Caylee Anthony 3 year old General discussion #104

[dunlurken]

Do tell why you don't trust him? He may not tell all he knows but I don't think he'd tell us a lie - that they found something that they really did not. You do?

That article was from July 20. He was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, which is why he is no longer speaking. JMO.

ETA: I have to go fold some warm laundry. BRB.

 

[Bosco]

Exactly. We are uninformed for a very good reason. LE is building a case against Casey Anthony and every single thing they do will be scrutinized in a court of law. IMO their silence attests to how professional they are being. We will all be informed when the it is time for us to be informed. Until then we must speculate and opine......

Shannon, way to go on carseat link! I love facts!

I agree that in this case we are uninformed with good reason; thrilled Casey's friends have not been in the media (witness for the prosecution).

Respectfully, my comment was in response to our level of information from media in general. See post #276.

 

[shannon718]

That article was from July 20. He was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, which is why he is no longer speaking. JMO.

What????????????????????????

 

[SeriouslySearching]

So is there anyone with any proof that Caylee is alive? I would like to see someone line out some facts on that side of the equation here.

 

[DianeB]

Once you post bond, you are no longer involved. You cannot set the terms and conditions of the bond unless there's something I don't know. The courts set the conditions of the bond, not the bondsman.

And the bondsmen have apparently (according to them) set the conditions under which they are willing to put up that bond on behalf of Miss Casey.

Of course she is free to refuse those conditions, and remain in solitary confinement.

 

[shannon718]

Shannon, way to go on carseat link! I love facts!

I agree that in this case we are uninformed with good reason; thrilled Casey's friends have not been in the media (witness for the prosecution).

Respectfully, my comment was in response to our level of information from media in general. See post #276.

gotcha.:blowkiss:

 

[Bobby62]

Not true. You post bond, you are responsible, and you lose your $500,000 if the person takes a hike.

You are not allowed to live in their house.

That was part of their private agreement to bail her out. I was not privy to the private conversation but have heard it multiple times from Leonard Padillas mouth on almost every news channel.

Hope this helps

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I'll look for the video of TonE and Craig Riviera.

I think Lee does not want this all to become a circus...draaama....
He may be realizing that the bounty hunter is quite a jerk. On Nancy Grave last night, he hardly looked at the interviewer when answering her questions. And then someone asked, "Who IS this guy?!"

He's "showing his cards" by saying "With house arrest, a manicure & some wine...Casey will open up & reveal the truth." Don't you think Casey has been told this ploy?

TonE or Tony the bondsman?

 

[Marina2]

Once you post bond, you are no longer involved. You cannot set the terms and conditions of the bond unless there's something I don't know. The courts set the conditions of the bond, not the bondsman.

There is something you don't know. If a bondsman has any reason to not trust his bailee, he can revoke the bond and have her back in jail. He can set his own terms because he can revoke whenever he feels like he should.

 

[edgeofnight]

Would someone please explain about the hearing on Thur? Will it be televised, the time, and what is going to take place. Thanks.

 

[mommya]

Originally Posted by dunlurken
Do we have a picture of Tony? Just asking. I haven't seen him on any shows that I know of.

Are you refering to Tony Padilla - or Tony Lazarro? Tony Lazarro can be seen in many pics if you look at the photo thread or his myspace (TonE). Padillo has been on TV but not much.

 

[ElementaryDearWatson]

I tried it again. It won't open.

Can you give me the gist if you can open the link. What day is the article? TIA!

Try this link. http://www.newsday.com/topic/orl-caylee2008jul20,0,1586470.story

 

[mommya]

What????????????????????????

I'll second that and add a HUH? for good measure.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Once you post bond, you are no longer involved. You cannot set the terms and conditions of the bond unless there's something I don't know. The courts set the conditions of the bond, not the bondsman.

