Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #14

[wenwe4]

The timeline section of the forum (somewhere up toward the top) has timeline information separated by date. The full (I think) timeline for June 16 is as follows:

12:54 am Casey finishes up an 80-minute phone call with Tony, pinging at or near the A. house.
1:05-1:54 am Casey texting back and forth with Tony
3:08-3:22 am Casey on the phone with Tony

7:54 am Someone calls Casey's phone from the house landline-goes to voicemail
7:56-8:06 am Casey IM'ing/flirting with Alex and checking Facebook/MySpace
8:06-8:44 am Casey continues checking Facebook, etc.
8:45 am Casey texts Tony

10:07-11:59 am Casey is surfing the web again--AIM, Facebook, Myspace, Victoria's Secret, Frederick's of
Hollywood--which leads to a lengthy search re: shot girl outfits, etc. As part of this activity, at 11:27 am,
Casey copies a Fusian photo from Facebook and posts it on Photobucket
11:47 am-12:06 pm Casey on the phone with Tony

12:50 George supposedly sees Casey leave with Caylee. Her cell phone pings still place her at or near the house.

12:55 pm Casey exchanges texts with Tony
1:00-1:14 pm Casey on the phone with Tony
1:26 pm Casey exchanges texts with Jesse
1:39-1:42 pm Casey signs in to AIM, checks Facebook and MySpace
1:44-2:20 pm Casey on the phone with Amy--normal conversation

2:50-2:52 pm Casey signs in to AIM, searches "fool-proof suffication" (misspelled), looks at a couple of results
from the search ("Venturing Into the Pro-Suicide Pit" page for less than a minute before the next activity, then an article about how
heated wires can melt disposable breathing circuits for about 12 seconds before the next activity), then accepts a Facebook friend and reads a MySpace comment,
then clicks on a third result of her search ("10 Ways to Kill a Rhododendron") for at least 11 seconds. All of these pages could have been viewed longer if the pages were left open on the screen.

No internet activity after this. All computer activity above was on the home computer.

2:52-3:04 pm Casey on the phone with Jesse--apparently interrupting her computer search for "fool-proof suffication."

George was at work by 3:00 pm--supposedly left around 2:30 pm.
At 3:03 pm, he tried to call the house despite supposedly thinking no one was home at that time.
At 3:04 pm, he called Casey on her cell phone for 26 seconds (presumably after failing to reach her at home).

4:10-4:14 pm Casey's flurry of calls attempting to get hold of Cindy. At the end of this time, she is on the line
with someone at Cindy's work (or on Cindy's voicemail at work) for about a minute and a half, so she probably
left a message. Casey then leaves the house (based on cell phone pings) and heads toward Tony's place.
4:18-4:21 pm Casey texts back and forth with Tony, calls Tony, and tries to call Jesse (no answer).
4:25 pm Casey tries one more time to reach Cindy.

5:56 pm Cindy called Casey--the call goes to voicemail for some reason even though Casey isn't doing anything
else. Or is she?

6:31-6:32 pm Casey calls Cindy (no answer) and then calls the house (1 min). Then she picks up a voicemail
(probably Cindy's).

7:06 pm Casey calls the house (2 min.)

7:20-7:21 pm Casey calls Amy twice (2 min. and 1 min.)

7:58 pm Tony and Casey are at Blockbuster. Tony says Casey arrived at his apartment not long before this, despite
having left the house around 4:15 pm and reaching the area of Tony's apartment by 6:00 pm (maybe as early as 4:55
pm).

8:03 pm Mark H tries to call Casey, but the call goes to voicemail. According to Tony, he and Casey then watch
movies/have sex/sleep.


We do have GA's cell phone call records, but no ping information was obtained by the State for his phone.

AZ . . . your post just SCREAMS something at me . . . . . . Look @ the times she was not texting, on line, on the phone, etc. Where in this timeline is there time to tend to a 2 1/2 year old child?

What toddler would not be trying to constantly interrupt and get some attention during these countless hours? At the very least - we can say there was a lack of attention and supervision of Caylee during these times. Poor little Caylee had to have been just beside herself trying to get some positive (or any) attention from KC. I can just see the frustration building in KC as she clenches her fists and makes hateful faces and looks up "fool-proof suffication" to make her current "distraction" go away forever!

What times are available to pay attention to a little girl? To feed her, to play with her, to bathe her, take her potty, change her diaper, snuggle with her, get her settled, sing to her, read a book, engage her in interaction?

