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.
Are you saying there is only one explanation for that kind of behavior? I would think that a person would hide a body to prevent people from finding out that person is dead. If that's the goal why in the world would anyone call the police?
Can I imagine that's what happened? Of course. But it's certainly not the only explanation.
Reasonable people make reasonable logical arguements. Hiding a dead body is not what reasonable people do after an accidental death or people who have nothing to hide. What motivation to hide a body? There has to be some motivation to that person's behavior. But, if accidental, again, why would the guilty party dispose of a body in a swamp in a bag? That method of disposal is what a person would do after witnessing an accident, taking the body to a swamp for disposal? Where is the logic to that?
Last edited by Nanny Goat; 07-06-2011 at 05:51 PM..
So her lying did was not "evidence" that she murdered her child. It was a "normal" pattern for her.
Lying is not physical evidence, of course, but it is evidence of how people act and their behaviors related to a crime and very important. Why do the police bother interviewing people if it's not "evidence?" This was a circumstantial case.
Well, I see no one answered my question...which is about what I figured would happen. And pretty much tells me all I need to know.
First people were pissed off because they DIDN'T talk, now people are pissed off because they do.
There is no sense here. I'm spent. See ya at the next "big trial"...as someone said on another thread, when the talking heads tell us what we are supposed to be interested in next.
Which question?
I am pissed that they are making a payday out of talking. However, that's legal so oh well ...
Lying is not physical evidence, of course, but it is evidence of how people act and their behaviors related to a crime and very important. Why do the police bother interviewing people if it's not "evidence?" This was a circumstantial case.
I was talking about her habitual lying, the pattern of lying PRIOR to Caylee's disappearance, not being evidence in this case. It's not like Casey was always honest and straightforward PRIOR to Caylee's disappearance, and then suddenly started lying after the disappearance. That's why her lying after Caylee disappeared was not anything new and not necessarily an indication of guilt of murder.
I know the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. I know this was a circumstantial evidence case.
There are many reasons why police interview people.
You're offended by that? do you think it's aimed at you?
Who said they were offended? Or that it was aimed at them? All they pointed out was that it was a classless gesture and reflects the professionalism and mentality of the defense team.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-06-2011 at 10:32 PM..
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.
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.
