Originally Posted by Susanann
. . . and until EVERYTHING fits, we are going up the wrong tree by putting Casey on trial because only the truth fits completely with no loose ends.
No.
Actually, everything fits** ALL THE TIME!!!** if you have the truth, it has to , because the truth always fits. There are no loose ends when you have the true story. There are no inconsistencies when you have the truth. There are no contradictions when you have the truth.
If you guys cant see it then that is not my fault. I am well aware that most people dont know this, most people never agree with me, which is why I am the only one who knew that Dr. Richard Kimble(Sam Shepard) was innocent for example, I am the only one who knew that OJ Simpson killed Nicole for another example. It does not matter that all 12 jurors voted oj
“Not Guilty” nor that everyone else on this Straight Dope thinks OJ was inocent… because I myself knew that everything about the crime fitted OJ doing it I alone knew that OJ was guilty of murder, and apparently I alone knew that nobody else killed Nicole and Ron.
There are never any loose ends if you are right, and in this case, all the evidence says that the child died directly or indirectly because of George, then George took over and hid the body. Casey very well might have been aware(complicit) that her father was taking control, but Casey did not take part in the death at all, Casey did not kill the child, nor did Casey take part in any coverup, nor did Casey hide the body…George did it all. (It also would probably surprise me if Cindy knew that George did it - I am not blaming the mother Cindy)
If you guys want to convict Casey for what her father did, then so be it…I am used to being the only one who sees things clearly.
Thats damaging - and the first truly damaging bit they’ve had - not sure it changes my overall opinion, but it certainly hurts the prosecution statement that Casey was the only one that could have done the searches.
were those the only searches for chloroform?? Or is this one of those savvy things where Cindy searched for one thing and linked thru to others or did she actually search for ‘chlorofom’ directly? (and cindy is confused/being limited in her answers to appear otherwise)
how were the work records in error? How could the prosecution be blindsided by this?
As a computer analyst I’m finding the computer forensic testimony interesting.
they used two software programs cacheback and netanalysis to get the internet history. The two programs didn’t retrieve the same results.
Not good. There’s errors here somewhere.
I used a trial version of cacheback a few years ago to check computers at my job. We had an employee viewing porn on the job and my boss needed info for his disciplinary proceedings.
The family says through their lawyer that while they do not want her to be executed they do not necessarily believe in her innocence, and as in court they firmly deny the “Daddy molested me then gave my drowned baby to the dingoes” defense. (I wonder if they knew she was going to use that before they heard it in court.)
Interesting screw up by Cindy when she was on the stand. The prosecution had asked about a time line and she responded that she knew it because that was when Casey was facing the check charges. The defense had fought hard to keep those 6 felony convictions from the jury and quite possibly Cindy spilled the beans here. I wonder if the jury picked up on it?
Cindy is now claiming that she took time off for her anniversary & Caylee’s birthday, which happened during the time frame of when the searches occurred. She’s saying that the work’s time records don’t record her time off correctly.
Cindy’s also saying, she tried to look up chlorophyll but got results including chloroform. She’s also claiming that she didn’t look up “neck-breaking” but remembers seeing a pop up ad with that word in it. She said a friend of hers, who had been in a car accident, had asked her to look up information about various injuries.
The prosecution’s point about the computer searches was that a) it was Casey’s computer, b) somebody had tried to erase those searches and c) someone had searched Google one a bunch of different phrases:
I’ve really got to wonder about Cindy remembering those searches from that time period - that was pretty specific memories there and a definite blow to the prosecution, and then she can’t remember for sure if she was home or not or what time if so.
This. If you were innocently searching for chloroform three years ago because your dog was eating plants (bullshit ahem) would you really know that it was July 11 instead of June 11 or July 14?
The coincidences are too much. I defy any Doper here to have a pattern of searches like in this case that indicate murder/cover-up because of ten different innocent reasons. Then have a child drown and you and your father cover up the drowning. The same father who abused you. Who confided in his mistress. Then you make up a 911 call about a fake nanny. And you are seen partying like its 1999 a week after the “drowning.” And the body turns up with duct tape. And your car smells like a corpse.
Gimme a fucking break.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Baez brought up on some ethical charges for presenting some of this testimony.
That never went to trial, and the parents pretty well stonewalled the investigation, but even in that well covered up case, everything that we DO know about the JonBenet case, fits consistently, pointing to 1 single person. I think if a real investigation was done it would be a pretty open and shut case.
Just out of curiosity, who would this one single person be, and would this one single person have anything to do with the unknown DNA found on Jon Benet?
Happens all the time, I myself have worked at places where the actual times I worked were different than what the manager wanted the records to show,both when I had wage jobs, and more especially and more commonly when I was salaried. Hospitals are known for this.
Because the prosecution’s case if fantasy. The entire prosecution’s case is just** “a house of cards”. **
=============================================================
*******Vinny Gambini: The D.A.'s got to build a case. Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right?
[puts his hand on the wall]
Bill: Right.
Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
He’s going to show you the bricks. He’ll show you they got straight sides. He’ll show you how they got the right shape. He’ll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there’s one thing he’s not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they’re as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you’re innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one. *******