How Wal-Mart could play into this.........

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Having worked in Wal~Mart's Loss Prevention (before it was called asset protection) back a number of years ago. I can say a couple of things. Now I've never been to this particular store but Wal~Mart being what it is tries to keep their stores pretty standard.

Most of the exterior doors have camera's built into the frame of the door. Not to mention all the cameras placed through out the store. In most stores the only places not monitored are inside the bathroom and inside the dressing rooms other then that you can pretty much be tracked through every inch of the store (customer and employee areas). They also have multiple camera's built on the roof looking out into the parking lot and also located on the poles in the parking lot. A number of years ago Wal~Mart made it policy to place cameras out in the parking lot because customers were being robbed and Wal~Mart was getting bad press for not having camera's out there.

Also with the newer digital systems they can easily pull up the date and time and then track Casey through the store. With the old analog CCTV system it was very hard to do this. Also the new digital system stays recorded longer. With the old analog cctv we recorded over the tapes every 30 days. Most stores in the company have been remodeled in the last 5 years so there shouldn't be to many stores that don't have digital systems now. Wal-Mart requires a remodel of all stores with in 5 to 10 years of their last remodel.

This tracking means if Casey bought anything they could visually identify what that item was. They could also track the time she went through the register and have the "cash office" pull the receipt on that day and time. So it doesn't matter if she paid in cash, check, or credit they could find that receipt number solely based on the day/time/register#.

Not that anything she bought there could be crucial to the case but ya never know. That and they could see her getting into her car as well after she left.

Thank you for sharing all these hopeful facts, marspiter! I was able to find an article from Walmart stating that the Casselberry Walmart had a grand reopening on May 11, 2005. Originally opened in 1986 and in 2005 nearly doubled their size and now considered a Supercenter. IAW your post quoted above, it sounds like they should definitely have the newer digital system, right?

http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/5166.aspx

 

[CA Mom]

thanks for the great info Marspiter!

WOW MARSPITER....thanks for posting, never realized how much detail was put into the camera shots. Note to Myself: Never pick your nose in any Walmart!

 

[MomofBoys]

This is probably an inane post, but that's never stopped me before!

I'm not sure how one can claim, in what was basically a two parent household (KC and the As) that all shoes and clothes were accounted for. Maybe I have a baby clothes obsession, but I have two boys and another boy on the way. I could never BEGIN to tell you which pair of their shoes was missing. I mean, if you were to ask me about a specific pair, that'd be fne. But I find shoes on sale and buy ahead. I find a cute pair of water shoes on sale at Target and buy them. People give me shoes their boys have outgrown. They go into a big drawer, in which I have never seen the bottom, LOL. I hang all their polos and button-down shirts and all the t-shirts go into drawers. They haven't worn everything yet, and some stuff they've outgrown is still on a rod. I try to pack away the outgrown stuff once a year.

I know I have two, but I can imagine I'd really go nuts with a girl. So I guess, after seeing pictures of Caylee's very full room, I just can't picture someone cataloguing every little item in their head. In fact, the As claiming this has always sent a red flag up to me. Maybe I just have too much or maybe I'm not uber-organized, but I find it almost impossible to believe that a little girl who spent her time at home AND being dragged around to AL's house, etc, etc, wouldn't have a change of clothes and shoes out there somewhere.

Maybe there are moms reading this all "Uh, I know every seam and inseam of my child's clothes, thank you!" and more power to you, LOL. I just know I'll occasionally find a little shirt behind the washer or my mom will sent a pair of shorts home that I haven't seen in months. It makes me think, given the potential importance of clothing in this Walmart frame of thought.

 

[marspiter]

Thank you for sharing all these hopeful facts, marspiter! I was able to find an article from Walmart stating that the Casselberry Walmart had a grand reopening on May 11, 2005. Originally opened in 1986 and in 2005 nearly doubled their size and now considered a Supercenter. IAW your post quoted above, it sounds like they should definitely have the newer digital system, right?

http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/5166.aspx

Yes by 2005 they should have had a digital system, and given that they upgraded to a super center I'd say with out a doubt they have one. The SWAT teams (Sam Walton's Action Team) are the ones that go in and do the remodels. Worked with them for a little bit too, but I think they are called something else now. They spare no expense when it comes to remodeling a store.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Yes by 2005 they should have had a digital system, and given that they upgraded to a super center I'd say with out a doubt they have one. The SWAT teams (Sam Walton's Action Team) are the ones that go in and do the remodels. Worked with them for a little bit too, but I think they are called something else now. They spare no expense when it comes to remodeling a store.

