What questions are still unanswered?

[Americka]

I don't think that ever came up in testimony by anyone, right?

According to my notes, Osbourne verified its existence but it was never discussed.

 

[concentric]

According to my notes, Osbourne verified its existence but it was never discussed.

Let's take this a step further. Just what was blanked out on that laptop computer?

 

[JMCDAD]

"The evidence did not connect Casey to the crime", huh? I guess if you don't consider that MANY people smelled the obvious smell of HUMAN decomposition coming from her car - including those who 1) were innocent bystanders, i.e. the tow yard manager and 2) had a propensity to protect her, i.e. possibly George and especially Cindy. Also included in the group would be Dr. Vass, who had to pull his head away from the overwhelming smell from the air sample that was taken. But I guess the fact that a couple cops who walked by her car didn't smell it after Cindy and Casey had been Febreezing it and who knows what else while it was in the Anthony's garage...is enough for you to completely disregard ALL of the others who clearly smelled it!

Question for you - if you were at the beach with 8 friends and 6 of them saw a dolphin leap out of the water, but two didn't...would you conclude that the testimony of the two wipes out the other six, i.e. their was no dolphin and the six were just "seeing things that didn't exist"?

And what about the hair of Caylee's that had shown to be from a decomposed body?

There absolutely was evidence tying the crime to Casey - Caylee's dead body was at one time in her trunk!!

If you want to try to hang your hat on the fact that there was no established cause of death...fine. I think the duct tape gives me an indication of how she died. And although the crime was not on video tape and narrated for the jury to see - I can make the necessary leap by "doing the math". It's really not that hard.

All of that coupled with the fact that her behavior showed 1) an obvious consciousness of guilt by lying to evade detection and 2) NO, i.e. ZERO mothers party and otherwise are unaffected by the loss of their daughter - whether it be a pool accident (no evidence of this - didn't happen) or if they are missing, kidnapped, etc. If you believe that you are essentially taking all that we know about human behavior and turning it on it's ear. This behavior goes to motive - she was happy that her daughter was gone.

All the rest of that stuff you mention is just absence of evidence - which is NOT evidence of absence. Of course there was no DNA - she had been in a humid, rain covered swamp for 6 months - nobody expected there to be ANY fingerprints or DNA, as it decomposes over time and under those conditions. Because they found had no evidence of her making or buying chloroform you conclude that she couldn't have had it?! Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not EVERY little question will be conveniently answered - this is very typical, as anyone involved in cases would tell you.

Still LOL?

Very good post
very frustrating
what about the people that did smell it including Cindy in her first words on the 911 call !
and why didn't the people that didn't smell anything , at least smell the trash that was supposedly the cause of the smell,?
and don't forget that the cadevor dogs smelled it and I would trust them above all others
But those that choose to dismiss it , I guess will , and did, without deliberation

 

[JMCDAD]

I disagree, and I'm pretty shocked by your statement about the jury.
The jury had no choice. The FBI crime lab had put everything about Casey under the microscope and the evidence did not connect Casey Anthony to the crime. There were fibers, there was DNA, none of it from Casey. None of the fiber, DNA, hair, nothing at the scene was from Casey. The soil in Casey's trunk was not a match to the scene. The residues and soils on Casey's clothing and shoes were not a match to the scene.

And all the cornerstones of the state's case were refuted by testimony. The state maintained that decomposition had begun in Casey's car trunk on June 16 or thereabouts, yet all the witnesses testified that there was no smell from June 16 to June 30. There was the partial DNA on the duct tape on Caylee's skull that was from SOMEONE ELSE. (One of the lab workers and the neighbor BB were not excluded, and the jury must have wondered why the state didn't compare it to anyone else in the case. Likewise with the Q107 hair, not from Casey or Caylee, or from the crime scene investigators, and state lost interest and did not compare it to others.) The jury must have been wondering about the fibers. Obviously there wasn't any match to Casey or her car or home or the state would have mentioned it. (We knew as much from discovery.)

