Caylee & JonBenet

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
109
Hello, everybody!

Some of you may know me from the JonBenet forum. But I confess that I don't really know much about this case. So, I thought it might help if I could gain a little more knowledge.

But I have my own reasons. What inspired me was a blurb on TV the other night. In in, it was stated that the case against Casey is purely circumstantial. I knew that, but it illustrated the difference between the approach law enforcement in Boulder took vs. the approach they take just about every place else.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this:

--the police arrested Casey before they even found a body;

--there are no eyewitnesses, no confession, no DNA, nothing at all that would be considered a classic "smoking gun;"

--the prosecutor in this case cared more about a little girl's death than about hurting the suspect's feelings or their politcal careers or the town's reputation;

--Casey cannot afford high-price, politically connected lawyers;

--the evidence against Casey is mostly anecdotal;

--Casey had no known history of violence, mental illness, etc.

See, over on the forum where I'm so well-known, this is the perfect counterpoint to some, who claim that literally every single case must have a "smoking gun" in order to get a conviction, that there's no such thing as putting together circumstantial evidence into a totality, that probable cause is a very easy thing to establish, etc.

By their own logic, then, Casey has been railroaded six ways to Sunday. To me, the way this case was handled vs. the JonBenet case is night and day, but that's about the ONLY difference.

But, as I said, I don't know that much. I am your empty cup. Fill me, baby!
 
Hello, everybody!

Some of you may know me from the JonBenet forum. But I confess that I don't really know much about this case. So, I thought it might help if I could gain a little more knowledge.

But I have my own reasons. What inspired me was a blurb on TV the other night. In in, it was stated that the case against Casey is purely circumstantial. I knew that, but it illustrated the difference between the approach law enforcement in Boulder took vs. the approach they take just about every place else.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this:

--the police arrested Casey before they even found a body;

--there are no eyewitnesses, no confession, no DNA, nothing at all that would be considered a classic "smoking gun;"

--the prosecutor in this case cared more about a little girl's death than about hurting the suspect's feelings or their politcal careers or the town's reputation;

--Casey cannot afford high-price, politically connected lawyers;

--the evidence against Casey is mostly anecdotal;

--Casey had no known history of violence, mental illness, etc.

See, over on the forum where I'm so well-known, this is the perfect counterpoint to some, who claim that literally every single case must have a "smoking gun" in order to get a conviction, that there's no such thing as putting together circumstantial evidence into a totality, that probable cause is a very easy thing to establish, etc.

By their own logic, then, Casey has been railroaded six ways to Sunday. To me, the way this case was handled vs. the JonBenet case is night and day, but that's about the ONLY difference.

But, as I said, I don't know that much. I am your empty cup. Fill me, baby!

In this forum JB stands for Jose' Baez,the defense attorney. Took me a minute to figure out you meant Jon Benet :waitasec:
 
The lies, wild goose chase, and the 31 days until the child was reported missing makes the two cases incomparable IMO
 
Hello, everybody!

Some of you may know me from the JonBenet forum. But I confess that I don't really know much about this case. So, I thought it might help if I could gain a little more knowledge.

But I have my own reasons. What inspired me was a blurb on TV the other night. In in, it was stated that the case against Casey is purely circumstantial. I knew that, but it illustrated the difference between the approach law enforcement in Boulder took vs. the approach they take just about every place else.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this:

--the police arrested Casey before they even found a body;

--there are no eyewitnesses, no confession, no DNA, nothing at all that would be considered a classic "smoking gun;"

--the prosecutor in this case cared more about a little girl's death than about hurting the suspect's feelings or their politcal careers or the town's reputation;

--Casey cannot afford high-price, politically connected lawyers;

--the evidence against Casey is mostly anecdotal;

--Casey had no known history of violence, mental illness, etc.

See, over on the forum where I'm so well-known, this is the perfect counterpoint to some, who claim that literally every single case must have a "smoking gun" in order to get a conviction, that there's no such thing as putting together circumstantial evidence into a totality, that probable cause is a very easy thing to establish, etc.

By their own logic, then, Casey has been railroaded six ways to Sunday. To me, the way this case was handled vs. the JonBenet case is night and day, but that's about the ONLY difference.

But, as I said, I don't know that much. I am your empty cup. Fill me, baby!

Hi SD,

So nice to hear from you. Welcome! Solace
 
I think that the 31 days that went by before Casey admitted her daughter was missing is a smoking gun in this case. If the Ramsey's had done that then no doubt they would have been arrested too. In my opinion
 
This case has a certain smell that JonBenet's case doesn't have. As well as duct tape and a stain in the trunk. Three smoking guns...
 
Hello, everybody!

Some of you may know me from the JonBenet forum. But I confess that I don't really know much about this case. So, I thought it might help if I could gain a little more knowledge.

