Please list the ACTUAL evidence against George. Not suspicions or convoluted conspiracy theories.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the discussion is suggest is best suited for another thread. Like this one I just started, for instance.
-
You are continuing to mislead, and to misquote, and to give false accusations.
-
I never said George “allowed Caylee to drown”. YOU did!
-
There is a difference between imply, and infer. I suggest that you learn the meanings of the words that you use.
-
You are not debating or trying to understand the topic, you are trying to make accusations and argue about people who post. If you want to talk about me, then join my fan club, or take it elsewhere.
-
I have ALWAYS!!! made it perfectly clear from the beginning of the trial, that I have no idea how or when Caylee died, and apparently , the jury agrees with me. Your motives are illegitimate and a violation to try to suggest that I know how Caylee died.
" George had the expertise to cover it up (being a retired LEO) and that he had motive for covering it up - since he was babysitting the child and didn’t have a fence or cage installed around the pool " … or left the ladder up, or left the sliding door unlocked, or left Caylee unattended, or had a very long extensive history of burying dead things in plastic bags and duct tape, was the owner of the duct tape, was seen with the duct tape, etc. etc, etc,
Draw your own conclusions.
Touche, sort of. (And I actually remember this case, as it was in my area) This was in a public place where she left a group of swimming kids she was supposed to be watching and was off getting drunk. Not sure how it turned out, but I doubt that there was any hard-time in jail involved.
And as for the bathtub incident, that was a months old baby knowingly and willfully left in the bathtub alone. A case where a child wanders off and drowns when the guardian didn’t know they were swimming or in danger of drowning is much less likely to be charged with any negligence.
We are linking to your posts. We are not misquoting you when we are linking to your word-for-word posts. Misquoting would be posting words you never posted. Since we are linking to your posts, without changing the posts, we are not misquoting you. Nor are we misleading - we are linking to your own posts, without changing them, and then discussing the implications of those posts. We are also not falsely accusing you - we are linking to your own posts, without changing those posts, and then discussing the (rather obvious) implications of those posts.
You said this:
It certainly is true that you do not come out and say, in this post, that George allowed Caylee to drown. But you STRONGLY implied it.
In addition, here is the quote that Leaffan took word for word from another post by you:
The implication of that post is that you believe that Caylee drowned, George found her, and since Caylee was in George’s care at the time, George’s negligence allowed Caylee to drown.
One does not have to spell out an accusation in so many words to clearly communicate the accusation.
I’m using the words correctly.
I am pointing out that your statements earlier in this thread contradict many statements that you’ve made elsewhere about this same topic. By posting opinions on a public message board, you’ve tacitly consented to participate in a discussion not only of the topic but also of your opinions regarding that topic. That is actually the purpose of a public message board. You don’t get to dictate the course that a discussion takes.
You have implied, strongly, in numerous posts, that you believe Caylee drowned under George’s care. Such as in this post:
If this is not an implication your part that George’s negligence allowed Caylee to drown while under his care and that he then attempted to cover up this death, I don’t know what is.
ONCE AGAIN, please list the ACTUAL EVIDENCE implicating George in the death of Caylee.
I don’t understand how not reporting her daughter missing isn’t an action complicite with her daughter’s death. She stood by and did NOTHING while her child was missing. At the very LEAST that is a crime of omission on par with not allowing your child to be treated for a disease <which has been prosecutable> and is likely, if not provable, evidence that she knew Casey was already dead.
Right, but all that really proves is Casey’s a lying sack of shit, of which she’s been convicted. Not calling doesn’t prove she killed her child, either premeditated or accidentally.
So you admit that you are lying, misquoting, misleading.
I never ever said or implyed how Caylee died. I have no idea how Caylee died.
As I said many times before ,** the worlds foremost medical examiner, Former Macomb County Medical Examiner Werner Spitz , has no idea how Caylee died.**
For you to suggest that I said anything else is fraud.
So what? Miss Casey Anthony was not charged with failure to report a death.
Nope. Nice try, though. Please to be going back and re-reading for comprehension.
Let me explain to you how implications word. When someone (say, a person on a message board) posts coy little statements regarding a person’s (say, a grandfather of a dead little girl) POSSIBLE motives, POSSIBLE culpability, POSSIBLE negligence, POSSIBLE access to some materials that are associated with the death, then makes a disingenuous “draw your own conclusions” statement at the end? That, by definition, is implying something.
Calling it “not implying” doesn’t make it so. You implied George had something to do with Caylee’s death, you implied that said death involved the pool at George’s house and George’s negligence while Caylee was in George’s care. You know it, I know it, the other readers of this message board know it. Continuing to stamp your foot and cry “did not! was not! have not!” doesn’t negate the verbal evidence in this thread and in others, that has been linked to consistently, that you HAVE made implications.
