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
OHHHHHHHHH Wouldn’t it be lov-er-ly?? lol
http://www.wftv.com/news/20798712/detail.html
245 Blink
Here’s what I found on the OC MyClerk website for the 3-30 and 5-24 traffic violations for Annie Downing, Zenaida Gonzalez 22, and a few others who are pertinent:
For 3-30:
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 3/30/2008
Citation #: 0444SJP
Statute: 316.183(2)-A – TR- UNLAWFUL SPEED
Officer Bonner
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 3/30/2008
Citation #: 0445SJP
Statute: 316.646(1)-A – TR- INSURANCE REQUIRED PROOF OF PIP AND PDL
Officer Bonner
On 3-30, she was speeding and did not have proof of insurance, so she was cited for two violations. However, what I want to point out is that each violation, as we would expect, was given a separate citation number: 0444SJP for the speeding and 0445SJP for not having proof of insurance. As we would expect, she was cited for one count of each infraction. The citation numbers were consecutive because the tickets were issued at the same time by the same officer.
For 5-24:
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 5/24/2008
Citation #: 2639SLN
Statute: 316.614(4)(B) – TR- SEAT BELT NOT WORN BY DRIVER
Officer Crenshaw
Filing Date: 6/6/2008
Paid 8/25/2008
Assessment $71.50
SEAT BELT CIVIL PENALTY
As you pointed out, she was only cited for not wearing a seat belt, but I want to point out that she was only cited for one count of not wearing a seat belt. That makes sense because the Florida Statute she violated is 316.614(4)(B), which only pertains to the operator of the vehicle. There couldn’t have been two operators in Annie’s car, hence only one count for 316.614(4)(B).
All the Florida statutes under 316.614 pertain to safety belt usage. Section (4) has two possible violations: 4(a) is for driver and passengers under age 18 and 4(b) is only for the operator of the vehicle. Annie violated one count of 316.614(4)(B), which is ONLY for the operator of the vehicle:
316.614 (4) It is unlawful for any person:
(a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger and the operator of the vehicle under the age of 18 years are restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s. 316.613, if applicable; or
(b) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt.
If an adult (over age 18) front-seat passenger is not wearing a seat belt when the vehicle is moving, a different statute is violated: Florida Statute 316.614(5):
316.614(5) It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion.
So a separate citation would have been issued if Annie had an adult passenger in the front seat who was not wearing a seat belt, and the passenger citation would have been issued to or for the passenger. Moreover, as looked up the citation numbers prior to and following ZG22’s citation numbers, I found a ticket that had been issued for an unbelted adult passenger in violation of 316.614(5) with no additional violations for anyone else in the vehicle.
Defendant: WENDELL RENARD COATES
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 5/25/2008
Citation #: 6604RFD
Statute: 316.614(5) – TR- SEAT BELT NOT WORN BY PASSENGER > 18 YRS
Officer Narvaez
Filing Date: 6/2/2008
Paid 6/13/2008
Assessment $71.50
SEAT BELT CIVIL PENALTY
Wendell Coates’s ticket, citation # 6604RFD, was issued on May 25 by Officer Narvaez. The citation number immediately before Coates’s (6603RFD) was issued the previous day, May 24, to ZG22 by Officer Narvaez. The citation number immediately after Coates’s (6605RFD) was issued three days later, May 28, to Annette Marie Robinson by Officer Lancaster. In other words, the only citation written for any occupants of the vehicle Wendell Coates was in on May 25 was for the unbelted adult front-seat passenger.
Moreover, his penalty was $71.50, which is exactly what Annie Downing’s seat belt violation cost her and exactly what Lakara Janay Brown’s penalty was (Citation #: 6601RFD) for the same violation as Annie’s (316.614(4)(B) – TR- SEAT BELT NOT WORN BY DRIVER). The penalty in May 2008 for an unbelted front-seat driver OR an unbelted front seat passenger was $71.50. If both driver and passenger were unbelted, two tickets would have been issued – one for the driver violation and one for the passenger violation. Each violation would have had a separate citation number because two different statutes were violated. The penalty for each violation would have been $71.50.
FYI – Due to the Orange County budget woes, in July 2009, the seat belt penalty was raised to $96, so $71.50 would have been in the right ballpark for May 2008.
***It is not entirely clear to me whether Wendell Coates was the driver of the vehicle who was ticketed for having an unbelted passenger or if Wendell Coates was the unbelted passenger. It depends on whether the driver is held responsible for the choices of his or her adult passengers or whether the adult passengers are held responsible for obeying the law requiring adults in the front passenger seat to belt up. Seeing that 316.614(4) covers drivers and passengers under age 18 (and holds the driver responsible for those underage passengers) and seeing that a separate statute covers passengers over age 18, I am inclined to believe adult front-seat passengers would be held responsible for not wearing their seat belts, which would make Wendell Coates the unbelted passenger and the recipient of the ticket. But I’m not 100% sure of that.
If adult passengers are held responsible for wearing seat belts, if Annie Downing had an unbelted adult front-seat passenger in her car when she was stopped on May 24, and if that passenger was either Casey Anthony or Casey Anthony pretending to be ZG22, then a separate citation for violating FS 316.614(5) would have been issued on May 24 to Casey or ZG22. Moreover, the citation number for Annie’s hypothetical unbelted passenger would have been either 2638SLN or 2640SLN (one before or one after Annie’s citation number) since the violations would have been issued at the same time by Officer Crenshaw. However, those citation numbers were issued by Officer Crenshaw to two other vehicle operators for speeding violations.
Citation # 2638SLN was a speeding violation issued by Officer Crenshaw to Lauren DiSantis on May 24 (filing date June 6). She got a lawyer, entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was dismissed in January for failure to meet the speedy trial deadline.
Citation # 2640SLN was a speeding violation issued by Officer Crenshaw to Emily Holt on May 25 (filing date June 6). She paid the fine of $183.50 on June 16.
Casey Anthony has no traffic violations for May 24. ZG22 has two, neither of which is for violating 316.614(5).
Defendant: ZENAIDA GONZALEZ
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 5/24/2008
Citation #: 6602RFD
Statute: 322.03(1)-C – CT- OPERATING MOTOR VEH WITHOUT VALID DL
Officer Narvaez
Filing Date: 6/3/2008
Defendant: ZENAIDA GONZALEZ
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 5/24/2008
Citation #: 6603RFD
Statute: 316.121 – TR- FAILED TO YIELD/VEH.APPROACHING INTERSECT
Officer Narvaez
Filing Date: 6/2/2008
***Just noting again that citations issued at the same time by the same officer are numbered consecutively. They were for Annie’s March 30 violations and for ZG22’s May 24 violations.
*****
At any rate, the traffic records indicate either Annie Downing was alone when she was stopped on May 24 or her passengers were not breaking any laws. I see no reason to question her deposition statement that she was on the phone with Casey when she was stopped on May 24. She would have no reason to lie about that since only Annie got a ticket, and her ticket was expressly for not wearing a seat belt while operating the vehicle. There were no citations issued by Officer Crenshaw on May 24 for passengers in Annie’s vehicle. Why would she lie in claiming Casey was not in the vehicle since that could easily be verified by Casey’s and Annie’s phone records?
I dont think she lied necessarily, I agree. Very well done, I’m sticking to Casey is ZG22
B
Good evening, Maura.
#222
In regards to the the Laynard and the question if it was legally obtained by LE:
Your quotes
“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”
“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.”
Maura, since the lanyard was originally in the bag in the Pontiac and therefore falls legally within George’s (a legal owner of the car) verbal permission to collect, would it matter where the lanyard was finally recovered?
Also, your quote
“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.”
Maura, if the lanyard was put into the trash can, and that trash was or eventually taken to the curb, isn’t then anything taken out of the curbside trash legally obtained at that point?
Plus, IMO, LE, in their interviews with Cindy, did not have any legal obligation to disclose to her any facts they might have had regarding that lanyard such as if it was in their possession and/or it how came to be.
If, however, LE never recovered that particular lanyard, doesn’t it point to obstruction as it was purposely taken and withheld from LE
as it was an item of evidentiary value from the contents of the Pontiac?
