U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2011, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,822,206 times
Reputation: 11318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Oh no, I'd love to hear her defend herself against the claims. I have never once said she should not defend herself. She should. If she's innocent, she can put this all to rest.

Are you serious? I'm part of the public and the public knows a lot about this case. We know CA lied for a month to her family about her child's whereabouts and while she lied, she partied. Strange reaction to her child's death for a loving mother, doncha think? $7000 in psych evaluations did not determine that she'd had any kind of break with reality. So, her actions were deliberate here and actions speak louder than words. Hers are not the actions of someone who is innocent and she has yet to give us a plausible story for what happened to little Caylee. She also is not screaming for justice for her child. Here's another list for you to make: Mothers whose children are murdered who DO NOT demand the killer be found.

I've stood beside mothers who have lost their children and they do not party. I don't believe for one second this woman is innocent. She just got away with it.

Unfortunately, it is now too late for justice. She could confess tomorrow and they couldn't retry her. So, society will pay to establish a new life for her and she'll make plans to write a book that I hope no one will buy....
No, you don't know everything about the case and it's ludicrous to think that you do.
I have no desire to make lists for you.
I have no interest in this case.
I'm just shaking my head at the anger people feel because they don't like the court verdict.
More horrid things happen every day in this world.
Yes it's a sad and terrible thing that this kid is dead.

I think it's outrageous that people who are not affected by this take time away from their families to scream about it on an internet forum.
Why not put that energy into loving the kids that those people gave birth to?
Don't they understand that this anger is felt by the kids?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2011, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,732,152 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
No, you don't know everything about the case and it's ludicrous to think that you do.
I have no desire to make lists for you.
I have no interest in this case.
I'm just shaking my head at the anger people feel because they don't like the court verdict.
More horrid things happen every day in this world.
Yes it's a sad and terrible thing that this kid is dead.

I think it's outrageous that people who are not affected by this take time away from their families to scream about it on an internet forum.
Why not put that energy into loving the kids that those people gave birth to?
Don't they understand that this anger is felt by the kids?
I know enough. I know that CA has not presented a plausible argument for her innocence. I know her actions are not that of someone who is innocent (lying and partying after her daughter died).

People are outraged that a murderer has been exhonerated and how people choose to spend their leisure time is their business. Right now, one of my kids is practicing the piano and the other is swimming at a friends house. Why do you ASSume that I am taking time away from them to post? Do YOU know how I spend all of MY time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2011, 06:59 PM
 
828 posts, read 1,448,769 times
Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
I know enough. I know that CA has not presented a plausible argument for her innocence.[She doesn't need to. A lawful jury says she is NOT guilty] I know her actions are not that of someone who is innocent (lying and partying after her daughter died).

People are outraged that a murderer has been exhonerated and how people choose to spend their leisure time is their business. Right now, one of my kids is practicing the piano and the other is swimming at a friends house. Why do you ASSume that I am taking time away from them to post? Do YOU know how I spend all of MY time?
You can be outraged all you want it don't mean squat!! What I don't like is HLN and Nancy Grace and others CONSTANTLY [over and over and over again] on the air about it and trying to locate her.

With the troubles in the world today [the budget, inflation, high unemployment, illegal immigration] I'm sure this is just a pimple on an ant
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2011, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,822,206 times
Reputation: 11318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
I know enough. I know that CA has not presented a plausible argument for her innocence. I know her actions are not that of someone who is innocent (lying and partying after her daughter died).

People are outraged that a murderer has been exhonerated and how people choose to spend their leisure time is their business. Right now, one of my kids is practicing the piano and the other is swimming at a friends house. Why do you ASSume that I am taking time away from them to post? Do YOU know how I spend all of MY time?
You know nothing of the sort.
You have no idea if she is a murderer or not. You were not there.
The State of CA did not present a compelling case. Period.

See, you don't like it when people make ASSumptions about you, yet you do the same for others.
You don't see the irony at all, do you?
You ASSume your daughter is swimming at another's house. You're not there, she may not be swimming at all.

Just because you think something doesn't make it true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,732,152 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxCar Willie View Post
You can be outraged all you want it don't mean squat!! What I don't like is HLN and Nancy Grace and others CONSTANTLY [over and over and over again] on the air about it and trying to locate her.

With the troubles in the world today [the budget, inflation, high unemployment, illegal immigration] I'm sure this is just a pimple on an ant
I don't care where she is. I just don't want her costing tax payers another dime. She's not worth it. However, I think a dead toddler is more than a "pimple on an ant".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,732,152 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
You know nothing of the sort.
You have no idea if she is a murderer or not. You were not there.
The State of CA did not present a compelling case. Period.

See, you don't like it when people make ASSumptions about you, yet you do the same for others.
You don't see the irony at all, do you?
You ASSume your daughter is swimming at another's house. You're not there, she may not be swimming at all.

Just because you think something doesn't make it true.
I know what the evidence and her actions point to because they've been out in the press for years. YOU however, have no basis for your ASSumptions because how I spend my time is not up for public review .

I find it funny that you think I can't possibly know anything about a highly public case while YOU claim to know how I spend my time??? Which has not been in the published anywhere.

