of the same story.

[anastacia129]

Originally Posted by Sherbie

Molly, I brought this over from the last thread because I wanted to thank you for responding. I was pretty sure that Lee had said in his interview today that Caylee's dad didn't know he was her father, but I'm so tired this evening that I was questioning it after hearing Cindy claim again that he did know and had an agreement with Casey.

Sooooo....brother says father of Caylee didn't know he was the father. Cindy says he did and agreed not to be part of Caylee's life. Hmmmm. If there really were some agreement with the father, surely Lee would know about that and not say that the guy didn't even know he was Caylee's dad.

I'm not sure what to think about this family -- I keep trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they can't both be right about this. That leaves me to believe neither of them are telling the truth!

Thanks again, Molly! You saved me a lot of digging...sure do appreciate it!!

IMO what the Anthony's are stating about the father is exactly what they have agreed to tell Caylee about her dad. Doesn't mean it's the truth.
They are still operating in "Caylee is alive mode" and probably figure she will one day see this footage, or hear statements that were made right now.

I apologize for the delayed post on this but i am playing catch up.

[wedavis]

Originally Posted by mamaks5

Wedavis, thats what I'm wondering. There are a number of people stating she moved out on the 9th and grandma Cindy said she had her on Father's day. What was happening between the two dates? Why isn't Cindy stating what happened on Fathers Day, such as were her and Casey on good terms? Was it an hour visit or a overnight visit and so on...

George slipped up big time. I think he has been caught in a lie. He was trying to move up the date that the gas cans were retrieved from Casey's car? Why would that matter?

Either George is lying or this AGAIN means the real timeline is in question. And why the heck doesn't a mother know the exact day her own daughter went missing (or is lying about it)? First she said the 9th, then it was proven to be after the 15th and now it really may be the 25th? W*F?

[bluedevil21]

you can prove a putative father posthumously. but there has to be either evidence that the father recognized the child while alive or definitive blood tests. on a general level, why does it matter (or why does LE want to know) if jesus is the father? i would understand if they were trying to prove that the father was someone who was alive (and could aide and abet casey), but i am missing the significance of a dead guy being caylee's dad. please explain?

on an unrelated note, there is this behavior by guilty defendants (and their families) that is often very telling. basically, the defendant thinks, well as long as no one can see inside my head, no one can ever know the truth. so i will just stick to my story, no matter how unbelievable it becomes, because without a way to get in my head, the police can never implicate me. family members act the same way, and their behavior is augmented by the fact that their credibility is riding on the defendant's (which could explain cindy and george's inane inconsistencies).

while it is true that there is no magical tool that can just glance into someone's true thought process, the problem with this line of thinking is that eventually enough evidence will prove the truth, regardless if the defendant opens up. and then, when there finally is enough evidence (read: forensics), the defendant looks even guiltier by bottling up instead of just giving their side of the story when it actually mattered.

i think casey is banking on the fact that no one will ever know what happened if she doesnt talk; however, i hope that dna and documentary evidence (phone records, computer records, security tapes, gas cans, etc) will prove otherwise....

[txelaine1]

Originally Posted by bluedevil21

you can prove a putative father posthumously. but there has to be either evidence that the father recognized the child while alive or definitive blood tests. on a general level, why does it matter (or why does LE want to know) if jesus is the father? i would understand if they were trying to prove that the father was someone who was alive (and could aide and abet casey), but i am missing the significance of a dead guy being caylee's dad. please explain?

In my opinion, I think they are trying to prove that JO is NOT the father. I don't think the cops believe any story coming from the Anthony's. And, since a father with another family may not want a out-of-wedlock daughter around, wouldn't he have a motive to get rid of her?

Long shot, I know. Casey did something on her own, I believe.

[Sherbie]

Originally Posted by txelaine1

In my opinion, I think they are trying to prove that JO is NOT the father. I don't think the cops believe any story coming from the Anthony's. And, since a father with another family may not want a out-of-wedlock daughter around, wouldn't he have a motive to get rid of her?

Long shot, I know. Casey did something on her own, I believe.

I think maybe Cindy is scared to death that if the father is made known, he (or his family, if he's really dead) might try to be in Caylee's life if she is found alive and returned home. A dad might not have too much trouble getting custody of a child whose mother has behaved the way Casey has.