Thank you, Maura.
PS 245 Blink
I understand what you mean about Annie’s slurring of the traffic violations, but she’s gotten three speeding tickets, two seat belt violations, and one failure to have proof of insurance with her while driving. I was wrong in claiming she said with certainty that her last violation was May 24; she said her most recent violation was a speeding/seat belt combo, but she couldn’t recall when it happened.
You are correct in that she wasn’t accurate about the prior year’s violations, but I’m still not close to being sold on the idea that she was deliberately trying to muddle the dates. She said, in her May 21, 2009 deposition, that her last prior violations were “a good year” ago. She did get a speeding and seat belt combo in June 2007, and then between March 30 and May 24 of 2008 (less than eight weeks apart), she got a speeding ticket, a seat belt violation, and a failure to have insurance proof on her person. When she said, “I got a couple speeding and seat belt violations. One was on Moss Park Road and one was on Curry Ford,” it seems to me she may have been running the citations together into two speeding/seat belt combos on different days and different parts of town.
That strikes me as being easy for someone to do who isn’t trying to mislead but is just running things together. And unless she knew ahead of time (highly unlikely) that she was going to be drilled on the dates and citations of prior traffic offences, I wouldn’t expect her to be able to pull precise information off the top of her head 12-14 months later.
At any rate, one thing was made clear to me via your comment – it isn’t clear from her testimony whether she was on the phone with Casey on March 30 (when she got the speeding ticket) or on May 24 (when she got the seat belt ticket).
However, I stand by my prior post regarding the specific citations for unbelted drivers versus unbelted passengers. I also noticed that her seat belt penalty in June 2007 and May 2008 was for the same amount: $71.50 (both citations were for the driver, not for a passenger).
As for not mentioning the insurance card infraction (it was failure to produce proof of insurance, not driving without a license), it wasn’t on the same level as not having insurance or not having a valid license, and the charge was dismissed once she produced her insurance card for the court (showing she had been insured on May 24). Since it was dismissed, I don’t hold it against her for not mentioning it to Morgan & Morgan.
***
Annie’s May 21 ZG Deposition:
Q Let me clarify something else. I guess you got a traffic ticket at some point in time?
A I’ve had a couple.
Q Was there one around Memorial Day last year or May 24th or so?
A Of last year?
Q Yes. I’m just looking at some things here, that you got, I guess, a traffic ticket.
A The last one I got was a speeding ticket and seat belt violation. When it was I don’t know. I know where I was, but –
Q Was anybody with you?
A No.
Q You were by yourself?
A I was by myself.
Q So traffic ticket and speeding violation. Was Casey around following you?
A I was actually talking on the phone to her, ironically, but I don’t think it was last year. I think it’s been a year.
Q Oh, has it?
A A good year.
Q That may be. I’m just trying to see when –that you actually got a seat belt –
A I got a couple speeding and seat belt violations. One was on Moss Park Road and one was on Curry Ford.
Q Do you know if Casey ever used a fake ID or had a fake ID?
A Not to my knowledge.
***
Annie’s Traffic Violations:
Defendant: ANNIE L DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 7/24/2004
Citation #: 4439SDM
Statute: 316.187(1)-A – TR- UNLAWFUL SPEED
Officer Martin
Paid $99.50
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 6/28/2007
Citation #: 6147RFU
Statute: 316.189(2)-A – TR- UNLAWFUL SPEED
Officer Johnson
Paid $158.00
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 6/28/2007
Citation #: 6148RFU
Statute: 316.614(4)(B) – TR- SEAT BELT NOT WORN BY DRIVER
Officer Johnson
Paid $71.50
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 3/30/2008
Citation #: 0444SJP
Statute: 316.183(2)-A – TR- UNLAWFUL SPEED
Officer Bonner
Paid $191.50
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 3/30/2008
Citation #: 0445SJP
Statute: 316.646(1)-A – TR- INSURANCE REQUIRED PROOF OF PIP AND PDL
Officer Bonner
$7.50 Dismissal Fee
Defendant: ANNIE LEIGH DOWNING
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 5/24/2008
Citation #: 2639SLN
Statute: 316.614(4)(B) – TR- SEAT BELT NOT WORN BY DRIVER
Officer Crenshaw
Filing Date: 6/6/2008
Paid 8/25/2008
Paid $71.50
Bravo, Silver. Bravo.
You too, Shelly. And Maura. Of course, Kleat.
Thank you, All.
247 WSH
As I wrote upthread, I believe Casey either hid the lanyard in the house or stuffed it in the trash just prior to being picked up by Detectives Allen and Wells around noon on July 16. If she hid it in the house, she may have left it in hiding (maybe Cindy found it) or she may have retrieved it when she was out on bail and put it in a better hiding place or thrown it away. At any rate, I believe Casey knew the lanyard was a liability and she got rid of it permanently. I do not believe it is in the house or was given to anyone to safeguard. My best guess is that it’s in an Orlando landfill.
Cindy clearly thought a LEO took the lanyard without her permission or knowledge. During the July 30 FBI interview, she asked Agent Bolin if the people in the “work” emails Lee had given to Yuri Melich on July 29 had been checked out. When Bolin said he didn’t know, she said something like, “Well there you go” (in other words, she was disputing his suggestion that Casey had not worked in 2008). At that point, I think she wanted the lanyard because she hoped it would prove to be a valid ID in getting Casey through the Universal security gate.
Two days later, on August 1, Yuri Melich told Cindy that the emails were fakes, Tom Franck didn’t exist, the email domain didn’t exist, no one named Raquel Farrell had ever worked at TGIF, etc. Cindy didn’t say much, and she didn’t bring up the lanyard even though she had mentioned it to the FBI two days prior.
On August 4, when Cindy finished her timeline interview, at the end of the interview she mentioned the lanyard and said she had already spoken to Yuri Melich or John Allen about it. She didn’t say what the response was. She then brought up an incident whereby Baez had asked OCSO for an OIA tape related to a tip that Caylee had been spotted in the terminal. She said Baez was told that OCSO wouldn’t be turning over evidence to him, and Cindy didn’t understand that. She wasn’t convinced when the FBI told her the tip had been thoroughly checked out and the child found, who was not Caylee. She didn’t understand why some of the tapes at OIA had been taped over (she was told so by OCSO) and said she was going to contact a friend at Homeland Security to look into it. Then she wanted specifics about the cadaver dog that had hit on the car but according to Cindy had not been consistent in the backyard. So you get the general drift . . . Cindy was questioning everything and wanting proof. My feeling is that she was more of the opinion that LE was wrongly focused on Casey’s guilt (and Caylee’s death) and that they were basing their opinion on bad information, not following up on tips to her satisfaction, and mishandling evidence. In other words, she was more seeing misfeasance and nonfeasance than malfeasance in LE’s actions.
I don’t believe the white thing was a ZG or ZFG ID card as I wrote upthread. Maybe it was a business card or maybe it was another ID with Casey’s personal information or maybe it was Cindy’s Sears credit card only Lee didn’t realize it was a credit card when the deputy pulled it out of the wallet. I don’t think it was anything critical to the investigation because it’s not on any evidence list or described in any report. As I said already, neither George nor Cindy mentioned any mysterious white card that was pulled out of Casey’s wallet. I am inclined to believe that whatever it was, it wasn’t very mysterious after all. Lee never got a good look at it and only thought it might be an ID because of the shape. There’s nothing solid there to go on, and IMO, if he’d said it was in the shape of a credit card (which is the same shape as a driver’s license), the theories would have piled up about Casey’s involvement in a credit card theft ring.
#253 Maura “Q Do you know if Casey ever used a fake ID or had a fake ID?”
Why are the investigators asking?
252 wpgmouse
It would certainly matter WHEN the lanyard was collected.
If the lanyard was removed from the house by a LEO before LE cleared out (I am assuming they were all gone by 6:30am at the latest), and the lanyard had been taken by one of the LEOs without the permission or knowledge of the Anthonys, then I believe there would be a problem because the LEO would have removed it hours before permission had been given (George’s verbal permission over the phone, then George’s written permission in a signed statement).