The state maintained the murder date must have been June 16, and no witnesses had seen Caylee after that date, yet the jury saw from testimony that Casey wasn't alone on that day....the jury had to wonder why only Casey's clothes and shoes were all sent to the FBI, why no fiber studies elsewhere etc.LOL. The state claimed right up til closing argument that only Casey had access to the items found with Caylee but that obviously was not true. (Even if the jury didn't know about the Winnie blanket being in photos at the Glenwood townhome earlier in 2008 for example, they did know from testimony that Casey wasn't the only person who had been at the A home. They may have known about the Globe photos showing the T-shirt at the townhome, I don't remember if this was spelled out for them. They did hear Cindy say she hadn't seen the shorts for months, and the Winnie blanket since May.

And, the state maintained it was human adipocere on the napkins with the pizza box in the trash, (the focus of the maggots), yet, the jury saw that the state never investigated the source of the napkins, the apartment, which didn't make much sense. Not to mention that the state didn't send the napkins to the FBI to determine if the substance was in fact adipocere. LOL.

And, the state maintained that Casey used chloroform on Caylee, yet the jury saw that it was Casey's ex-boyfriend who had a joke about chloroform on his myspace....not Casey. No evidence was presented that Casey had ever obtained or made or had chloroform, or that there was ever chloroform in the A home. And, the state showed no interest in the bottle/syringe with traces of chloroform which were found in the Disney bag 6 inches from Caylee's skull (because of the fact the bottle/syringe also had traces of testosterone? or because the Q107 hair was from someone else and might have been with these items?) The state just dropped this evidence.

The "mountain of evidence" against Casey that the state kept claiming they had just didn't exist. It wasn't there. There wasn't even any evidence of human adipocere in the car trunk from the FBI, for example. There was only the maggot evidence inside the trash bag on the napkins. But the state didn't have the contents of the maggots analyzed by the FBI.

Can you imagine how disappointed the jurors must have been, they may have thought during the state's opening argument that they would be able to convict Caylee's killer. But then the evidence simply wasn't there to indicate that Casey was the killer. There was only a mountain of suspicion due to Casey's failure to report and her strange stories, but no evidence connecting Casey to the crime (or ruling out others). Don't blame the jury! Who could pronounce a person guilty when someone else's DNA was on the duct tape on the skull and there wasn't a whit of evidence connecting the defendant to the crime? LOL Who could do that?

I'm thinking the jurors weren't disappointed at all, given they spent a whole 10 hours (not even really) deliberating or should I say not deliberating, and didn't make any requests to review any evidence.
Seems they were fine with it

 

[MustlyLurking]

Thanks for looking that up Crucibelle - I just didn't have the heart to go over it again.

I don't understand why we are overlooking the obvious - CA had just found out CFCA had been pilfering from her grandfather's account. Why wouldn't George want to talk to her about that out of the range of her temper tantrums and her mother's ears?

I relistened to the jail video where CFCA is telling her parents how angry she is and then really loses her temper while they sit there quietly being concerned that she is angry. If that was my child and she was telling me about her anger about sitting in jail when my grand daughter was missing - I know for sure my response would NOT be about "concern for her anger level" at all! She and I would have had quite a different discussion!

One more thing on this subject... CA took Caylee to visit Great Gramps on 6-15. Great Grams discussed the check fraud. I wonder what Caylee and CA talked about on the way home? The neighbors heard a loud fight. I had thought CA would have confronted FCA about the fraud, and that lead to the fight. Except, CA knew that FCA was a thief and liar, long before Great Grams told her about the check. Now, I am wondering if CA confronted FCA about something else, something Caylee told her on the drive home? Caylee was getting to an age where she could, conceivably, tell CA that FCA was abusing/neglecting her in some way. That would have been shocking and painful to CA. That, she would/could have confronted FCA with at the first opportunity. Maybe, the big fight was about taking Caylee away, legally. If that happened, FCA could have made a decision that if she couldn't keep Caylee, no one was going to have her.

