Sidebar Discussion #9

The View on FB posted this question after the show , Do you feel sympathy for Casey? So far there are 240 comments, with the exception of 2-3 the rest are standing up for baby Caylee, not FCA. It makes me happy there are this many people speaking out against JB and FCa

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: it's party time! Someone who is a Baez supporter actually got some information right!! Rock on WSers!!

making a mockery of,...making a mockery of....making a mockery of....making a mockery of.....(giggle)

FLmom777 said:

Well, since we know that jb reads here, we should start a thread titled "Jose should..." We could fill it with ideas as to what he could do to get people to accept him. I'm sure we could come up with some doozies. I wonder how many her would actually try.

Click to expand...

Count me OUTTTT...He has stolden enough from this site. I love seeing him fall on his fat flapping lips.

logicalgirl said:

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: it's party time! Someone who is a Baez supporter actually got some information right!! Rock on WSers!!

making a mockery of,...making a mockery of....making a mockery of....making a mockery of.....(giggle)

Click to expand...

CLINK
I'll drink to that!

A_News_Junkie said:

MY God - the writing is horrible, seriously.
http://cltampa.com/gyrobase/casey-a.../Content?oid=3022893&storyPage=2#.T_4dGZGDmSo

"Casey usually slept in Caylee's bed, but on this morning Casey had slept alone. She and her father started looking around the house. Her 3-year-old daughter was nowhere to be found. They went outside. Casey noticed that the ladder to the aboveground pool was up. One of the family cardinal rules was to make sure to take it down after swimming. Caylee loved to swim, and the fear was she might try to go it alone.
Casey had started to walk toward the house when she saw her father carrying Caylee’s limp, wet body. The little girl was dead. When Casey saw her father carrying the body, her first thought was that it wasn’t an accident."
**********************************************************

Now I ask you, does this add up? If you went outside and noticed the ladder was up and it was a 'cardinal' rule to make sure it was down each time -----WOULD YOU NOT RUN STRAIGHT TO THE POOL? OR AT LEAST LOOK ---> Before STARTING TO WALK TO THE HOUSE?????? So, are we to believe that KC didn't notice George grabbing Caylee out of the water? No yelling, "OMG, OMG call 911 - HELP" Nothing? Really?????????? NO, I MEAN REALLY???????????
And her first thought was it wasn't an accident?????? Why would it not be 911, CPR, yell for help?????????

Notice the story, diverts your attention to the cardinal rule, the type of pool and that Caylee loved to swim. <-------- NONE of the details belong between these two sentences. They are ancillary information that has nothing to do with conveying the play by play of what happened that fateful day. I would dare say, if this had been a statement given to LE and they called in a statement analysis - he/she would say that such non pertinent information, given in a misplaced section of the story would be an indicator of lying. JMHO, etc (And the writing sucks beyond even that - amazing!)

Click to expand...

Maybe it was Baez, borrowing his writer's "pen-name"?

TotallyObsessed said:

Mr Baez would be a very busy man. In fact, he probably would have to PAY a COMPETENT attorney for that as it would take him away from his current celeb status. *snort

Click to expand...

Apparently we are free to say what we want as long as we can substantiate it with facts and/or evidence..

Prepare for a massive incoming of LINKS, Mr. Baez........

Ya know, I really thought if I had that time and the extra money I would make copies of every single page of discovery, highlight the portions that directly show the lies in Jose's book and send it to not only Mr. Co-Author but every media person that interviewed Jose for this book. But then the more that I thought about it the more I realised that it wouldn't make any difference. The only thing that would change is I would be out of alot of my own time and money. They see what they want to see even though the truth has been made public for over a year now.

logicalgirl said:

Apparently we are free to say what we want as long as we can substantiate it with facts and/or evidence..

Prepare for a massive incoming of LINKS, Mr. Baez........

Click to expand...

Why? Jose didn't.

My Fantasy Post: FCA gets released from probation, Her only friend picks her up , they go somewhere to talk, they share some bath salts and the car door locks jam. I am livid!!! Do not mean to offend but it is a fantasy afterall.

I need to comment on Baez dum <modsnip> comment about Jaycee Dugard and Sean Hornbeck.

I believe what happened to those two children and others is part of The Stockholm Syndrome.

The more I think about his Idiotic Stupid comment about them the madder I get.

logicalgirl said:

Woohoo! Look at this place...okay kids - now how about us all agreeing we won't draw any caricatures of Baez on the wall for at least a day... or none of those other words we wrote - especially not sayin who - the purple marker sleuth and you know who you are....a graffiti free day at the sidebar...teehee - not a chance of that!

Let er rip with the verbal comments and I"ll have a beer please - too hot for something as high class as a glass of wine....wonderful - cold beads on the glass....

Click to expand...

Bayou, can I buy you a scotch? Others drinks are on me! Do I have a tab?

TotallyObsessed said:

Why? Jose didn't.

Click to expand...

In fact, it is sort of like this analogy.

My dog has repeatedly told me that every day the cat eats his food. Day after day. It has doubled my pet food bill. The cat blames it on the fact that he lived in the alley before I took him in.

It is my opinion that the cat is telling the truth. What else could it be? It COULDN'T be because the dog is just a glutton and eats the food himself, could it?

Preposterous? Yeah....but plausible. If my dog could talk.

wow. watching Piers Morgan interviewing Robert Blake. had just changed channels so I missed the context, but RB said sometime in the past BW told him he wouldn't be a suitable guest for the View "because we sell toothpaste" ... and "we don't want to get an angry letter asking why we had that accused killer on our show"

but the attorney for the most-hated accused killer in recent memory was an OK choice? (while most likely still angling to interview "it", given the chance?)

hypocrisy, much?

A_News_Junkie said:

Well, if he hates me now - he might hate me even more in a minute or two!

Oh, and was "The View" uploaded? If not, and you guys want it -- let me know and I will upload it.

Click to expand...

Its up on the their website..
ty.. hugs

NSS said:

Having heard about JBs latest tour, I am almost concerned for the felon.

Abused from aged 8 (the police need to check her father out now ---- since her legal rep is probably a mandated reporter....lol).

So traumatized she has lived in a fantasy world - forced to lie, cheat and steal.

The abuser then killed her only child, swore her to secrecy, watched her face the death penalty and didn't bat an eye.

The felon must be a drooling mess, I hope she isn't left alone.


Then I remembered who we are talking about, and what the evidence showed, and I think JB should be locked up for repeating known lies.

Click to expand...

I'm sure he's making the Florida Bar proud. Can't they censor him or something? I understand Freedom of Speech and all that, but isn't his behavior/conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar?

LEFT-COASTER said:

Its up on the their website..
ty.. hugs

Click to expand...

I don't even watch the view when they DON'T have baby-killer defenders/lovers on there. By the way by Jose's logic (Ha!) I can now confirm he and IT were canoodling, sharing twizzlers and she was probably talking about meeting HIS mouse. How do I know? His SILENCE when asked about the improprieties of his relationship with his "client"

Did KC have both an AIM (AOL's instant messaging program) and IM (yahoo's instant messaging program) -- reason I am asking, is I wonder if JB is saying KC didn't have an AIM and that GA and CA had an AOL account (which was NOT Password protected, so anyone could have used them!) and playing semantics, to avoid being caught in another lie. Not that it matters, because the whole reason for it is to claim somebody searched for suicide and suffocation.

BUT ----------- let's say, since we don't have those computer forensics reports of this search, which would seem would have been exculpatory if as JB is trying to make people believe (IE - why didn't he present this at trial to point the finger to GA???) (My hypothesis, is he didn't because it was actually incriminating to KC and he somehow got a sealed ruling that it would not be allowed in evidence as it was under GA account, and there was no proof GA was the one who was on the computer. Furthermore, I bet the judge said something like, "GA is not the one on trial here.") So......... let's say that KC was searching suffocation.

Remember this article and this line: "On the day 2-year-old Caylee Anthony disappeared, someone in her house used the computer to run suicide-related searches, on terms including "foolproof suffocation" and "venturing into the pro-suicide pit," according to Casey Anthony's defense attorney Jose Baez. " http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anth...ted-searchjose/story?id=16716525#.T_4la5GDlac



Now, go back to the time, when 'casey anthony' was an unknown - envision that she searched for "foolproof suffocation"
If we enter the text below, we might re-create how Casey got to the site mentioned. Think of it like an algebra problem. We have the answer (the site that was hit, and if we take out casey as that would eliminate all the current day hits and reports we can see if the words foolproof and suffocation appear!)

So we can search

venturing into the pro-suicide pit -Casey

or better still enter this:
venturing into the pro-suicide pit -Casey + foolproof suffocation


Either search takes you to the same blog!