When Detective Beasley showed up around 5:00pm to pick up the phone, the laptop, the car, and all the items that had been in the car at Johnson’s, Cindy made an inventory of the items that were being removed. She said the only two items that were in the car but that Beasley didn’t collect were the pants (because they had been washed, so Beasley didn’t want them) and the lanyard (because it was no longer in the black bag and Cindy didn’t know what had happened to it). Every item that was picked up that night was recorded on an OCSO evidence report. The lanyard is not listed among the items collected.
The protocols for collecting evidence are not flexible enough to allow a LEO to pocket something without the permission or knowledge of the homeowners and then try to grandfather it into a statement of permission given almost 12 hours later (when one of the owners knew that if a LEO had removed the lanyard, it had not been removed legally at the time it was collected). US rules of evidence are strict and complex, and illegal seizure of evidence is a biggie. Evidence illegally obtained gets thrown out by the judge. Even though LE had George’s permission to take the laptop, they did not start searching the laptop until a warrant to do so had been signed by a judge. That’s how strict the rules are, and no ethical LEO would pocket a piece of evidence in the manner that Cindy’s hypothetical LEO did before permission had been given. LE never removed anything from the Anthony house without first getting permission from the owner (as they did for the gas cans collected on August 1) or without a warrant signed by a judge.
I do not believe any LEO removed the lanyard from the house, but if the lanyard was removed by a LEO before permission was given to take items out of the house and if the LEO who removed it didn’t say anything to the Anthonys, then it was obtained illegally. IMO, if the lanyard had been removed illegally, the detectives who interviewed Cindy were morally and legally required to disclose their possession of the lanyard, and the LEO who took it should have been disciplined if not fired.
If Casey threw the lanyard into the trash can, anyone, LEO or private citizen, could legally collect the trash once it was taken to the curb. There is no evidence that LE took the Anthonys’ trash after it had been taken to the curb, but they could have taken it once it was taken to the curb. If LE did collect the Anthonys’ trash and found the lanyard, then the lanyard was legally collected and no one would have been obligated to tell Cindy that they had it or how they got it. However, given all the media hanging around the neighborhood, I don’t see how LE could have done that unless they had worked it out with the trash collectors to haul the Hopespring Drive garbage to a special location to go through it. IMO, the likelihood that the Anthony trash was collected by LE is remote. Casey’s receipts were offered to LE on July 16 and July 17, and no one was interested in them even though they would have helped to pinpoint Casey’s activities. Baez took them on July 19, and then OCSO regretted not taking them when they were offered. If OCSO couldn’t see the value of taking the receipts, then I doubt they saw the value of picking up the trash.
If LE never recovered the lanyard, it is highly suggestive of obstruction, but unless LE can prove who took it and what happened to it, it would be folly to make the charge. The Anthonys have two dogs and two cats and could always argue that one of the pets could have taken it out of the bag. Cindy has stated she believes one of the many LEOs who were in the house took it. Unless LE has proof that it was taken for the purpose of withholding it from LE, they can do nothing except point out that Cindy said it was in the black bag when the car was picked up from Johnson’s Wrecker, was placed on an applicance in the garage on the afternoon of July 15, and was missing when Detective Beasley went to the house around 5:00pm on July 16.
I think the obvious conclusion is that Casey tossed it before she was picked up and taken to Universal, but I can’t prove that and neither could LE.
THANK YOU.Wow. I almost expected my post on the Hearsay Rule to be ignored/eyes glazing over and such. Glad it was appreciated and even enjoyed. Good to know=)(Thank you for the kind words, BrowncoatWhit, ada, suz,Justme, njsleuth, thisbe, and wow– Shelly, Blink, Kleat– everyone=)(cause that took a while, so the gratitude is welcome)
LEE’S LICENSE SNATCH STORY & THE LAW OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE:
I haven’t caught up with all the subsequent posts, because I wanted to comment on the Search & Seizure issue re: Lee’s story that a female police officer snatched a license out of Casey’s wallet.
I don’t want to assume anything, but it appears to me that the search of Casey’s items (which were dumped out before the officer on the floor of the house) was likely what is referred to as a “consent search”. If you freely and voluntarily agree to a search, the search is legal even if the police officer doesn’t have a warrant or probable cause to search.
The police do not have to warn people that they have a right to refuse consent to a search. See Ohio v. Robinette, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1996. No equivalent to Miranda warnings exists in the search and seizure area.
For example, a college student is sitting on a blanket in a park. Officer X walks up and asks to look through her handbag. She says, “OK, I guess. I mean, I can’t stop you. The officer goes through her bag and finds a baggie of marijuana, and swiftly places her under arrest.
Are the drugs admissible as evidence? You betcha. The search was valid, because she gave her consent to it. The cop had no duty to clear up her misconception that she had no choice but to consent.
Now, I’m not saying its OK for the cop to trick or coerce her into CONSENTING to the search. Remember, the consent must be given “freely and voluntarily”.
If you share your residence with a person who consents to a search (e.g. your parent, your spouse, your sibling, your roommate), and the search turns up evidence that incriminates you, the evidence might well be used against you if you were not there to refuse to consent. An adult in rightful possession of a house usually has legal authority to consent to a search of the entire premises. And this consent will generally be considered valid if the police reasonably believe that the consenting person has the authority to consent, even if it turns out they don’t.
Don’t forget about the “Plain View Doctrine” (which I think I posted about a long while back on this case for another reason–I think it had to do with the laptop, in which I explained there is a greater expectation of privacy, etc). Police officers to not need a warrant to seize contraband (e.g. a baggie of marijuana) or evidence that is in PLAIN VIEW, IF the officer is where he/she has a right to be. (Imagine if they had to go get a warrant. Do you think the item that was in PLAIN VIEW would still be there by the time they got back??). **Note: if the officer illegally entered the house and observed the evidence in plain view, he/she cannot seize the evidence.
I won’t go further, because I think that basically covers this topic, but just know that there are other proper warrantless searches (e.g. police officers do not need a warrant to make a search after arresting someone– this is known as a search “incident to an arrest”– they can pat you down, because a) they have a right to protect themselves from harm by searching for weapons, and b)they can protect the legal case against the suspect by searching for evidence the suspect may try to destroy)
I’m guessing that they either asked whoever lived at Hopespring if they could search OR that consent was voluntarily/tacitly given by the dumping out of the items on the floor/Cindy going through the wallet in front of the officer.
REMEMBER. WE HAVE NO CLUE IF LEE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OFFICER SNATCHING AN ID OUT OF CASEY’S WALLET.
If he was, not sure why we haven’t seen it yet, but they haven’t released all of the discovery yet, have they?
If he wasn’t, perhaps he was the one who snatched it to protect his sister, and was afraid that someone may have seen it before he was able to snatch it, and the story is a cover-up. (Maybe, like his sister, he is into falsely accusing OTHER people of improper/illegal things that he has done. Who knows with this family. According to recent interview releases, Lee was quite concerned behind the scenes. Almost downright paranoid–like people tend to get when they have done something they wish to hide.)
Don’t have a clue what they redact/are permitted to redact from statements. This is odd to me. Who decides what gets redacted?? All I’ve seen thus far is the redacting of certain personal information, such as phone numbers, addresses, etc. (which is common practice).
*****
Gotta go take a shower and go to sleep, and tomorrow or the next, catch up on the rest!
night, Blinkers!
This is a little off the subject but wondered if anyone else got a strange feeling viewing the newly released cell phone pics of Caylee? Looking in her eyes I almost see fear, in others her eyes are definitly watering or glassy. She looks to be almost drugged and her demeanor rarely changes. I have grandbabies and they never look so consistent as Caylee seems to in most of these pics. Almost the same shot over and over just different clothes, hairstyles, etc. Probably nothing…but you know the saying, “the eyes are windows to the soul…”
256 Ada
That’s a question you should address to Blink!
#257
Maura, thank you for your comments.
Just to clarify, I did ask “where” not “when” the Lanyard could have been obtained by LE.
I reread my comments to see where I was not clear or where you may have misunderstood from which area of the timeline my questions were referring to/coming from.