 

[JennaB]

One more thing on this subject... CA took Caylee to visit Great Gramps on 6-15. Great Grams discussed the check fraud. I wonder what Caylee and CA talked about on the way home? The neighbors heard a loud fight. I had thought CA would have confronted FCA about the fraud, and that lead to the fight. Except, CA knew that FCA was a thief and liar, long before Great Grams told her about the check. Now, I am wondering if CA confronted FCA about something else, something Caylee told her on the drive home? Caylee was getting to an age where she could, conceivably, tell CA that FCA was abusing/neglecting her in some way. That would have been shocking and painful to CA. That, she would/could have confronted FCA with at the first opportunity. Maybe, the big fight was about taking Caylee away, legally. If that happened, FCA could have made a decision that if she couldn't keep Caylee, no one was going to have her.

I also think the big fight was probably about a few things as well the check fraud. Sometime before that fight, Cindy had told her co-workers that her counselor or therapist had advised her to try and get custody of Caylee. Cindy could have threatened Casey with that on the June 15th fight. What will really continue to make me wonder if how Casey was planning to keep the charade of having a job when Caylee was starting to talk more and more.

 

[Controversialist]

Not sure if this has been answered on this thread or not, but the diary was manufactured in 2004, so yes it was backdated to 2003.

Thanks for that insight. Well, that's an eye-opener. If I follow, this means this diary entry was altered to appear to be a 2003 entry, but a 2003 entry could not of course be in a 2004 dairy.

I wonder if the precise date of the entry could then be determined.

Also, switching gears, and pardon if this is old news, but I'm wondering if GA ever explicitly denied on the stand the entire pool drowning story (not just his molesting ICA).

 

[sacrablue]

I disagree, and I'm pretty shocked by your statement about the jury.
The jury had no choice. The FBI crime lab had put everything about Casey under the microscope and the evidence did not connect Casey Anthony to the crime. There were fibers, there was DNA, none of it from Casey. None of the fiber, DNA, hair, nothing at the scene was from Casey. The soil in Casey's trunk was not a match to the scene. The residues and soils on Casey's clothing and shoes were not a match to the scene.

And all the cornerstones of the state's case were refuted by testimony. The state maintained that decomposition had begun in Casey's car trunk on June 16 or thereabouts, yet all the witnesses testified that there was no smell from June 16 to June 30. There was the partial DNA on the duct tape on Caylee's skull that was from SOMEONE ELSE. (One of the lab workers and the neighbor BB were not excluded, and the jury must have wondered why the state didn't compare it to anyone else in the case. Likewise with the Q107 hair, not from Casey or Caylee, or from the crime scene investigators, and state lost interest and did not compare it to others.) The jury must have been wondering about the fibers. Obviously there wasn't any match to Casey or her car or home or the state would have mentioned it. (We knew as much from discovery.)

The state maintained the murder date must have been June 16, and no witnesses had seen Caylee after that date, yet the jury saw from testimony that Casey wasn't alone on that day....the jury had to wonder why only Casey's clothes and shoes were all sent to the FBI, why no fiber studies elsewhere etc.LOL. The state claimed right up til closing argument that only Casey had access to the items found with Caylee but that obviously was not true. (Even if the jury didn't know about the Winnie blanket being in photos at the Glenwood townhome earlier in 2008 for example, they did know from testimony that Casey wasn't the only person who had been at the A home. They may have known about the Globe photos showing the T-shirt at the townhome, I don't remember if this was spelled out for them. They did hear Cindy say she hadn't seen the shorts for months, and the Winnie blanket since May.

And, the state maintained it was human adipocere on the napkins with the pizza box in the trash, (the focus of the maggots), yet, the jury saw that the state never investigated the source of the napkins, the apartment, which didn't make much sense. Not to mention that the state didn't send the napkins to the FBI to determine if the substance was in fact adipocere. LOL.

And, the state maintained that Casey used chloroform on Caylee, yet the jury saw that it was Casey's ex-boyfriend who had a joke about chloroform on his myspace....not Casey. No evidence was presented that Casey had ever obtained or made or had chloroform, or that there was ever chloroform in the A home. And, the state showed no interest in the bottle/syringe with traces of chloroform which were found in the Disney bag 6 inches from Caylee's skull (because of the fact the bottle/syringe also had traces of testosterone? or because the Q107 hair was from someone else and might have been with these items?) The state just dropped this evidence.