Oooookay, then! With your knowledge and experience in the field and with this company ~ What would you say the chances are that this store still has and can search for images of this possible sighting. If you think it's possible, how many man-hours would you estimate have to be invested to do a search from the noon time-frame to 7 p.m.?

 

[essies]

This is probably an inane post, but that's never stopped me before!

I'm not sure how one can claim, in what was basically a two parent household (KC and the As) that all shoes and clothes were accounted for. Maybe I have a baby clothes obsession, but I have two boys and another boy on the way. I could never BEGIN to tell you which pair of their shoes was missing. I mean, if you were to ask me about a specific pair, that'd be fne. But I find shoes on sale and buy ahead. I find a cute pair of water shoes on sale at Target and buy them. People give me shoes their boys have outgrown. They go into a big drawer, in which I have never seen the bottom, LOL. I hang all their polos and button-down shirts and all the t-shirts go into drawers. They haven't worn everything yet, and some stuff they've outgrown is still on a rod. I try to pack away the outgrown stuff once a year.

I know I have two, but I can imagine I'd really go nuts with a girl. So I guess, after seeing pictures of Caylee's very full room, I just can't picture someone cataloguing every little item in their head. In fact, the As claiming this has always sent a red flag up to me. Maybe I just have too much or maybe I'm not uber-organized, but I find it almost impossible to believe that a little girl who spent her time at home AND being dragged around to AL's house, etc, etc, wouldn't have a change of clothes and shoes out there somewhere.

Maybe there are moms reading this all "Uh, I know every seam and inseam of my child's clothes, thank you!" and more power to you, LOL. I just know I'll occasionally find a little shirt behind the washer or my mom will sent a pair of shorts home that I haven't seen in months. It makes me think, given the potential importance of clothing in this Walmart frame of thought.

Congratulations!! I know exactly what ya mean!!!

 

[RevCrim]

Oooookay, then! With your knowledge and experience in the field and with this company ~ What would you say the chances are that this store still has and can search for images of this possible sighting. If you think it's possible, how many man-hours would you estimate have to be invested to do a search from the noon time-frame to 7 p.m.?

Note: Even if they don't have video any longer, they do still have receipts on file, if Casey used a check or credit card, or even if she made an exchange or a return for that date.

 

[essies]

QB found this at marinadedaves site here the link:
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/


Here's the video:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ZFsRHpL8A"]YouTube - Walmart TechBay[/ame]

 

[RevCrim]

Just had a sad thought- KC claims she talked to Caylee on 7/15/2008, around noon, and Caylee talked about her book and shoes. Casey even said that they have video of Caylee reading her book. (Taken supposedly on Father's Day at the Nursing Home.)

a) Could CA have bought Caylee new shoes and the book on Father's Day, on the way to the nursing home?
b) Has the book been accounted for and found?
c) Could KC have been spiteful, trying to return or exchange them at Wal-Mart, for something for herself, and that is why Caylee was so upset?

 

[celticthyme]

i have a comment about caylee shoes.....
SNIPPED respectfully
...could have been in caylee's hands....along with her blanket....and since caylee died....it would have been really hard for / or she just didnt want to deal with it....to take those things off/out of caylees hands.....and she scooped caylee and what ever she had been holding on to....and disposed of her......

The thought just struck me as I'm reading this . . .
The scooping her up, if Caylee was having a 2 yr old hissy fit, Casey grabbed her in a fury with whatever she had in her hand ( the little Dora pony) found in the bag, , then her Momma doll was left in the car seat . . so she was thrown into the trunk, ? drugged, then bound ??

ETA, Casey was running out of options after the flury of calls to find anyone to take Caylee, she's getting more psst, frustrated and will not be stopped from meeting up with Tony again

 

[RevCrim]

What if the flury of calls was not to find someone to watch Caylee, but instead, to ask if anyone has her?
Maybe, Casey was going to originally say she had gone to Wal-Mart and Caylee suddenly disappeared.
But, since no one responded immediately, she took a different road.
Having been able to get away from the A's without getting caught, Casey came up with the first thing she could when the police caught up with her.
Have you noticed how a lot of her lies are totally opposite of the truth.
No mention of Wal-Mart- and everything to keep everyone away from the area of AL's place. Her safe place.

 

[Balthazar]

What if the flury of calls was not to find someone to watch Caylee, but instead, to ask if anyone has her?
Maybe, Casey was going to originally say she had gone to Wal-Mart and Caylee suddenly disappeared.
But, since no one responded immediately, she took a different road.
Having been able to get away from the A's without getting caught, Casey came up with the first thing she could when the police caught up with her.
Have you noticed how a lot of her lies are totally opposite of the truth.
No mention of Wal-Mart- and everything to keep everyone away from the area of AL's place. Her safe place.