I think Cindy is very possessive of Caylee and it would not be acceptable for her to have a dad/his family be part of the picture. Alternatively, maybe Casey couldn't narrow it down and they really have no idea who the dad is but concocted that story to make Casey look less "loose" or something.

I don't really care who the dad is, but there is something hinky about their stories concerning him, IMO.

[wedavis]

Originally Posted by bluedevil21

you can prove a putative father posthumously. but there has to be either evidence that the father recognized the child while alive or definitive blood tests. on a general level, why does it matter (or why does LE want to know) if jesus is the father? i would understand if they were trying to prove that the father was someone who was alive (and could aide and abet casey), but i am missing the significance of a dead guy being caylee's dad. please explain?

on an unrelated note, there is this behavior by guilty defendants (and their families) that is often very telling. basically, the defendant thinks, well as long as no one can see inside my head, no one can ever know the truth. so i will just stick to my story, no matter how unbelievable it becomes, because without a way to get in my head, the police can never implicate me. family members act the same way, and their behavior is augmented by the fact that their credibility is riding on the defendant's (which could explain cindy and george's inane inconsistencies).

while it is true that there is no magical tool that can just glance into someone's true thought process, the problem with this line of thinking is that eventually enough evidence will prove the truth, regardless if the defendant opens up. and then, when there finally is enough evidence (read: forensics), the defendant looks even guiltier by bottling up instead of just giving their side of the story when it actually mattered.

i think casey is banking on the fact that no one will ever know what happened if she doesnt talk; however, i hope that dna and documentary evidence (phone records, computer records, security tapes, gas cans, etc) will prove otherwise....

But she is only human if enough is said she will slip eventually.

[Amity]

Originally Posted by bluedevil21

you can prove a putative father posthumously. but there has to be either evidence that the father recognized the child while alive or definitive blood tests. on a general level, why does it matter (or why does LE want to know) if jesus is the father? i would understand if they were trying to prove that the father was someone who was alive (and could aide and abet casey), but i am missing the significance of a dead guy being caylee's dad. please explain?

on an unrelated note, there is this behavior by guilty defendants (and their families) that is often very telling. basically, the defendant thinks, well as long as no one can see inside my head, no one can ever know the truth. so i will just stick to my story, no matter how unbelievable it becomes, because without a way to get in my head, the police can never implicate me. family members act the same way, and their behavior is augmented by the fact that their credibility is riding on the defendant's (which could explain cindy and george's inane inconsistencies).

while it is true that there is no magical tool that can just glance into someone's true thought process, the problem with this line of thinking is that eventually enough evidence will prove the truth, regardless if the defendant opens up. and then, when there finally is enough evidence (read: forensics), the defendant looks even guiltier by bottling up instead of just giving their side of the story when it actually mattered.

i think casey is banking on the fact that no one will ever know what happened if she doesnt talk; however, i hope that dna and documentary evidence (phone records, computer records, security tapes, gas cans, etc) will prove otherwise....

Hi Bluedevil,
Excellent thoughts in your post.
I've thought similar but then here's my take:

The real Dad is someone Casey named (most likely to get her parents off her back and have them stop asking her questions she couldn't answer). And we all know how realiable Casey's stories are, huh? lol

I'm thinking LE needs to know the 'true' father because if the deceased father isn't bio dad, then there could, COULD be someone else out there who could have Caylee....as in, the real bio dad.
I mean, it's a longshot, I know but I would think LE would want to cover all their bases (CYA).
If, Big IF the deceased is not the bio dad, maybe whoever is could have Caylee?

About getting inside the head. True what you typed. Very True.
But another thought....
If precious Caylee is found and there is too much decomp and manner of death becomes 'undetermined' then Casey could reach inside her head's bag o' tricks and pull out the "it was an accident!" card.
How would anyone really know?
Would we ever know?

Casey: She accidentally fell and hit her head and I panicked and.... blah, blah, blah..yadda yadda yadda!