The "mountain of evidence" against Casey that the state kept claiming they had just didn't exist. It wasn't there. There wasn't even any evidence of human adipocere in the car trunk from the FBI, for example. There was only the maggot evidence inside the trash bag on the napkins. But the state didn't have the contents of the maggots analyzed by the FBI.

Can you imagine how disappointed the jurors must have been, they may have thought during the state's opening argument that they would be able to convict Caylee's killer. But then the evidence simply wasn't there to indicate that Casey was the killer. There was only a mountain of suspicion due to Casey's failure to report and her strange stories, but no evidence connecting Casey to the crime (or ruling out others). Don't blame the jury! Who could pronounce a person guilty when someone else's DNA was on the duct tape on the skull and there wasn't a whit of evidence connecting the defendant to the crime? LOL Who could do that?

Then why was the Pontiac Sunfire left unattended in Amscot parking lot on June 27,2008?

 

[Controversialist]

I disagree, and I'm pretty shocked by your statement about the jury.
The jury had no choice. The FBI crime lab had put everything about Casey under the microscope and the evidence did not connect Casey Anthony to the crime. There were fibers, there was DNA, none of it from Casey. None of the fiber, DNA, hair, nothing at the scene was from Casey. The soil in Casey's trunk was not a match to the scene. The residues and soils on Casey's clothing and shoes were not a match to the scene.

And all the cornerstones of the state's case were refuted by testimony. The state maintained that decomposition had begun in Casey's car trunk on June 16 or thereabouts, yet all the witnesses testified that there was no smell from June 16 to June 30. There was the partial DNA on the duct tape on Caylee's skull that was from SOMEONE ELSE. (One of the lab workers and the neighbor BB were not excluded, and the jury must have wondered why the state didn't compare it to anyone else in the case. Likewise with the Q107 hair, not from Casey or Caylee, or from the crime scene investigators, and state lost interest and did not compare it to others.) The jury must have been wondering about the fibers. Obviously there wasn't any match to Casey or her car or home or the state would have mentioned it. (We knew as much from discovery.)

The state maintained the murder date must have been June 16, and no witnesses had seen Caylee after that date, yet the jury saw from testimony that Casey wasn't alone on that day....the jury had to wonder why only Casey's clothes and shoes were all sent to the FBI, why no fiber studies elsewhere etc.LOL. The state claimed right up til closing argument that only Casey had access to the items found with Caylee but that obviously was not true. (Even if the jury didn't know about the Winnie blanket being in photos at the Glenwood townhome earlier in 2008 for example, they did know from testimony that Casey wasn't the only person who had been at the A home. They may have known about the Globe photos showing the T-shirt at the townhome, I don't remember if this was spelled out for them. They did hear Cindy say she hadn't seen the shorts for months, and the Winnie blanket since May.

And, the state maintained it was human adipocere on the napkins with the pizza box in the trash, (the focus of the maggots), yet, the jury saw that the state never investigated the source of the napkins, the apartment, which didn't make much sense. Not to mention that the state didn't send the napkins to the FBI to determine if the substance was in fact adipocere. LOL.

And, the state maintained that Casey used chloroform on Caylee, yet the jury saw that it was Casey's ex-boyfriend who had a joke about chloroform on his myspace....not Casey. No evidence was presented that Casey had ever obtained or made or had chloroform, or that there was ever chloroform in the A home. And, the state showed no interest in the bottle/syringe with traces of chloroform which were found in the Disney bag 6 inches from Caylee's skull (because of the fact the bottle/syringe also had traces of testosterone? or because the Q107 hair was from someone else and might have been with these items?) The state just dropped this evidence.

The "mountain of evidence" against Casey that the state kept claiming they had just didn't exist. It wasn't there. There wasn't even any evidence of human adipocere in the car trunk from the FBI, for example. There was only the maggot evidence inside the trash bag on the napkins. But the state didn't have the contents of the maggots analyzed by the FBI.

