Caylee Anthony General Discussion Thread #83

DianeB said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see Cindy arrested at some point down the line if it turns out her testimony at the bond hearing ('we communicated by phone or text all but one or two days') is proven to have been perjury.

I don't think LE is concentrating on the family at the moment, but I don't think they're going to just forget anything that can be charged later.

Click to expand...

Did Cindy make her recollection about her contact with Casey while under oath?

I think it's very obvious that Casey has a bad temper. Her conversations with her mom at the jail demonstrate her temper.

In response to the post early about Casey admitting what happened:

I believe that she will eventually admit it was an accident. Could the police really charge her with murder if she did? The only thing . . . she will have to tell them where the body is. I'm not sure if she wants to do that.

Anyhow -- if she admits it was an accident, Cindy will also save face because she's already on record saying her daughter is not a murderer.

Just my opinion.

Just food for thought about the biological questions regarding Cindy, George, Lee and Casey...

There are millions of people in this world being raised by parents who are not biologically related to them. I am not sure why it matters in this case. I believe that both Lee and Casey are biological children of George and Cindy, but even if they were't, they are most certainly acting like protective parents. I think it is wrong to question their biology. I am sure that there must be another adoptive mother or father on this board, besides myself, who would lay down their life for their children regardless of dna. While the biological father of Caylee could be fair game as speculation for a motive, especially since there is not father listed and Casey(the only person charged in this case) has lied in the past about the father to cover up her actions, throwing stones about the biological connections between the GP's is unnecessary and non-productive.

I think that George and Cindy are trying to protect their daughter as most parents probably would in this case. It is easy to sit back here in our armchairs and say that they are stupid for lying for Casey, but honestly, if it were one of my children I would be trying to save them too. Most likely, Casey committed negligent homicide, and most likely her parents know this already and are willing to forgive her. In their lives, how would throwing their daughter to wolves make their lives any better at this point?

If George or Cindy didn't back her up, and they were not her biological parents, would we condemn them for not loving her enough because she was not their biological child? Then they would be wrong for not protecting her, right?

fixingtoburst said:

I think it's very obvious that Casey has a bad temper. Her conversations with her mom at the jail demonstrate her temper.

Click to expand...

Casey knew that when she screamed, yelled, and used the "F-Bomb" that she got her mother under control.

Listen to the 911 call from jail. Cindy gets under control really quick when Casey starts being verbally abusive.

SuziQ said:

It's strange because George thinks the person who kidnapped his grandaughter will see the sign and say Oh my gosh and hand her over to him. That if he drives it around she'll just be there.

Click to expand...

Is it okay to say this? :

He's a .......... MAN!
:crazy:

Does anyone know why Casey's car was abandoned? Was it because she was out of gas?

the HIPPO is still in the living room

we can put lipstick on it -- still a HIPPO

we can slap some perfume on it --- still a HIPPO

we can put a dress on it - -still a HIPPO


death smell in the car
lies by the barrel
nanny that is an illusion

thats it - the hippo is stomping around and the grandparents are ignoring it

TripleA said:

I think that George and Cindy are trying to protect their daughter as most parents probably would in this case.

Click to expand...

Agreed -- I think most people are just curious why they are unwilling to actually look at the evidence in this case though. They seem to just think it's all "insignificant" -- eventhough their daughter is the person who has said it all.

SelmaClue said:

Did Cindy make her recollection about her contact with Casey while under oath?

Click to expand...

Indeed she did.

TripleA said:

Just food for thought about the biological questions regarding Cindy, George, Lee and Casey...

There are millions of people in this world being raised by parents who are not biologically related to them. I am not sure why it matters in this case. I believe that both Lee and Casey are biological children of George and Cindy, but even if they were't, they are most certainly acting like protective parents. I think it is wrong to question their biology. I am sure that there must be another adoptive mother or father on this board, besides myself, who would lay down their life for their children regardless of dna. While the biological father of Caylee could be fair game as speculation for a motive, especially since there is not father listed and Casey(the only person charged in this case) has lied in the past about the father to cover up her actions, throwing stones about the biological connections between the GP's is unnecessary and non-productive.

I think that George and Cindy are trying to protect their daughter as most parents probably would in this case. It is easy to sit back here in our armchairs and say that they are stupid for lying for Casey, but honestly, if it were one of my children I would be trying to save them too. Most likely, Casey committed negligent homicide, and most likely her parents know this already and are willing to forgive her. In their lives, how would throwing their daughter to wolves make their lives any better at this point?

If George or Cindy didn't back her up, and they were not her biological parents, would we condemn them for not loving her enough because she was not their biological child? Then they would be wrong for not protecting her, right?

Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more. I'm not sure about the negligent homicide and that may be why Casey doesn't want them to recover the body. (She might have been hasty with disposal and left a lot of evidence)

robotdog said:

the HIPPO is still in the living room

we can put lipstick on it -- still a HIPPO

we can slap some perfume on it --- still a HIPPO

we can put a dress on it - -still a HIPPO


death smell in the car
lies by the barrel
nanny that is an illusion

thats it - the hippo is stomping around and the grandparents are ignoring it

Click to expand...

If they are right and I am wrong, I am gonna read the power of positive thinking and watch "the secret" DVD 24 hours a day.

robotdog said:

the HIPPO is still in the living room

we can put lipstick on it -- still a HIPPO

we can slap some perfume on it --- still a HIPPO

we can put a dress on it - -still a HIPPO


death smell in the car
lies by the barrel
nanny that is an illusion

thats it - the hippo is stomping around and the grandparents are ignoring it

Click to expand...

