News from the Enquirer Re:Why they requested closed meeting

Every time Casey looked at Caylee she was seeing "his" face................
 
While it is obviously a tabloid rag, they have been accurate many times in the past about their stories. In fact, IIRC, they are pushing for a Pulitzer for exposing the John Edwards/mistress/baby daddy scandal. They were the first to break the story, amidst fervent denials, and turns out they were right.

Ya never know . . .
 
For the sake of argument - KC always stretches the truth, why would she tell the whole truth to her attorney? Wouldn't she want to make herself seem like a "good girl" even when telling this.
KC: I buried my daughter

Remember, too, that until the last few months, Baez was using the word "innocent" to describe KC and only recently began saying "not guilty." "Innocent" would be an odd term to use if you'd been told by your client that you'd buried the child. :waitasec:

Furthermore, if there is a connection between JB and the search conducted by DC in November, why the wait of several months before going out there (assuming the Enquirer's timeframe of an August confession is correct.)? :bang:

And further furthermore :poke:, are we to assume all of the corrections officers who heard the story kept it from OCSO and the prosecution for an entire year? Even after interviews of a couple of them regarding KC's reaction to the breaking news on Dec. 11? For what reason would no one bring the information forward?

Quite a stretch, IMO. :beamup:
 
Remember, too, that until the last few months, Baez was using the word "innocent" to describe KC and only recently began saying "not guilty." "Innocent" would be an odd term to use if you'd been told by your client that you'd buried the child. :waitasec:

Furthermore, if there is a connection between JB and the search conducted by DC in November, why the wait of several months before going out there (assuming the Enquirer's timeframe of an August confession is correct.)? :bang:

And further furthermore :poke:, are we to assume all of the corrections officers who heard the story kept it from OCSO and the prosecution for an entire year? Even after interviews of a couple of them regarding KC's reaction to the breaking news on Dec. 11? For what reason would no one bring the information forward?

Quite a stretch, IMO. :beamup:

:praying: Thank you!
 
Guess LP was on Levi Show last night talking about this. See butterfy1978 post #235 on

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4839541#post4839541"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4839541#post4839541[/ame]
 
While it is obviously a tabloid rag, they have been accurate many times in the past about their stories. In fact, IIRC, they are pushing for a Pulitzer for exposing the John Edwards/mistress/baby daddy scandal. They were the first to break the story, amidst fervent denials, and turns out they were right.

Ya never know . . .

I know every once in a while they do get a scoop right on some things - but has anyone been following their stories on Casey and keeping stats on how many times if any they've been right in their "bombshells"? Because I don't remember any.
 
The father is OT in this thread but KC slept around maybe she didn't know.
 
Okay, not saying at all I believe this but could this have happened this way
First could she have enter the woods from the vacant house? Second before all the rain, I believe the woods could have been dry enough to drive 80' into (maybe not where RK entered) and she did bury Caylee in a shallow grave and with the rain from the hurricane (and we had lots of it) could it had moved the body to the point where it was found? I would have to revisit the geographics on this too, but it's just a thought.
 
Does anyone have Casey's complete visitor log? I have one that ends 7/26/08 and one that doesn't start until 10/15/08. If by any stretch of the imagination the Enquirer was correct that the prosecutors had only recently learned of this (alleged-and-probably-never-happened) statement, I would think it would have to have been made in the context of a meeting that was logged in as an "attorney meeting" but in actuality was with a person who would not "count" for purposes of the attorney-client privilege--or arguably would not count. I assume the prosecutors would have reviewed the tapes of all other visits.
 
"Casey said she was able to drive her car into the wooded area about a half-mile from her Florida home near a school," a source close to the case disclosed.

"Then she said, 'When I got out of the car, I tripped over these bricks.' She said she buried Caylee's body nearby, and it was about 80 feet from the road."


well we know that's totally not true.

But it's consistant with KC lying about everything. For a lazy (took 3 mins to choose that word lol!) person, 80 feet might be 8 yards.
 
I'm wondering if KC and JB simply thought or assumed they were overheard because of the coincidence of RK finding the body where KC thought it would never be discovered....I just find it hard to believe KC told anyone the truth. Hope I'm wrong and that the guilt eats everyone who knows the truth up at night......
 
Ok but wait if the Enquirer just got this story and their source is who we think it is, why wouldn't that source tell a story that would fit the facts?

KC: and I put Caylee on the ground surrounded by tall plants --- for instance

For the sake of argument - KC always stretches the truth, why would she tell the whole truth to her attorney? Wouldn't she want to make herself seem like a "good girl" even when telling this.
KC: I buried my daughter

Quote Respect okiedokietoo :)
BBM

Yes. I wonder that also. I have no idea if any of this is true, but I do wonder why if you are going to make something up why you wouldn't go with known facts? Why give a story that goes so against what is known? :twocents:
 
Does anyone have Casey's complete visitor log? I have one that ends 7/26/08 and one that doesn't start until 10/15/08. If by any stretch of the imagination the Enquirer was correct that the prosecutors had only recently learned of this (alleged-and-probably-never-happened) statement, I would think it would have to have been made in the context of a meeting that was logged in as an "attorney meeting" but in actuality was with a person who would not "count" for purposes of the attorney-client privilege--or arguably would not count. I assume the prosecutors would have reviewed the tapes of all other visits.

OH AZ!!! Where would I be without your brilliant deductions and insights! Thank goodness for posters like you and MM and BJB JWG etc., you keep my head from exploding on this case with your logic and deduction........

could this "visitor" be DC or someone similar? Where the attorney/client privilege has been blurred terribly in this case?
 
I know every once in a while they do get a scoop right on some things - but has anyone been following their stories on Casey and keeping stats on how many times if any they've been right in their "bombshells"? Because I don't remember any.

Gotta admit you are right on this one Logicalgirl, normally I trust the Inquirer as most of their sensational stories do provie out to be true! Maybe because this is my first time following a case simultaneously while a member of WS do I notice how innacurrate their reporting has been on this case. Hmmmmmmmmmm, they could do well to spend more time here before publishing I think!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,153
Total visitors
1,327

Forum statistics

Threads
589,940
Messages
17,927,989
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top