Caylee/Casey Anthony Case: Padilla Interviews Released Today
Orlando, FL– In the latest blow to the defense team dealt this week, The interview recordings of Leonard Padilla, Tracy Mclaughlin, Rob Dick and bail bondsman Tony Padilla are set to be released today.
Padilla and his team met with Agent Nick Savage of the FBI and a member of the Orange County Sheriffs Office in their home town of Sacramento, California last Fall.
Lead Investigator Corporal Detective Yuri Melich was slated to make the trip to interview the bondsquad personally, but was injured the morning of his flight in a motorcycle accident.
Jose Baez and the defense team for Casey Anthony argued to keep the Padillas et al out of the witness box alleging their was an “agency” established between he and the group, which would render their testimony work product and privileged. Not only did Judge Stan Strickland say in open court that he had never seen such a motion; he denied it entirely.
Tony Padilla, through Prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick, alleges that the agreement contained in the defense motion was not even the agreement signed by him in the first place. Ms. Burdick requested the originals of the agreement in question; it is unknown at this time if they have been turned over.
The recordings will be added to blinkoncrime.com as soon as they are available, please check back for updates.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
358 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Blink!
You don’t know everything? hehe I am shocked….
Do you all remember KC reaching out and telling a few people that she felt that she needed to be in a hospital as she thought she was going crazy? Why was this ignored by her Nurse mother?
Or why didnt anyone help her make some calls?
When I was a very young mother, I went through a lot of these types of feelings as I was so young and not prepared for al.l of the hormonal changes that I went through and my mom was also a nurse.
I reached out and got help on my own as it was really scary.
I am in any way sticking up for her, BUT people REALLY need to listen to other peoples cries for help.
This is a really sad tradgedy if she could have been helped and also been strong enough to put Caylee up for adoption without Cindy encouraging her to keep her for her own selfish reasons?
I still believe that KC was pondering the thoughts of killing Cindy and the fight(if it happened) just pushed her over the edge of rage.
I do think Caylee drowned or KC choked her as to show her mom who the one with the power was. I also believe from the get go that this happened in the pool.
OH my goodness could Cindy have found Caylee or evidence of her being dead in the backyard on the 3rd?
And then take whatever she found to the remains site?
OH my my I hope we find out the end of this story…
Blink will we hear the other evidence if this does not get to trial?
hi shelly, blink,
i’ve just downloaded SL for the first time, got an account & logged in – my screen name is: One Fairlady
i also logged into VRH for the first time & left you a message, although i’ve forgotten which thread! (blush)
i have no clue how to proceed from there ! (cyber-challenged)
help?!!
ChicagoJudy, think that’s it for now.
#200 – not hung, but strangled..at least, that’s my understanding of the threads…which is something I’d considered she’d done, if she didn’t benedryl her to get her drowsy first then applied the fireproof duck tape…without soft tissue and only a skeleton w/o the hyoid, there’s no way to tell outside of a confession from the ‘jailed sunglass flirt’ herself (which isn’t gonna happen).
btw, is there any evidence that Tracy M did donate to the commissary fund (or whatever jail account she might have) of ‘miss sunglass flirt’ ? I find that to be somewhat of a professional lapse, yet they were there independently so I guess it wasn’t…just kind of ‘unsavory’ just as I found her description of Casey as “nice” was rather out of place … psychopaths are by definition “chameleons” who charm everyone, fit into everybody’s social circle, but have their own uses for you so I would’ve thought that it’d have been somewhat of a “no-brainer” that Casey would “appear nice”..but filicide isn’t a “nice” act, is it?!! so Tracy’s seeming vulnerability to Casey’s manipulations, outside of her stay at the Anthony home for that brief time period, is surprising, for someone who comes into contact with criminals/sociopaths-psychopaths in her career. imho.
#198 ChicagoJudy – it may be your system (browser) re-buffering – I had to stop and re-start in the middle, but it’s all there.
http://www.wftv.com/video/20726607/index.html
NancyS, yes, casey told at least two people that she was feeling like she was losing it. Lately I have been in the ‘casey snapped’ camp (alone, lol), thinking perhaps that casey was pushed over the edge one day and the duct tape was to silence a tantrum or a crying caylee. As you said, and the literature agrees, sometimes young mothers snap. But casey is so crazy (i’m not saying not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity, just that she is clearly nuts) that i really don’t know if it was deliberate, accidental, rage, psychotic break, or something else entirely. I always ask myself, why did she do it when she did it—why that day, that moment?
But here you go:
————-
Orlando Sentinel
Originally published 10:50 a.m., February 18, 2009
In late 2006 or early 2007 Casey Anthony visited Downing at work and told her she need to talk to someone. Anthony said “she needed to get away and felt like she was having a breakdown,” Downing told investigators
Anthony didn’t tell Downing what caused the breakdown, but said she wanted to go to “an institution” and that Caylee could stay with Cindy Anthony, Downing said.
But when Downing called her later that night, Casey Anthony said she’d talked to her mother and she was fine.
——–
second person:
[from momlogic] Included are transcripts of an interview with Anthony family friend Michelle Murphy, who voiced concern about Casey’s mental state when she received a desperate call from her in March 2007 — over a year before Caylee went missing.
“She called me and said that she was … she needed somebody to talk to, that she was feeling crazy. She was thinking about getting herself committed,” Murphy told lead detective Yuri Melich in January.
[from orlando sentinel] In March 2007, shortly after the alleged miscarriage, Anthony called Murphy and told her she was feeling “crazy” and was considering getting “herself committed,” the report said. Anthony had “imagined this life with Brandon [Snow] and that she was supposed to have this baby in October,” according to the report.
Anthony also said she didn’t feel like she was being a good mom to Caylee, but did not elaborate on details to Murphy. When Murphy called the following day to check on the situation, Anthony blew her off.
#206, I’ve tried re-starting and I still don’t hear Rob Dick explaining Lee’s lies. Do you think he finally came clean and tha is why he received immunity. I think he knows and did things that were not legal.
Thanks Angela! I’m head back over there now.
I have a thought about Tracy and what she said in her interview. I don’t know what her credentials are, but really don’t think she’s a psychologist or counselor of any type, is she? So, in addition to only spending a week or so with C, she probably didn’t know what to look for from a professional point of view. She didn’t know the right questions to ask. She was just there to observe and gain C’s trust — which it seems like she did. I wish LP would have given it a bit more thought and been able to put someone in that house who could really analyze what she was seeing/hearing. JMO.
Carol in Orlando – fairly new here. Where is the “Caylee Daily Blog” that has a virus? I don’t want to inadvertantly go there.
Hope all our American Blinkers are enjoying the holiday. And remember to be safe.
Re: How did Caylee die. I doubt we will ever know the way that the sweet little darling died. Unfortunately by the time she was found it was too late to tell. From my medical perspective I can tell you there are so many possibilities that it is mindboggling. The jury does not have to prove how. The evidence in this case that we have seen is in itself enough to raise the red meters on any juries burden.
We heart this case from each of us. A jury will look to who would have placed a heart on the duct tape (a very rare duct tape). This very rare brand of duct tape that is tied to the gas can from the Anthony’s shed. A jury will have to get past the 31 days this baby was missing from it’s mother and only reported as missing when the paternal grandmother forced Casey to “call in the law”. Who drove the car around with the body in it for 2.6 days? Who searched for the missing baby the whole month that she was laying in that stinking rodent, snake infested swamp. Who partied and led “the good life” while that baby lay there.
We can hash it out, speculate and beat our brows for the answers. But, the real evidence is just trickling out for us. Baez, if he had a clue, from experience, would see that a juror is going to see clearly. Lyons is fighting desperately (look at last week, we did not see the “10″ young lady sitting in court). We saw a makeup free, dowdy dressed Casey, with oily looking hair sitting at the table. Lyons is trying to make Casey look like a young woman who does not deserve the death penality. That Casey sits back and does not cop a plea, while letting her former friends and lovers, and yes, even family members be scrutinized to be thrown under the bus…is really sad.
Don’t let the defense tactic of trying to muddy the water and snare you in their attempts to distort the truth and boggle your minds with twisting the facts get to you. The real truth in what is important is the filling in of the puzzle pieces so meticously by the prosecution. Remember Silver’s posts. Go back and read them here at BlinkonCrime. She forewarned us of things that would happen. Maura has kept the facts straight for us so excellently.
The archives here at BlinkonCrime are filled with so much from so many bright Blinker minds. I am humbled in their knowledge and dedication to searching the facts.
Ok, there’s my pep talk to those who are getting anxious, weary, and discouraged at the slow pace of our legal system. We will never have “all” the answers. But, a jury will hear the facts. And I am going to bet the first thing they hear is things like “31 days”; a grandmother’s frantic “the car smells like its had a……”; a grandfather who is former law officer saying “Once you smell that smell….; a brother saying……
Here you go Blinkers.