I can read, I can follow the investigation and I can follow the trial. What did you follow to determine that I'm taking time away from my kids to post about this (they're sleeping in case you wanted to know)?

I'd say pot meet kettle but you have NOTHING to base your claims on while I have lots of things to base mine on.

And yes, just because YOU think you know something doesn't make it true. YOU know nothing about how I spend my time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 10:51 AM
 
51,901 posts, read 41,783,059 times
Reputation: 32374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
If there is a reasonable explanation for what happened to her daughter and her actions after her death, she has a lot to gain by making that public now. She cannot be tried again but has no hope of a normal life becasue of public outrage. She could also stand to make a lot of money (let's face it, she cares only for herself) by writing the book "How I did it" (parody on OJ's "If I did it"). According to my poll, approximately, 10% of the population will pay to read it and even if she makes only $1 per book, that's a lot of money to pay for partying...

I agree, it looks like there was something EXTREMELY wrong here. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with CA but I'm sure something is very wrong WRT her maternal instincts and sense of responsibility (wouldn't work, didn't pay her parents back, wrote bad checks, etc, etc, etc...She's out for one person that that is herself and she doesn't care who she throws under the bus in the process (her parents...).).

I have a friend who lost a child, suddenly (to a fall) and there is nothing that could have consoled her let alone gotten her to go out and party. Whether she might be blamed for neglect was the last thing on her mind as she called 911. Whatever happened to Caylee, her mother appears more concerned with getting caught than anything and that tells me she is responsible for her death whether accidental or on purpose.
This fits my scenario that the gal is mental\sociopathic in her reaction, the problem being that the death itself is possibly murder but there just is insufficient proof as to what actually happened and the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

So, I cannot agree that it was certainly murder.
I also cannot agree with people that think we have no basis for entertaining a horrible opinion of her.

I'm not losing any sleep over it. Can't bring the kid back and it's pretty clear that the gal is going to destroy herself sooner or later. Sometimes while the LIKELY cause is known we just cannot PROVE it. Life is imperfect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,732,152 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
This fits my scenario that the gal is mental\sociopathic in her reaction, the problem being that the death itself is possibly murder but there just is insufficient proof as to what actually happened and the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

So, I cannot agree that it was certainly murder.
I also cannot agree with people that think we have no basis for entertaining a horrible opinion of her.

I'm not losing any sleep over it. Can't bring the kid back and it's pretty clear that the gal is going to destroy herself sooner or later. Sometimes while the LIKELY cause is known we just cannot PROVE it. Life is imperfect.
Yes, but manslaughter covers accidental death so you don't need to prove how she died. Just involvement and CA's actions smack of involvement. Even the drowning begs the question why did she not call 911? Why did she not try to save her daughter? The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that she was at fault and knew it so she tried to make it look like a murder and then...lied???? to everyone for 31 days???? That part makes no sense at all as someone is going to get suspicious because they have not seen the child.

It doesn't matter though. Any way you slice and dice her actions and statements after the fact they lead you to the conclusion she was involved in her daughter's death and THAT is all you need for a manslaughter conviction. While Caylee may have drowned, that possibility does not absolve her mother of responsibility. The only logical reason for not calling 911 is she was responsible and knew she'd be prosecuted so she took a chance that paid off big time. Can't say as I blame her but I really wonder how the jury could have concluded she wasn't responsible for her daughter's death because drowning presented reasonable doubt. Given CA's actions after the fact, even an accident looks like it was her fault. If it were, truely, an accident and she wasn't at fault, why not call 911? What was she afriad they'd find?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 07:04 PM
 
51,901 posts, read 41,783,059 times
Reputation: 32374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Yes, but manslaughter covers accidental death so you don't need to prove how she died. Just involvement and CA's actions smack of involvement. Even the drowning begs the question why did she not call 911? Why did she not try to save her daughter? The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that she was at fault and knew it so she tried to make it look like a murder and then...lied???? to everyone for 31 days???? That part makes no sense at all as someone is going to get suspicious because they have not seen the child.

It doesn't matter though. Any way you slice and dice her actions and statements after the fact they lead you to the conclusion she was involved in her daughter's death and THAT is all you need for a manslaughter conviction. While Caylee may have drowned, that possibility does not absolve her mother of responsibility. The only logical reason for not calling 911 is she was responsible and knew she'd be prosecuted so she took a chance that paid off big time. Can't say as I blame her but I really wonder how the jury could have concluded she wasn't responsible for her daughter's death because drowning presented reasonable doubt. Given CA's actions after the fact, even an accident looks like it was her fault. If it were, truely, an accident and she wasn't at fault, why not call 911? What was she afriad they'd find?
Hey, I agree with you 100% that it looks really really bad and basically she walked a tightrope between a variety of charges. The criminal justice system despite it's flaws in convicting the wrong people on occasion really does give the criminal the benefit of the doubt.

While it is VERY LIKELY she was involved in numerous felonies there are just enough gaps in the evidence that they cannot convict her. It's really that simple and even if you completely sugar coat it the BEST you can come away with is she is a crazy self-centered scumbag. However, that doesn't make for a conviction.

That's all I have on the topic. Peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top