Friday, September 17, 2010


My thoughts:

What the hell was Beth thinking traveling to Peru to go undercover to shoot a documentary with Peter de Vries? Then to invite Stephanie Flores' brother to her hotel room only for the brother to be met with lights and camera pointing at him as he entered the room.

I didn't think highly of Beth when she allowed Natalie to go to Aruba basically unchaperoned with the end result of Natalie still missing. Yes I know there were chaperones on the trip, however, clearly no one was watching out for one another.

When the sting operation was set up, and background info comes out on how this all went down, it wasn't in my eyes "poor Beth" as they all were aware of what they were trying to do and that was to get Joran anyway possible.

However, Joran outwitted all the professionals leaving them without their money, and with THEIR money was able to travel to Peru with the end result of Stephanie's death.

Now we have this undercover documentary investigation, with Beth part of the team to try and meet with Joran as well as the Flores' family member and Beth doesn't even clue in her famous attorney "John Q. Kelly".

I sure would like to know if Natalie's father was even aware of what Beth was doing and if he approved of her adventure to Peru. Clearly Nantalie's father wasn't aware of the sting operation, so it makes sense that Natalie's father wasn't aware of Beth's plan to go to Peru.

Who is the brains of this undercover investigation? Clearly Mr. de Vries would do anything for a story and included Beth in his quest, or perhaps their quest to get into Castro Castro.

Didn't anyone even think that they both could have been arrested and put in the Peruvian jail and sit there for a long time never to leave Peru until their case was heard?

Let's talk money here. Who paid for this trip to Peru? What is Beth getting out of this documentary?

The general public complained when Joran's mother spoke to de Vries and people were down on Anita because there had to be money made. So is Beth making money off this documentary? Is the organization that Beth started, of which, takes donations pay for Beth's trip to Peru?

Beth is now in Aruba (9/18/10) and that costs $$$'s also. Is Beth planning on "blind-siding" Joran's mother with lights, camera, action tactics like Beth and company did to Stephany Flores' brother?

Is Beth still partners with John Ramsey and perhaps Ramsey is footing the bill for Beth's travels here there and everywhere?

Eventually this documentary will be aired and perhaps a clearer picture will come forward.

What was Beth Holloway Thinking?

My thoughts:
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things in life, and breaking the law is not the way to do it.

Although it is really hard to know what is fact in what happened with Beth getting into Castro Castro with Peter de Vries, but clearly Peter de Vries did not have the best interest of Beth when they collectively decided to go to Peru to confront Joran Vander Sloot. Didn't either one of them even realize that they could have been arrested because of their actions and they both could have ended up in a Peruvian prison themselves?

I understand a mother's need to get answers, but breaking the law is not the way to do it. I wouldn't be surprised if Joran's attorney doesn't file harassment charges against both of them and charges against Castro Castro for not protecting Joran.

I am not a fan of Joran, but since Joran is sitting in prison, filing charges against Beth, Peter and Castro Castro, would just be another way of Joran getting another hands up on Beth Holloway.

Mistakes made:
Allowing a Natalie to go to another country basically unattended.

Agreeing to set up a sting to try and get info on Natalie's whereabouts.

Sting money allowed Joran to travel to Peru with the end result of Stephanie's murder.

Going to Castro Castro to attempt to speak to Joran without going through the proper channels to do so.

It is really time for everyone involved to take a step back, ponder their thoughts before acting on impulse.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Kaine Horman Drops Contempt Charges Against Terri Horman

Now this is really interesting that Kaine dropped the charges and there is no explanation of why Kaine dropped the charges. Remember these charges came about when Kaine found out that Terri showed Michael Cook the contents of the sealed Restraining Order.

IMO, there was a huge gray area with regards to this RO and when it was sealed, if Terri knew about it being sealed, and when the media got info regarding the RO.

Kaine told KGW that dropping the motion also serves other purposes.

"It's an act of good faith on our part," Kaine told KGW. "It shows that we're serious about not wasting the court's time with side issues. We want to get the divorce wrapped up so we can deal the important things and move forward."

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Dr. Lillian Glass' Analysis Of The Video Of Caylee.

This is the video under analysis by Dr. Glass.

Dr. Glass states: The first editorial comment I will make with regard to this video is that it made me terribly sad. In fact, it brought tears to my eyes and left me with a sick feeling in my stomach and a heaviness in my heart as I saw how this poor child was neglected both verbally and emotionally.

My thoughts:
I didn't get a sick feeling when I viewed this video now or when I first saw it at least a year and a half ago. When I watched this video back then, I just saw a Caylee sitting in a high chair with tidbits of food, probably a snack and just blabbering away and SOMEONE recording it.

I see no emotional or verbal neglect by the videographer. Apparently, IMO, Caylee must of be either singing or talking and the videographer just decided to record the happenings. IF you talk to the child at the time you want to capture a moment, you will lose the moment.

Dr. Glass states: it is essential for anyone interacting with a child to visualize with them. That is how a child develops their speech an language skills.

My thoughts:
You don't have to interact every single moment with a child to learn. For all we know, just prior to the recording, there could have been some time where they BOTH were signing. We have no clue what happened moments before the camera started rolling.