You can hear the Padilia tapes parts 1 thru 9 clearly here. The links for Tracy and Rob Dick are also on this page.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m9d5-Casey-Anthony-case-Law-enforcement-interview-with-bounty-hunter-Leonard-Padilla-parts-6-through-9
I don’t proofread for spelling mistakes…you get what my fingers put down
I think we have the new people who requested signed up for Second Life who have let us know both their names there. REMEMBER we are all new to how to move around and learn the ropes, so do not feel intimidated. We are there to help Angela make sure you are oriented and comfortable, if she is unavailable. When you come into the Virtual Juror group you will be met with fellow Blinkers who are going to help you.
Last night we began talking about Lee… and Angela is actually thinking of putting an additional “island” up to help us cover his actions in this case. We will have to continue with Lee along the way. Although there were not a lot of us on because of the holidays, it got VERY interesting.
Shelly aka Blinker Pedalo (in my Second Life lol)
When reading about Casey’s ‘dowdy’ appearance, I wondered who provides clothing for her now. I don’t think its Cindy because she is described as a clean freak, as was Casey, and I don’t think Casey’s blouse has ever seen an iron. I also wondered if Casey has bought any shampoo etc. lately because her hair did look greasy. If she hasn’t bought any, is her jail account drying up?
Looking at the lanyard thing again – here’s a hypothetical situation. Cindy puts it in the garage by the washer/dryer with the “work” bag. While Casey and Lee are in the garage alone Casey tells Lee to ditch the lanyard for her. He pockets it, disposes of it later but doesn’t tell Cindy that he did it. So she finds it missing then yaps on and on to LE about them taking the lanyard, because she believes that they did take it without her knowledge. After all, Lee might have specifically told her he didn’t take it. And Cindy jumps on this as some sort of police misconduct issue that will prove to everyone that LE was out to blame/railroad her inocent daughter. Kind of like the ridiculously huge issue she made out of the “C” Zenaida Gonzalee spelling thing on the Sawgrass card at the deposition with Mr. Morgan. Something tells me she should have kept her mouth shut… because if it really is missing, that says to me that it has significance. And as someone else pointed out earlier, they can’t really use it to plant on someone else now that she made the statement that it had been at their house that first night. Just a thought. And who knows, maybe LE does have it and it hasn’t been turned over in discovery yet.
i mostly read here but YOUR RIGHT Shelly!! Thank-you for that post the defense is not about the truth in this case..they are mudmakers!!! i hope it comes out just the way you posted it!
Re: post 211 by Shelly
Great post. Said with conviction and real feeling. Its good to remember the Basics of this case and not get lost in the minutia.
The prosecution should be able to re-create a simple and convincing presentation of what transpired.
See you later by the fire in the cornfield.
Thisbe
Caylee’s Poem by truthiness
Today there will be silence mom,
no crying will you hear.
I didn’t mean to anger you,
I just wanted you near.
Today there will be sleep again,
I won’t cry out in vain.
The nights I needed comforting,
were filled with hurt and pain.
How could someone so big and strong,
strike out at little me?
I was a gift, your little girl,
unwanted now, I see.
Today there will be love at last,
on angels wings I’ll soar.
Way up high, above the clouds,
through heavens golden doors.
So momma, say a prayer for me,
for the life I’ll never know.
I just wish you could have cared for me,
for I would have loved you so..
But my question is still…..
If this does not go to trial, will we be able to see the rest of the evidence?
NancyS – I don’t know. Hopefully someone who does will see your question?
Blink/All-
I apologize in advance for the length of this post.
B-please feel free to ditch it if you think its too much.
All-if B allows it, please read it carefully before you ask any follow-up questions– or just skip it entirely. I may or may not have time or feel compelled to answer, btw.
Thanks.
Here is my comment on the Florida Rules of Evidence on Hearsay (please note the spelling; it is HEARsay, not “heresay”).
What people believe hearsay means in the lay world is a far cry from what this EVIDENTIARY RULE (which is actually more akin to a set of rules) means in the world of the courtroom.
The PURPOSE for which an “out-of-court” statement is sought to be introduced is KEY, because if it is not being offered for the TRUTH of the statement, it isn’t even “hearsay” to begin with.
There are MANY situations in which evidence of an out-of-court statement is offered as evidence at trial FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. Sometimes an out-of-court statement has direct legal significance, whether or not it is true.
For example, an out-of-court statement may constitute an offer, an acceptance, a promise, a guarantee, a notice, a representation, a misrepresentation, defamation, PERJURY, compliance with contractual or statutory obligation, etc.
MORE OFTEN, an out-of-court statement, whether or not it is TRUE, CONSTITUTES CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE TRIER OF FACT (the jury, or the judge in a bench trial) MAY INFER, ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER EVIDENCE, THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A FACT IN ISSUE.
For example, a declarant’s out-of-court statement may imply HER PARTICULAR STATE OF MIND, or it may imply that a particular state of mind ENSUED IN THE RECIPIENT.
Or, for example, evidence of an out-of-court statement, PARTICULARLY IF IT IS PROVEN UNTRUE BY OTHER EVIDENCE, MAY IMPLY THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY, OR FRAUD.
Of, for example, evidence of an out-of-court statement made by a witness, IF INCONSISTENT WITH THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY, MAY IMPLY THAT THE WITNESS IS AN UNRELIABLE HISTORIAN. (***waiving at YOU, again, SPINDY, and Georgie Boy–and Lee pre-immunity***)
Conversely, evidence of an out-of-court statement made by a witness that is CONSISTENT with the witness’ testimony may imply the opposite. (there are other rules governing IMPEACHING a witness with PRIOR STATEMENTS OF that witness or other witnesses which go along here)
SO:
Whether a statment is hearsay DEPENDS ON THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LAWYER IS OFFERING IT. It is is offered because it was true, is is hearsay. However, if it is offered because it was SAID, HEARD, OR RELIED UPON, ITS PROBATIVE VALUE IS ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO THE STATEMENT’S ABILITY TO CONVEY THE TRUTH, AND IT IS NOT HEARSAY.
FALSE EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ARE NOT HEARSAY. For example, a FALSE ALIBI may be offered by the State precisely because it is NOT TRUE, and therefore shows a CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.
The Federal Rules of Evidence list 24 exceptions from the hearsay rule in which the availability of the declarant is immaterial, 5 exceptions in which the declarant must be available, and 4 exceptions from the definition of hearsay–which are, in reality, exceptions from the rule), for a total of 33)
The Florida Rules of Evidence also list 24 exceptions from the hearsay rule, and while many are based on the Federal Rules, they do not mirror them entirely. This is why it is important to know the rules in every state in which you practice OR COMMENT UPON.
The hearsay rule is applicable in both civil and criminal cases. In a criminal case, however, hearsay that is offered against a defendant under an exception from the hearsay rule may sometimes be excluded because its admission would violate the defendant’s right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”[or her] under the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Both the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution (6th Amendment) provide that an accused has the right to CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE witnesses presented against him or her. The hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause generally are designed to protect similar values and stem from the same roots. Both are intended to exclude UNRELIABLE evidence by subjecting it to cross-examination or by providing a set of conditions that, when met, obviate the requirement of cross-examination.
REMEMBER: Once the hearsay hurdle has been overcome, other rules of evidence may still prevent the admission of the statement. So, as you listen to the recently released interviews, consider any statement that may be offered, and try to come up with a reason that you could convince the judge it is being offered either a)not for its truth, or b) whether it falls within an explicit exception to the hearsay rule. Then, consider whether it is relevant for any purpose, etc. If a lawyer fails to work this out ahead of time, and cannot offer a reason for the court to admit the statement, shame on him/her. There are some calls that are so obvious, the judge will know how to rule without an explanation, but it always pays to know these rules and court opinions to back yourself up. Key in the criminal case is an understanding of the relationship between hearsay and the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause, for although a statement may fit within an exception to the hearsay rule, it still must be tested against the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Here are the relevant Florida Rules of Evidence:(I have only added some comments, because otherwise this will end up a BOOK.)
90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.–
(1) The following definitions apply under this chapter:
(a) A “statement” is:
1. An oral or written assertion; or (***note: assertion can be NON-VERBAL CONDUCT INTENDED AS AN ASSERTION*** and NON-VERBAL CONDUCT INTENDED AS AN ASSERTION INCLUDES ANY GESTURE DESIGNED TO SERVE AS A FORM OF COMMUNICATION*** SUCH CONDUCT CAN INCLUDE HEAD-NODDING AND SHAKING)
2. Nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion.
(b) A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. (**note: the “declarant” is THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE OUT-OF-COURT STATMENT, and NOT the person who repeats it on the witness stand**)
(c) “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is:
(a) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; (**these are known as a PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, and when offered to IMPEACH OR REHABILITATE a witness are not hearsay, because the probative value of the statements does not depend on whether the out-of-court statement is true, but on the INCONSISTENCY or CONSISTENCY that serves, respectively, to ATTACK or SUPPORT the WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY)
(b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication; or
(c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.
(***notice 2 (a)-(c) are specifically OUTSIDE the definition of Hearsay, and they are, in reality, more exceptions from the rule)
***A statement offered to show the EFFECT ON THE LISTENER/effect on the listener’s STATE OF MIND is not hearsay, because the statement is offered to show that a person head it, and acted on it in a particular way as a result of the information supplied, not because the information is true***. Example: An officer’s statement to a victim that the defendant was in jail was NOT hearsay when offered to show the jury why the victim hesitated in identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. This example highlights a key point: the listener’s RELIANCE on that statement must be RELEVANT.
(Don’t know about Florida, but here, in PA, it was recently held that a police officer’s course-of-conduct testimony was admissible where defense counsel had attacked the adequacy of the police investigation and its focus on the defendant/appellant, rather than on others. See Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 889 (Pa. 2005)). Also see Commonwealth v. Jones, 658 A.2d 746 (Pa. 1995), where it was held that a witness’s advice on how to commit murder–choose rainy night, in isolated area outside of certain townships, without leaving physical evidence–was admissible to EXPLAIN police conduct when the defendant challenged MANNER AND THOROUGHNESS of investigation).
***Statements that are probative of but do not directly assert as speaker’s state of mind are not hearsay. They differ from a witness’s direct expressions of his/her state of mind or emotional condition. For example: “I am afraid to go home.”; “I love him”, etc. These are not hearsay, because they are not being offered to prove that X was afraid to go home or that X loved Y, but rather to prove X’s state of mind at the time the statement was made. This is distinguishable from the “State of Mind” hearsay exception as set forth below.
***A statement in which the declarant indirectly asserts a PRESENT state of mind or feeling that is otherwise relevant falls outside of the hearsay rule, because, again, the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So, for example, a victim’s friend’s testimony that the victim told her that the defendant said, “if he ever found victim with another man he would kill them both” was IRRELEVANT, and therefore inadmissible in the defendant’s first degree murder trial where the defendant advanced a “heat of passion” defense, in which only his state of mind at the time of the murder was relevant. See Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2001).
90.802 Hearsay rule.–Except as provided by statute, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.–The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.–A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
In other jurisdictions (including here is PA), this is called a “present sense impression”.
For this exception to apply, the declarant need not be excited or otherwise emotionally affected by the event or condition perceived. Rather, the trustworthiness of the statement arises from its TIMING. The requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory. A present sense impression must describe or explain events or conditions perceived. Opinions and conclusions are not admissible under present sense impressions, even when they are made contemporaneously with an observation.
Here is PA (again, not familiar with FL), a declarant’s description of an event or occurrence OVER THE TELEPHONE may qualify as present sense impressions. So, telling someone over the phone, “My car stinks like a dead animal is plastered to the frame”, could come into evidence under this exception. (Could also come in as an “ADMISSION” of a party-opponent,see infra for more detailed explanation).
(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.–A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
**This exception has a narrower base than the exception for present sense impressions, because it requires an event that was “startling”. HOWEVER, it is broader in scope because it need not describe or explain the startling event of condition; it need only RELATE TO IT, AND it need not be made CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the startling event.
(“Finally admitted she’s MISSING!!…We’re talking about a 3yo little girrr-hhl!!..I found my daughter’s car today… It smells like there was a DEAD BODY IN THE DAMN CAR!!.. SOMETHING’S WRONG!!!”)(sorry if those are not accurate, just going off of memory here, but you get the idea– you can tell she is EXCITED about a STARTLING EVENT/CONDITION and was making those statements under the stress of it. Here, we have 2 startling events: finding the Pontiac with death smell at Johnsons and Casey’s admission that Caylee was “missing”. When two events are inextricably linked such that the trauma of the second event necessarily included a reference to the first event, the declaration about both events may qualify as an Excited Utterance. There is no specific length of time lapse between the startling event and the declarant’s exclamation that determines whether the statement was spontaneous or reflective. As long as the statement is made by someone WHILE UNDER THE SPELL OF THE EVENT, the length of delay is insignificant. Many factors are considered by Courts, including spontaneity, the declarant’s age, the declarant’s level of trauma, whether the statment is presented in the form of a narrative, etc)
(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.–
(a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.
2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.
(b) However, this subsection does not make admissible:
1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will.
2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
**This exception is generally referred to as the “State of Mind” exception, and also include the declarant’s intention to do something in the future. Examples: “I love her.” “My stomach aches.” There is no requirement that the statement be corroborated, just that they must overtly describe or allude to a mental, emotional, or physical condition that THEN exists. Indirect assertions are not within the exception, and may not be offered for the truth. However, these “hearsay” declarations may be admissible as circumstantial evidence of the state of mind or condition. Additionally, they may be offered to show the effect on the listener, rather than the truth of the assertions. Likewise, factual assertions contained within an otherwise admissible statement of present condition are not admissible. So– “My stomach aches because of the food you served” is only partially admissible. “My stomach aches is a statement of physical condition. “Because of the food you served” is not a statement of physical condition and remains inadmissible to prove that you served food, that I ate it, or that is caused my pain. Also, the statement must be material and relevant (for whatever purpose).
This exception also covers statements showing present intent to take future actions. Such statements of current intent are admissible for the inference that the intended act was performed.
Statements of past events are inadmissible under this exception. For example, “I believe that Casey killed Caylee”, when offered to prove that Casey killed Caylee, falls outside of this exception.
Remember, the statement must still be RELEVANT.
***State of Mind MAY PROVE MOTIVE.
Much more, but on we go.
(4) STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.–Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. (This exception does not cover statements made to a doctor, for instance, if the PURPOSE of the statement was NOT MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT, etc.)
*no comment, not relevant here so far as we know
(5) RECORDED RECOLLECTION.–A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. A party may read into evidence a memorandum or record when it is admitted, but no such memorandum or record is admissible as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
(6) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY.–
(a) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
(b) Evidence in the form of an opinion or diagnosis is inadmissible under paragraph (a) unless such opinion or diagnosis would be admissible under ss. 90.701-90.705 if the person whose opinion is recorded were to testify to the opinion directly.
(c) A party intending to offer evidence under paragraph (a) by means of a certification or declaration shall serve reasonable written notice of that intention upon every other party and shall make the evidence available for inspection sufficiently in advance of its offer in evidence to provide to any other party a fair opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. If the evidence is maintained in a foreign country, the party intending to offer the evidence must provide written notice of that intention at the arraignment or as soon after the arraignment as is practicable or, in a civil case, 60 days before the trial. A motion opposing the admissibility of such evidence must be made by the opposing party and determined by the court before trial. A party’s failure to file such a motion before trial constitutes a waiver of objection to the evidence, but the court for good cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.
(7) ABSENCE OF ENTRY IN RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY.–Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda, reports, records, or data compilations, in any form, of a regularly conducted activity to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness.
(8) PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS.–Records, reports, statements reduced to writing, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth the activities of the office or agency, or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a duty to report, excluding in criminal cases matters observed by a police officer or other law enforcement personnel, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show their lack of trustworthiness. The criminal case exclusion shall not apply to an affidavit otherwise admissible under s. 316.1934 or s. 327.354.
(9) RECORDS OF VITAL STATISTICS.–Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if a report was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to make admissible any other marriage of any party to any cause of action except for the purpose of impeachment as set forth in s. 90.610.
(10) ABSENCE OF PUBLIC RECORD OR ENTRY.–Evidence, in the form of a certification in accord with s. 90.902, or in the form of testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose a record, report, statement, or data compilation or entry, when offered to prove the absence of the record, report, statement, or data compilation or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation would regularly have been made and preserved by a public office and agency.
(11) RECORDS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.–Statements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths, parentage, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal or family history contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.
(12) MARRIAGE, BAPTISMAL, AND SIMILAR CERTIFICATES.–Statements of facts contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, when such statement was certified by a member of the clergy, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and when such certificate purports to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.
(13) FAMILY RECORDS.–Statements of fact concerning personal or family history in family Bibles, charts, engravings in rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.
(14) RECORDS OF DOCUMENTS AFFECTING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.–The record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the contents of the original recorded or filed document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute authorized the recording or filing of the document in the office.
(15) STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS AFFECTING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.–A statement contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, if the matter stated was relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.
(16) STATEMENTS IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.–Statements in a document in existence 20 years or more, the authenticity of which is established.
(17) MARKET REPORTS, COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS.–Market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information and method of preparation were such as to justify their admission.
(18) ***ADMISSIONS***.–A statement that is offered against a party and is:
(a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;
(b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;
(c) A statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;
(d) A statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or
(e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.
***This basically mimics the Federal Rule, except that in the Federal Rules, admissions of party opponents are defined as “non hearsay”, whereas the Florida Rules define admissions as an EXCEPTION to the hearsay rule. This distinction is without practical purpose.
***VIRTUALLY ANY ASSERTION BY A PARTY (Casey is a party in the criminal case and in the civil case) CONSTITUTES AN ADMISSION WHEN OFFERED BY THE OTHER PARTY. A PARTY CANNOT OFFER ITS OWN STATEMENT AS A PARTY ADMISSION.
***ADMISSIONS ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE NONOPINION RULE, THE REQUIREMENT OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SPECULATION OR CONCLUSIONS, THE FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, OR THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXPERTISE. (This is a large part of why criminal defense attorneys do not want their clients speaking to ANYONE ELSE about the case.) ADMISSIONS NEED NOT MITIGATE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE DECLARANT, EITHER WHEN MADE OR AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, ARE ARE ADMISSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DECLARANT.
***ADMISSIONS, OF COURSE, MUST BE RELEVANT AND NOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE OR A PRIVILEGE.
***AN ADMISSION MAY EITHER BE WRITTEN, ORAL OR NONVERBAL.
***A DEFENDANT’S “CONFESSION” IS AN ADMISSION. (Moreover, at least under PA law, ALL of a defendant’s extrajudicial statements are admissions, even where they contain no acknowledgment of guilt.) (Videotape of the defendant’s interrogation was admissible as an admission, however statements of police interrogators accusing the defendant of lying constituted improper and unfairly prejudicial opinion and must be redacted. See Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 1999 PA Super. 100).
***A guilty plea is an admission to all the facts in the indictment.
***There are such things as ADMISSIONS BY SILENCE. An individual may demonstrate belief in the truth of a statement by silence, that is, by a failure to respond when it would be NATURAL to do so. Caution: there are times when silence is not a tacit admission, however, I would personally argue that Casey’s silence on certain matters (thinking of Tracy mentioning the way the media reported on the hair with death band) constitute admissions (Casey said something like, “well, it isn’t my hair”, but was silent as to it being Caylee’s. I believe a mother of a baby girl who was “missing”/”kidnapped”(worse) would naturally comment on this, although haven’t entirely thought this one through- just talking off the top here).
And don’t forget- silence by an accused when confronted by LE seldom is regarded as a tacit admission. Otherwise, an accused would be compelled–against the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination–to explain her silence at trial.
Once Miranda warnings are given, the defendant’s failure to speak may no longer possibly be considered an admission, nor may she be impeached by her silence. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976).
(19) REPUTATION CONCERNING PERSONAL OR FAMILY HISTORY.–Evidence of reputation:
(a) Among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage;
(b) Among a person’s associates; or
(c) In the community,
concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.
(20) REPUTATION CONCERNING BOUNDARIES OR GENERAL HISTORY.–Evidence of reputation:
(a) In a community, arising before the controversy about the boundaries of, or customs affecting lands in, the community.
(b) About events of general history which are important to the community, state, or nation where located.
(21) REPUTATION AS TO CHARACTER.–Evidence of reputation of a person’s character among associates or in the community.
(22) FORMER TESTIMONY.–Former testimony given by the declarant which testimony was given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, or a person with a similar interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination; provided, however, the court finds that the testimony is not inadmissible pursuant to s. 90.402 or s. 90.403.
(23) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF CHILD VICTIM.–
(a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by a child victim with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 11 or less describing any act of child abuse or neglect, any act of sexual abuse against a child, the offense of child abuse, the offense of aggravated child abuse, or any offense involving an unlawful sexual act, contact, intrusion, or penetration performed in the presence of, with, by, or on the declarant child, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:
1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the child, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the child to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the child victim, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and
2. The child either:
a. Testifies; or
b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the child’s participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).
(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the child’s statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement.
(c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.
(24) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF ELDERLY PERSON OR DISABLED ADULT.–
(a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by an elderly person or disabled adult, as defined in s. 825.101, describing any act of abuse or neglect, any act of exploitation, the offense of battery or aggravated battery or assault or aggravated assault or sexual battery, or any other violent act on the declarant elderly person or disabled adult, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:
1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the elderly person or disabled adult, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the victim to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the elderly person or disabled adult, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and
2. The elderly person or disabled adult either:
a. Testifies; or
b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional, mental, or physical harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).
(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before the trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement.
(c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.
90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.–
(1) DEFINITION OF UNAVAILABILITY.–”Unavailability as a witness” means that the declarant:
(a) Is exempted by a ruling of a court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement;
(b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(c) Has suffered a lack of memory of the subject matter of his or her statement so as to destroy the declarant’s effectiveness as a witness during the trial;
(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(e) Is absent from the hearing, and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means.
However, a declarant is not unavailable as a witness if such exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability to be present, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the party who is the proponent of his or her statement in preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
(2) HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS.–The following are not excluded under s. 90.802, provided that the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(a) Former testimony.–Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
(b) Statement under belief of impending death.–In a civil or criminal trial, a statement made by a declarant while reasonably believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the physical cause or instrumentalities of what the declarant believed to be impending death or the circumstances surrounding impending death.
(c) Statement against interest.–A statement which, at the time of its making, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest or tended to subject the declarant to liability or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, so that a person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement.
(d) Statement of personal or family history.–A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, parentage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, including relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, even though the declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated.
(e) Statement by deceased or ill declarant similar to one previously admitted.–In an action or proceeding brought against the personal representative, heir at law, assignee, legatee, devisee, or survivor of a deceased person, or against a trustee of a trust created by a deceased person, or against the assignee, committee, or guardian of a mentally incompetent person, when a declarant is unavailable as provided in paragraph (1)(d), a written or oral statement made regarding the same subject matter as another statement made by the declarant that has previously been offered by an adverse party and admitted in evidence.
90.805 Hearsay within hearsay.–Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded under s. 90.802, provided each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804.
*****
It is up to the lawyers on either side of this case to come up with good arguments as to WHY any particular out-of-court statement should be admitted or not, (not me or anyone else here), and it is up to the JUDGE to make the call.
People need to understand that this is not BLACK AND WHITE all the time. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence may appear to be inconsistent from trial to trial, but it is often the particular facts of the case, coupled with the skill of the attorneys in the court room, that will make the difference. Of course, it could also be the judge’s understanding of the rules, and while, absent a manifest abuse of discretion, the judge’s ruling will not be overturned on appeal, there are certainly appellate decisions reversing trial court rulings on the admission of evidence, including hearsay evidence.
*****
I know people generally prefer my opinion on the evidence –and some humor to boot–and not these dry lecture type posts, but I felt that this would be of assistance with not only this case, but some very useful GENERAL knowledge on the topic. I left most of the Florida Rules without commentary, which is sure to provoke some questions, but please try to read the rules and understand them. I have no intention of hijacking this forum and turning it into a law school course on EVIDENCE.
*****
Briefly–on the recent document release-
What these interviews continue to paint for us is a very unsettling portrait of this family. Casey’s interest in HERSELF is as patently obvious as it could possibly be. (I pointed this out earlier when I dissected one of her jailhouse video phone calls with Cindy. When Cindy contradicted her about what Caylee liked to eat for breakfast, Casey turns the topic to HERSELF/what SHE likes to eat for breakfast. She is as narcissistic as they come.)
The way this family, particularly Cindy and Lee, tried to play LE is astounding. The fact that Cindy felt it was her place/her right to demand this and that of LE–as if SHE was THEIR BOSS– is astounding in and of itself. They handled her in various ways. They gave her enough rope to hang herself during interviews, but they also, intermittently, put appropriate pressure on her (part of the garbled/hard to discern tape of Cindy speaking with Matt reveals that someone had already mentioned OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE charges with her).
Does it make sense to anyone that George did not want firearms in the house–when they were being threatened– because he invoked that household rule upon Caylee’s birth?? CAYLEE WASN’T THERE.
And why did he then go out and purchase a firearm???
*****
I have another question:
WHY WOULD CASEY NEED TO USE A SHOVEL TO GET THE LADDER OUT OF THE POOL??? WHY, PER TRACY’S INTERVIEW, DID THAT STATEMENT CAUSE SUCH CONCERN TO CINDY AND GEORGE???
WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE SHE WAS BORROWING THAT SHOVEL TO DIG UP A BAMBOO ROOT (WHEN SHE WAS CLEARLY NO LONGER LIVING THERE OR INTENDING TO LIVE THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE, IF EVER AGAIN)??!
THESE PEOPLE ARE UN-BE-F***ING-LIE-VABLE. (yes, i am calling them people who tell LIES).
Later, folks.
Re: The lanyard
The lanyard consisted of Casey’s 2004 Universal ID attached to a St. Patrick’s Day necklace of alternating white beads and green shamrocks. From the pictures I’ve seen, the necklace is cheaply made of plastic beads and would not be strong enough to strangle someone with.
Cindy brought up the beads in her July 30 FBI interview and again in her August 4 OCSO interview. She was clearly placing the blame for the missing lanyard on LE, but she was very inaccurate about the timeline for July 15 and 16, and she skips over 1) Casey’s motive for hiding or disposing of the lanyard, and 2) Casey’s opportunities to throw it away or hide it in the house.
Timeline relating to the lanyard on Tuesday, July 15 and Wednesday, July 16:
Approximately 2:05pm: Cindy and George left Johnson’s with the Pontiac and drove it back to the Anthony house. They removed the battery and opened the windows, sunroof, and trunk to air out the car. Cindy threw the pants in the wash and removed other items from the car, placing them on appliances in the garage to air out. The black work bag containing the lanyard was on the front seat of the car when they got it from Johnson’s. Cindy took the bag out of the car and placed it on the ice chest in the garage.
9:46pm: According to Lee’s July 29 interview, deputies arrived and separated Casey from George and Cindy while George and Cindy were being interviewed. Casey and Lee went to the garage, so Casey would have seen the items on the appliances even if she didn’t touch them that night. Lee said the smell from the car was so bad that he took frequent breaks by walking out of the garage for some fresh air. He did not say whether Casey ever left the garage with him. He did not say whether a deputy waited in the garage with them.
At 1:05am, Casey wrote out four-page statement claiming that between 9:00am and 1:00pm on Monday, June 9, she had dropped Caylee off with her nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, before heading to her place of employment, Universal Studios Orlando. Casey also claimed in the statement that she had worked at Universal for over four years, since June of 2004.
***Casey had to include a job in her alibi because if she didn’t have a job, she didn’t need a nanny. She was no doubt either coming up with an alibi or putting the final touches on one while she was in the garage. Casey knew the lanyard had been in the car in the black bag, so she knew where it had been. She knew from seeing the bag sitting on the ice chest in the garage that someone had moved the bag. Since she planned to claim Caylee had been abducted after Casey left for her job at Universal, she probably considered that the lanyard would be evidence of a lie should anyone check her work claims, but the question is, Did she expect her claim of employment at Universal would be accepted as true?
If she thought the deputies would believe she had a job at Universal, then she would not need to get rid of the lanyard. That was the only Universal ID anyone had ever seen her with, so family and friends believed it to be her current work ID. Since I do not believe Casey had any idea what was coming (arrival of a child abuse detective who would make a thorough investigation of every claim she made and then arrest her), I do not believe she did anything to the lanyard while she was in the garage that night.
3:30am: Detective Yuri Melich arrived.
4:11am: Detective Melich began a tape-recorded interview with Casey Anthony. After the interview, which lasted 20 minutes, Casey and Melich took a drive around Orlando wherein Casey pointed out three former dwellings of Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
Approximately 6:30-6:45am: Melich dropped Casey off at the Anthony house and left to investigate Casey’s statement. Casey’s phone was returned to her and she exchanged text messages with Tony from approximately 6:45-7:30am before calling Tony for a long conversation.
6:30am-12:00 noon: There is nothing in the discovery to indicate whether any LEOs were still at the Anthony house, but my common sense says they had all left the house by the time Casey was dropped off at 6:30am. No charges had been filed, her cell phone had been returned to her, she was with her parents (who had called 911), and the detectives were investigating her story.
***Another reason I believe there were no LEOs in the house after 6:30am is that Cindy wanted the FBI and OCSO to believe the lanyard went missing by early morning July 16. She blamed LE for taking the lanyard, so if LE had been in the house all day on July 16, Cindy would not have claimed the lanyard was taken between late on July 15 and early on July 16.
11:30am: Casey received a call from Yuri Melich, who was at Universal Studios with Universal Investigator Leonard Turtora. Turtora had checked the databases and determined that Casey Anthony had not worked at Universal Studios since 2006. She spoke to Melich for 5.5 minutes (he had her on speakerphone). Casey confirmed that she had a job at Universal as an event planner and gave him the name of a boss who did not work there according to Turtora and an office extension number that did not exist according to Turtora. Casey was unable to provide the building number or location of her office. When Detective Melich asked if she had her current work identification card, she said she didn’t know where it was. She agreed to meet Detective Melich at Universal Studios Orlando to show him to her office.
***This is when I believe Casey made it her business to get rid of the lanyard before the detectives showed up to drive her to Universal. She knew Yuri Melich was checking out every detail of her story, and she had just told Yuri Melich that she didn’t know where her Universal ID was. She couldn’t afford to let any LEO find it because, as a Universal employee ID, it had been invalid since April 2006. Casey either hid the ID somewhere in the house or stuffed it into the garbage can. I say she stuffed it into the garbage can because the lanyard would only prove she had not been inside the Universal gates as an employee since 2006. It would be better for Casey to claim she had a currently valid ID that many people had seen but no one could find.
12:00-12:15pm: Detectives Allen and Appling picked up Casey to take her to Universal.
***Yuri Melich had to call Detectives Allen and Appling and ask them to drive to the Anthony residence to pick up Casey and take her to Universal, which is another reason to believe there were no LEOs in the house that morning.
12:15-12:45pm: When Casey showed up at Universal, she told the security guard that she had lost her Universal ID.
1:20-2:25pm: Appling Wells, John Allen, and Yuri Melich interviewed Casey in a Universal conference room. Casey claimed that she had a Universal ID: “I do have an ID, somewhere at my house. Both of my parents have seen it. Both of my parents know . . . “ (page 21 of July 16 Universal interview).
Approximately 3:00pm: Casey was taken to the OCSO central operations center and offered a chance to change her story. She refused.
4:30pm: Casey was arrested for child neglect, obstruction of justice, and lying under oath. Melich wrote in his investigative report dated November 5 that while he was preparing Casey’s arrest affidavit, he instructed Detective Charity Beasley to go to the Anthony house and recover the Compaq laptop, Casey’s cell phone, the Pontiac, and every item that was in the Pontiac when it was recovered from Johnson’s. Melich called George to obtain his verbal permission to obtain those items prior to sending Detective Beasley to the house.
5:00-7:30pm: Detective Beasley arrived at the Anthony residence to secure the car and arrange for a tow to the OCSO Forensics Garage and to collect the other items requested by Yuri Melich (all items that had been in the car, the laptop, and Casey’s cell phone).
***This is when Cindy would have discovered the missing lanyard. In her LE interviews, she made it sound as if detectives came for the items in the morning, “It was missing the next morning when we were trying to find it to give to the detectives.” However, detectives weren’t sent to pick up the items until the early evening of July 16.
Detective Beasley said when she arrived at the Anthony house, the car still contained the car seat, some adult shoes, a black case containing CDs and a dark belt. Other items that had been removed from the car by Cindy that were given to Detective Beasley were a baby doll, a Dora backpack, a child’s toothbrush, a dinnerware knife, a blue plastic crate, several plastic hangers, and a black leather bag containing various papers. Detective Beasley informed Detective Melich that Cindy said she had washed a pair of pants that had been in the car in addition to clothing that had been collected from Tony’s apartment. Detective Melich told Beasley not to collect the clothing since it had been laundered.
7:46pm: The Pontiac was logged in at the OCSO Forensics Garage.
**************************************
From Cindy’s July 30 FBI interview, pages 30 and 31:
“There’s a lanyard missing that I told the Sheriff’s Department that’s missing. Um, it was there, um, when we picked up the car. It was there with all of Casey’s effects the night the Sheriff’s came. It was missing the next morning when we were trying to find it to give to the detectives. And I said there was a lot of police in and out of our home. I don’t know if someone picked it up or not. It’s very distinct and Casey wore it all the time. It was Shamrocks, green and white. It was green shamrocks and white beads and then it had her original Universal ID on it. Which, you know, she had since, um, she graduated from high school. Anyway, um, that’s missing and I don’t know where it’s at; it was there. And it was with this bag and in the bag there was a few other items. I can’t remember, a belt and a couple other things. The police have all that – we took inventory. That was the only thing that was missing. Casey never had an opportunity to go into that garage because as soon as I brought her home, I followed her into the house. My son stayed with her while I was dialing the police. And the police kept her ever since. She was never out of their sight, so she never had an opportunity to go into the garage. And it was over – we have an ice chest over by, um, our washer and dryer in our garage . . . . “
From Cindy’s August 4 OCSO interview, pages 50 and 51:
“Cindy: Casey had a lanyard that had Universal Studios ID; it was her original one from when she worked at Kodak. . . .
OCSO: I think I saw that the other day.
Cindy: The, there was a shamrock with white beads in it, it was a big one. That was not there the, the next day. It was there that night; it was not there the next day. Casey was never alone to go get that because Lee and I walked her into her bedroom when we came home that night, walked her right past everything. She didn’t even know what, what we, I had taken out of the car cause I had it over by the wash, washer and dryer, and I also have a um, ice chest there. And from the point when I called 911, she was never left alone by a deputy so she couldn’t have taken it out. Lee didn’t take it, I didn’t take it. It turned up missing by the time they get, people came back to get, take the car and the stuff that was in it. Because I left it in her bag and when I went back to the bag when we were going through stuff to write it down on the, the sheet, it wasn’t there. So somebody took it that, that um, Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning and I don’t know why they would have it but it wasn’t there.
OCSO: Was it law enforcement do you believe, probably?
Cindy: Had to be.
OCSO: Yeah, I think I’ve seen what you’re talking about, I’ll check, I’ll check with Yuri and confirm.
Cindy: But it wasn’t, it wasn’t listed in the items so someone had to have taken it.
OCSO: I’ll ask him about it.
Cindy: Someone, if, if you guys have it, it should have been with the stuff, you guys would, would have taken it without my knowledge. And I don’t think that, I mean everything else was . . .”
******************************************************
It occurred to me that Cindy may have tried to locate the lanyard when the detectives came to pick Casey up shortly after noon to take her to Universal. However, during the Universal interview, Casey told the detectives that the lanyard was “somewhere at my house.” If Casey and Cindy had tried to find the lanyard before Casey left for Universal, than Casey and Cindy would not have been telling two different stories: Cindy saying an LE must have taken it because it had gone missing when LEOs were in the house while Casey was saying it was somewhere in the house.
I do believe Casey hid or tossed the lanyard in response to Yuri Melich’s 11:30am telephone questions about her job at Universal and his request that she meet him there to point out her office. My opinion is that she stuffed it down to the bottom of the trash can so it wouldn’t be found. I don’t believe we are ever going to see it again.
Why would Cindy mention the missing lanyard to the FBI and OCSO?
1. She was hoping Casey was working for an event subcontractor (page 251 FBI interview) and that the Universal ID was therefore valid relative to getting Casey through the security gate to work a function. As I do believe Cindy was still holding out hope that Casey had a job. She told the FBI agent that the people and companies referenced in the [faked] work emails needed to be checked out. And since Cindy told the FBI, “Casey wore it all the time,” Cindy wanted to believe the ID was valid and current and that it would help to prove Casey was working events at Universal even if she wasn’t an employee of Universal.
2. She was making the accusation that LE had taken an item from her home without her knowledge or permission. In other words, if LE had the lanyard and if the ID did prove to be valid, then LE was holding on to a piece of evidence that could help Casey. Cindy didn’t trust OCSO, which is why she wanted to meet with the FBI. She would not, IMO, have put it past Yuri Melich to take the ID without saying anything; after all, she was deeply suspicious of him for not allowing her to question Tony Lazzaro for her own timeline.
3. In the event that the ID proved to be invalid and a LEO did remove it from the house, then the lanyard would be illegally obtained evidence of Casey’s false claim to be working at Universal in 2008 since it was taken without permission or warrant.
#3 makes me wonder again about the white card the female deputy removed from Casey’s wallet on the night of July 15. If the deputy took the card into evidence, there is no record of it in the evidence lists in released discovery nor is there any mention of a card pulled from the wallet in any investigative reports. Lee is the only person (family or LE) who mentioned the white card that a deputy pulled out of Casey’s wallet. Cindy mentioned the cash and two credit cards (JC Penney and Sears) that were in Casey’s wallet, but said nothing about a white card that the deputy pulled from the wallet.
If there is any false ID evidence in the white card, it was not discussed with Cindy or George in the released videotapes and transcripts of FBI and OCSO interviews. If the white card was discussed, but that information was not made public, then I don’t understand why the information about the white card was not redacted from Lee’s July 29 OCSO transcript.
Silver, you are welcome to make crazy-long posts any day of the week! You are made of awesome…
I figured Geo was going to use the gun to defend the home from the many vigilante whackos who might do them harm. Leaving it in the trunk is odd, but the car stays in the garage, and the garage is accessible from the house, like any other room, so maybe it makes sense. Could also be force of habit. I know someone with a wheelchair bound husband who sometimes in the pouring rain finds herself heading the long way to the handicap accessible ramp instead of just walking up the curb—though she is alone with no need for the ramp. Just force of habit. Could kind of be that way with Geo, but i dunno. Or maybe he was going to do himself in, tho his pizza eating trip to the no-tell motel was not very suicidal in the end. Or was gonna’ get the truth out of casey, but it got taken away too soon?
Oh, and she probably said she needed the shovel to get the LADDER out of the pool but what she MEANT to say was the BODY.
Gawd, i dunno—–boggles the mind!
#81—-Blinks’ comments—-Was waiting until someone mentioned that. The thing that absolutely made me the most uncomfortable through all of Tracy M’s interview was the constant laughter?!?!?! Did she view any part of this tragedy as funny? When the jurors hear this recording too, although there is credible testimony in there—I wonder if they are going to discount some of it since it is such a distracting feature of the audio.
It makes the listener feel as if, in some odd way- Tracy is enjoying her involvement in a notorious case just a little too much. What gives????
I think Tracy seems like a down to earth woman,who did her job to the best of her ability,and it was a good job! I think shes a bit nervous in the interview it’s hard to describe such messed up family dynamics.
Silver, I will admit that I did not read all of your post above. It’s way over my head, and I’ll leave that stuff to all you legal eagles. I really appreciate and enjoy all of your research and analysis.
I do, however, have to tell you that I felt the same way about Cindy. Who does she think she is? Doing her “own” investigation, telling LE how to do their jobs, refusing to work with certain detectives, (I won’t even talk about getting rid of vital evidence from the car). I was raised to respect law enforcement. I’m the mother of an ex Chicago cop. Even though I heard and learned a lot for all the years he was on the job, I still wouldn’t dream of treating them like they’re dirt — especially since they were there for one reason — to find Caylee.
Talk about a narcissist! That apple certainly didn’t fall far from the tree. Cindy is so full of herself, she really believes she’s she’s going to run the show. I hated the leeway that LE was giving her, but like you said, all it did was dig the hole a little deeper for her and her daughter to fall into.
I’m pretty slow on the uptake silverspnr but are you saying George didn’t want firearms in the house because of Casey? As you pointed out Caylee wasn’t there. Maybe George and Cindy figured that they were next. If they smelled death in the car and knew that Casey was alive but hadn’t seen or talked to Caylee in over a month, they must have known Casey was a murderer. Maybe if what you have suggested is true, it explains their behavior on the jail videos. Cindy waited until she was behind bars before she confronted Casey.
Wow.
What an incredible post. I bow to you Silver.
I also track with you with your anger at this family.
Bowing again,
This
WOW Silverspnr. That was an amazing read. You are amazing. Yes, all of the A’s are unf…ing believable and they should ALL be charged with obstruction of justice. It is so clear. I have to have faith that LE will charge them eventually. Their lies oops. sorry, mistruths, will come back to bite them. I can’t wait.
Isn’t she though?
Bravo Silver
B
Silver,
I have to give you a great big THANK YOU!
Blink, is there any legal reason that you can think of that will prohibit the A’s from answering remaining questions from Zenaida’s attorney, Mr.Morgan?
Hey, Guys, this is just the smallest potatoes of shame in the scamthony family feild. Can you IMAGINE what kind of “Anthony Family house of Horrors” Baez and Lyons are going to present to judge and jury … especially in the penalty phase??? Even if the scamthonys never pay for their obstruction and conspiracy in Florida’s prisons … they will forever be tarred by their own daughter in the penalty phase … if not before.
#222 Maura
Excellent post Maura! IMO, I think it’s strange that Cindy would be questioning about that lanyard, but it doesn’t surprise me considering her controlling and manipulating character because she just had to know about everything and it all had to go through her first. George also mentions in his first interviews with LE that he always had a “feeling” that KC didn’t have a job because of the route she would take to “work” and other suspicious things he had picked up on. Both George and Cindy never saw a paycheck and KC kept stealing from them and they never saw her filing a tax return. She talked more about that stupid lanyard than about precious Caylee. (reminds me of the nauseating interview she had with Commander Matt Irwin where she never shut up about the zip-drive ugggghhhh!!!!) I think it’s just crazy how Cindy keeps up the charade that KC wore that lanyard all the time since she graduated from school. Whaaa????? I thought KC didn’t graduate highschool!
Silver,
I feel I speak from every person who reads here, take off your lawyer hat, you are one of us Blinkers and furthurmore, we absolutely love you because you are not just the onboard lawyer to us. You are Silver… who’s always going to give us an insight into this case we could not have. Thank you for the effort and time you took to post the brilliant “rules” of some aspects of the law to us. I hope everyone will do like I have…. mark all your legalese posts for future reference.
You share with us the love for Caylee and our deep need to see true justice come from the court of law of these great United States of America. You share with us the outrage of the list of players in this case. From typed words we see you, the woman, Silver. (It took a while for that grey haired retired lawyer image to go away). But, you slowly let us see you were not just an attorney, but one of us.
Mrs. Silver, kick off your shoe’s and put away that lawyer hat. We, here at Blink know that you bring to the table something we don’t have. An inside knowledge of exactly how this case is being played by the players, that we, who do not know the law, and what goes on behind the scenes, can only guess at. We just want you to confirm to us, and share with us, the absolute disgust we are seeing by just what you mentioned…those lies that seem to be contagious once someone comes in contact with Casey.
Come on down to the corn field sometime and ride the horses, grab a beer, or a pepsi, share the sushi bar, and ride through the cornfields as we discuss the aspects of this case.
Silver, I am sure you had to do like most of us did, choke back a lump in our throat and hold back the tears at #218 Truthiness’ poem for Caylee. Absolutely something to be read over and over.
My hats off to all Blinkers who search for the truth and contribute to make BlinkonCrime such a great resource of so many things needed to cope with dealing with this case.
Maura, Welcome back and hope you have been off relaxing. But, we missed your input. Excellent post as always. Knew it would be worth the wait, and it was.
Come on down to the cornfield!
Maura
….{Mauraquote} makes me wonder again about the white card the female deputy removed from Casey’s wallet on the night of July 15. If the deputy took the card into evidence, there is no record of it in the evidence lists in released discovery nor is there any mention of a card pulled from the wallet in any investigative reports. Lee is the only person (family or LE) who mentioned the white card that a deputy pulled out of Casey’s wallet. Cindy mentioned the cash and two credit cards (JC Penney and Sears) that were in Casey’s wallet, but said nothing about a white card that the deputy pulled from the wallet……{Mauraunquote}
I have wondered about this as well. I don’t recall reading an interview where it is mentioned by law enforcement either. If it was removed at that point by the officer, without a warrant, was it taken legally?(SILVER?) Conversely, we have only read about this episode from Lee, do we even know whether it actually happened? I am second guessing everything in this case. Could it be that nothing was ever removed from the purse?
Sorry Maura
I just realized that you answered one question, and that is that it would have been taken illegally.
Since this was an active investigation of a missing person, and Cindy was in the process of going through the items in the purse, isn’t there a law (it escapes me now) where law enforcement can remove an item if it can be readily seen You know, I know that they are not allowed to open bags to search without permission or a warrant, but if an item, like a gun, is in plain view they can retrieve it?….
I left out punctuation. …can remove an item if it can be readily seen?
Thanks, Silver and Maura once again!! I have yet to catch up with reading here so have to admit I haven’t read your posts yet but am looking forward to!
Todd, post 233 and your question about the Anthony’s and the civil case questions– WFTV’s article just posted this morning includes comments by WFTV’s legal analyst Bill Shaeffer:
“This is a fairly standard motion to dismiss that’s made in every case and as long as there is a factual basis to maintain this lawsuit the court will not dismiss… Unless there is some privilege that can be asserted by George or Cindy, which I do not think there is one, then I would expect the court would compel them to answer questions,” said Sheaffer.
http://www.wftv.com/news/20788309/detail.html
I think Tracy’s laughter in her interview was merely nervous laughter. I do it without thinking myself. I’m totally unaware I am doing it. I don’t think she thought any of this was really “funny”……. odd maybe but definately not funny.
Shelly! You’re giving us all a toothache!! :•)=
Maura – thank you for the awesome post about the lanyard! I can buy into the fact that Casey got rid of the lanyard simply because she thought if they saw it, that would be the way they proved she did not work at Universal. If it were any other person, I would say there was no way someone could be so deluded to think that the police were not going to check her story out thoroughly, lanyard or no lanyard. However, I have to keep reminding myself that this is Miss Sunglass Game herself, and in ways she seems to act younger than my middle schooler. I still want to know what the other thing that hung from her rear view mirror was (looked kind of like a cord with a shamrock hanging off of it) and why inside sources think it was missing as well (see the end of Blink’s story about the lanyard for the picture of and statement about the other item). Thanks again for a great post!
I see Lee’s statement on police taking the white card in the wallet as yet another mistruth. Possibly a (poorly) concerted effort with Cindy and the endless lanyard tale to place suspicion on Law Enforcement. The Anthony’s want to spin it such that LE is under suspicion for taking and hiding things, such as Casey’s Universal ID, that could, in their minds, help prove Casey’s innocence. Perhaps a mistruth whose story was not well-hardened before it came out in two different iterations (wallet vs. lanyard).
WSH
If the female deputy pulled a card out of the wallet and the card had evidentiary value, it would still need to be collected in a legal manner.
To me, the theory that Casey had an ID with the name Zenaida Gonzalez or Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez in her wallet fails the common sense test. Given the importance of the phantom babysitter named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez in Casey’s alibi, if Casey had an ID with that name (or a variation of it) in her wallet, we would have heard about it early in the investigation. We not only would have heard about the existance of that ID in her wallet, but we would have heard about any other information (like date of birth, address, etc.) contained on the ID.
That ID, if it existed, would be so critically important to the case that (civil case as well as criminal case) that there is no way OCSO would have kept quiet about for thirteen months.
Moreover, while the ZG22/Casey theory is interesting, I don’t believe it. For one thing, Annie Downing, under oath and in the presence of her lawyer, told Morgan & Morgan at her May 21 deposition that she was alone in the car on May 24 when she was stopped for traffic violations, including a seat belt violation. That information was too easy to check for her to have lied under oath about it. She also said she was talking on the phone with Casey when she got stopped on May 24 – again, too easy for LE to check.
Annie would not agree to be interviewed by LE or M&M without a subpoena and without her lawyer present, which tells me she was concerned about protecting herself (probably because of Casey’s Xanax IM to Jesse), so I sincerely doubt she would be willing to perjure herself by claiming Casey was not in the car with her when she was pulled over on May 24 for a traffic violation.
Nor do I believe Casey is the ZG22 who was cited the same day for the criminal violation of driving without a valid license. As I look at Casey’s pings for July 15 (the day ZG22 made a $50 payment on the fine), she could not have been the person who stopped at the courthouse to pay that fine.
July 15:
8:00am to 1:02pm – Casey used her cell phone 74 times from 8:00am to 1:02pm, hitting Tony towers, so it is unlikely she left the apartment during that period.
1:10pm – Casey hit her first tower of the day outside of the range of Tony’s apartment (the tower is at 965 South Semoran Blvd., so she was driving south).
1:11pm – Casey took an 89-second call from Cindy’s cell phone; Casey was still pinging the tower at 965 South Semoran Blvd.
1:15pm – Casey pinged a tower at 5809 Curry Ford Rd 32822 (she was still driving south, apparently on Semoran and near the intersection of Semoran and Curry Ford, which is quite close to the BoA branch she is driving toward).
1:17pm – Casey once more pinged the tower at 5809 Curry Ford Rd 32822 (she was still driving south, apparently on Semoran and neared the intersection of Semoran and Curry Ford, which is quite close to the BoA branch she is driving toward).
1:20pm – Casey took a call and pinged a tower at 4606 Lake Margaret Dr., 32812 as she arrived at Bank of America to cash a check for $250 made out to “Casey Anthony” on Amy’s check. The branch is at 2701 South Conway Road, Orlando, FL 32812. This branch is a 15-minute drive from Tony’s apartment (8.76 miles), so she drove straight to the bank when she left Tony’s place.
***Had she driven from Tony’s straight to the BoA branch next to the courthouse on North Orange, her drive would have been 17 minutes and 8.83 miles, and she would have been able to find downtown parking (metered street parking or parking garage) for both transactions.
1:22pm – Casey sent a text and once more pinged the tower at 4606 Lake Margaret Dr., 32812, which is ½ mile from the BoA branch on South Conway.
1:24pm – Casey cashed stolen check #146 for cash (check was made out to Casey Anthony) at Bank of America for $250.
1:26pm – Casey would have been driving out of the BoA parking lot.
1:30pm – A few minutes after leaving the bank, Casey pinged a tower at 1699 S Crystal Lake Dr 32806 (S. Crystal Lake Dr. and Curry Ford). The tower is about three miles from the Orange County Courthouse, about 2.5 miles from Cast Iron, and about two miles from JP’s condo.
1:34pm – Casey pinged a tower at 734 Brookhaven Drive 32803. The tower is about three miles from the Orange County Courthouse, about four miles from Cast Iron, and about two miles from JP’s condo.
1:36pm – Casey pinged a tower at 728 Lowell Blvd, 32803, about three miles from the Orange County Courthouse, about 3.5 miles from Cast Iron, and about 1.5 miles from JP’s condo.
1:37pm – Casey pinged a tower at 1699 South Crystal Lake Dr 32806 (S. Crystal Lake Dr. and Curry Ford). The tower is about three miles from the Orange County Courthouse, about 2.5 miles from Cast Iron, and about two miles from JP’s condo.
1:40-1:55pm – Casey arrived at Cast Iron Tattoos to make an appointment for another Tattoo. She was at Cast Iron for at least 15 minutes because Danny Colamarino said she was there for about a half an hour.
***Clearly Casey took a five-minute detour northward of the South Conway BoA branch and Cast Iron, because it is only an eight minute drive due west from the South Conway BoA to Cast Iron, and Casey drove north from the BoA for 1-2 miles before turning west and south to Cast Iron. Blink hypothesized that she went to the courthouse before going to Cast Iron. JWG hypothesized that she made a brief stop at JP’s condo before driving to Cast Iron (it’s a possibility, but JP didn’t like Casey, so I doubt she had a key to the condo). I hypothesize she took a detour northward to grab some lunch at a fast-food drive-through before heading for Cast Iron.
1:45pm – Casey pinged a tower at 100-114 West Grant Street 32806, about 2.5 miles southeast of the OC Courthouse, less than one mile from Cast Iron, and about 2.5 miles from JP’s condo.
1:54pm – Casey pinged a tower at 4902 South Orange Ave 32806. The tower is about four miles south of the OC Courthouse, 1.3 miles from Cast Iron, and about four miles from JP’s condo.
1:55pm – Casey again pinged the tower at 4902 South Orange Ave 32806. The tower is about four miles south of the OC Courthouse, 1.3 miles from Cast Iron, and about four miles from JP’s condo.
1:56pm – Casey again pinged the tower at 4902 South Orange Ave 32806. The tower is about four miles south of the OC Courthouse, 1.3 miles from Cast Iron, and about four miles from JP’s condo. She must have been leaving Cast Iron or had just left when she made this call because she was a few miles outside of OIA ten minutes later, and the drive from Cast Iron to OIA is 17 minutes.
2:06pm – Casey pinged a tower at 7898 N Frontage Rd 32812 as she drove toward OIA to pick up Amy. The tower is directly on the route from Cast Iron to OIA (and only 1.5 miles from the OIA terminal as the crow flies).
***
Casey had 42 minutes between 1:24pm (the time she cashed the check at the BoA on South Conway Road) and 2:06pm (the time she pinged a cell tower at 7898 N Frontage Rd., which is 1.5 miles from the OIA terminal. In between, she visited Cast Iron Tattoo. Danny Colamarino, the manager of Cast Iron Tattoo, said Casey was driving Amy’s car when she visited and said Casey told them she was on her way to the airport to pick up her friends. Colamarino said Casey’s visit lasted about a half an hour.
Cast Iron Tattoo is located at 2818 South Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32806.
From the South Conway BoA to the courthouse: 10 minutes, 6.02 miles.
From the South Conway BoA to Cast Iron Tattoo: 8 minutes, 3.10 miles.
From the courthouse to Cast Iron Tattoo: 8 minutes, 2.62 miles.
From Cast Iron Tattoo to the physical location of the North Frontage Road cell tower: 15 minutes, 7.44 miles.
We know she pinged a tower 1.5 miles from the airport terminal at 2:06pm. It’s a 15-minute drive from Cast Iron to the tower (which is directly on her route to the airport, so she drives right past it, not just within three miles of it), so it would take 10 minutes just to get in range of that tower, which means she had to leave Cast Iron by 1:56pm. Danny Colamarino, who talked to Casey on July 15, said she was there for about a half an hour, so she was probably there for at least 15 minutes, which means she had to have arrived by 1:40pm.
That leaves 16 minutes between the time Casey cashed the check on South Conway at 1:24pm and the time she arrived at Cast Iron at 1:40pm. If she went to the courthouse before arriving at Cast Iron, then in the space of 16 minutes, she had to pick up her cash from the teller, walk to her car in the BoA lot, drive 10 minutes to the courthouse, park the car, enter the courthouse, go to the right office, pay $50 on the ticket, go back to the car, and drive 8 minutes to Cast Iron to get to the tattoo shop by 1:40pm. The math doesn’t allow Casey to make a stop at the courthouse and also stop at Cast Iron for at least 15 minutes.
Let’s say she did stop at the courthouse before going to Cast Iron. The check was time-stamped 1:24pm, which is the time the teller ran the check through the drawer register. The teller still had to count out the money and give it to Casey, then Casey had to exit the bank and get into her car. She could not have been pulling out of the South Conway BoA branch until 1:26pm at the earliest.
She drove 10 minutes to the area of the courthouse, so she wouldn’t have arrived until 1:36pm. She had to find parking in that downtown area. If she found an empty metered space on the street directly in front of the courthouse (highly unlikely IMO), she would have needed two minutes to park and feed the meter. Now it’s 1:38pm.
It would have taken her at least five minutes to walk to the courthouse, get to the right office, pay the $50, walk out, and get into her car. Now it’s 1:43pm. She drove to Cast Iron, an eight-minute drive, so she pulled into the parking lot at Cast Iron at 1:51pm. In order to ping the Frontage Road tower at 2:06pm (10 minutes from Cast Iron just to get into range of that tower), she had to leave Cast Iron by 1:56pm, which left her a mere four minutes to stop at Cast Iron and chat up the crew even though Danny Colamarino said she was there for about a half an hour.
A hypothetical trip to the courthouse between the South Conway BoA visit and the Cast Iron visit just doesn’t work with the timeline established by the time-stamp on the check, the testimony of Danny Colamarino, and the 2:06pm ping on the tower located 1.5 miles from the OIA terminal.
I do not believe Casey Anthony is ZG22, and I do not believe the white card in Casey’s wallet on July 15 was a Zenaida (Fernandez) Gonzalez ID card.
**************************
Maura said, in pertinent part:
..”Moreover, while the ZG22/Casey theory is interesting, I don’t believe it. For one thing, Annie Downing, under oath and in the presence of her lawyer, told Morgan & Morgan at her May 21 deposition that she was alone in the car on May 24 when she was stopped for traffic violations, including a seat belt violation. That information was too easy to check for her to have lied under oath about it. She also said she was talking on the phone with Casey when she got stopped on May 24 – again, too easy for LE to check…”
**********************
Blink says:
My dear walking hard drive friend Maura,
We will have to disagree on this one.
While I agree Annie would be foolish to lie in her deposition, you will notice she says she got a speeding ticket and a seatbelt violation in response to Atty Dill’s question about getting a traffic ticket sometime around Memorial day, specifying May 24. She responds with something to the effect of “ironically I was on the phone with Casey at the time”
Not so. She got the speeding ticket in March. She also got a failure to produce a license charge at the same time she neglected to mention, which was dropped when she produced it in April. NO SEATBELT.
Seatbelt charge May 24, filed 6/6 and was the only charge. In my opinion, Dill backed off that “direction” purposelly. I think she answered it with enough wiggle room if she needs it.
B
Silverspnr,
I am hoping you can answer this question…
How long before the trial date does the Prosection have to give all of the discovery to the Defense?
Just wondering if and/or when the Defense will know exactly what they are up against.
Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into educating us ‘Blink Wanna-Be’s'!
So Maura
What is your take? Do you believe that nothing was removed and that this was a way of insinuating corrupt police? If not, what do you believe was removed from the purse? I know we can only speculate, but what do your instincts tell you?
regarding the lanyard and method of death. Considering contagion of aboration, a parent who beats their child raises a child who beats their own children. A parent who chokes their child? IIRC Cindy choked Casey the night of the fight & George tried to choke her another time. Considering her environment I’d be willing to bet that she choke Caylee.
In regards to the interview tapes of LP, Rob Dick and Tracey Mc. – if the judge allows the interviews in as testimony during the trial, then will this open the door for an easier appeal? Couldn’t Casey and the A’s say that these things were never said or conveyed? His/her word against their word type of thing? If I am a juror and I am listening to the testimony of above named, then I would think that the reason Casey didn’t talk about her daughter is because she was advised not to do so by her atty. Of course her other actions speak volumes that she was just not concerned about Caylee, but Baez could work around that like any defense atty. could. I’m trying to look at this as a potential juror would and I guess I equate these interviews to the jailhouse video of Casey when she found out that a child’s skeletal remains had been found in the woods close to her parents home. It’s all open to interpretation. Was she reacting as a grief stricken mother or a deer caught in the headlights? There is so much strong circumstantial evidence in this case. I hate to see her get an easy appeal based on opinions rather than facts.
Silver – I appreciate what you wrote in regards to hearsay. It opened my eyes alot. If I ever had the choice of becoming a prosecutor or a defense atty., I am a prosectutor all the way. I am looking at this case in many ways through the eyes of the defense because I don’t want to see any easy appeals. Give me the facts and nothin’ but the facts.