I think that a search for "foolproof suffocation" led to the site http://www.spiked-online.com/site/printable/4633/ and that suicide was NEVER SEARCHED. NOTE - that this site is not about how to commit suicide, but rather this bloggers torrid venture into the world of online information about how to commit suicide.

Also note, that the site is called Spiked-online, not "venturing into the pro-suicide pit. That was the title of the blog entry, or article.

AGAIN -- I think JB is spinning this UNPUBLISHED forensic report, on these supposed searches, and he is not providing them because he doesn't want it to be discovered that the search was for 'fullproof or foolproof suffocation' methods and nothing to do with suicide at all.

I hope I have articulated this - please let me know if you follow or jump in if you see my point and can add to it.

logicalgirl said:

Apparently we are free to say what we want as long as we can substantiate it with facts and/or evidence..

Prepare for a massive incoming of LINKS, Mr. Baez........

Click to expand...

Yep...if he wanted a court to order us to cease and desist saying things that are not true he would have to prove the things said are in fact not true. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Having to prove an accusation is exactly why "no one will ever be prosecuted for sexually abusing Casey." It cannot be proven because it never happened.

A_News_Junkie said:

MY God - the writing is horrible, seriously.
http://cltampa.com/gyrobase/casey-a.../Content?oid=3022893&storyPage=2#.T_4dGZGDmSo

"Casey usually slept in Caylee's bed, but on this morning Casey had slept alone. She and her father started looking around the house. Her 3-year-old daughter was nowhere to be found. They went outside. Casey noticed that the ladder to the aboveground pool was up. One of the family cardinal rules was to make sure to take it down after swimming. Caylee loved to swim, and the fear was she might try to go it alone.
Casey had started to walk toward the house when she saw her father carrying Caylee&#8217;s limp, wet body. The little girl was dead. When Casey saw her father carrying the body, her first thought was that it wasn&#8217;t an accident."
**********************************************************

Now I ask you, does this add up? If you went outside and noticed the ladder was up and it was a 'cardinal' rule to make sure it was down each time -----WOULD YOU NOT RUN STRAIGHT TO THE POOL? OR AT LEAST LOOK ---> Before STARTING TO WALK TO THE HOUSE?????? So, are we to believe that KC didn't notice George grabbing Caylee out of the water? No yelling, "OMG, OMG call 911 - HELP" Nothing? Really?????????? NO, I MEAN REALLY???????????
And her first thought was it wasn't an accident?????? Why would it not be 911, CPR, yell for help?????????

Notice the story, diverts your attention to the cardinal rule, the type of pool and that Caylee loved to swim. <-------- NONE of the details belong between these two sentences. They are ancillary information that has nothing to do with conveying the play by play of what happened that fateful day. I would dare say, if this had been a statement given to LE and they called in a statement analysis - he/she would say that such non pertinent information, given in a misplaced section of the story would be an indicator of lying. JMHO, etc (And the writing sucks beyond even that - amazing!)

Click to expand...

THis whole article is so poorly written and so badly researched, I cannot even muster the energy to waste Laughing Out Loud so instead submit this....
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

And by the way, his little comment about Casey never seeing a pediatrician during childhood is incorrect.

Casey was never taken to a gynecologist or family doctor for a "woman appointment" prior to her pregnancy. Cindy stated this in reply to a question by Linda Drane Burdick, after revealing to LDB that Casey had sporatic "monthly issues"....

But I think Baez may have been counting his crayons while Cindy was testifying to this, and didn't hear all the details. As I recall it, he was quite upset to show up in court that morning to discover someone had STOLE his favorite orange one!!! :floorlaugh:

Kentjbkent said:

THis whole article is so poorly written and so badly researched, I cannot even muster the energy to waste Laughing Out Loud so instead submit this....
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

And by the way, his little comment about Casey never seeing a pediatrician during childhood is incorrect.

Casey was never taken to a gynecologist or family doctor for a "woman appointment" prior to her pregnancy. Cindy stated this in reply to a question by Linda Drane Burdick, after revealing to LDB that Casey had sporatic "monthly issues"....

But I think Baez may have been counting his crayons while Cindy was testifying to this, and didn't hear all the details. As I recall it, he was quite upset to show up in court that morning to discover someone had STOLE his favorite orange one!!! :floorlaugh:

Click to expand...

No he was playing tic tac toe with himself. He still can't figure out how to win!