Couple all of this with the big fight the night before with CA. KC was being held accountable for stealing money, not caring appropriately for her child, not providing monetarily for Caylee, not being a responsible adult/parent, etc. Also the supposed attack on KC's neck by CA during the fight. KC might easily see the whole problem with everything in her life being stagnant is this toddler who would not leave her alone to find sexy outfits for the shot girls. Afterall, Tony didn't want a kid around . . . KC could have found a new and exciting career as the shot girl manager and there was no way she would allow CA and GA to raise the child . . . . . just get rid of the problem right?

looks like on 4.5 hrs of sleep . . . she has 1 hr 15 min starting @ 8:45 and another 50 minutes around the lunch hour to take care of Caylee and also get herself ready for the day.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

AZ . . . your post just SCREAMS something at me . . . . . . Look @ the times she was not texting, on line, on the phone, etc. Where in this timeline is there time to tend to a 2 1/2 year old child?

What toddler would not be trying to constantly interrupt and get some attention during these countless hours? At the very least - we can say there was a lack of attention and supervision of Caylee during these times. Poor little Caylee had to have been just beside herself trying to get some positive (or any) attention from KC. I can just see the frustration building in KC as she clenches her fists and makes hateful faces and looks up "fool-proof suffication" to make her current "distraction" go away forever!

What times are available to pay attention to a little girl? To feed her, to play with her, to bathe her, take her potty, change her diaper, snuggle with her, get her settled, sing to her, read a book, engage her in interaction?

Couple all of this with the big fight the night before with CA. KC was being held accountable for stealing money, not caring appropriately for her child, not providing monetarily for Caylee, not being a responsible adult/parent, etc. Also the supposed attack on KC's neck by CA during the fight. KC might easily see the whole problem with everything in her life being stagnant is this toddler who would not leave her alone to find sexy outfits for the shot girls. Afterall, Tony didn't want a kid around . . . KC could have found a new and exciting career as the shot girl manager and there was no way she would allow CA and GA to raise the child . . . . . just get rid of the problem right?

looks like on 4.5 hrs of sleep . . . she has 1 hr 15 min starting @ 8:45 and another 50 minutes around the lunch hour to take care of Caylee and also get herself ready for the day.

I have often wondered if she duct taped Caylee's mouth shut the night of the 15th in her room and Caylee suffocated. The next morning she carried on as usual, carrying an already deceased Caylee out the door and then returning after George left for work and bagged Caylee and put her in the trunk.

 

[2goldfish]

anyone remember keith ablow's book on this case? no? yeah I didnt read that tripe either, but this is about what his thoughts are worth in general:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/bill-oreilly-gangnam-style_n_2203882.html?utm_hp_ref=media

Ablow offered his mind-blowing assessment: "I think what this fellow is tapping into... is the fact that people don't want any meaning right now." He continued, "It is just is sort of like a drug and that seems to be what most people seem to want right now. Not reality, not feeling, not meaning."

(he's talking about a korean pop song that he apparently was unable to comprehend that it was not in english)

 

[LambChop]

Juries are not suppose to take a lead from the judge regarding the case. The judge is there to make sure she gets a fair trial, which is what Judge Perry did......and obviously, very well.

The jury is suppose to think like the adults they are, use their common sense and look at all the evidence. Some of the jury members admitted they had questions but never looked at the evidence that was within the very room where they deliberated. They never used their option to ask the judge questions (which they knew how to do because they asked for pretzels and a number of other things during the trial). They disregarded what instructions were given to them by the judge. So what happened?????

One of them apparently caught the eye of Ms. Anthony which you can see her making eye contact and her expression shows she is happy with the response she is receiving from this person. The courtroom camera is focused on her and she is clearly looking at the jury who was in front of the position where she was seated. So who was she focusing on? If it was a person on the jury, which one? My guess, by the look on her face, it was a male. If someone were infatuated by her there is no way that one person was going to find her guilty. If they put themselves in a position of control there goes the whole jury unless members were self-thinkers. We know that most of the people on this jury were not leaders, but followers....and they proved that. jmo

 

[krkrjx]

I am still having a hard time accepting a trial as "fair" when only one side has to present the truth, and only one side gets a do-over if the verdict is not what they wanted.

The prosecutor must have strong enough evidence to convict. If they do not have that, they are prohibited from manufacturing something. I believe that to be right on, because a trial should be about one thing and one thing only: Getting to the truth of the matter.