Can you imagine how disappointed the jurors must have been, they may have thought during the state's opening argument that they would be able to convict Caylee's killer. But then the evidence simply wasn't there to indicate that Casey was the killer. There was only a mountain of suspicion due to Casey's failure to report and her strange stories, but no evidence connecting Casey to the crime (or ruling out others). Don't blame the jury! Who could pronounce a person guilty when someone else's DNA was on the duct tape on the skull and there wasn't a whit of evidence connecting the defendant to the crime? LOL Who could do that?

I appreciate the detailed thought you've put into this case. Clearly, sincere people (even legal experts) can differ on the outcome. I work from the premises below:

[] --- This case was not primarily about forensic evidence.

[] --- The jury had only two options on Caylee's death: It was by pool accident or by Casey's foul play.

[] --- One of these two options occurred. There is no third option.

[] --- Even apart from forensics, there are logical constructs that discredit the pool story.

[] --- A discredited pool story, by logical deduction, must lead to the only other option, Casey's foul play.

[] --- As a juror, before giving Casey a felony acquittal I must first know:

(1) a cogent reason why Casey covered up an innocent pool accident for 30 months, and,

(2) why GA, after finding Caylee in the pool, would then go to work, leaving her dead body to an appalling desecration.

[] --- Neither of these two points rest on forensics.

Of course, others can disagree with my premises, or with how I try to prove assertions, and I respect any civil, intellectually honest attempt to solve this puzzle.

:waitasec: :guitar: :coffeews:

 

[Tugela]

"The evidence did not connect Casey to the crime", huh? I guess if you don't consider that MANY people smelled the obvious smell of HUMAN decomposition coming from her car - including those who 1) were innocent bystanders, i.e. the tow yard manager and 2) had a propensity to protect her, i.e. possibly George and especially Cindy. Also included in the group would be Dr. Vass, who had to pull his head away from the overwhelming smell from the air sample that was taken. AND cadaver dogs honed in on it as well! But I guess the fact that a couple cops who walked by her car didn't smell it after Cindy and Casey had been Febreezing it and who knows what else while it was in the Anthony's garage...is enough for you to completely disregard ALL of the others who clearly smelled it!

Question for you - if you were at the beach with 8 friends and 6 of them saw a dolphin leap out of the water, but 2 didn't...would you conclude that the 2 wipes out the other 6, i.e. there was no dolphin and the 6 were just "seeing things that didn't exist"?

And what about the hair of Caylee's found in the trunk that had shown to be from a decomposed body?

There absolutely was evidence tying the crime to Casey - Caylee's dead body had been in her trunk!!

If you want to try to hang your hat on the fact that there was no established cause of death...fine. I think the duct tape gives me an indication of how she died. And although the crime was not on video tape and narrated for the jury to see - I can make the necessary leap by "doing the math". It's really not that hard.

All of that coupled with the fact that her behavior showed 1) an obvious consciousness of guilt by lying to evade detection and 2) NO, i.e. ZERO mothers party and otherwise are unaffected by the loss of their daughter - whether it be a pool accident (no evidence of this - didn't happen) or if they are missing, kidnapped, etc. If you believe that you are essentially taking all that we know about human behavior and turning it on it's ear. This behavior goes to motive - she was happy that her daughter was gone.

All the rest of that stuff you mention is just absence of evidence - which is NOT evidence of absence. Of course there was no DNA - she had been in a humid, rain covered swamp for 6 months - nobody expected there to be ANY fingerprints or DNA, as it decomposes over time and under those conditions. Because they found had no evidence of her making or buying chloroform you conclude that she couldn't have had it?! Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not EVERY little question will be conveniently answered - this is very typical, as anyone involved in cases would tell you.

Still LOL?