In my comments, #252, I did begin with this cite of your quote:
“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”
Because I cited this, I don’t see how I implied LE took the lanyard PRIOR to receiving permission (George’s) to do so. I was commenting (in regards to the lanyard) that I did not see any illegal seizure by LE or illegal conduct on the part of LE during their interviews with Cindy. I understand what Cindy was trying to imply, and from what I have read and heard so far in released documents I see nothing to support anything untowards done by LE in their seizure of evidence.
My apologies (to LE as well) if my wording caused you to take it otherwise.
I did not intimate nor did I ever, ever, intend to spark any commments of scenarios of LE wrongdoings or “pocketings”, or disciplinary actions or, my gosh, the firing of any LEO.
We all know that so much information has not yet been released for public consumption and much will not be disclosed until trial, and yes, including possibly more information on this particular lanyard or others.
Sue #249
Please re-read my post.
She made many, many statements to Tracy, Rob, and even Leonard that are coming in at the trial.
It is up to her attorneys to cross-examine these folks, and to cast doubt on their credibility for the jury.
The jury shouldn’t be deciding a case based on whether they feel the evidence was properly or fairly admitted!! If the judge admits it (that is HIS province), it’s in for them to CONSIDER.
What “weight” they give it, is up to them. They can find it meaningful, or they can disregard it. (That is THEIR province).
*****
Back to the license:
There are cases establishing that the 4th Amendment is not a complete bar to the use of illegally seized evidence.
IF it was improperly seized (and I don’t believe it was, as there appears to have been consent), it would be inadmissible to prove guilt at the trial, HOWEVER, it could still be considered by the judge with regard to SENTENCING following conviction. It would also be OK for use in the civil suit.
Also, in some circumstances, a prosecutor can use improperly seized evidence to impeach (attack the credibility of) a witness who testifies during a court proceeding.
Let’s assume the license was illegally seized, and during a pretrial hearing, Judge Strickland rules that the prosecution cannot ADMIT IT INTO EVIDENCE. But then, Casey were to take the stand and while testifying, state, “I’ve never had a license with any name on it other than my own.” Well… Now, the prosecutor can SHOW CASEY the illegally seized license and ask her to admit that it was hers. Get it? The prosecutor is using the illegally seized license to ATTACK her credibility.
I don’t practice in Florida, so I don’t have the latest updated set of Rules, but here are the rules (which may or may not have been updated since this publication): (SEE MY COMMENTS IN CAPS THROUGHOUT)
RULE 3.220. DISCOVERY
(a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a “Notice of Discovery” which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules. Participation by a defendant in the discovery process, including the taking of any deposition by a defendant or the filing of a public records request under chapter 119, Florida Statutes for law enforcement records relating to the defendant’s pending prosecution, which are nonexempt as a result of a codefendant’s participation in discovery, shall be an election to participate in discovery and triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant. If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a codefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.
(b) Prosecutor’s Discovery Obligation.
(1) Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material within the state’s possession or control:
(A) a list of the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information that may be relevant to any offense charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes. The names and addresses of persons listed shall be clearly designated in the following categories:
(i) Category A. These witnesses shall include (1) eye witnesses, (2) alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi witnesses, (3) witnesses who were present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was taken from or made by a defendant or codefendant, which shall be separately identified within this category, (4) investigating officers, (5) witnesses known by the prosecutor to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged, (6) child hearsay witnesses, and (7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify to test results or give opinions that will have to meet the test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
(ii) Category B. All witnesses not listed in either Category A or Category C.
(iii) Category C. All witnesses who performed only ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial and whose involvement with and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement furnished to the defense;
(B) the statement of any person whose name is furnished in compliance with the preceding subdivision. The term “statement” as used herein includes a written statement made by the person and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person and also includes any statement of any kind or manner made by the person and written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording. The term “statement” is specifically intended to include all police and investigative reports of any kind prepared for or in connection with the case, but shall not include the notes from which those reports are compiled;
(C) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant, including a copy of any statements contained in police reports or report summaries, together with the name and address of each witness to the statements;
(D) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by a codefendant if the trial is to be a joint one;
(E) those portions of recorded grand jury minutes that contain testimony
of the defendant;
(F) any tangible papers or objects that were obtained from or belonged
to the defendant;
(G) whether the state has any material or information that has been provided by a
confidential informant;
(H) whether there has been any electronic surveillance, including wiretapping, of
the premises of the defendant or of conversations to which the defendant was a party and any documents relating thereto;
(I) whether there has been any search or seizure and any documents
relating thereto;
(J) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular
case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and
(K) any tangible papers or objects that the prosecuting attorney intends to use in the hearing or trial and that were not obtained from or that did not belong to the defendant.
(2) If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure. (***SO, THE JUDGE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DETERMINE, IN CAMERA, TO REDACT PORTIONS OF STATEMENTS,ETC***)
(3) The court may prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause.
(4) As soon as practicable after the filing of the charging document the prosecutor shall disclose to the defendant any material information within the state’s possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged, regardless of whether the defendant has incurred reciprocal discovery obligations.
(c) Disclosure to Prosecution.
(1) After the filing of the charging document and subject to constitutional limitations, the court may require a defendant to: (**THIS ALLOWED THEM TO TAKE THE PHOTOS OF HER TATTOO**)
(A) appear in a lineup;
(B) speak for identification by witnesses to an offense;
(C) be fingerprinted;
(D) pose for photographs not involving re-enactment of a scene;
(E) try on articles of clothing;
(F) permit the taking of specimens of material under the defendant’s fingernails;
(G) permit the taking of samples of the defendant’s blood, hair, and other materials
of the defendant’s body that involves no unreasonable intrusion thereof;
(H) provide specimens of the defendant’s handwriting; and
(I) submit to a reasonable physical or medical inspection of the defendant’s body.
(2) If the personal appearance of a defendant is required for the foregoing purposes,
reasonable notice of the time and location of the appearance shall be given by the prosecuting attorney to the defendant and his or her counsel. Provisions may be made for appearances for such purposes in an order admitting a defendant to bail or providing for pretrial release.
(d) Defendant’s Obligation.
(1) If a defendant elects to participate in discovery, either through filing the appropriate notice or by participating in any discovery process, including the taking of a discovery deposition, the following disclosures shall be made:
(A) Within 15 days after receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit furnished by the prosecutor pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this rule, the defendant shall furnish to the prosecutor a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call as witnesses at the trial or hearing. When the prosecutor subpoenas a witness whose name has been furnished by the defendant, except for trial subpoenas, the rules applicable to the taking of depositions shall apply.
(B) Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor’s Discovery Exhibit the defendant shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to and permit the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material that is in the defendant’s possession or control:
(i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A),
other than that of the defendant;
(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the
particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and
(iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
hearing or trial.
(2) The prosecutor and the defendant shall perform their obligations under this rule in a manner mutually agreeable or as ordered by the court.
(3) The filing of a motion for protective order by the prosecutor will automatically stay the times provided for in this subdivision. If a protective order is granted, the defendant may, within 2 days thereafter, or at any time before the prosecutor furnishes the information or material that is the subject of the motion for protective order, withdraw the defendant’s notice of discovery and not be required to furnish reciprocal discovery.
(e) Restricting Disclosure. The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or partially restrict disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party.
(f) Additional Discovery. On a showing of materiality, the court may require such other discovery to the parties as justice may require.
(g) Matters Not Subject to Disclosure.
(1) Work Product. Disclosure shall not be required of legal research or of records,correspondence, reports, or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the prosecuting or defense attorney or members of their legal staffs.
(2) Informants. Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial or a failure to disclose the informant’s identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant.
(h) Discovery Depositions.
