Casey and George give just about identical descriptions of Caylee's clothes

[chefmom]

From reading the article I understood that it came from Tracy M. after she was questioned..I am sure LP has said it though..It was during one of KC's car rides so there must have been more than one witness..



Snipped from article:

A lead investigator confirms that during one of those trips, Anthony blurted out "They haven't even found the clothes she was wearing" about those searching for Caylee.

I really hope they get this statement in at trial! I mean, why in the world would the mother of a child she believed to be kidnapped by the nanny say such a thing? She claimed the whole time that the baby was safe, and the nanny was just trying to teach her a lesson. if this were the case, why make such a statement about the clothes? IMO, the best evidence at trial is going to be the stuff that came straight from KC herself!

 

[JBean]

bumpity bump

 

[lizzysf]

Caylee was wearing the Big Trouble shirt, and George specifically describes the last clothes he saw her in the day she was 'abducted', which haven't been located.
It leads me back to Casey's statement about 'They haven't even found her clothes yet', which in this article about it..the investigator describes that as "a very important statement."
http://www.wesh.com/news/18009037/detail.html

Do the A's actually have those clothes she was last 'seen' in... and will they will 'miraculously' be found somewhere (ie: the 'original dump site') before trial to support the 'body was moved' theory? I have a hinky feeling we will discover the reason for that intentional statement..
Just pondering..

 

[Themis]

I really hope they get this statement in at trial! I mean, why in the world would the mother of a child she believed to be kidnapped by the nanny say such a thing? She claimed the whole time that the baby was safe, and the nanny was just trying to teach her a lesson. if this were the case, why make such a statement about the clothes? IMO, the best evidence at trial is going to be the stuff that came straight from KC herself!

Chefmom, you are right on the money. Statements like that directly from a defendant are considered "admissions against interest by a party opponent." Putting them into evidence doesn't even violate the hearsay rules. They are so potent and so valuable in determining the truth that the policy of the law is to let the jury hear it.

 

[Just Jayla]

Bumping in relation to George defense scapegoat thread...

 

[JBean]

bumping for potential relevance