I asked BondJamesBond about the flurry of calls yesterday and Bond's timeline places the flurry of calls BEFORE Casey and Caylee were seen at Walmart. I think it's in the New Witness thread - a page or two back - very interesting reading. It is hard to know what was going on without knowing what it is Casey bought at Walmart.

 

[marspiter]

Oooookay, then! With your knowledge and experience in the field and with this company ~ What would you say the chances are that this store still has and can search for images of this possible sighting. If you think it's possible, how many man-hours would you estimate have to be invested to do a search from the noon time-frame to 7 p.m.?

If they have the date and time or at least a good estimate of the time it wouldn't take long at all. On the old system it took awhile because you had to switch between tapes for different multiplexers and such. On the old system it would normally take me about 1 to 4 hours to locate the individual in question and then track their movements. Depends on how long they are in the store too.

With the digital it should take half that or less as long as the estimated time of entry/exit/check out isn't way off. The easiest ways are to know one of three things. When they entered, exited, or when they checked out. If not it could take a bit of time to review the video to locate the individual. That and it helps to have a pretty decent idea of what the person looked like or was wearing. This was more important before the digital. The old system was very grainy and could be hard to spot the right person.

From noon to 7pm maybe two working days if you don't have specifics.

That's why Wal~Mart relys more on its loss prevention people actually walking the floor in plain clothes to catch shop lifters.

The camera system is used mainly for watching employees and for other types of crimes against the store like check fraud or vandalism as an example.

I would also say that being in an urban area there is a very good likely hood that Wal~Mart would still have the video for review. That is just my best educated guess though. Like I said I don't have working experience with the digital as it was just in the process of becoming the standard when I left.

 

[LambChop]

What if the flury of calls was not to find someone to watch Caylee, but instead, to ask if anyone has her?
Maybe, Casey was going to originally say she had gone to Wal-Mart and Caylee suddenly disappeared.
But, since no one responded immediately, she took a different road.
Having been able to get away from the A's without getting caught, Casey came up with the first thing she could when the police caught up with her.
Have you noticed how a lot of her lies are totally opposite of the truth.
No mention of Wal-Mart- and everything to keep everyone away from the area of AL's place. Her safe place.

Of course KC was supposed to be working and calling the police would certainly detain her and she would not be able to meet TonE. I think she did want to get ahold of CA to meet her and take Caylee as KC has done countless times before but when CA did not answer her phone KC may have felt CA was still mad at her from the fight they had had the previous evening. Maybe this made KC so mad she took it out on Caylee. But with KC walking so far ahead of Caylee your version makes sense, too.

 

[LambChop]

I asked BondJamesBond about the flurry of calls yesterday and Bond's timeline places the flurry of calls BEFORE Casey and Caylee were seen at Walmart. I think it's in the New Witness thread - a page or two back - very interesting reading. It is hard to know what was going on without knowing what it is Casey bought at Walmart.

Maybe she was returning something for cash, like shoes. Wonder if CA bought Caylee new shoes for the trip on Father's Day? Is there a camera on the return desk?

 

[cecybeans]

I don't think Caylee went into WalMart without shoes. Even in June the parking lot would have burnt the soles off her feet. You can fry eggs on pavement practically.

Perhaps KC was on the phone in the car and had the window open and Caylee took off her shoes and threw them out? (I previously posted that my daughter was always taking her shoes off in the car, in stores and at other inopportune places). I doubt KC would have even noticed.

That child had a boatload of shoes for someone outgrowing her size probably every few months. I cannot imagine the family could keep up with them all or tell which were missing. And unfortunately, we cannot believe a word that comes out of their mouths.

During the month that transpired before KC got caught, she could have done anything with a pair of shoes, including tossed them in a dumpster. There are too many variables and too much of a time window to limit speculation almost.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

If they have the date and time or at least a good estimate of the time it wouldn't take long at all. On the old system it took awhile because you had to switch between tapes for different multiplexers and such. On the old system it would normally take me about 1 to 4 hours to locate the individual in question and then track their movements. Depends on how long they are in the store too.

With the digital it should take half that or less as long as the estimated time of entry/exit/check out isn't way off. The easiest ways are to know one of three things. When they entered, exited, or when they checked out. If not it could take a bit of time to review the video to locate the individual. That and it helps to have a pretty decent idea of what the person looked like or was wearing. This was more important before the digital. The old system was very grainy and could be hard to spot the right person.