(1) Generally. At any time after the filing of the charging document any party may take the deposition upon oral examination of any person authorized by this rule. A party taking a deposition shall give reasonable written notice to each other party and shall make a good faith effort to coordinate the date, time, and location of the deposition to accommodate the schedules of other parties and the witness to be deposed. The notice shall state the time and the location where the deposition is to be taken, the name of each person to be examined, and a certificate of counsel that a good faith effort was made to coordinate the deposition schedule. After notice to the parties the court may, for good cause shown, extend or shorten the time and may change the location of the deposition. Except as provided herein, the procedure for taking the deposition, including the scope of the examination, and the issuance of a subpoena (except a subpoena duces tecum) for deposition by an attorney of record in the action, shall be the same as that provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Any deposition taken pursuant to this rule may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness. The trial court or the clerk of the court may, upon application, issue subpoenas for the persons whose depositions are to be taken. In any case, including multiple defendants or consolidated cases, no person shall be deposed more than once except by consent of the parties or by order of the court issued on good cause shown. A witness who refuses to obey a duly served subpoena may be adjudged in contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.
(A) The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness or listed by a co-defendant as a witness to be called at a joint trial or hearing. After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged. The prosecutor may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the defendant to be called at a trial or hearing.
(B) No party may take the deposition of a witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category B witness except upon leave of court with good cause shown. In determining whether to allow a deposition, the court should consider the consequences to the defendant, the complexities of the issues involved, the complexity of the testimony of the witness (e.g., experts), and the other opportunities available to the defendant to discover the information sought by deposition.
(C) A witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category C witness shall not be subject to deposition unless the court determines that the witness should be listed in another category.
(D) No deposition shall be taken in a case in which the defendant is charged only with a misdemeanor or a criminal traffic offense when all other discovery provided by this rule has been complied with unless good cause can be shown to the trial court. In determining whether to allow a deposition, the court should consider the consequences to the defendant, the complexity of the issues involved, the complexity of the witness’ testimony (e.g., experts), and the other opportunities available to the defendant to discover the information sought by deposition. However, this prohibition against the taking of depositions shall not be applicable if following the furnishing of discovery by the defendant the state then takes the statement of a listed defense witness pursuant to section 27.04, Florida Statutes.
(2) Transcripts. No transcript of a deposition for which a county may be obligated to expend funds shall be ordered by a party unless it is:
(A) agreed between the state and any defendant that the deposition should be
transcribed and a written agreement certifying that the deposed witness is material or specifying other good cause is filed with the court or
(B) ordered by the court on a showing that the deposed witness is material or on showing of good cause. This rule shall not apply to applications for reimbursement of costs pursuant to section 939.06, Florida Statutes, and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution.
(3) Location of Deposition. Depositions of witnesses residing in the county in which the trial is to take place shall be taken in the building in which the trial shall be held, such other location as is agreed on by the parties, or a location designated by the court. Depositions of witnesses residing outside the county in which the trial is to take place shall be taken in a court reporter’s office in the county or state in which the witness resides, such other location as is agreed on by the parties, or a location designated by the court.
(4) Depositions of Sensitive Witnesses. Depositions of children under the age of 16 shall be videotaped unless otherwise ordered by the court. The court may order the videotaping of a deposition or the taking of a deposition of a witness with fragile emotional strength to be in the presence of the trial judge or a special magistrate.
(5) Depositions of Law Enforcement Officers. Subject to the general provisions of subdivision (h)(1), law enforcement officers shall appear for deposition, without subpoena, upon written notice of taking deposition delivered at the address of the law enforcement agency or department, or an address designated by the law enforcement agency or department, five days prior to the date of the deposition. Law enforcement officers who fail to appear for deposition after being served notice are subject to contempt proceedings.
(6) Witness Coordinating Office/Notice of Taking Deposition. If a witness coordinating office has been established in the jurisdiction pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes, the deposition of any witness should be coordinated through that office. The witness coordinating office should attempt to schedule the depositions of a witness at a time and location convenient for the witness and acceptable to the parties.
(7) Defendant’s Physical Presence. A defendant shall not be physically present at a deposition except on stipulation of the parties or as provided by this rule. The court may order the physical presence of the defendant on a showing of good cause. The court may consider (A) the need for the physical presence of the defendant to obtain effective discovery, (B) the intimidating effect of the defendant’s presence on the witness, if any, (C) any cost or inconvenience which may result, and (D) any alternative electronic or audio/visual means available.
(8) Telephonic Statements. On stipulation of the parties and the consent of the witness, the statement of a law enforcement officer may be taken by telephone in lieu of the deposition of the officer. In such case, the officer need not be under oath. The statement, however, shall be recorded and may be used for impeachment at trial as a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to the Florida Evidence Code.
(i) Investigations Not to Be Impeded. Except as is otherwise provided as to matters not subject to disclosure or restricted by protective orders, neither the counsel for the parties nor other prosecution or defense personnel shall advise persons having relevant material or information (except the defendant) to refrain from discussing the case with opposing counsel or showing opposing counsel any relevant material, nor shall they otherwise impede opposing counsel’s investigation of the case.
(j) Continuing Duty to Disclose. If, subsequent to compliance with the rules, a party discovers additional witnesses or material that the party would have been under a duty to disclose or produce at the time of the previous compliance, the party shall promptly disclose or produce the witnesses or material in the same manner as required under these rules for initial discovery. *** NOTE: THE CONTINUING DUTY TO DISCLOSE, HENCE THE STATE CONTINUES TO DISCLOSE HERE***
(k) Court May Alter Times. The court may alter the times for compliance with any discovery under these rules on good cause shown. ***THE COURT MAY ALTER TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE*** AND KEEP READING–THE COURT, ON SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, RESTRICT DISCLOSURE***
(l) Protective Orders.
(1) Motion to Restrict Disclosure of Matters. On a showing of good cause, the
court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it. *****READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN. ALL MATERIAL AND INFORMATION TO WHICH A PARTY IS ENTITLED MUST BE DISCLOSED IN TIME TO PERMIT THE PARTY TO MAKE BENEFICIAL USE OF IT. THAT IS NOT A SET NUMBER OF DAYS.*****
(2) Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. At any time during the taking
of a deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent, and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the circuit court where the deposition is being taken may (1) terminate the deposition, (2) limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition, (3) limit the time of the deposition,
(4) continue the deposition to a later time, (5) order the deposition to be taken in open court, and, in addition, may (6) impose any sanction authorized by this rule. If the order terminates the deposition, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of any party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order.
(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.
(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters.
The court may consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.
(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the deposition of a Category B witness.
(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.
(n) Sanctions.
(1) If, at any time during the course of the proceedings, it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or with an order issued pursuant to an applicable discovery rule, the court may order the party to comply with the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed or produced, grant a continuance, grant a mistrial, prohibit the party from calling a witness not disclosed or introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. ****THE COURT CAN COMPEL A PARTY TO COMPLY IF IT IS BROUGHT TO THE COURT’S ATTENTION–TYPICALLY VIA MOTION–AND CAN ORDER THE PRODUCTION AND/OR APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE NON-COMPLIANT PARTY*****
(2) Willful violation by counsel or a party not represented by counsel of an applicable discovery rule, or an order issued pursuant thereto, shall subject counsel or the unrepresented party to appropriate sanctions by the court. The sanctions may include, but are not limited to, contempt proceedings against the attorney or unrepresented party, as well as the assessment of costs incurred by the opposing party, when appropriate.
(3) Every request for discovery or response or objection, including a notice of deposition made by a party represented by an attorney, shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the request, response, or objection and list his or her address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that the signer has read the request, response, or objection and that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, or belief formed after a reasonable inquiry it is:
(A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and
(C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the party making the request, response, or objection, and a party shall not be obligated to take any action with respect to it until it is signed. If a certification is made in violation of this rule, the court, on motion or on its own initiative, shall impose on the person who made the certification, the firm or agency with which the person is affiliated, the party
on whose behalf the request, response, or objection is made, or any or all of the above an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
(o) Costs of Indigents. After a defendant is adjudged insolvent, the reasonable costs incurred in the operation of these rules shall be taxed as costs against the county.
(p) Pretrial Conference.
(1) The trial court may hold 1 or more pretrial conferences, with trial counsel present, to consider such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial. The defendant shall be present unless the defendant waives this in writing.