You pretty much nailed it . . . The last I checked -- You can't purchase "Decomposing Body Air Freshener" at your local grocery store.

fixingtoburst said:

I could not agree with you more. I'm not sure about the negligent homicide and that may be why Casey doesn't want them to recover the body. (She might have been hasty with disposal and left a lot of evidence)

Click to expand...

I should clarify what I meant by that...That Casey has told them that it was an accident and that they believe her that it was and therefore have forgiven her based on what she has told them.

swa said:

You pretty much nailed it . . . The last I checked -- You can't purchase "Decomposing Body Air Freshener" at your local grocery store.

Click to expand...

the smell of decompostion in the car - SPEAKS VOLUMES

air freshener -
nope - out of stock

puffster said:

Well if that's the case...waterboarding is the answer. But, you see, if you do false arrests and torture and things like that in this case, then it can be done in any case, which means if, G-d forbid, one of your children gets in trouble, you'll need to expect the same.

Click to expand...

my word! i dont think for a minute that lee should be waterboarded. i cant understand where you got that from.please calm yourself down a bit. we are here to only give our oppinion. i do not have a law degree. you seem so upset from my post.please dont get yourself so upset over my post.

fixingtoburst said:

I think the only way that anyone could pursue libel or slander charges against anyone is if they actually stated as fact that they were guilty of commiting certain crimes and I think everyone here is giving their opinion.

Click to expand...

To clarify, keeping all of us honest,
libel is referenced to the spoken word, so would not apply here.
Slander being a fixed medium or more referencing "written word"
Both of which fall under a possible defamation tort- but the burden on the plaintiff would have to prove an intentional mistatement of fact, point being you absolutely could make an allegation against someone and the burden is on them to prove it to be untrue, and support any damage claim. If it is, look out, so I dont recommend it..
Just a good policy to stick to da facts.

TripleA said:

Just food for thought about the biological questions regarding Cindy, George, Lee and Casey...

There are millions of people in this world being raised by parents who are not biologically related to them. I am not sure why it matters in this case. I believe that both Lee and Casey are biological children of George and Cindy, but even if they were't, they are most certainly acting like protective parents. I think it is wrong to question their biology. I am sure that there must be another adoptive mother or father on this board, besides myself, who would lay down their life for their children regardless of dna. While the biological father of Caylee could be fair game as speculation for a motive, especially since there is not father listed and Casey(the only person charged in this case) has lied in the past about the father to cover up her actions, throwing stones about the biological connections between the GP's is unnecessary and non-productive.

I think that George and Cindy are trying to protect their daughter as most parents probably would in this case. It is easy to sit back here in our armchairs and say that they are stupid for lying for Casey, but honestly, if it were one of my children I would be trying to save them too. Most likely, Casey committed negligent homicide, and most likely her parents know this already and are willing to forgive her. In their lives, how would throwing their daughter to wolves make their lives any better at this point?

If George or Cindy didn't back her up, and they were not her biological parents, would we condemn them for not loving her enough because she was not their biological child? Then they would be wrong for not protecting her, right?

Click to expand...

I was adopted as an infant. My adoptive parents are the only parents I know, and I feel like their biological child, even though I know otherwise. I love them more than anything on this earth, except for my son. We are as much a family as any other family on this planet.

I can't agree more with your post. Every single word.

Blink34 said:

To clarify, keeping all of us honest,
libel is referenced to the spoken word, so would not apply here.
Slander being a fixed medium or more referencing "written word"
Both of which fall under a possible defamation tort- but the burden on the plaintiff would have to prove an intentional mistatement of fact, point being you absolutely could make an allegation against someone and the burden is on them to prove it to be untrue, and support any damage claim. If it is, look out, so I dont recommend it..
Just a good policy to stick to da facts.

Click to expand...

Well maybe we should just state in every post IMO.....that way we've covered ourselves in case were worried about them pursuing us for libel.

From the media law resource center. Information on Libel.

What is Libel?

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

A defamation claim -- at least one based upon statements about issues that are matters of public interest -- will likely fail if any of these elements are not met.

While on many of these issues the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the primary defenses to a defamation claim are that the statements are true, are not statements of fact, or are privileged. Some defamatory statements may be protected by privilege, meaning that in certain circumstances the interest in communicating a statement outweighs the interest in protecting reputation. For example, most, if not all, jurisdictions recognize a privilege for fair reports of what is said, done, or published out of government and judicial proceedings, and for reports of misconduct to the proper authorities or to those who share a common interest (such as within a family or an association). Privileges do vary somewhat from state to state in their scope and requirements. They generally apply to non-media defendants to the same degree as to media defendants.

A successful defamation plaintiff may be entitled to a jury award of money damages. In some instances, the plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages for particularly reprehensible conduct. The parties to the claim are entitled to appeal and cases are carefully scrutinized on review to protect the defendant’s First Amendment rights.

Defamation claims can be brought by living persons and entities that are considered "persons" under the law such as corporations, unincorporated businesses, associations and unions. Governmental entities cannot maintain actions for libel or slander, although a government official can bring suit for statements about the official individually.

Libel and slander are civil claims, but a handful of the states recognize an action for criminal defamation. Prosecutions are rare, especially against the media.

Under the American federal law system, defamation claims are largely governed by state law, subject to the limitations imposed by the free speech and press provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court and other courts. While the elements of defamation are largely identical throughout the country, because defamation is a matter of state law there can be important differences on substantive and procedural details of the claim in the separate jurisdictions. And as a result of the application of First Amendment requirements to the claims, the specific elements as well as the burdens of proof with respect to those elements may be different depending upon whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure, whether the defendant is media or non-media, and the character of the statement(s) at issue.