Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #3

FORDANIEL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BuzzieCat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Devon said:

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.

Click to expand...

(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

txsvicki said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

kiki the parrot said:

(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

Click to expand...

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!

Devon said:

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!

Click to expand...

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

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.

Lanie said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

kiki the parrot said:

(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

Click to expand...

Devon said:

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'.

Click to expand...

Devon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

impatientredhead said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have given much thought to this myself.

bessie said:

<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."

Click to expand...

Why weren't any of her calls returned? Has this been discussed?

Lanie said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Whisperer said:

Why weren't any of her calls returned? Has this been discussed?

Click to expand...

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:waitasec: Cindy did not take her calls as a result of the argument the night before. She called Cindy at work & on her cell.

FORDANIEL said:

I do not in anyway feel that this was an accident! The point of no return has long since passed for that theory.

Click to expand...

(respectfully snipped)

Lanie said:

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.

Click to expand...

(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&#8217;s death occurred as a result of, and while, Casey was engaged in the commission of another crime; or,

Caylee&#8217;s death occurred as a consequence of, and while, Casey was attempting to commit another crime; or,

Caylee&#8217;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 &#8220;premeditated&#8221;, prosecutors must show KC had &#8220;conscious intent&#8221; to kill Caylee at the time of the murder. (The law doesn't &#8220;fix&#8221; the exact time period between &#8220;formation&#8221; of the premeditated intent and &#8220;killing&#8221;.) Only then, after hearing the totality of evidence presented at trial is a jury able to decide whether the prosecution proved &#8220;beyond a reasonable doubt&#8221; that premeditation existed at the time of Caylee&#8217;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&#8217;s vote. It is then up to FL State Supreme Court, w/in 60 day period, to ratify a sentencing court judge&#8217;s decision.

JMO

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! :woohoo:

It seems that the Anthony's still believe that KC is not responsible for Caylee's death. I would love to hear your thoughts on what possible theory they have in the face of all the evidence that appears to be mounting againsts KC. I just cant imagine how they can make the pieces fit into an alternative explanation This has been really bugging me!!!

Thanks -

reeseeva said:

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:waitasec: Cindy did not take her calls as a result of the argument the night before. She called Cindy at work & on her cell.

Click to expand...

The 10 days beginning with June 16 KC has a habit of calling GA and CA several times prior to showing up at their home mid-afternoon. I suspect KC was calling to make sure they were not home.

Bond speculated that the unusual call from GA to KC on the 16th was to basically chew her a new one and make sure that KC and Caylee did not spend the night at the nanny's but instead came home no matter how late. This, perhaps, after getting a new one of his own chewed out after telling CA what KC told him about not coming home. Was this enough to send KC over the edge?

WillenFan21 said:

See what I am so freaking confused about and maybe someone can help clear this up b/c right now there is a BIG HOLE for me.

Casey's car started smelling a couple of weeks after SB towed the car to the tow yard. The car was towed on June 30 and had NO SMELL. It was AFTER he got the car there that it began smelling but the smell wasn't bad b/c SB said the smell did not alert him then and that he just ignored the car after that. Fast forward now to July 15th when Cindy and George come to pick the car up. SB takes them to the car and as soon as the door flys open the smell is so bad that SB "remembers" the smell and immediatly knows its death. They then figure out that the source of the smell is the car trunk so they go to open that alll up. NOW this is where my theory where I need help with:

If Caylees body wasn't in the trunk at the time then why was the smell so unberable and why didn't the tow yard guy smell anything when he picked the car up? It was AFTER the car was towed that it began smelling so that is where I am confused. Something is not adding up to me and is making me wonder if this SB guy is in on everything. He says they threw the bag over the fence b/c it contained maggots and stuff. Could it be that they are leaving the part out that Caylees body was also in the bag?

This also makes me wonder that if Caylees body was in the trunk that long that maybe that is WHY the car is still smelling 4 months later.

Click to expand...

The man who towed the car said he had a bad cold and could not smell anything at all. The smell was alluded to by two of KC's friends when they were around the car prior to the towing. That is why she told the squirrel story to them.

Duckley said:

It seems that the Anthony's still believe that KC is not responsible for Caylee's death. I would love to hear your thoughts on what possible theory they have in the face of all the evidence that appears to be mounting againsts KC. I just cant imagine how they can make the pieces fit into an alternative explanation This has been really bugging me!!!

Thanks -

Click to expand...

STOP!!! YOUR HEAD WILL EXPLODE!!!
Seriously, before you make yourself :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:, think back to all the ridiculous things the Anthonys have believed where Casey is concerned. Don't try to apply rational here, that is one piece that definitely won't fit. They are going to 'believe' whatever Casey tells them, and if it is Zani the Nanny, they will go with that to their dying day, at least Cindy will. Try to confront her with reality, and she will just verbally assault you and refuse to speak to you anymore.
Lanie

kiki the parrot said:

(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

Click to expand...

What have you done..................CA now knows the answer to that one
KC was an unfit mother...............fit moms dont kill their children
KC killed Caylee and she did not do it because of her mothers words she did it cause she is a JEALOUS SPITEFUL BIT&H :furious: