A a pool drowning could be an actual accident because it does not require any intent to abuse the child. She could have wandered into the pool while the adults were sleeping or making breakfast. In the case of an actual accident the response is to call 911 and report it. In the case of a death as a result of child abuse the response to hide it so no one finds out what you've done. Leaving a child in the car can also be an accident such as when stupid parents forget they've left the kid in the car and the child dies. They then call 911. Once again the proof is in the fact that no one covers up an accident to make it look like murder.

Hi billl, Just a note on "principal-guaranteed" products. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of further note; COMPLETELY agreed. HOWEVER, there ARE currently principal-guaranteed products that are both significantly cheaper, safer, and better in performance than the alternatives in non-guaranteed securities (money market accounts, CDs, managed investment accounts and index mutual funds.) You can't get high guaranteed returns and no risk. Unfortunately, we can't have "no" risk anywhere, actually... but the exposures to risk *CAN* be dramatically reduced by proper reserves management by the firms, and conservative hedging. These are individual companies "guaranteeing" their products. That brings its own level of risk that isn't easily quantified. Pretty easily evidenced though... all one has to do is look at the historical track record of the firm offering the gaurantees (and especially in comparison to the non-guarantee security firms... if there are any that have remained in business long enough to have a history to compare.) The principal safety track records of insurance deposits are equal (if not better) than the track records of the FDIC & NCUA ('better' in the manner that the insurance deposits are guaranteed at much higher balances... up to twice as much as FDIC in some states... and the rate of failures of the insurance companies themselves is virtually zero in comparison to the banks & securities firms that have been dropping like flies.) The overall investment is ultimately only as "safe" as the underlying investments (ie stock market) even if there are multiple levels before it gets to the final investor. The risk is only being spread, not eliminated. Dead on! Risks exist, always, and need to be properly avoided. Risks that are competently managed so well that firms can offer principal-guarantees, and show a track record (often of CENTURIES) of never defaulting on their guarantees... that works! The non-guarantee security (stocks, mutual funds, bonds, notes, etc.) world *COULD* cobble together a complex structured offering that might come close to the safety and tax efficiency... but the internal expenses would be so high it would destroy any chance of competitive returns. I used to run a hedge fund that offered a principal-guarantee to our partners (just like the insurance companies do.) I discovered its too expensive to try to beat the insurance world at its own game *UNLESS* you accumulate enough in assets to actually BECOME insurance-regulated as a carrier (and can then offer tax-free status ALONG WITH the principal guarantees.) In addition, its always been illegal for your common stockbroker to guarantee principal (or guarantee *anything* really... but to take your money,) and with financial regulation of hedge funds its not even legal today to offer the kinds of guarantees we used to ON A PRIVATE basis. If the regulatory world shifts to make it plausible for non-insurance managed accounts to beat fixed-indexed resetting accounts, I'll fire up a new securities division immediately... but I am definitely NOT holding my breath on that. It *ALL* boils down to; A) who carries the deepest reserves (so they can always honor their guarantees,) B) who manages risks the best (so they can outperform the other guarantors.) Of course, the tax-free growth & access adds nicely to the benefits. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

Palimpsest - I guess that's the thing, "usually indicated" is just not enough. The strange thing is that many, many IR said they were 'authorized retailers' of this manufacturer, but when directed to the place on their website where they note who is, none of them is. When asked, the IR say they are authorized. It's not true and they're saying otherwise. So relying on what is "usually indicated" just won't work in this instance at least. I remember soon after joining GW reading a post where someone warned of this, of IR claiming to be authorized retailers and then turning to the manufacturer and being soundly disabused of this notion, statements, written or otherwise, to the contrary having zero significance. At the time I thought 'well, so what, just ask more carefully...?'. But I'm beginning to think you *can't*, yet still you lose. Quite truthfully -- and I know most everyone here completely doesn't understand why this fascinates me -- but I'm mostly interested not so much in protecting myself against potential future problems with the product; I'm interested in the meaning of all this rococco selling process; the favored and the out-of-favor: and *why*. Weissman -- thank you. That goes a really long way toward some glimpse of this 'why'-thing. The occasional package "falling off" the forklift I can sort of understand, but it doesn't explain the vast volume of this quasi-authorized selling. What just mystifies me is this explicit system that's supposedly set up, only to be explicitly undermined necessarily by the very ones who set it up. The complicated curlicues just confuse me: why? Seems if it's your product, and you are permitted to and chose to control who sells it, then do so. What's with the "looking the other way"? Why do that and who loses; who gains? I really feel twiddled with; I can't even tell if, when or how I am doing some wrong thing. I appreciate this peep, Weismman. At last some beginnings of an explanation...

my friends' latest report is that there is a trail of gas and decomp from the backyard to the backdoor of the garage that both bloodhounds picked up on twice each. one theory is that caylee died in the backyard was buried there for a few days (g'parents out of town then). soon after dug up, drenched in gas, dragged thru the backdoor of the garage to the g'mom's car, taken to another site and burned. casey did steal gas cans from her parents home. there is some sort of gas/ethanol residue on the hair samples found in the truck. the tests came back positive for some sort of fluid present during body decomp and present only after death and it was this fluid the dogs found in the trunk and confirmed by Univ of TN body lab. police are positive she's dead. police have dumpsters from a check cashing place where casey wrote stolen checks then abandoned her mom's car, reporting it stolen. and a dumpster from where her boyfriend worked where casey had parked the car for a day. since casey's immunity deal has past the police are slowly releasing details hoping she will come out w/ some talk once she realizes what they have found so far. meanwhile the g'father may be charged w/ battery for shoving 2 protestors, upstanding people these are! independent search crews have left, no one in the family ever asked for the search teams (sheriff's office did) and they did not ever participate in any searches, ever. obviously they were not going to waste their own time...~ liz