But sadly, the defense can legally accuse an innocent person, manufacture or fabricate, with nothing whatsoever to back up anything they present in court. This is totally accepted in our courts of law as a defense strategy, though in any other venue it would be seen for what it is: A lie.

If both sides were held to the same standards, if the evidence is strong enough, it will convict a guilty person and if a person is truly innocent, evidence could be successfully challenged without benefit of lies.

JMO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I am still having a hard time accepting a trial as "fair" when only one side has to present the truth, and only one side gets a do-over if the verdict is not what they wanted.

The prosecutor must have strong enough evidence to convict. If they do not have that, they are prohibited from manufacturing something. I believe that to be right on, because a trial should be about one thing and one thing only: Getting to the truth of the matter.

But sadly, the defense can legally accuse an innocent person, manufacture or fabricate, with nothing whatsoever to back up anything they present in court. This is totally accepted in our courts of law as a defense strategy, though in any other venue it would be seen for what it is: A lie.

If both sides were held to the same standards, if the evidence is strong enough, it will convict a guilty person and if a person is truly innocent, evidence could be successfully challenged without benefit of lies.

JMO.

Yes, we hear a lot about the 'Innocence project', lawyers who work to clear supposedly wrongly convicted persons - I would consider it justice to the victim when there is also a 'Guilty project'...

 

[stillwatersc]

We do have GA's cell phone call records, but no ping information was obtained by the State for his phone.

Thanks for the full timeline for June 16 with the cell info. Too bad they didn't get ping info for GA & CA - that would have been beneficial when the defense tried to say George & Cindy had done the searches. I think it would have been clearer to the jury than Cindy's work log if they could have shown GA&CA cell phones in another location when the home PC was being used.

7:58 pm Tony and Casey are at Blockbuster. Tony says Casey arrived at his apartment not long before this, despite having left the house around 4:15 pm and reaching the area of Tony's apartment by 6:00 pm (maybe as early as 4:55 pm).

This is just the saddest piece. Baby in the car trunk & off to rent a movie. The timeline along with the video from Blockbuster with no Caylee - should have at least netted a child endangerment conviction.
In Zinah's case, they never found her child & have a fraction of the evidence that there was again FCA and she still got 10 years for 'unlawful conduct toward a child'.
http://www.wistv.com/story/19484234/jury-reaches-verdict-in-zinah-jennings-trial

 

[stillwatersc]

In this GMA video posted upthread by Gnatcatcher, how odd (as in hinky) is it that Cindy claims she considered suicide and wrote suicide notes in July and August 2008, due to Caylee being gone? That was months before Caylee's remains were discovered down the street, back during the time when Cindy was all over the airwaves swearing Caylee was alive, promising to knock on every door, and berating LE for not looking for a live Caylee.

Not saying there was no justification for her feeling suicidal if she indeed did. Just that the logic seems off.

Your driving mission is to locate your beloved missing granddaughter, whom you know to be alive; to bring her home where she belongs and thereby exonerate your falsely accused daughter. So you decide to accomplish this by.... committing suicide?

:shakehead: I'll never understand.

I think Cindy was trying to fake out FCA to get her to tell where Caylee was. CA didn't realize that SCA (Sociopath Casey Anthony) probably didn't care if she committed suicide or not.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I was just reading on one of those 'Where is Casey Anthony now' sites, where it is reported that she is working at a dental clinic in Acworth Ga....
I have no idea if this is true or not...... but isn't that where Rosalie Bolin was from - the convicted killer's wife who acted as mitigation 'specialist' on the defense, for a while...? Anyone remember?

 

[RANCH]

I am still having a hard time accepting a trial as "fair" when only one side has to present the truth, and only one side gets a do-over if the verdict is not what they wanted.

The prosecutor must have strong enough evidence to convict. If they do not have that, they are prohibited from manufacturing something. I believe that to be right on, because a trial should be about one thing and one thing only: Getting to the truth of the matter.

But sadly, the defense can legally accuse an innocent person, manufacture or fabricate, with nothing whatsoever to back up anything they present in court. This is totally accepted in our courts of law as a defense strategy, though in any other venue it would be seen for what it is: A lie.

If both sides were held to the same standards, if the evidence is strong enough, it will convict a guilty person and if a person is truly innocent, evidence could be successfully challenged without benefit of lies.

JMO.