None of which is tied to Casey. The car was not hers, nor did they prove that Caylee was the source of any decomposition. If there were fluids that leaked from the bag there would be a ton of residual biological material in the mat. Also, decomposing material is decomposing material, you would not be able to tell the difference from smell. The state failed to prove that that anything was decomposing in the trunk, failed to prove that if there was, that it was human, and failed to prove that Casey (as opposed to someone else who had access to the car) had anything to do with it. In short, they failed completely to make any link, it was complete speculation on their part.

Now, chloroform. I am a chemist, been working with the stuff for 30 years, and there is NO WAY that anyone chloroformed would have enough to accumulate in any measurable extent in the trunk. That claim was just laughable. Sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. If there was chloroform there, it came from something else, most likely from a chlorinated cleaning agent. Further, while someone made a search for chloroform, they failed to prove WHO did that. They claim it was Casey, but again, fail to provide any evidence that it WAS her. If these searches were made at the Anthony house, it wasn't HER computer, maybe they should look at the person who owned the computer.

The duct tape gives no indication of how she died. The state failed to prove when it was placed there, or even IF it was placed there. If it was placed there post mortem, either on her body or with the bag, it obviously had nothing to do with her death. They failed to show that it had not arrived at where it was post mortem, in other words they had NO evidence for that as a cause of death. That was sheer speculation on their part, there was zero evidence to support it. In my opinion the duct tape was placed there post mortem a considerable time after her death simply to hold the head together. That too is speculation, but there is no evidence that couldn't be the case.

One other thing, all of the items found with the body were in some way or another associated or potentially associated with the Anthony's house. The problem however, is that Casy wasn't living there, she was living elsewhere. Does no one think that is at all an odd thing?

 

[Kyle323]

Thanks for that insight. Well, that's an eye-opener. If I follow, this means this diary entry was altered to appear to be a 2003 entry, but a 2003 entry could not of course be in a 2004 dairy.

I wonder if the precise date of the entry could then be determined.

Also, switching gears, and pardon if this is old news, but I'm wondering if GA ever explicitly denied on the stand the entire pool drowning story (not just his molesting ICA).

Yes - GA absolutely denied that on the stand.

As it relates to the diary, I am surprised that through forensics they couldn't determine that the ink was only a short period of time old vs. several years if we are to believe this was written in '03. And...if the diary wasn't made before '04, then it seems this would have been another piece of valuable circumstantial evidence....

 

[Controversialist]

None of which is tied to Casey. The car was not hers, nor did they prove that Caylee was the source of any decomposition. If there were fluids that leaked from the bag there would be a ton of residual biological material in the mat. Also, decomposing material is decomposing material, you would not be able to tell the difference from smell. The state failed to prove that that anything was decomposing in the trunk, failed to prove that if there was, that it was human, and failed to prove that Casey (as opposed to someone else who had access to the car) had anything to do with it. In short, they failed completely to make any link, it was complete speculation on their part.

Now, chloroform. I am a chemist, been working with the stuff for 30 years, and there is NO WAY that anyone chloroformed would have enough to accumulate in any measurable extent in the trunk. That claim was just laughable. Sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. If there was chloroform there, it came from something else, most likely from a chlorinated cleaning agent. Further, while someone made a search for chloroform, they failed to prove WHO did that. They claim it was Casey, but again, fail to provide any evidence that it WAS her. If these searches were made at the Anthony house, it wasn't HER computer, maybe they should look at the person who owned the computer.

The duct tape gives no indication of how she died. The state failed to prove when it was placed there, or even IF it was placed there. If it was placed there post mortem, either on her body or with the bag, it obviously had nothing to do with her death. They failed to show that it had not arrived at where it was post mortem, in other words they had NO evidence for that as a cause of death. That was sheer speculation on their part, there was zero evidence to support it. In my opinion the duct tape was placed there post mortem a considerable time after her death simply to hold the head together. That too is speculation, but there is no evidence that couldn't be the case.

One other thing, all of the items found with the body were in some way or another associated or potentially associated with the Anthony's house. The problem however, is that Casy wasn't living there, she was living elsewhere. Does no one think that is at all an odd thing?

Since even legal experts disagree hotly about this case, I offer only my semi-educated position, and respect your right to differ.