From noon to 7pm maybe two working days if you don't have specifics.

That's why Wal~Mart relys more on its loss prevention people actually walking the floor in plain clothes to catch shop lifters.

The camera system is used mainly for watching employees and for other types of crimes against the store like check fraud or vandalism as an example.

I would also say that being in an urban area there is a very good likely hood that Wal~Mart would still have the video for review. That is just my best educated guess though. Like I said I don't have working experience with the digital as it was just in the process of becoming the standard when I left.

Thank you, thank you, thank you marspiter; you are the best! With this information so easily available I think the OCSO has had this video reviewed. Don't you all?

 

[mitzi]

Thats kind of the problem in answering what the new digital system does. There are two different ones I've seen. I left Loss Prevention before most of the stores in our district had the digital system. I've previewed the new system but I'm not as intimate with it as I was the old analog system. I actually had to rewire a couple of old stores on that old system.

Also the Asset Protection Team (new Loss Prevention) doesn't set up the new systems like we did in the old days. They have a company that comes out and does it now. The rough estimate I was given was about a year. I know the multiplexer it uses is much different then the old system and possibly has the hard drive built into the multiplexer. That's just a guess though as I've only seen then new equipment briefly and never really got to work with it. Also by policy the APC (Asset Protection Coordinator) could be fired for disclosing the information.

Sorry I can't give a more detailed and definitive answer as it's been a number of years since I worked for them. With bigger hard drives now then back then I would say 1yr plus is a good rough estimate.

Thanks for your reply, marspiter. :blowkiss: IIRC from one of the articles I read about Jim, he mentioned that he had made a statement to LE before the written one, so hopefully it was closer to the day he saw KC and Caylee, and maybe LE has already obtained the Wal-Mart video. Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[mitzi]

LOL never thought my Wal~Mart years right after college would ever yield any valuable information for anything. Kinda made me laugh a little at my desk considering how much I hated that place. Oh the stories I could tell...it's no wonder they had the largest civil suite in the history of US civil courts brought against them.

Thats OT though and I'm sorry for straying off path. Just had to say talking about it made me laugh.

LOL!

OT-I used to be a vendor for Wal-Mart and serviced 10 of their stores. I got a lotta stories I could tell too....although most of the employees I came in contact with were really great people. Management...not so much. :crazy:

 

[Cara's Mom]

This is probably an inane post, but that's never stopped me before!

I'm not sure how one can claim, in what was basically a two parent household (KC and the As) that all shoes and clothes were accounted for. Maybe I have a baby clothes obsession, but I have two boys and another boy on the way. I could never BEGIN to tell you which pair of their shoes was missing. I mean, if you were to ask me about a specific pair, that'd be fne. But I find shoes on sale and buy ahead. I find a cute pair of water shoes on sale at Target and buy them. People give me shoes their boys have outgrown. They go into a big drawer, in which I have never seen the bottom, LOL. I hang all their polos and button-down shirts and all the t-shirts go into drawers. They haven't worn everything yet, and some stuff they've outgrown is still on a rod. I try to pack away the outgrown stuff once a year.

I know I have two, but I can imagine I'd really go nuts with a girl. So I guess, after seeing pictures of Caylee's very full room, I just can't picture someone cataloguing every little item in their head. In fact, the As claiming this has always sent a red flag up to me. Maybe I just have too much or maybe I'm not uber-organized, but I find it almost impossible to believe that a little girl who spent her time at home AND being dragged around to AL's house, etc, etc, wouldn't have a change of clothes and shoes out there somewhere.

Maybe there are moms reading this all "Uh, I know every seam and inseam of my child's clothes, thank you!" and more power to you, LOL. I just know I'll occasionally find a little shirt behind the washer or my mom will sent a pair of shorts home that I haven't seen in months. It makes me think, given the potential importance of clothing in this Walmart frame of thought.

I have a 4yr old girl and there's no way to remember every article of clothing and shoes this girl has!! Her wardrobe is, by far, larger than mine-mostly thanks to Grandma!! And the shoes? My little girl is totally into shoes, bags, accessories-so we've got plenty of that too!

My hinky meter went off the charts when I read CA's statement that all clothing and shoes of Caylee's were home. There's just no way. I come across stuff that I forgot she even had. With all the other things one has to worry about/take care of when working and running a household, CA is telling LE that her recall is so perfect, that she has Caylee's wardrobe mentally inventoried in her head? I don't think so.