In this case, the most, the MOST that could come out of the whole tragedy is Casey getting 2nd deg. manslaughter, no?
(I asked this earlier but the posts move so fast I don't think anyone could read mine as it whizzed by. )

[bluedevil21]

Originally Posted by Amity

Hi Bluedevil,
Excellent thoughts in your post.
I've thought similar but then here's my take:

The real Dad is someone Casey named (most likely to get her parents off her back and have them stop asking her questions she couldn't answer). And we all know how realiable Casey's stories are, huh? lol

I'm thinking LE needs to know the 'true' father because if the deceased father isn't bio dad, then there could, COULD be someone else out there who could have Caylee....as in, the real bio dad.
I mean, it's a longshot, I know but I would think LE would want to cover all their bases (CYA).
If, Big IF the deceased is not the bio dad, maybe whoever is could have Caylee?

About getting inside the head. True what you typed. Very True.
But another thought....
If precious Caylee is found and there is too much decomp and manner of death becomes 'undetermined' then Casey could reach inside her head's bag o' tricks and pull out the "it was an accident!" card.
How would anyone really know?
Would we ever know?

Casey: She accidentally fell and hit her head and I panicked and.... blah, blah, blah..yadda yadda yadda!

In this case, the most, the MOST that could come out of the whole tragedy is Casey getting 2nd deg. manslaughter, no?
(I asked this earlier but the posts move so fast I don't think anyone could read mine as it whizzed by. )

first of all, thanks for your response. and as far as the "accident" card which casey could potentially play, it would simply reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter. it is taking away specific intent and replacing it with negligence or recklessness. but that being said, obviously it would still be a lesser crime and it would be in casey's favor to claim negligence at that point. if she claims negligence, it would then be up to the prosecution to show that it would not, in fact, negligence but was intentional instead. she is being judged by a jury of her peers - whily they can technically only base their decision on admissible evidence, the jury can come to their decision based on anything. thus, the longer she waits to use negligence to justify caylee's death as an accident as opposed to murder, the weaker of a defense it will become.

i am not sure how the degree system works in florida, as they are all jurisdictional systems (unless she is in federal court). so i am curious if it would be first or second degree manslaughter, or perhaps even a weak murder charge....

[Hart]

It could be that your mother worked a LOT and from a young age? Mine was in school for quite a while and later was very ill. I don't know much about her past but I recall her working as an RN when I was small for at least 5 years before returning to school and then becoming ill.

[txelaine1]

Originally Posted by Hart

It could be that your mother worked a LOT and from a young age? Mine was in school for quite a while and later was very ill. I don't know much about her past but I recall her working as an RN when I was small for at least 5 years before returning to school and then becoming ill.

She worked for 5 1/2 years from age 18 to 24. She also took off 6 months when I was born. (She was actually between jobs at that time.) She only worked for the Air Force for about 2 1/2 years.

[Lili]

Originally Posted by txelaine1

She worked for 5 1/2 years from age 18 to 24. She also took off 6 months when I was born. (She was actually between jobs at that time.) She only worked for the Air Force for about 2 1/2 years.

I don't think it matters how much a parent has worked and paid into Social Security, if a parent is deceased, or disabled, a child is eligible for SS benefits.

[Hart]

Originally Posted by Lili

I don't think it matters how much a parent has worked and paid into Social Security, if a parent is deceased, or disabled, a child is eligible for SS benefits.

It DOES matter- or at least it did when I tried to get it. I had to attend hearings- they said NO, I had a lawyer, they said NO. Apparently, however they measure it ( I want to say I remember in "units" of some kind? Was a long time ago) my mother's work history was short by ONE. Kinda frustrating for a kid who became an orphan and then got emancipated at 16.

[txelaine1]

Originally Posted by Hart

It DOES matter- or at least it did when I tried to get it. I had to attend hearings- they said NO, I had a lawyer, they said NO. Apparently, however they measure it ( I want to say I remember in "units" of some kind? Was a long time ago) my mother's work history was short by ONE. Kinda frustrating for a kid who became an orphan and then got emancipated at 16.

(((((Hugs to you!)))))

[Pixie_Dust]

Originally Posted by Hart

It DOES matter- or at least it did when I tried to get it. I had to attend hearings- they said NO, I had a lawyer, they said NO. Apparently, however they measure it ( I want to say I remember in "units" of some kind? Was a long time ago) my mother's work history was short by ONE. Kinda frustrating for a kid who became an orphan and then got emancipated at 16.

it determines the amount the child will get and it also depends on how many children there are cause each child gets a seperate check and as each child becomes no more elgible then the others ss goes up