But I have my own reasons. What inspired me was a blurb on TV the other night. In in, it was stated that the case against Casey is purely circumstantial. I knew that, but it illustrated the difference between the approach law enforcement in Boulder took vs. the approach they take just about every place else.

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this:

--the police arrested Casey before they even found a body;

--there are no eyewitnesses, no confession, no DNA, nothing at all that would be considered a classic "smoking gun;"

--the prosecutor in this case cared more about a little girl's death than about hurting the suspect's feelings or their politcal careers or the town's reputation;

--Casey cannot afford high-price, politically connected lawyers;

--the evidence against Casey is mostly anecdotal;

--Casey had no known history of violence, mental illness, etc.

See, over on the forum where I'm so well-known, this is the perfect counterpoint to some, who claim that literally every single case must have a "smoking gun" in order to get a conviction, that there's no such thing as putting together circumstantial evidence into a totality, that probable cause is a very easy thing to establish, etc.

By their own logic, then, Casey has been railroaded six ways to Sunday. To me, the way this case was handled vs. the JonBenet case is night and day, but that's about the ONLY difference.

But, as I said, I don't know that much. I am your empty cup. Fill me, baby!


Should your title read Casey and JB? Caylee was the victim. DNA is circumstantial. Thought I would point that out since you have it grouped in with direct evidence. Anecdotal evidence? Which one? There is a tremendous amount of forensics in this case and conscientiousness of guilt. I don't know where you classify the reliability of cell phone/internet evidence , Cadaver dogs, witness statements, etc. as reliable but the Judge deems it fit. Only the new science is undergoing Frye hearings to determine it's reliabilty.
 
Perhaps if the Ramsey's had waited 31 days before having someone call 911, they would have been treated differently, Dave.

BTW, circumstantial evidence has the same weight in a trial as direct evidence.
 
I've always thought that most murder cases ARE CIRCUMSTANTIAL. It is rare to have a witness to murder. It is putting all of the pieces together that determines the conviction.

Look at Scott Peterson. Nobody SAW him kill Lacy and Connor. The evidence said he killed them.
 
Welcome over here!! I read and follow along on the Ramsey case when I get a few minutes and love your observations!!

A word of warning...if you have high blood pressure, you might want to remember that this case will cause your bp to go out the top of your head,lol....literally.
It is maddening!! But stay with us please as we need probing minds like yours,IMO.:seeya::rocker:
 
I think that the 31 days that went by before Casey admitted her daughter was missing is a smoking gun in this case. If the Ramsey's had done that then no doubt they would have been arrested too. In my opinion

If the Ramsey's had dumped JonBenet's body away from their home at the edge of a woods, I think they would have sailed through all their lies, without the focus and blame put on them. Even given the tell-tail ransom note. (Though folks outside Boulder figured they were involved somehow.) The powers that be in Boulder, however, were only concerned by the Ramsey's money, influence and power, + all the things SD mentioned.
 
SD, I think it's clear that the Ramseys were given a lot more leeway than Casey, but OTOH there is definitely more circumstantial evidence pointing to Casey than to the Ramseys.
 
Hi SD!

This case also has a sweet little girl that sadly did not fit very well into the life of the accused. Caylee didn't have regular playdates or gymboree classes or zoo trips or anything remotely centered around her, as opposed to JonBenet. One of the burning questions that I still believe has not been answered is how Caylee spent her days. The grandparents both worked, and the mother had a "fake" job that she would scurry to and a "fake" nanny that was in charge of Caylee. Meanwhile, mom's be-bopping around stealing money from her family, her friends, having sex with multiple partners, spending her days on facebook planning the next night out or party.

While it's true that there are unknowns about how Caylee died, there are several witnesses that will confirm the smell of human decomp in Casey's trunk as well as grave wax on paper towels from a trash bag from her car. A stain in the trunk, as Wagara said.

And as gypsy gal stated, the 31 days of silence is the closest thing to a smoking gun. During this time, she was in a very happy state of mind -- partying, cheerful, getting tatoos, having regular sex. She would have gone another 31 days if her mother didn't track her down and call the police on her.
 
The one thing I cannot get/shake is the FACT that CA was the last person VERIFIED to be seen with anALIVE CAYLEE by (people outside the Anthony family and by video taken at the nursing home) on Father's Day June 16 2008.
~It seems to me that everyone is choosing to overlook that fact.
~The rest is simply hearsay by GA and CA, who are known to lie, get violent and suffer from some form of mental instability. BOTH have been "on the record " with suicide issues.

MOO ~ I thought the last person to see the victim alive was always the POI... and Caylee wasn't an adult that could have left grandma's and end up falling victim to foul play.
Public consensus is KC did it and probably did, but why and how did CA escape hours of interrogation
by LE ~ why does anyone really believe GA even saw Caylee the 16th?
*** no offense my WS friends This keeps me awake at night... CA and GA are the loose cannons and always have been. They LIE.
CA ~ IMO was THE LAST PERSON with an alive Caylee… beyond that I think the rest of the "story" was created during the 30/31 days until they got "stuck" having to bring home the death car. IMO only a guilty person would work that hard to remove evidence, because they knew where all of it was. CA stated "there is no "evidene" if she had NO INVOLVEMENT~ how could she say that with any degree of certainty?

MOO MOO
 
Hey everyone. Like Dave, I also spend most of my time on the JBR forum. However, I did follow Caylee's case in the beginning and I pay attention to the WS topics on it, so I know the basic facts of the case.

I believe that Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, and a big reason why they never spent a day in jail is because of their high-powered attorneys. Both John and Patsy had multiple lawyers, before the case even went to trial. These lawyers were very high-powered, and one of them even had connections to the Clinton White House. The Ramseys spent millions of dollars on legal fees.

Now for Casey, I take it that Jose Baez is her main lawyer but she has other lawyers too, right? Is this their first big case? Are they working for her pro-bono (to get publicity) or is she paying them? Has it came out how much they are being paid? Do these lawyers have connections that the Ramsey lawyers had?
 
Hey everyone. Like Dave, I also spend most of my time on the JBR forum. However, I did follow Caylee's case in the beginning and I pay attention to the WS topics on it, so I know the basic facts of the case.

I believe that Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, and a big reason why they never spent a day in jail is because of their high-powered attorneys. Both John and Patsy had multiple lawyers, before the case even went to trial. These lawyers were very high-powered, and one of them even had connections to the Clinton White House. The Ramseys spent millions of dollars on legal fees.

Now for Casey, I take it that Jose Baez is her main lawyer but she has other lawyers too, right? Is this their first big case? Are they working for her pro-bono (to get publicity) or is she paying them? Has it came out how much they are being paid? Do these lawyers have connections that the Ramsey lawyers had?

Casey was declared indigent last year. She has several attorneys who are either pro bono, or get paid a minimal fee by the state of Florida. At the begining, she sold pictures of Caylee to ABC for $200,000 or so.
 
WARNING - Graphic

To help fill your cup,

there was the tremendous smell of "a dead body in the damn trunk" of a car being driven only by the accused, 31 days and she never reported her daughter's disappearance all the while doing her thing in the bed of her boyfriend and in the nightclub she frequented.

There was also the discovery six months later of Little Caylee's remains found discarded in some garbage bags in a wooded swampy area after a hurricane flooded the area for months. The remains were skeletonized. These remains were found to have been gnawed and chewed on and scattered throughout a large area, both on top and below the ground surface. A few bones were never discovered. Her skull was found to have three pieces of duct tape wrapped across the face with the glue of a heart positioned on them. The duct tape strips had deteriorated to the point that there was no glue and backing on them and no dna could be lifted from them. Her clothes were tattered shreds of material which was scattered throughout the area.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, but actual dna and fingerprints were destroyed by the summer heat, hurricane floods, animals, and time.

To compare the two cases, you could say that both of the victims were beautiful girls and there are no known witnesses except for the perpetrator themselves.

By the way, ICA (the accused) had plenty of money. She and her attorney had the presence to be able to finagle (?) the sale of Caylee's pictures and make $250,000 at the start of the investigation (way before the body of Caylee was found) which supposedly went to the defense of her case.

Also, the LE in this case did a superior job of investigation with what little help they received. They did not try to single out the accused, but followed all the leads she was dishing out because they believed she was trying to help them find her "missing" daughter. They never railroaded her. She talked herself into being arrested.
 
I'm not too familiar with how much lawyers cost. What will 250k worth of lawyers buy you? Is this 250k going to be paying all of her lawyers from the time she was arrested to the end of the trial? So her lawyers are working for that 250k + working pro bono?

Also, how many pictures of Caylee did this 250k cover?
 
I'm not too familiar with how much lawyers cost. What will 250k worth of lawyers buy you? Is this 250k going to be paying all of her lawyers from the time she was arrested to the end of the trial? So her lawyers are working for that 250k + working pro bono?

Also, how many pictures of Caylee did this 250k cover?

Baez already spent the money before she was declared indigent. I have no idea how many pictures it was. Maybe someone else does. :waitasec:
 
Welcome SD!:seeya: Since not much new has been happening with the JonBenet case lately, you can find me and Solace hanging out here. Come join us! This case, unlike the Ramsey's, is going to trial in just over a month...
Biggest difference between Casey Anthony and the Ramsey's (despite the fact that both are liars), is that the correct perp has been caught in this case, she doesn't have high-priced lawyers, and the victim will get justice!!! Also, Florida LE and prosecutors appears far more unbiased and competent than those in Boulder, CO!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
870
Total visitors
1,008

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,818
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top