The bondsman can put restrictions on what he is willing to tolerate being he is responsible while she is out. Certain conditions are laid out by the court, but he can add to the "rules" before he agrees to bail her out is my understanding anyway.

 

[Chezhire]

This is my last post on this off topic topic as the mods will probably have to come in and clean this up.

What I see more of than anything is posters getting upset when they aren't agreed with. And they view someone posting their opposing view as being snarky when it's not. Sure, there have been a few times that it's gotten out of hand. But IMO, it's not the norm, not worth harping on, and certainly not as bad as other boards.

I see disagreements cropping up all the time, but I agree 100% with SuzQ that it's not snarky at all to disagree - I think it's what makes this board so much better than the others I lurked in before choosing this one to join.

But what I have seen, unfortunately, is that sometimes WS members with "longer life spans" on this board will (1) agree with an opinion voiced by another WSer with whom they've been on the board with a long time, which I think is perfectly fine, but then the WSer will feel the need to (2) go on to make statements to others participating in the discussion about how long the member with whom they're agreeing with/defering to has been on this board in an obvious effort at buttressing whatever position's being taken.

Personally, it doesn't bother me one iota (I tend to think the most highly of a person's wisdom and experience after "seeing and believing," which takes time, rather than hearing from someone else about why I should agree with/defer to/etc.,) and I'm never afraid to "agree to disagree,"
BUT
I do know from external discussion with some WSers after, for example, some of yesterday's exchanges in threads nos. 100-101, that some WSers, unlike myself, will avoid conflict and who feel like when a WSer jumps in to agree with a position taken by another WSer by discussing not the merits of the substance being discussed, but instead how long so-and-so's been a WS member, it's not worth it to bother stating what they think because they haven't been a member as long as so-and-so. In turn, those of us like myself, who like "new blood" thoughts, so to speak, and aren't always too interested in hearing/reading the same thing from so-and-so that we've been hearing/reading since the inception of the case, lose the opportunity to get a fresh perspective on the issue... just my two cents.

 

[suddenlyobsessed]

Once you post bond, you are no longer involved. You cannot set the terms and conditions of the bond unless there's something I don't know. The courts set the conditions of the bond, not the bondsman.

Just watch dog the bounty hunter, you will see, he drags them in all the time.

 

[MD MOMMY]

There is something you don't know. If a bondsman has any reason to not trust his bailee, he can revoke the bond and have her back in jail. He can set his own terms because he can revoke whenever he feels like he should.

I think this is why Casey and George had to AGREE to one member from Padilla's team living in the house. They are setting their OWN terms or the entire bail is a no go..plain in simple Casey sits in jail OR she agrees to the terms of the Padilla's...this could be one of the hold ups quite honestly. The arrangements here aren't "normal"..JMO

 

[SelmaClue]

So is there anyone with any proof that Caylee is alive? I would like to see someone line out some facts on that side of the equation here.

We've not been privy to facts that she is either alive or deceased.
It's frustrating, isn't it? There is only speculation so far.
And hey, I'm with you, wanting the facts TODAY.
I'm also happy to wait it out for them to finally surface.
My belief is that the BH Padilla really wants to solve this mystery.
I can't wait to see if he is successful.

 

[unravel]

I just sent one too - let's bombard them with emails asking why the site is down and see if any of us gets an answer.

Bombarding them with emails unlikely to get answers. You (this is a generic "you") aren't paying for the services they provide as they relate to that domain, and as such, they really have no reason to answer questions or provide information about what's going on.

It's also bound to backfire because it's terribly obnoxious. The time they spend answering or deleting emails regarding this is time they could be spending dealing with actual customers' concerns. If the number of messages they get about this becomes problematic, they'll simply tweak their filters and existing/incoming messages about it will be removed before they're seen.

 

[Themis]

So, BH might want some conditions in writing from Casey AND the other Anthony family members. In that case, even if the 10% bail bondsman fee is not paid it might be a binding unilateral contract. Whatever. It is very unusual.