But IMO, even conceding that no forensic evidence pointed to Casey, there was sufficient non-forensic evidence for a felony conviction.

As a juror, I would render a felony conviction (of some kind) based on two points:

(1) The pool story is false.
(2) The false pool story logically requires foul play from Casey.

Of course, I should ground both of these conclusions on a thorough evidence review. But IMO neither of these points require any forensic evidence.

:guitar::Banane37:

 

[Chewy]

I was thinking today, that maybe the reason George was so devastated is that he knows he's innocent of all the things she is saying about him and so he knows she murdered Caylee. And that's why he's so beaten up. He's got no doubts.

 

[Controversialist]

Yes - GA absolutely denied that on the stand.

As it relates to the diary, I am surprised that through forensics they couldn't determine that the ink was only a short period of time old vs. several years if we are to believe this was written in '03. And...if the diary wasn't made before '04, then it seems this would have been another piece of valuable circumstantial evidence....

I'm with you on this diary business. IIRC prior to trial there was discussion by trial watchers on this very point you made about examining the ink attributes.

Not sure where that ended up. I don't recall the SA's trying to make any hay from it.

As to GA denying the pool story, we then are faced with a choice: What is the more likely event?

(1) ICA lied about the pool story, or
(2) GA lied about the pool story.

Their stories contradict, so one has to be true and one false.

I would put my money on ICA lying, because if GA lied, we must assume ICA covered for his lie assiduously for years, then suddenly did a flip-flop, and stopped covering for GA before and during the trial.

IMO, ICA's about face, her u-turn, her flip-flop on the pool story demands an explanation.

:banghead: :gavel:

 

[NotRocketSighence]

(1) The pool story is false.

[] --- Even apart from forensics, there are logical constructs that discredit the pool story.

*respectfully snipped*

I think I missed something along the way. How was drowning in the pool proven false as a cause of death.? Regardless of how it was supposed to of occurred.

Thanks in advance.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Thanks for that insight. Well, that's an eye-opener. If I follow, this means this diary entry was altered to appear to be a 2003 entry, but a 2003 entry could not of course be in a 2004 dairy.

I wonder if the precise date of the entry could then be determined.

Absolutely the "poem" could of originally been thought of and written in 2003 (perhaps on a scrap piece of paper) just as many other writing pieces are penned over preceding years. She buys a diary in 2004 and begins a journal of thoughts that she doesn't want to forget.

There is no rule that says you can only write new original ideas from this day forth in new diaries. They can be old writings, poems, thoughts etc. Thats why we date them to remember when it was originally written.

 

[lowens1975]

*respectfully snipped*

I think I missed something along the way. How was the pool story proven false? Regardless of how it was supposed to of occurred.

Thanks in advance.

IMO, Cindy disputed the pool story when she was questioned by LDB. Cindy stated that: A. She unhooked the pool ladder and put it on the ground after she got out on the evening of June 15th. and B. She stated that there was no way Caylee would have been able to lift the ladder off the ground.

 

[lowens1975]

If this has been asked before and answered, I apologize, but I can't find anything in regards to this:

Lee was called by the defense in their CIC, I'm just wondering why he was never asked about his part in the so-called molestation? George was accused outright and denied it on cross examination. It was just outright odd since that was a part of the defense opening statement.

 

[MissJames]

For me the only question I have is , what really went on in that jury deliberation room?
I hope the other jurors get up the courage to speak out and tell us why they didn't ask for any clarification or any read backs,and why did the ones who voted guilty ,fold.
What was said and by whom.

 

[MissJames]

Absolutely the "poem" could of originally been thought of and written in 2003 (perhaps on a scrap piece of paper) just as many other writing pieces are penned over preceding years. She buys a diary in 2004 and begins a journal of thoughts that she doesn't want to forget.

There is no rule that says you can only write new original ideas from this day forth in new diaries. They can be old writings, poems, thoughts etc. Thats why we date them to remember when it was originally written.

OR........

I really don't understand this need to make up completely new scenarios for what happened in order to make the evidence fit NG.