(2) The court may set, and upon the request of any party shall set, a discovery schedule, including a discovery cut-off date, at the pretrial conference. *****DID JUDGE STRICKLAND SET A DISCOVERY SCHEDULE IN THIS CASE? PULL THE DOCKETS ENTRIES TO SEE*****
I have a Blink beginner’s question. I’m not seeing any posts about yesterday’s hearing on the ZFG case. Should I be looking somewhere else for that? Same question goes for today’s hearing. TIA; I appreciate it.
working on it, lol
B
LE also has the Anthony computers HD’s in evidence– if the did as they suggested in the Cindy-Matt tape just released and kept the HD, mirrored it, and gave a new HD with the mirrored drive back to Cindy in her laptop, they would have done the same with the tower presumably.
Now if Casey had used the Anthony computers to work on creating fake ID documents, either printed at home or elsewhere, they could have that evidence without needing any old white document.
Lee might have known that Casey was using fake documents, George may have also, if he noticed something around the computer area, in the trash, or if he was looking through some of Casey’s papers. (ie he saw the resume somehow with ‘nanny’ as Casey’s work history on it) So maybe Lee needed to get that fake ID away from the home that night. Maybe he took it after picked the wallet and bag of papers from Tony’s and before he entered the house with it.
LE did question him on whether he told the officers that bag of things was just returned from Tony’s and was Caseys things. He was a bit cryptic there, not directly answering ‘yes’ but did a Cindy dance to imply ‘they knew what it was’.
Wow,awesome read, Blinkers… very informative! Maura, you disappeared from another blog a while back, and I didn’t know where to find you..and was “afraid” to ask as you know how sensitive some people can be…but really glad I found you and your blinker friends. As Arnie said: I will be back…
OK…what about this scenario? Casey has an alias, ZG. Fake ID, the works to use for trouble times (speeding tickets, seatbelt, etc). Maybe Lee found something to that nature when he went to Tony’s to pick her stuff up. So, in her mind…she isn’t lying. Zaneida did take/kill poor Caylee. Zaneida…AKA Casey
and what if George found more than the ‘resume’ with a nanny suggestion on it, maybe a fake id. He had some reason to be concerned enough to follow Casey and she was travelling too high speed, cutting in and out of traffic. What’s the chances of Casey driving like this for months and never receiving a single traffic warning, or citation. Maybe she was keeping the wanna-be cops in her bed for a reason.
This case baffles me everyday of the week. First of all imo, there is no reason for LE to take the lanyard. I know we have to look at all angles, but come on(as Casey would say). Second, this may have already been answered. Was there a person ever found that came forward to be ZG22? I would think that LE could track this person down beings they would have info on this person such as address and all that.
Thank you Silver!!! I hope that was copy/paste job…I would feel terrible you typed all that!!
So if I understand this correctly, the State may or may not have given the defense everything they have at this point. I take it that happens at the pre-trial (or sometime around there)? Jeepers, if I were a defense attorney this would make me extremely nervous, the waiting and wondering would drive me crazy! LOL
I have another rather naive question: What exactly does “in camera” mean? Does it have anything to do with an actual “camera”?
nothing to do with an actual camera, ‘in camera’ is a term which means the discussion takes place in private, out of public view. As in the judge’s chambers between lawyers and the judge.
Nancy Grace ‘transcripts’ has info on the case, these tape releases. Quite a bit on the case, but also interspersed with other cases, like Haleigh.
Bill Shaeffer said that up until now, he had little doubt that a jury in this case, would arrive at a ‘guilty’ verdict, but that he did feel doubt that the jury would recommend death. But now, adding the comment on the ‘chloroform’ to Tracy before the info on chloroform ever came out to public and volunteered from Casey, Shaeffer said:
“I believe she is facing the real possibility that this jury is going to return a guilty verdict and recommend death. ”
Shaeffer believes this comment is damning right up there with the gas can tape being same as on Caylee’s skull.
source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/08/ng.01.html
Also the NG transcript from last night’s show (link in my prev. post), helps with putting into text, some of the clips of the Padilla and crew audio.
Here’s one part of interest because remember what George tried to pull in the recent hearing while on the stand, under oath– again trying to flip the ‘it’s not relevant’ comment to Ms. Linda Drane-B??
Not relevent– not at all, that Jim has NOTHING of value to the Casey criminal cases– if anyone believes George’s viewpoint, consider this, from the recent Padilla et all audio:
“MCLAUGHLIN: George walks to his friend Jim`s because the door is right next to mine. He said, “I can`t do this. I`m not going to live this lie. I`m not going to do it.”
UNIDENTIFIED POLICE: Now who said that?
MCLAUGHLIN: George to Jim, to his friend. He`s standing in the doorway..
UNIDENTIFIED POLICE: He said I`m not going to live this lie?”
I was just thinking about the myspace page that was set up for ZG with Dora the Explorer as the default pic. Is there any way to tell by the computer forensics if that page was set up using one of the Anthony’s computers? I would think so, but someone would have to be more computer savvy than me to be able to spot it in the reports released.
Oh, I forgot, ZG had a key to the Anthony’s house……LOL!!!! She probably did that one day when George and Spindy were away at work!
Good Afternoon All! Casey is not looking well these days! I guess reading up on all the depos(especially her dad’s)is probably why she “flip” him off in court(we will probably see that gesture alot)The evil eye she gives right as she brings up the other finger. Most Compelling!….Tommie #270 “In Camera” means meetings in the Judge’s chambers,”wheeling & dealing” that is not privey to the public. Padilla & Co.’s testimony will definitely show “state of mind” of the “princess in her own mind”,.Trial can not come soon enough.
Silver,
Thank you for the clarifications and corrections regarding evidence collection and for the hearsay information. I had to copy your hearsay comment into Word (16 pages!) for piecemeal review. I got the gist of it and appreciate the complexity of hearsay rulings, but I wouldn’t want to take a test on it.
Camera is a Latin word that roughly translates to “room, vault, chamber.”
“In camera” would be roughly translated as “in the judge’s chambers or office” but has the practical meaning of “in private” (in other words, something like a conference or document inspection that is not held in an open courtroom even though it may be recorded).
What we currently call a camera (an electronic device that takes photographs) has its prototype in a device known as a “camera obscura,” which roughly translates to “dark chamber.” It was (lifted from the definition below) “a black box with a lens that could project images of external objects.”
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
camera
16c., in Mod.L. camera obscura “dark chamber” (a black box with a lens that could project images of external objects), from L. camera “vaulted room,” from Gk. kamara “vaulted chamber,” from PIE base *kam- “to arch.” Contrasted with camera lucida (L., “light chamber”), which uses prisms to produce an image on paper beneath the instrument, which can be traced. Shortened to camera when modern photography began, 1840 (extended to television filming devices 1928). Camera-shy is from 1922.
Comment for Maura re the traffic violations. Do the police not note the make and modle of the car and the tag number? If so wouldnt the car be the pontiac Casey was driving and wouldnt we be able to find this information?
#269
Maybe “ZG22″ never came forward because she’s already in jail. IMO, if the violation was paid to the clerks office, no need to go looking for a Zaneida Ganzalez. ‘Her’ ticket/penalty was paid. Maybe that was one of Casey’s stops on the way to get her friends from the airport…..hmmmmm.
I am bringing this post here as I wasn’t sure where to leave it and I have been punched in my gut by this afternoons hearing. Well, I have just finished listening, live, to Judge R in the civil case and am confident that John Morgan is probably throwing up at this moment. Dominick Casey only has to prove to the court that he indeed has signed confidentiality contracts between “All Members of the Anthony Family” and Baez and he doesn’t have to answer a single question in regards to the defamation suit….that is it! Work Product, work product and more work product. Mitnick and Dill were shot down time, time and time again. Waited all these months for nothing except humiliation and being given a whipping by a very argumentative and arrogant (IMO) judge. This case sunk today…quicker than a submarine with screen doors. No justice for Zaneida.
PP, will you move this to the new article?
And then see where I think there may be some wiggle room.. tee hee
B
Ijust wanted to put in a comment that keeps rearing its ugly head about the “volunteer” for the search for Caylee. On the Nancy Grace transcript linked in Kleats #271, a legal analyst thinks that the defense wants those names to “pin” Caylee’s murder on one of the volunteers. I say, as a volunteer, bring it on….first you have to connect me to the Anthony’s in some way, which you couldn’t. 2nd you would have to find how I had access to Caylee to abduct her and 3rd you would have to find some criminal or psychological background that would indicate that I may have a tendacy to kidnap and kill a child. All the volunteers were carefully screened, and searched in groups with a lead or supervisor with a law enforcement type background. We always searched in patterns and tight groups that there is no way I could have snuck a body into those woods w/o someone else noticing me carrying something in, its ludicrous and will never fly
Seems we have now a preview of the judge’s decision regarding the his pending decision to toss the ZG case, or delay it until after trial. He has decided that today’s questions by ZG’s lawyers, has revealed a more complete picture to help him in his decision about the whole ZG case question. Seems, and I’m getting my exercise here in jumping to a conclusion (JMHO) that the number of questions to Dominic Casey that were ‘sustained’, are showing where Judge R. is headed with his thinking– he’s going to give an answer sooner than the predicted 2-4 weeks on whether the ZG case will be tossed or delayed or neither.
Dominic Casey worked for Casey, for Cindy, for George, for Baez law firm, and apparently the judge will not entertain Mr. Casey even answering a question whether he worked or not, for a psychic! Work product! Everything Casey has is work product that can not be touched it seems.
So– what position does that put Jim Hoover in as DC already blurted out about the baby’s body being in the woods and ‘we are going to bring her home’? Seems Dominic Casey can’t come into the murder trial either, except through the defense.
I think Judge Rodriguez will leave ZG hanging as he did not like Mitnik’s questions that overlapped the murder trial. Seems…
What is the legal take on today’s proceedings… which way was the judge leaning?
envisioning a submarine with screen doors!!
wiggle room– about a PI having confidential info? Hey, why don’t all accused murderers go hire a PI to find the body and help create stories for the defense, all protected by privilege? Simple! Maybe there’s something wrong with this statement– hope so!
Maura said, regarding the lanyard: I think the obvious conclusion is that Casey tossed it before she was picked up and taken to Universal, but I can’t prove that and neither could LE.
I still think a more obvious conclusion is that Cindy made up the lanyard in the work bag with Universal ID; it is a total fabrication.
Maura knows the timeline minutae better than I. However, I think that Cindy started telling lanyard stories AFTER Casey had been arrested, after Casey had taken LE on the wild goose chase through Universal, and, significantly, after Casey had admitted that she didn’t actually work at Universal.
I have another observation about that Universal ID. It seems many (like Cindy) are treating this ID like a unique item, a stand-alone security badge/identification card that exists only in itself, and in itself can prove that Casey works at Universal. Casey likes to use official-looking props as “proof” of her veracity to her parents — fake emails, fake deposit slips, and old outdated ID cards. For some reason her parents continue to believe these “proofs,” and think we should too.
But all the Security ID cards I’ve ever obtained are just one part of a security system. The ID is created using a computer, and tracked on a computer. This computer record also has a copy of the photo, the information on the badge, personal information, and whether it is valid or not. The computerized security system would be deployed throughout the park, active at all entrances, and possibly doorways, office buildings, conference rooms, staff toilets, whatever. At some companies an employee even needs to plug the badge into their computer to get onto the network. LE would not need Casey’s physical Universal ID card to know what it looked like and whether it was valid. They could find its record on the Universal Security System. This record could conceivably have, time stamped, every instance of the ID being used to enter into a secure area.
The physical ID will have a chip that will open certain doors. Or at least a magnetic strip that contains this information. The chip or magnetic strip’s ability to open certain doors can be cancelled via the central computer security system when the employee is terminated.
I figure most of you know this already.
I would like to remind everyone
of something that has been bothering me!! the last time we seen casey in court !! was when her dad took the stand!! prior to and during the entire time she kept rubbing at her eyes with a tissue!! but as many times as I have gone back to view this!! not once did I detect a single tear drop fall from her eyes.
I think this new demeanor the look of a person portraying to be about to fall apart was for our eyes meaning anyone viewing. I dont buy that she at any time has shed a year not for caylee ayways’s if she has it’s been for her poor me self pity self!!!
I DONT BUY IT!!!
the lyon and her clown are not fooling anyone.
cindy if your here to see what we know
listen up your not fooling us!!
unlike george we can think for ourself.
we seek justice for caylee and have trust that god will prevail!!
a little girl died because not one adult in that family cared enough to rescue her. Some times things happen for a reason. I believe that god spared caylee a life of evil in that family. my heart hurts for the little girl with those beautiful big eyes !!that never had a chance never!!
Looks like you can rate the Judge here:
http://www.ratethecourts.com/judge.php?id=150880&which=judge
277 karen657
Yes, the police took down the make and model of the car and the tag number for each of the traffic violations I noted upthread. But that information is not available in the online records. Someone who wanted that information could contact the Orange County Clerk of Courts and pay the copying and shipping fee for it. I’m not that interested.
Which of the traffic violations I wrote about were you referring to in this question?
“If so wouldnt the car be the pontiac Casey was driving and wouldnt we be able to find this information?”
284 cyn0matic
Cindy’s co-workers at Gentiva testified to seeing Casey wearing the shamrock/ID lanyard when she would come into the office to drop Caylee off with Cindy before going to “work.”
Other witnesses have also testified to seeing the Universal ID lanyard, so I can’t agree with you that it was simply Cindy’s fabrication.
Chris Stutz confirmed her use of it, and the LAST use of it. Maura and I agree. It existed.
B
re: 289 — I thought cynOmatic was suggesting that the “find” of the lanyard in the bag (by Cindy) was the fabrication, not the existence of the lanyard. It has appeared in photos. But how do we know that it was in the bag from the car, if only Cindy claimed so? I can imagine that she WANTED to see it/find it to prove something she hoped was true – that Casey actually DID work – but how do we know it was left in the car? If only Cindy said so, could be true or false.
Hello Blink. Hello Maura.
I tend to agree with Blink’s ZG22 theory and Blink’s supporting arguments to that theory.
A couple of questions, but first just to add 2 thoughts…
1. Miss A. withdrew $250 on July 15.
10 hours or so later, her mother removes $200.00 from the wallet retrieved by Lee from Tony L.’s, leaving $50.00 so far unaccounted for (possibly used earlier to pay the traffic fine).
2. During the Zenaida civil case deposition, after some questioning of Annie D. in regards to her traffic violations, Mr. Dill suddenly says
“Let’s take a break for a second .” After a 2-minute recess, Mr. Mitnik takes over the questioning of Annie D. but the topic of traffic violations is never resumed on record. The reason for that likely lies within that 2 minute off the record recess. Perhaps, possibly, due to some previous directive by LE to Annie D.’s lawyer.
I do have other thoughts, but I’ll leave it at these 2.
Okay, I do have a question Blink about the traffic fine payment documentation and a question Maura about the timeline.
I snipped this from the 2008 Annual Report, Office of Lydia Gardner, Orange County Clerk of Courts, re traffic fines (the caps are mine):
“If you do prefer paying in person, we want to make it a short
drive with little to no wait at the end.
We equate our partnership with AMSCOT to providing at least
one Clerk’s branch in nearly every community – at no cost to
the Clerk’s Office. More and more of our customers are taking
advantage of the opportunity to pay at AMSCOT, which costs us
just 43 cents to process vs. $2.92 at the counter, saving $1.45
per transaction.
When you tally the courthouse, OUR FIVE BRANCHES, dozens of AMSCOTS
and the Western Union facilities that also accept Orange County Clerk payments, we offer more than 300 locations to pay, not counting the most convenient — the Internet.” (End of snip.)
Other than the famous Amscot’s, here is one of the 5 branches that also seems to be within the travel area of Tuesday, July 15:
Clerk of Court Goldenrod Branch
684 Goldenrod Road
Orlando, FL 32822
Pinar Plaza — Hours of operation:
Tue, Wed, Thurs: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Blink, does your documentation indicate which County Court Clerk location or alternative traffic fine payment outlet the Tuesday,
July 15 $50.00 payment was made at?
Maura, do you see any of these alternative locations from the downtown Court House fitting into your timeline?
Much thanks to you both.
291 Angela_nw
Those are good points, and having reread CynOmatic’s comment, I agree that she was referring to the story of the lanyard’s having been in the bag, not the existance of the lanyard.
It’s true that we only have Cindy’s word that the lanyard was in the black bag when it was in the car, and that being the case, nothing would come of her accusations IMO.
When Casey was being interviewed at Universal, she claimed the lanyard was somewhere in the house but she didn’t know where. That’s damning it itself since she hadn’t lived at the house since June 16, so if she was working events at Universal during that month, how was she getting through the security gate?
290 Maura
I was probably too strong stating the lanyard as a “total fabrication.” I think that the lanyard and ID did exist, and was held up as “proof” or a display of employment at Universal by Casey.
The fabrication is that the lanyard was in the black bag recovered from the Pontiac. The only word we have of its existence and subsequent disappearance is Cindy’s say-so.
It’s simpler that the lanyard was just not there, rather than hidden by Casey or secreted away by Lee.
292 wpgmouse
When Mr. Dill asked for a two-minute break during Annie Downing’s ZG deposition, the questioning had moved on to fake ID’s (Annie said to her knowledge Casey did not have a fake ID). They had already moved beyond specific traffic violation questions, so I do not agree with your assessment of that event. It seems to me that the line of questioning during the break was likely related to fake ID’s, not traffic violations. I fail to see any reason why Annie’s lawyer, Warren Lindsey, would have requested that Annie not be questioned about her own traffic violations (which are public record) or Annie’s knowledge of any fake ID’s used by Casey. Moreover, as the ZG depositions have made clear, during a civil trial deposition, the plaintiff’s lawyers can ask any question they want. It was not in Lindsey’s power to declare any topic off-limits, and since he didn’t certify a single question during the entire deposition, he had no problem with the line of questioning.
It’s highly likely that Casey stole Amy’s $400 cash on the night of July 2. I don’t know how much she paid for the “La Bella Vita” tattoo she got on July 3, and her other cash purchases between July 3 and July 7 amount to about $170 per Lee’s receipts. We don’t know how she spent the rest of the cash, but she no doubt dribbled it out on small items (bar tabs and lunches) and it was gone by July 15.
She got the checkbook and car on July 8. Casey cashed a check for $250 for cash on July 15 at 1:24pm.
When Lee returned to the Anthony home around 2:30am on July 16 with Casey’s wallet, Lee said he estimated from the size of the stack and from his perception that the bills were all 20’s that the wallet contained “a minimum of a hundred and forty, maybe as much as two hundred dollars just from seeing the number of bills, straight twenty dollar bills that were taken out.”
But no one actually counted the money, so it is not accurate to say Cindy removed $200, leaving $50 unaccounted for. What we can say is that the wallet did not likely contain the whole $250 from the check cashed 13 hours earlier.
And that is to be expected since Casey had to return the car with a full tank of gas before picking up Amy at the airport because Amy had filled the tank just prior to picking up Casey on July 8. Amy’s Toyota Corolla has a fuel capacity of 13.2 gallons, and at the then-price of $4.00 per gallon, filling the tank would have cost Casey $52. And indeed, she was in the area of the airport 15 minutes prior to the arrival of Amy’s flight. JWG hypothesized that she was filling the tank at a station near the terminal, and I agree with him.
Casey drove from Tony’s apartment directly to the South Conway BoA branch, where she cashed a check at 1:24pm for $250. She could have driven straight west on Michigan from the BoA and landed in the immediate area of Cast Iron, but her cell records show a five-minute detour to the north and west of the South Conway BoA before she headed south again to Cast Iron. She couldn’t have gone more than a mile or two out of the way because she only had five minutes for the detour and the reason for the detour.
The Orange County Clerk of Court website lists numerous options for paying traffic fines:
http://orangeclerk.onetgov.net/traffic/pay-ticket-person.shtml
There are five Clerk of Court locations for in-person payments: North Orange in Orlando, Goldenrod in Orlando, North Lakemont Avenue in Winter Park, West Story Road in Ocoee, and North Rock Springs Road in Apopka.
When she got back into her car after cashing the check at the South Conway BoA, she was nowhere near the Ocoee (20 minutes/14 miles) and Apopka (28 minutes/18 miles) locations, which are not even in Orlando.
As I noted earlier, she would not have had time to stop at the OC Courthouse on North Orange in downtown Orlando to make a payment and still have time to visit Cast Iron for at least 15 minutes before heading for the airport (and hitting a tower at 2:06pm that is 1.5 miles from the terminal).
The Clerk of Court branch at 684 Goldenrod Road in Piner Plaza is north and east of the South Conway BoA (8 minutes and 5.35 miles in the opposite direction of the towers she did ping between the BoA stop and the Cast Iron stop), so she did not go to that Clerk of Court branch.
The Clerk of Court branch at 450 North Lakemont Avenue in Winter Park is 15 minutes and 9.05 miles north of the South Conway BoA. None of her cell pings were within range of that location, and moreover, the drive from the Winter Park branch to Cast Iron is 21 minutes and 10.65 miles. However, if she did drive to that location and stop for three minutes to park, pay the bill, and get back into her car, she would only have been able to stop at Cast Iron for one (1) minute before leaving for the airport. She did not go to that Clerk of Court branch.
As for the Amscot locations, that’s a good question, but I am not willing to look up all 32 Amscot locations in Orange County to see if any of those locations were within a three-mile radius of the cell towers she pinged after cashing the check, to check the drive time and mileage between her known locations at specific times, and to see if the ping spacing allows for a stop at that location.
It’s a question worth answering, so I am looking forward to reading what you find out.
I am also interested in knowing the details of any additional information she may have in whatever documents she’s gathered for ZG22’s July 15 payment.
Maura, your going to have to give me some time on that request, lol. I can’t access that remotely at the moment and I do not have the chip in my brain you do my friend.
B
Hey why doesn’t some one local or Blink herself prove her theory. It seems it would be easy to obtain the actual make/model/vin of the vehicle used by ZG22 by paying the copying/shipping fee. Then we can all stop wondering…
To #159 – Thanks for that info. I have not been able to get on that website for the last few days. That explains it.
Maura, Blink
As I understand it Florida’s seat belt law in may of 2008 was only a secondary offense . The new seat belt law didn’t go into effect until July 2009 IIRC. In other words LE could not just stop a car for failure to wear seat belts. They could only stop a car for a primary offense first and then ticket for a secondary offense like ( failure to wear seat belts.)
So in order for Annie to get a seat belt violation , her car even if she was not driving had to have been stopped for a primary offense such as (failure to yield) before a ticket could be issued for (failure to wear seat belts.) Annie would receive the ticket because it is her car. Because the fine is the same amount for two violations in the car perhaps only one citation is issued. At that time it was $30 times 2 plus court cost 71.50
And since it was the memorial weekend perhaps the police were working in teams as they so often do around here during holidays. In other words if that were true maybe both officers wrote tickets for the same vehicle. It would be a way to account for discrepancies in citation numbers. I don’t know if this is a practice in Florida or not. Just thought I would bring it up.
Also, I could only find that the charge for the secondary offense of failure to wear a seat belt in 2008 at that time was 30.00 for driver and /or front seat passenger. $60.00 for a child, plus court costs, fees, etc. Depending on the county. It looks like it was a big raise in price when the new seat belt law became a primary offense.
Just a thought………..
I would have sworn that was in my piece, no? Maybe I need to review my old work lol.
B
Blink,
the price of the tickets is in your piece but Maura’s price was conflicting if I understood correctly. I looked it up and came up with the same cost per seat belt violation as you did. Sorry if I didn’t state that. I assume that is what you are talking about.
No, your right, I was referring to the primary offense issue, that at the time of the ticket, it was not.
B
#298
#299
Blink,
Thank you first for your ZG and ALD’s Excellent Adventure piece, which I found fascinatingly plausible when I first read it, and still do.
SuzeeB,
Thank you for your clarification and much appreciated input which, for me anyways, makes the plausibility factor even stronger.