The idea behind Double Jeopardy is to prevent the State from trying someone over and over until they get what they want. How often does an acquittal happen with as strong of a case as this one? Not very often in my opinion. I think that removing this very important protection from the US Constitution to remedy a few injustices would be overkill.

The problem in this case wasn't so much that Jose Baez lied and fabricated things during the trial, but the fact that the jury went along with his ideas without solid evidence to support them. So in my opinion the problem lies with the jury and not so much the defense.

I think that it would be more beneficial if we look at ways to get better juries before we give up our rights. Changes in jury selection rules? A professional jury? MOO

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/double-jeopardy-clause.html

 

[kaki]

The idea behind Double Jeopardy is to prevent the State from trying someone over and over until they get what they want. How often does an acquittal happen with as strong of a case as this one? Not very often in my opinion. I think that removing this very important protection from the US Constitution to remedy a few injustices would be overkill.

The problem in this case wasn't so much that Jose Baez lied and fabricated things during the trial, but the fact that the jury went along with his ideas without solid evidence to support them. So in my opinion the problem lies with the jury and not so much the defense.

I think that it would be more beneficial if we look at ways to get better juries before we give up our rights. Changes in jury selection rules? A professional jury? MOO

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/double-jeopardy-clause.html

Wouldnt it be a bombshell if one of the jury members came out and admitted jury tampering? Wonder what the result of that would be? :what:

Wish one of them would at least talk and tell us the REAL story.

 

[LambChop]

The idea behind Double Jeopardy is to prevent the State from trying someone over and over until they get what they want. How often does an acquittal happen with as strong of a case as this one? Not very often in my opinion. I think that removing this very important protection from the US Constitution to remedy a few injustices would be overkill.

The problem in this case wasn't so much that Jose Baez lied and fabricated things during the trial, but the fact that the jury went along with his ideas without solid evidence to support them. So in my opinion the problem lies with the jury and not so much the defense.

I think that it would be more beneficial if we look at ways to get better juries before we give up our rights. Changes in jury selection rules? A professional jury? MOO

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/double-jeopardy-clause.html

I think we need to better prepare our juries. When called for jury duty perhaps a class before hand that could summarize their responsibilities and give them an idea of what they are expected to do and not do. One thing of great importance is to follow the judge's instructions. Also explaining "reasonable doubt" should be made clear instead of relying on a defense attorney to totally confuse them. Juries should be encouraged to ask the judge any questions they may have during deliberations to ensure they have the correct information instead of relying on a fellow juror to lead them astray. jmo

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I am still having a hard time accepting a trial as "fair" when only one side has to present the truth, and only one side gets a do-over if the verdict is not what they wanted.

The prosecutor must have strong enough evidence to convict. If they do not have that, they are prohibited from manufacturing something. I believe that to be right on, because a trial should be about one thing and one thing only: Getting to the truth of the matter.

But sadly, the defense can legally accuse an innocent person, manufacture or fabricate, with nothing whatsoever to back up anything they present in court. This is totally accepted in our courts of law as a defense strategy, though in any other venue it would be seen for what it is: A lie.

If both sides were held to the same standards, if the evidence is strong enough, it will convict a guilty person and if a person is truly innocent, evidence could be successfully challenged without benefit of lies.

JMO.

You have some excellent points. It seems to be a skewed system at this point in time. I think it used to be skewed towards the prosecution, but now Defendants seem to have all the rights while the victims - none.

However, I think the MAIN problem with this case was ----------drumroll----- the P12. The buck, so to speak, stopped with them. Morons.

 

[krkrjx]

The idea behind Double Jeopardy is to prevent the State from trying someone over and over until they get what they want. How often does an acquittal happen with as strong of a case as this one? Not very often in my opinion. I think that removing this very important protection from the US Constitution to remedy a few injustices would be overkill.

The problem in this case wasn't so much that Jose Baez lied and fabricated things during the trial, but the fact that the jury went along with his ideas without solid evidence to support them. So in my opinion the problem lies with the jury and not so much the defense.

I think that it would be more beneficial if we look at ways to get better juries before we give up our rights. Changes in jury selection rules? A professional jury? MOO

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/double-jeopardy-clause.html

Protection against double jeopardy is indeed a right, and not one I would want to give up. However, a person's right to a jury of their peers is also a constitutional right...and one that for many would not be given up easily.