This is an irrelevant statement. We’re not talking about Spitz.
Report me, then. Since I can back up my statements with links to your actual posts, with your actual words, and am discussion the implications of those words, I’d like to see you attempt to redefine the word “fraud” in the same way you seem to be attempting to redefine the word “implication.”
What I said in earlier posts of mine was that I dont believe Caylee was murdered by Chloroform.
I think murder by chloroform is very rare, very unlikely, very unusual, and that there is no evidence of it, no sales receipts, no bottles of chloroform, no mixing containers, no cotton with chloroform, and also the FBI testified that chloroform levels in the body and in the trunk were normal and were not remarkable.
I personally think death by drowning is far more likely than death by chloroform. It is my belief that more children in Florida die by drowning than by chloroform, therefore, I find it much more likely that Caylee would have died by drowning than by chloroform, although if the world’s foremost medical examiner Dr. Werner Spitz does not know, then nobody here knows for sure either.
I think chloroform was a total red herring, totally misleading, and in the final analysis after FBI testimony there was no evidence at all that chloroform was related in any way to the death of Caylee.
Therefore, death by chloroform is just not very believable.
Totally relevant. Dr Spitz and I are in complete agreement.
GO PLAY YOUR WORD GAMES WITH SOMEONE ELSE!!!
You are destroying this thread.
I will no longer respond to you nor assist in your detractions.
That may be true. But what you ALSO said was this:
In the first and third of those quoted posts, you say “It was probably George’s fault” and “If you guys want to convict Casey for what her father did…”
These are not just implications that George was responsible for Caylee’s death. They are outright statements that you believe George was responsible for Caylee’s death.
Look, I don’t know why you insist that you never said things that you obviously did (since we can go back and see your actual posts and the actual words you wrote). Earlier in this thread you claimed you’d never heard of a theory that Caylee drowned in George’s pool, when your own posts imply that same exact scenario.
Maybe you feel that your earlier posts about your beliefs on George’s involvement were too strong, and you wish you hadn’t posted them. Maybe you’ve changed your mind about that belief. I don’t know. But it’s a little odd that you continue to insist you never said things that you obviously did.
Um…okay? Still not relevant to your continuous implications that George was involved in Caylee’s death.
Fear me, for I am Thread Destroyer?
Look, the thread is about what people thought the biggest factor in Casey’s acquittal was. You’ve claimed a lot of things about what your opinion is on that issue, but some of your statements contradict your earlier statements on this topic. Therefore, this discussion is on topic.
You do know who you’re responding to, right?
I mean,
“right”!!!
Yes!!!
I have worked with and been around cons and ex-cons most of my life. Part of the reason for verdicts like this is TV.
We have come to expect DNA to be the master stroke that solves everything. This simply doesn’t happen as much as we like to think.
By hiding the kid for 31 days, DNA and forensics were rendered tainted or suspect to a degree.
So what you have is circumstance. We’re told throughout our lives circumstantial evidence is bad. But it’s how most people are convicted.
Let’s say I am in a room with a hundred bucks. The lights go out and I leave the room. I am now in the hallway and the lights come back on. In my pocket is the hundred dollars.
Did I take it? Perhaps, but it’s certainly possible someone put it in my pants pocket without me knowing about it.
Jurors are now like to ask, “Where’s the DNA?”
Being a woman factors in highly. Scott Peterson is a jerk that cheated on his wife, while she was pregnant. I never saw any really hard evidence to convict him. He was guilty because of circumstantial evidence and people hate men who cheat, much less cheat on their wives while their pregnant.
A woman who forgets to report the accidental death of her kid for a month, is not evil, like cheater Scott Peterson. No, she’s a ditz like Rose Nyland or Chrissie Snow or any other host of ditzy females we see on TV sitcoms
Susan Smith murders her two kids and blames a black guy. She gets life, not death, as she’s a woman.
Scott Peterson was vilified, the fact he had money and was headed toward Mexico, but not actually there means nothing. Young people alter their looks all the time, so did Scott, but this is another case.
I also have seen a lot of people saying she must be found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, or be 100% convinced of her guilt. This is wrong. It’s only a reasonable doubt.
Would a reasonable person doubt this? I think any reasonable person would doubt everything her defense said. But the jury was looking not for reasonable doubt but looking for absolute proof.
So you have TV law shows to blame in part. The fact she was a woman, got her sympathy and the fact jurors now are demanding absolute rather than reasonable doubt.
Based on what an alternate juror had to say this morning, I have to vote for “something else”:
Jury of dimbulbs.
Is there a link? What did the juror say?