Dr. Glass states: What shocked me even more was that the only time Casey interacted with Caylee. she uttered a word as if to question what Caylee said. She questioned whether her child was saying the words ” “I kill? ” I could not believe my ears!

Caylee had emotional needs in this video that were clearly not being met . These needs were ignored. To me that is cruel and abusive.

My thoughts:
There is absoultely no indication that the words uttered by the videographer says: "I kill". I remember when someone posted on blogs this is what they think they heard. This traveled like a weed throughout forums, bringing anyone who hears the tape to say "Yup I heard it loud and clear".

I could write that I heard "IKEA" and with my power of suggestion with the word "IKEA", everyone will then hear the same thing.

Dr. Glass feels it is "cruel and abusive" because the videographer did not speak to Caylee. WTH! I recall back in the day when I would watch my son while he sat in his high-chair and I didn't say a word to him, but just observed the moments of what he was doing. Although 40 + years ago I didn't have a camcorder but I would take a camera shot of those moments.

Dr. Glass states: If you look at the first photo above, you will see that Caylee begins to have a frustrated concerned look on her face as she is sitting in her high chair with individual pieces of cereal spead ou , along with her her baby bottle. She is verbalizing and singing. She verbalizes and sings what sound like “Ah keyeh”

My thoughts:
Caylee is NOT frustrated in the video at all, she is just puzzled at what is staring back at her.

I could talk to my dog every moment, however if I point a camera at him, he stops and looks at me.

Dr. Glass states: Since the /s/ sounds aren’t yet formed in a child of that age, it may be her attempt to say “ A kiss” Maybe she is asking Casey who is filming this video for a kiss to indicate that she is loved. In the photo above you see the beginnings of her frustration and tenseness by her little furrowed brow as she is ignored by Casey.

My thoughts:
WTH! How could anyone possibly know what Caylee might be saying at this age. Also, we have no clue who is filming Caylee.

Dr. Glass: Now Caylee is very upset as she leaks out the facial expression indicating that she is about to cry. She even curls in her lower lip. Look at her sad eyes . She tries to communicate that she wants a response as she raises her hand and points her finger.

My thoughts:
At no point in this video was Caylee going to cry. You can see that Caylee at one moment went into deep thought as she looked out the window.

Dr. Glass states: Casey films Cayee’s legs from 1:30 to 2:32 where there is continued silence.

She films Caylee under the table and now shoots a close up of Caylee’r crotch area. The implications are highly disturbing. Why would anyone video their child’s crotch area?

It certainly makes one wonder of there were any sexual issues or concerns involved here? I am not accusing Casey of sexually molesting Caylee. I am just staying that this behavior is odd and raises some concerns. It is not typical behavior.

My thoughts:

At one point the videographer started to bend down, IMO, as to hide from Caylee and holding the camera as still as possible. So they filmed Caylee's cute little legs, and happened to capture Caylee strapped into the high chair. Should we believe that the videographer was "FOCUSING" in on Caylee's crotch? Absolutely not! However, Dr. Glass' "power of suggestion" would want us to believe that this was the purpose of seeing Caylee's strapped into her high chair.

You can clearly see that the videographer tried to capture an opening right under Caylee's left arm pit, however when Caylee leaned over the high chair, she wasn't upset and happened to be all smiles. We never did get to see if Caylee leaned the other way but the camera didn't catch it.

Dr. Glass states: Caylee also thinks that it is odd that she is being filmed under her high chair. So she peers under her high chair to see what is so interesting that it has to be filmed.

My thoughts:
WTH? How could Caylee possibly even think that it is odd that she is being filmed from under the high chair? Now it's possible Caylee might understand "peek-a-boo" however clearly no concept of what a camera can do or what is odd at this age. WTH!!!!

Dr. Glass states: For the first time, we see Caylee smile a genuine smile as she thinks that this may be some sort of a game.

My thoughts:
Of course Caylee thinks it's a game. Whoever is recording her is playing a "silent" peek-a-boo.

I will address the last part only because the other stuff is "pure" speculation and misleading.

Dr. Glass states: One can only wonder how long Caylee remained uncomfortably in that high chair. The bottom line is that to not speak to your child when they verbalize and gesture for you to interact with them is inhumane.

My thoughts:
At no point was it evident that Caylee was uncomfortable in the high chair. When children want out of a high chair, they try and stand up, they put up a big fuss, they start to cry etc. There was no indication that Caylee was uncomfortable.

I guess I am guilty of being "inhumane" when I didn't interact with my child as he sat in a high chair eating some cheerios. My goodness, less then 2 minutes of silence between a child and a videographer is "INHUMANE".


Sunday, September 5, 2010

A Song For Caylee Marie; Composer Alex Ceruzzi

February 7, 2009

A song for Caylee Marie. Alex Ceruzzi from Canton, Georgia is the composer of the words and music and Alex's email address is: for those of you who would like to contact Alex with your reaction to the beautiful song Alex wrote for Caylee. Alex offered the song to the Anthony family for the Memorial Service, however they declined.