I do, however, believe the playing field should be more level. It is sad and unfortunate that the jury in this case took at face value anything the defense said while at the same time demanding the state provide proof of everything, even things they are not required to prove by law (exact method of death, exact time of death). I think HHJP saying over and over the prosecution had the burden of proof and the defense does not have to prove anything was taken out of context. IOW the jurors took that to mean that they did not have an option to discount anything the defense said in court. It's really the only thing I can come up with to explain it.

But even with that inept jury, I would feel a bit better about our justice system in this case and in general if it did not condone inuendo, mistruths and half truths that go on to morp into blatant lies and unfounded accusations of innocent people. IOW, if an attorney stands in court and says "so and so did this" they should have at least minimal evidence that so and so really did do that.

I am not sure what should be done but something needs to happen to make our courtrooms less circus-like. The current system is too often a slap in the face to victims.

At the very least, GA and others who find themselves wrongly accused in the name of a defense strategy should have some legal recourse for what is done to them in court.

JMO

 

[RR0004]

I was just reading on one of those 'Where is Casey Anthony now' sites, where it is reported that she is working at a dental clinic in Acworth Ga....
I have no idea if this is true or not...... but isn't that where Rosalie Bolin was from - the convicted killer's wife who acted as mitigation 'specialist' on the defense, for a while...? Anyone remember?

I thought she was from the Tampa area. Googled her and found this...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humani...jr-guilty-of-murdering-natalie-holley/1225860

Seems that this husband of hers (the serial killer that he is) just keeps tying up the Court system...again, and again. Makes me realize that this probably would have been the case for Casey as well. There's a woman in the video who's seen consoling Rosalie. Didn't I rerun the video 3x just to make sure it wasn't our "friend". lol

 

[RANCH]

I think we need to better prepare our juries. When called for jury duty perhaps a class before hand that could summarize their responsibilities and give them an idea of what they are expected to do and not do. One thing of great importance is to follow the judge's instructions. Also explaining "reasonable doubt" should be made clear instead of relying on a defense attorney to totally confuse them. Juries should be encouraged to ask the judge any questions they may have during deliberations to ensure they have the correct information instead of relying on a fellow juror to lead them astray. jmo

I like the idea of a jury class. When I go in for jury duty they always show a video that explains things but I don't think that many pay much attention to it. So I think that participates should have to take a test upon completion to prove that they were paying attention and retained what they learned. The only problem I see is the cost of doing this.

 

[RANCH]

Protection against double jeopardy is indeed a right, and not one I would want to give up. However, a person's right to a jury of their peers is also a constitutional right...and one that for many would not be given up easily.

I do, however, believe the playing field should be more level. It is sad and unfortunate that the jury in this case took at face value anything the defense said while at the same time demanding the state provide proof of everything, even things they are not required to prove by law (exact method of death, exact time of death). I think HHJP saying over and over the prosecution had the burden of proof and the defense does not have to prove anything was taken out of context. IOW the jurors took that to mean that they did not have an option to discount anything the defense said in court. It's really the only thing I can come up with to explain it.

But even with that inept jury, I would feel a bit better about our justice system in this case and in general if it did not condone inuendo, mistruths and half truths that go on to morp into blatant lies and unfounded accusations of innocent people. IOW, if an attorney stands in court and says "so and so did this" they should have at least minimal evidence that so and so really did do that.

I am not sure what should be done but something needs to happen to make our courtrooms less circus-like. The current system is too often a slap in the face to victims.

At the very least, GA and others who find themselves wrongly accused in the name of a defense strategy should have some legal recourse for what is done to them in court.

JMO

Usually when a defense attorney makes claims in his opening statement or later on in the trial, that is not proven with evidence, a jury is angered. Most people would be angry if they feel that they are being played. So what Baez did usually backfires on the defense. But not with this jury. MOO.

 

[The Farm]

I do not think this jury paid attention to much except where their next meal and entertainment were going to be per order of Judge P. Oh and let's not forget dessert.
Even if you do not understand you are prompted to ask QUESTIONS. Look at evidence etc.
This jury was like slam bam thank you mam we are out of here. That is how I felt then and still to this day.

 

[Pattymarie]

I was just reading on one of those 'Where is Casey Anthony now' sites, where it is reported that she is working at a dental clinic in Acworth Ga....
I have no idea if this is true or not...... but isn't that where Rosalie Bolin was from - the convicted killer's wife who acted as mitigation 'specialist' on the defense, for a while...? Anyone remember?

and touching live patients?

 

[Steely Dan]

That emu looks drunk.... tell em' to lay off the sauce....

Couldn't resist...

:bigfight: