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
wpgmouse,
Well your welcome I think. I was just doing some speculating there. I have no proof and I dont know if LE works together at all during holidays or not. I do think the primary and secondary laws explain some things but I am waiting for Maura’s Hammer to lower. I am keeping my head low.
301
No really SuzeeB, thank you.
I am speculating as well, because none of us here have the undisputed proof, the definitive proof, like oh, I don’t know, maybe surveillance tapes of traffic ticket payment places such as Clerk of Courts or financial institutions like Amscot. (If someone reading this does, please feel free to correct me.)
Your comments regarding the single seatbelt ticket for 2, plus 2 different officers – - one on each side of the vehicle for the 2 occupants – - rang a bell of personal familiarity within my head from younger days, long ago (I was the innocent, seatbelt-on passenger, of course, however it was my vehicle.)
Keep your head low SuzeeB? Nah…
http://a11news.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary/
Chica this link is from March my friend. FYI
B
Re: Florida Driver’s License
Many readers may not know that anyone issued a Florida driver’s license since 2002 is eligible to renew the license online or by mail in addition to visiting a DMV office. Florida drivers are allowed this renewal option as a one-time convenience. The next renewal must then be in a driver license office (prior to 911, Florida drivers got two consecutive mail-in renewals). Drivers with a clean record are allowed to renew for a six-year period and “Safe Driver” is printed on the license; drivers who received a citation within three years prior to renewal for any safety violation (speeding, DUI, rolling through a stop, etc.) are allowed to renew for a four-year period.
For instance, I got my first Florida driver’s license in 2000 for an almost six-year period (renewal dates are always on the driver’s birthday, and my birthday was a few weeks short of six years from the issue date). When I renewed in 2006, I did so by mail (filled out a card, enclosed a $15 check, and mailed it). The DMV created my new license, good until 2012, using my 2000 photo and mailed it to me. I was only asked to destroy the old one – I did not have to mail it to the DMV. When I renew my license in 2012, I will need to visit a DMV office and have an updated photo taken.
In the discovery is a set of documents relating to Casey’s Amscot account. On discovery page 2536 is a photocopy of Casey’s driver’s license that she provided to Amscot on November 15, 2005 when she opened an account with check-cashing privileges. The license in the photo was issued on July 2, 2002 and was set to expire on March 19, 2008. Just as with my license, she had a Safe Driver designation, so her license was good for a six-year period, but her expiration date was set for her birthday, which was about four months shy of the full six years. Since the photocopied license was issued in July of 2002, it was Casey’s first “real” license (after her 12-month learner license expired).
The license in the Amscot photo is a special license issued to drivers who are under age 21. Nevertheless, Casey’s July 2002-March 2008 license was in the “old style” just as my first Florida license was. The only formatting difference between Casey’s “Amscot” license and my old license is that hers had a bar below her photo with the words, “Under 21 until 3-19-07.” It had only one photo, was predominantly white, had lots of empty space, and wasn’t tricked out with the holograms and other security features of post-911 Florida driver’s licenses that rolled out in 2004.
Not to be indelicate, but follow the link and to see the Florida DL of CeeCee Ross Lyles, a victim of 911 because she was an attendant on Flight 93, the hijacked plane that passengers forced down in Pennsylvania. Her Florida license had the same format as my license issued in 2000 and Casey’s issued in 2002 (except for Casey’s under-21 copy):
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200069.html
The tragedy of 911 and the ease with which a few of the hijackers (like Mohammed Atta) obtained Florida driver’s licenses prompted an overhaul in the Florida DMV. In 2004, a new driver’s license rolled out with 17 security features, including three photos (one hidden to the naked eye), multiple holograms, and lots of other features. A photo of the new Florida license is at the following link:
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/newformat.html
That’s exactly the format of my renewed license that was issued in 2006, but since I renewed by mail, the photo was the same as the one used on my license that was issued in 2000. When Casey renewed her license on March 19, 2008, her 22nd birthday, she would have received the new license and been asked to destroy the old one.
In Lee Anthony’s July 29, 2009 OCSO Interview, he said the unidentified white card that the deputy pulled from Casey’s wallet “looked to me white like the old style driver’s license.” The only driver’s license he was certain of seeing “looks a lot like the newer versions like, you know, mine. It has all those holograms and stuff on it.”
Page 24 Lines 22-5 and Page 25 Lines 1-7
“So as the officer comes back inside the house when my mother already has the wallet open and is continuing to go through the wallet that’s when my mother is showing the officer, “Look, this is my J.C. Penney card that she took from me. Look, this another card that she took from me. But as my uhm mother went to take out my sister’s identification from that little sleeved, you know that clear sleeve that you can see through, uhm, immediately the officer’s hand went in there and grabbed something that was behind that i.d. (identification). It looked to me white like the old style driver’s license, or learner’s permit or something like that. That’s what I assumed. But it struck me and I noticed it because of how quickly the officer went in and grabbed that. Uhm, I couldn’t tell you for sure what it that was, but…..”
Page 25 Lines 16-20 and 21-4
“… that the officer grabbed. But if, again I can only attest to I saw one driver’s license. It’s looks a lot like the newer versions like, you know, mine. It has all those holograms and stuff on it. Uhm, aside from whatever that other more predominately white, I, I’m just calling it…”
“…an i.d. because it was shaped as one and I’m, that’s my best guess on what it would have been. But I did not see any other form of identification in there whatsoever.”
The DMV photograph of Casey that Zenaida Gonzalez was shown on July 16 was the same photograph used for Casey’s old-style (2002-2008) driver’s license, so it’s virtually a certainty that in March 2008, she renewed her license via the online or mail-in “convenience” option and was only asked to destroy her old license in the letter that accompanied her new license.
So it’s very possible that the mysterious white card that the deputy pulled from Casey’s wallet, a card that was behind Casey’s current Florida driver’s license, was her old Florida driver’s license that she had never destroyed.
We can certainly speculate that Casey may have altered it with false information, but it’s possible that it was simply her old license that had expired four months earlier. That would explain why there has been no mention of it in the 8,000 pages of released discovery. It wouldn’t have been taken into evidence because Casey hadn’t technically broken any law by carrying an old, expired license since she also had a new, valid license. Unless it had been falsified in some way, the deputy would simply have asked Casey to cut it in half and throw it out.
From the Orlando Sentinel:
“Florida’s state seat-belt fine is $30, but counties can add on their own hefty costs and court fees. All told, seat-belt tickets could range from $93 to $119 by county, according to a House staff analysis.”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/04/buckle-up-florida-seatbelt-bill-clears-the-legislature.html
The minimum STATE fine is $30. Every Orange County, Florida seat belt citation I looked up in my comment upthread (seat belt citations for March and May of 2008 for driver or passenger) had an assessment of $71.50 for “SEAT BELT CIVIL PENALTY.”
That means Orange County adds $41.50 in county-added charges on top of the state fine of $30.
The seat belt fine is $101 in Palm Beach County, $114 in Miami-Dade County, and $115 in Broward County. The fine varies because the State imposes a $30 fine and counties tack on administrative and court costs.
This is from the Hillsborough County website, and it’s the clearest wording yet relative to county-specific seat belt fines added to the Florida statewide fine of $30:
“The fine is $30*
*The Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court adds fees of $71 to each citation. Total fine: $101″
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicWeb/public_alerts/beltsorelse.htm
****
“The penalty is a $30 fine plus administrative and court costs. Hillsborough County for example reports the amount of the citation will actually be $101.00 per violation.”
http://ksib.net/index.php/KSIB-Home/2009/06/30/seatbelt_violations_primary_offense
Is there a difference in that summons law from Hillsborough to Orlando?
B
What is a “summons law”?
Here’s what I mean, Blink.
Last May 25, Wendell Coates got a citation for not wearing a seatbelt while a front-seat passenger (not driver) in a moving vehicle. His fine was $71.50 (”Seat Belt Civil Penalty”).
The Orange County Clerk of Court website announced increases in fees and fines to take effect on July 1, 2009. The new fee for adults (drivers and adult front-seat passengers) not wearing seatbelts in a moving vehicle is $96.
Since the new fee increase took effect, Thomas Polen received a citation for not wearing a seatbelt while a front-seat passenger (not driver) in a moving vehicle. His fine was $96 (”Seat Belt Civil Penalty”).
The civil penalty in both cases was for a single citation. The only rational conclusion I can draw is that if the total fine for one adult seat belt infraction is currently $96, then the fine for the same offence for one person was $71.50 prior to July 1, 2009. In both cases, the total statewide fine of $30 was in effect, which means the amount over $30 in each case was from additional fees that were added by the Orange County Clerk of Court ($41.50 before July 1 and $66 now).
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
Paid 6/13/2008
Assessment $71.50
SEAT BELT CIVIL PENALTY
Defendant: THOMAS POLEN
Count #: 001
Offense Date: 7/22/2009
Citation #: 0907RQW
Statute: 316.614(5) – TR- SEAT BELT NOT WORN BY PASSENGER > 18 YRS
Paid 8/5/2009
THOMAS POLEN
Assessment $96.00
SEAT BELT CIVIL PENALTY
FYI – I saw some information in a Seminole County LEO’s forum comment about seat belt laws that 316.614(5) citations are issued to the adult front-seat passenger who is not wearing the seat belt, not to the driver of the car in which the noncompliant passenger is riding.
Blink, Hello.
(Re #292 post)
When you are able to access the ZG22 traffic fine payments from 2008,
and if the payment locales are indicated, could you please look for Amscot Branch #90, 3200 Curry Ford Road ?
No rush – - I realize the flow to the current topics at hand.
As always, thank you.
#309 Maura
You are right Maura I finally found this which spells it out much more clearly.
“The penalty is only $30, but each county adds on administrative and court costs. In Central Florida that makes the fine $96 in Orange County up to $104 in Brevard County.”
Here is the link.
http://www.usfra.org/profiles/blogs/click-it-or-ticket-has-greater
OK so if there was in fact only 1 seat belt violation for Annie Downing on 5/24/09 which now we know there was. It still begs the question why was her car pulled over because at that time (seat belt violation was only a secondary offense) Her car had to be stopped for a primary offense, Right????
I would imagine the same goes for Wendell Coates.
I mean 5/24/08 sorry
311 Suzee
Annie and Wendell had to be STOPPED for a primary offence/valid reason, but that doesn’t mean they had to be cited for that primary offence.
Let’s say she had a tail light out, or it was raining lightly and she didn’t have her windshield wipers on (against the law in Florida), or it was twilight and she didn’t have her headlights on (against the law in Florida), or she made a turn without using her turn signal or without turning the signal on at least 100 feet from the turn (against the law in Florida), or she had her dog in the car sitting on her lap while she was driving (I couldn’t find a statute for that one even though I looked), or she appeared to be following too closely, or she was wearing a phone or iPod-type headset (only one ear can be covered by Florida law).
Those are all reasons for which she could have been validly stopped by a LEO, but many are reasons for which the LEO would have given her a warning (like the tail light) or just stopped her to make sure she was in compliance (like making sure the headset only covered one ear). They didn’t have to be speeding or weaving all over the road to be pulled over.
The LEO could have seen the primary or suspected primary violation and also seen the seat belt violation, and decided to stop her for the validly legal reason but only checked out or warned her or accepted her explanation for the legal reason while giving her a citation for the seat belt violation, especially if the seat belt violation was, in context, the more serious offence (even if a secondary offence by law).
*********
I just found this old chestnut written in 1994, when Florida had a mandatory seat belt law but when the citation could only be given as a secondary offence. It was written by Robert A. Butterworth, Florida Attorney General to Mr. Fred O. Dickinson, Executive Director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles about the situation in which a seat belt citation could be given without issuing a citation for the primary offence for which the driver was stopped.
“Section 316.614, Florida Statutes, the Florida Safety Belt Law, provides:
“(4) It is unlawful for any person:
(a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each front seat passenger of the vehicle under the age of 16 years is 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.
(5) It is unlawful for any person 16 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.
* * *
(7) After January 1, 1987, any person who violates subsection (4) or subsection (5) shall be fined $20, including court costs, for each separate offense.
The plain language of this section requires the use of safety belts by the driver and front seat passengers of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is in operation. Section 316.614(9), Florida Statutes, however, limits the enforcement of the mandatory seat belt law “as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of this chapter, chapter 320, or chapter 322.” (e.s.)
Thus, a state or local law enforcement officer may not stop or detain the driver of a motor vehicle solely upon his or her failure to wear a safety belt while operating the vehicle.[1] A person may be charged with violation of the seat belt law when the driver of the motor vehicle has been detained for suspected violation of another section of the traffic laws, but there is no requirement that the driver be charged with violation of another traffic law in order for the officer to issue a citation for violation of the mandatory seat belt law.”
****
That’s pretty clear to me. Both Annie and Wendell were lawfully stopped for a reason other than the seat belt violation but were, in the end, only charged with the seat belt violation.
I have tried four times to get the link posted for that letter, but my comment keeps disappearing.
The letter is on the website for the Office of the Attorney General of Florida (the current website has archived letters).
The letter has this at the top:
Number: AGO 94-93
Date: November 17, 1994
Subject: Police officer citing violation of seat belt law
The letter was written to:
Mr. Fred O. Dickinson, III
Executive Director
Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles
Neil Kirkman Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Maura, I would never delete anything. Please explain your issue so I might resolve it my friend.
B
#313 Maura
Yes thank you Maura, I had thought of that but you beat me to it. I am disappointed that you did not find a statue for the dog sitting on the lap though.
Just kidding, LOL Thank You Maura.
So I guess it is safe to assume Casey was not in that car.
Casey’s cash and purchases from June 27 through July 15:
A) Known cash purchases per Lee’s receipt list (no credit card or checks included):
Amount – Item – Date
$16.00 – Movie tickets (2) – 28-Jun
$7.49 – Target – 30-Jun
$37.23 – Ross – 2-Jul
$10.64 – Team Choice – 3-Jul
$21.28 – Anchor Blue – 3-Jul
$15.98 – Target – 3-Jul
$12.71 – Target – 4-Jul
$14.90 – Best Buy – 5-Jul
$4.00 – Car wash – 5-Jul
$49.14 – Publix – 6-Jul
$11.61 – Winn Dixie – 6-Jul
$4.18 – Target – 7-Jul
$8.00 – Movie ticket (1) – 7-Jul
$8.00 – Movie ticket (1) – 13-Jul
$13.40 – Blockbuster – 14-Jul
$88.45 – Winn Dixie – 15-Jul (***this purchase was made after the $250 check was cashed on July 15)
Total Known Cash Purchases – $323.01
B) Guessed purchases:
Amount – Item – Date
$0.00 – Ricardo’s money – Jul 7-15 (he asked for it on July 7, but I doubt she paid him)
$0.00 – Buffalo Wild Wings – 5-Jul (with Tony, unknown who paid)
$10.00 – The Lodge – 3-Jul (Troy and Melissa)
$10.00 – Macos – 2-Jul (Amy, Troy, and Melissa)
$10.00 – Club Voyage – 2-Jul (Amy, Troy, and Melissa)
$50.00 – Tattoo – 3-Jul (Really guessing about this one)
$6.00 – Subway (Matt Crisp) – 7-Jul (he said he ran into her at lunchtime)
$20.00 – Amy gas – 15-Jul (Guessing here, 5 gallons x $4 per; full tank = $52)
$35.00 – Miscellaneous – Jun 27-Jul-15 (gum, snacks, cold drinks, etc.)
$35.00 – Food when Tony/NY – Jun 30-Jul 4 (she had to eat)
$40.00 – Jeep gas – Jun 30-Jul 5 (Guessing here, 10 gallons x $4 per b/c only 15 MPG; full tank = $75)
Total Guessed Cash Purchases – $216.00
Total Cash Purchases June 27 to July 15 – $539.01
Cash Sources
Stolen Cash $400 on July 2
Stolen check for cash $250 on July 15
Fusian Tips (June 27 only) – $30.00 (Fusian was closed on July 4, and the shot girls were sent home early on July 11 because of an incident with a customer, so guessing no tip kickback)
Total Cash to Spend – $680.00
Total Cash Spent – $539.01
Remainder on July 15 – $140.99
***
I am sure the formatting is going to be ugly. Sorry.
Maybe the dog was driving.
Just kidding.
314 Blink
You didn’t delete anything. I was trying to post the hyperlink for the letter I referenced, but as soon as I hit the submit button, the comment disappeared and I was popped to the top of the page. I thought it was a fluke, so I tried twice, then I tried to break up the URL with spaces (twice, using different breaks) and a note to delete the spaces, but the same thing kept happening.
That URL had an http:// at the beginning, but no www. Maybe the formatting on this website requires hyperlinks to have the www. Just guessing.
#317 wpgmouse
I cant stop laughing.
315 Suzee
IMO, we can safely assume no one else in Annie’s car on May 24 got a citation for anything.
As I wrote upthread, since Annie appeared at the ZG deposition with her lawyer and knew she was under oath, she would not have lied. Because she seems to be running the March 30 and May 24 violations together, we can’t be sure on which of those dates she recalled being on the phone with Casey when she was pulled over (cell phone headset?), but I am of the opinion that she would have remembered whether Casey was in the car with her in 2008 when she was pulled over and received a traffic citation.
I don’t personally believe Casey was in the car with Annie Downing on May 24 when Annie got the seat belt citation.
Annie Downing and ZG22 both received traffic citations on May 24, but they both received driver-specific citations and from different LEO’s. Maybe Blink will tell us about the additional information she has for both drivers and their May 24 citations (location, time of day, etc.) in addition to everything else that was available for ZG22.
I do have more, my good friend, I am checking to see if I can actually post it on this site, and id I can, will.
B
318 My own comment just got screwed up with the hyperlinking formatting. The triple W became http://www even though I only wanted the triple W.
Maura rocks…
A theory in regards to Lee collecting his sister’s things from TL’s:
Of what we know to have been Lee’s experience the evening of the July 15, his investigation instincts had already kicked in before he left for TL’s apartment.
Therefore it would of been very plausible that he went through his sister’s belongings, including her wallet, before he returned with them to his parent’s home. I don’t fault him for this at all – - I would have done the same thing given the circumstances – - it’s simply a matter of human nature.
Whether going through her stuff was done in front of TL or in the privacy of say Lee’s own car or rental home, we can’t say, because this scenario has not been described in any parts of the released LE interviews. Maybe the parts have been redacted from TL’s interview or not brought to light at all or even denied in another.
We just don’t know at this time.
What we do know is that impending charges were hanging heavily over Lee’s head and that he was granted limited use immunity for his recent
SA deposition. Why? What had he done?
For now, let’s just focus on that wallet. If he indeed went through it before returning to Hopespring Drive, then he would have definitive knowledge of its contents as well. He would know exactly what types of I.D. were in there, the amount of cash, credit cards, etc.
His investigation of the wallet alone wouldn’t fall under the need for immunity, but if he made the choice to remove and conceal any of its contents and maintain no acknowledgement to LE who either suspected or already knew better, then his actions could very well fit within those impending charges.
It is odd how he described, in his July 29, 2008 LE interview, the amount of cash taken from the wallet by his mother:
“…And when my mother at that point had opened up my sister’s wallet, she had actually already opened up my sister’s wallet because she was looking through the contents of this large wallet, saw unfolded, it had to be a minimum of a hundred and forty, maybe as much as two hundred dollars just from seeing the number of bills, straight twenty
dollars bills that were taken out.”
A minimum of $140? Why not $120 or $160? And as much as $200?
Why did he choose those 2 amounts? Did he previously search the wallet and find $200 in it, but for some reason then removed $60, leaving $140?
What else did he find that may have motivated him to perhaps do this?
We already know he found and kept a single car key, but it would appear he made no mention of that to LE upon his return to the Anthony home.
Snipped from LA’s LE Interview July 29, 2008:
EE: I’ll tell you while we’re here then I’m going to, that, that whole conversation I had listed as uh, note number eight. And the reason I’m doing this Is for my transfer review later. I’d like to jump to uh, you said that Amy’s keys were also in there? Uh….
LA: Uh-hum (affirmative).
EE: …or, or a set of keys?
LA: Just her, yeah (affirmative), her, her one car key, yes.
EE: That you recognize as the key that was probably to the car that your sister was using while they….
LA: Exactly….were in Puerto Rico?
EE: It was a key that I had never seen before. I know all of our family’s car keys. So it just was easy for me to figure out that had to be Amy’s, Amy’s car key.
EE: And you called Amy and destroyed that key for her?
LA: The next, yeah (affirmative), the next day she reached out to me and said, “Hey, my key’s on her, probably on her key ring somewhere.” And I said, “I already, I’m one step ahead of you. (Laughs). I already got it. Consider it, consider it taken care of,” so”
So? So unless LE were aware of the car key on July 16 and gave Lee permission to destroy it, then this shows that Lee was capable of withholding and destroying potential evidence. For all we know, there could have been something he found within his sister’s belongings pertaining to ZG which could have directly implicated his sister.
CA knew when she was leaving TL’s apartment the evening of July 15.
there was a real possibility she would not be returning any time soon.
So, why would a woman, any woman, purposely leave her purse behind?
I see one reason within this scenario . . . because of its contents.
CA did not “forget” to take her purse with her when she left TL’s with her mother. And considering her cell phone was like an extension of her and was so integral to her being, she purposely left that behind as well for the same reason as her purse.
Must have been some pretty damning stuff. Maybe some ZG stuff.
#323 Lily
Yes Maura certainly does Big Time.
#324 wpgmouse
I didn’t understand Lee in regard to destroying Amy’s car key. What did he do Melt It Down. Why not simply give it back to her??? Or to LE?
Suzee B, Good Morning.
You are so right. That’s what I was theorizing over in #324.
Why indeed not give the intact, single key to LE, who would be part of the legal process in determining if the key would be returned to Amy or held for its evidentiary value. Perhaps he felt it would implicate his sister and therefore chose his actions.
Reposting here the snipped portion of Lee’s July 29 interview by LE,
with Corporal William “Eric” Edwards –
EE: I’ll tell you while we’re here then I’m going to, that, that whole conversation I had listed as uh, note number eight. And the reason I’m doing this Is for my transfer review later. I’d like to jump to uh, you said that Amy’s keys were also in there? Uh….
LA: Uh-hum (affirmative).
EE: …or, or a set of keys?
LA: Just her, yeah (affirmative), her, her one car key, yes.
EE: That you recognize as the key that was probably to the car that your sister was using while they….
LA: Exactly….were in Puerto Rico?
EE: It was a key that I had never seen before. I know all of our family’s car keys. So it just was easy for me to figure out that had to be Amy’s, Amy’s car key.
EE: And you called Amy and destroyed that key for her?
LA: The next, yeah (affirmative), the next day she reached out to me and said, “Hey, my key’s on her, probably on her key ring somewhere.” And I said, “I already, I’m one step ahead of you. (Laughs). I already got it. Consider it, consider it taken care of,” so”
SuzeeB, I don’t know what EE meant by “destroyed”, but Lee responded to EE “…yeah…” that he did do that to the key and stated he told Amy
“…consider it taken care of…”. To date, no information on the method he used has been made public. Perhaps “disposed of” was meant by “destroyed”, I don’t know. Perhaps Lee kept it hidden away.
Could be this was asked and answered recently in Lee’s SA deposition given under the limited use immunity.
I find it plausible that Lee had no idea it was Amy’s key until he spoke with Amy after the fact. If he knew it was Amy’s why not give it to LE? Why, instead, did he feel the need to get rid of or conceal it?
I also find it plausible that he did not find it while at TL’s apartment, but rather after he left, which points to him searching through his sister’s belongings before returning with them to Hopespring Drive.
I say this because from the July 29, 2008 LE interview, Lee did state seeing Amy’s cheque book sitting out on TL’s dresser ready to be picked up by Amy as explained to Lee by Tony. So why then, did Lee not also leave the key at that point with Amy’s chequebook to also be retrieved by Amy?
Just like I posed the question in #324 “why would a woman, any woman, purposely leave her purse behind?”, I now pose, in regards to Annie D.,
“why would a woman want to speak about her own problems to another woman, a friend no less, who’s little child has been missing for 31 days?”
What on earth could take priority over a missing little child who’s very life is at stake?
To theorize…
Is the first woman completely, selfishly insensitive to her friend and oblivious to the serious nature of her missing child? Or does she desperately need to find a way to “get invited” to see her friend and speak privately, because the friend has information that could implicate the first woman?”
Snipped from Annie D.’s civil deposition:
19 Q How was it you that ended up talking to her?
20 A I had — a good friend of mine was the one
21 making the shirts for Caylee, and I had to go pick some
22 of them up on a Friday for George. He couldn’t make it
23 so he wanted me to go get them from my friend. So I went
24 and got them. They couldn’t — they went out of town.
25 They had something to do.
Rough Draft – 46
1 I ended up meeting up with them on a Monday
2 night to get the shirts from them — or get the shirts to
3 them. And I had been going through something, and me and
4 Cindy and George were just talking. I was like this is
5 one of those times I would need Casey and I can’t have
6 her. They said get in the car. We’ll take you to her.
What?
If it were my friend who’s child was missing, I would say I would want to comfort my friend, listen to her, help her any way I can during this most difficult and distressing time. I would not want to burden her with something I had been going through. Nor even mention it to the grandparents for Pete’s Sake.
Wouldn’t those have been more appropriate reasons, for one woman to another?
Unless, perhaps the first woman has a personal agenda or ulterior motive to seek out the other, and does so by fishing for an invitation from the other woman’s parents.
Secrets, secrets, secrets. The purse left behind probably held some, the cell phone left behind probably held some, and friends left behind probably did, too.
Blink regarding #321….please please please
“tell” more! We need more puzzle pieces to work with
Lee testified under an SAO-issued subpoena, which means he got FULL use immunity (use and derivative use), not LIMITED use immunity. Casey was offered a limited use immunity deal last summer that she did not take. An SAO subpoena automatically confers a stronger immunity level than just “limited use.”
When Amy and Cindy got to Tony’s apartment, Amy got Casey to the door, and then Cindy stepped into view. Cindy ordered Casey to get her things and come home, and Casey refused. Casey said she would talk to Cindy outside, so Cindy, Amy, and Casey went out and closed the door to the apartment. In Amy’s July 23 interview, she said after a heated argument in which Casey refused to take Cindy to Caylee, Cindy pretty much forced Casey into the car. Amy said Casey told Cindy they could drop Amy off and then talk. Casey fully expected to be back at Tony’s the same evening, and that’s why Casey left her phone and wallet behind. She didn’t expect Cindy would pull up to an OPD substation and call 911 to have her arrested. (Page 40 of Amy’s transcript)
I don’t believe Lee went through the wallet because if he did, he surely would have cleaned it up of stolen credit cards and fake IDs!
And he would not have gone out of his way to make a list of Casey’s June 27-July 15 receipts showing she was going to movies and buying clothes. Those were cash purchases, nothing they would have tracked via Amy’s checks or Cindy’s credit cards.
According to Lee’s testimony, it sounds as if Amy asked him to destroy the key. She totalled her car on June 6. After she picked up her Toyota Corolla on June 13, she sent Casey a text message: “10 keys made. Done.”
Apparently, she was in the habit of locking her keys in her car, so she made lots of copies and spread them out among her friends so they’d be able to help her out. That doesn’t get Lee off the hook for destroying it, but there is a reason why Amy didn’t ask for it back.
Sure, Lee should have held onto the key and given it to LE, but from what he said, he didn’t do anything with the key until he heard from Amy. LE wasn’t taking anything that had been at Tony’s except the electronics. OCSO was offered Casey’s receipts twice on July 16 and again on July 17, and none of the deputies were interested in taking them. When Baez found out about the receipts on July 19, he asked if he could have them.
Once Lee found out the key belonged to Amy’s car, he wouldn’t have had any reason at that point to think it was valuable to LE in any way. OCSO wasn’t taking the items like the receipts or clothes that they should have taken. Why would they want something like Amy’s car key?
#330 Maura,
Thomas Luka, Lee’s own attorney, reportedly has said his client received limited use immunity, for the purpose of the SA deposition only.
I used the term limited use immunity to differentiate from blanket immunity. Perhaps I should have stuck an “or” between the words limited and use.
The point is that Lee needed, requested and got immunity.
That in itself implies guilty actions on his part, n’est-ce pas?
And Maura, with all due respect, as for your complete disagreement
with my theories posted #324 and #327, I say we are going to
have to agree to disagree, yet again.
Cheers.
I do so love to see French on my site, please keep it up!
I love the way we can all respectfully agree to disagree so intelligently!
B
“As a result of his testimony, Luka said Lee Anthony has what’s called “use immunity” from prosecution, though he said Anthony never did anything to warrant being charged in connection with the case.”
http://www.wesh.com/news/20222439/detail.html
*****
There are three types of immunity:
“Limited use immunity” means the statements of the witness may not be used against the witness but any evidence uncovered as a result of investigating the statements may be used against the witness. This is the type of immunity Casey was offered in August. As part of the limited use immunity deal Casey was offered, she would have had to waive – in writing – any evidence obtained as a result of her statements to investigators.
“Use and derivative use immunity” means that neither the statements of the witness nor any evidence derived from investigating those statements may be used against the witness. However, should the prosecution acquire evidence substantiating the supposed crime — independent of the witness’s statements or investigation of the witness’s statements — the witness may then be prosecuted for same and additionally may be prosecuted for crimes that are unrelated to the subject matter for which the testimony was compelled but that were discovered in the course of the investigation.
“Transactional immunity” (known as “blanket” or “total” immunity) completely protects the witness from prosecution for crimes related to the subject matter of his or her testimony. However, it does not protect the witness from prosecution of other crimes uncovered as a result of testimony and investigation, “other crimes” meaning crimes not related to the original subject matter of the witness’s statements.
*****
Here is the Florida Statute:
Chapter 914 WITNESSES; CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
914.04
“Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.–
No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed.”
The Florida Statute is clear that immunity is conferred by the subpoena itself – automatically. It is not negotiated ahead of time. If the SAO issues a subpoena to anyone whose testimony is being compelled, that person automatically gets the immunity.
Furthermore, anyone who receives a subpoena issued by the Florida State Attorney’s Office receives FULL use immunity for his or her sworn testimony so long as the witness does not commit perjury. The level of FULL use immunity is clear from the language of the statute: “no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal INVESTIGATION or proceeding.”
Comprenez-vous?
oui. LOL
B
#332 Maura So I see now that not only did Lee receive immunity, but also Cindy. Quote> “It has been a long time since Cindy Anthony agreed to answer the questions of people involved in prosecuting her daughter for murder, but Tuesday she was under subpoena to answer.” <Unquote
http://www.wftv.com/news/20205386/detail.html
The entire family, George and Cindy via Brad Conway, and Lee via Tom Luka, were requesting immunity back in January 2009. I have not found any article claiming George received immunity. Could he have received it back in October 2008 when he went before the Grand Jury? I will search for more info on that. Interesting that no one has really discussed Cindy having the immunity…
P.S. Thank you Silver for answering my question last week on the other Blink thread regarding Dr Kobilinsky and Dr Lee becoming expert witnesses for the defense. I appreciate it!
blink—-any more clues to what was found 07/03? enquiring minds want to know lol. just a hint please?! thanks for everyones fine posts.
Cindy (July 28 + 29), Lee (July 30), and George (August 5) were all deposed by the SAO under subpoena, so they were all protected by the immunity conferred by the SAO subpoena.
Their names had already been released by the SAO back on March 17 in a list of witnesses who would receive subpoenas for the criminal trial. The list was not released to the public (at least, I’ve never been able to find the list posted online), but reporters got a look at it and said George, Cindy, and Lee were on the list as well as Shirley Plesea, KioMarie Cruz, Tony Lazzaro, Brian Burner, and the employees of the Mount Dora nursing home where Alex Plesea is a resident. I have no idea why the whole list wasn’t posted online, but as noted, I have never been able to find it.
Also, out-of-state defense attorneys commenting on talk shows have said the immunity that is automatically conferred by an SAO-issued subpoena is rather unusual in the US. But the SAO subpoena does confer use immunity (aka use and derivative use).
Around the end of January, Thomas Luka said he was concerned that Lee would be charged with something in the area of obstruction or aiding and abetting because Lee had not, at that point, received a subpoena from the SAO. Lee’s name appeared weeks later on the March 17 subpoena list for the trial, but Luka wanted Lee to receive a subpoena for the pre-trial SAO deposition as well.
I don’t personally believe Lee received any immunity other than what is conferred by the subpoena (neither did George or Cindy). And it bears repeating that the immunity is only for truthful testimony.
Blink,
If I may…
From what I have read here on your forum, many posters have their own theories and many have facts. Sometimes a fact is misstated, even by those who feel the need to chastise others. Some even say, in different words, they are hesitant to comment.
I’m a brainstorming kind of person, where everyone is equal in that they bring their own strengths to the table, and whereto that table a personal competitiveness really should not be brought.
It would appear for some reason, I am being responded to lately (not by you) in a most condescending way. I don’t feel it is right for any poster to feel they or their level of intelligence are being personally attacked. Comments meanly directed at another is very disrespectful.
Respectfully, I don’t know what else to say, other than I admire you, your dedication and your forum, and very much enjoy reading the contributing comments, especially when one comment can positively cause the spawning of another’s.
Thank you, Blink, for allowing me into your home.
Your Guest,
wpgmouse
WP-
Everyone on this site is responsible for being respectful in their respones and posts. If I missed that for something I apologize. I dont believe in anyone being condescending, as most on here are smarter than moi. Perhaps taken out of context between 2 highly knowledgable professionals interpreting data, perhaps?
Happens all the time. Ask Maura, she is able to produce 46 lines of data to counter my opinion or theory, and sometimes my only rhetort is the equivalent of “I see what your saying, but I am right anyway.”
There is so much to this case that is interpretable, and honestly, that has caused speculation which most see differently.
If I am hit on the head by a falling air conditioner tripping over my severed leg in the foyer parked next to my spaceship, I will take my last breathe saying something was found in the yard on July 3rd that raised concern for Caylee’s whereabouts and safety, but can I prove it today, no. But I am right
Thank you, Blink.
I understand your position and what you are saying.
However I speak only from personal experiences in that
someone has been really trying to move my cheese.
It’s best I recline back to a read-only position.
I will check-in to see if you were able to post further on ZG22.
By the way, according to ping locations and times, and facts that we know and do not know, you are right that CA “could have” visited with CS on June 17.
Onwards and upwards, Blink.
You SOOOO hit my bullseye on that one, lol. An old boss of mine bought that book for me and set it on my desk years ago. I LOVE- LOVED it.
I do agree with Maura that the 19th fits for the Stutz visit, but personally, how do you get around the fact that Casey is at Sawgrass on 6/17 in Tony’s jeep? It is doubtful she had it both days and since I believe she buried Caylee in the backyard under the playhouse on 6/18, makes sense to me, but again, one of these interpretive issues where nobody is conclusive at this point.
B
wpgmouse…..
Please don’t “recline back to a read-only position…” I speak in behalf of others as well as myself….please keep posting. I am at a loss at what you bring to the table. Wish I could be a better sleuth like yourself. Keep up the good work.
Yep. Every pot has a lid and all that.
B
wpgmouse-
I thoroughly enjoy all the contributions to this site as I have WEATHERED some of the others and would REALLY appreciate if you would continue to post on here as I am sure that you are not being personally attacked as thru typing, others cannot see us or hear our statements.
Okay so Blink a yes or no question from me…..
was there more evidence than digging under the playhouse?
Like a physical item?
Also the “key” brings some questions up for me like one being,
Why the group key? could the key be for a building, shed, car or a safe deposit box etc? why would sooo many people need one key?
And why would Lee destroy it?
Nancy- I offer no proof something was found, it is my strong opinion.
B
lol wow two posts with the same contents but different people….
I sure hope wpg reads it… hehe
I dont doubt the fact that Amy’s car key was not important evidence in any way. Only that it rose suspicions that if Lee had gotten rid of the key at some point then (what else did he do?)
If I were Lee, the first thing I would have done would be to go thru Casey’s things. And he probably did a very quick search before he got back to the house. After all he noticed how neatly things were packed. So he must have looked. He may have missed the white card that was behind in the sleeve where Casey’s drivers license was. But perhaps it was just the old expired license. Maybe he did a quick look at the money but didn’t really count it. As to the credit cards, well they were Cindy’s anyhow. If there was anything else in there more incriminating than those cash receipts, who knows. After all there were files that were deleted on Cindys laptop.
So if I were LE I would be at the very least suspicious since Lee did go to pick up the stuff and he was gone quite awhile.
Lee would have been stupid to do anything while at Tony’s but I guess we will find out. Maybe Lee was mad at himself for missing the white card that was behind Casey’s drivers license and that is why he told LE about the officer taking it. He wanted to know what it was.
I am sure Casey was probably 100 times more upset about leaving her cell phone behind at Tonys then her wallet or purse but I also dont think she would have gone back in to retrieve them anyway, even if she could have, not at that point. Of course she thought she would be back. She needed time anyhow to come up with a good story so she would be able to explain to Tony her mothers actions and words. She probably thought she could explain everything away and calm her mother down at least for “one more day”.
Blink
I thought I read that when LE searched the area of the playhouse they found that the landscaping plastic under the pavers had not been disturbed. Although the dog or dogs did hit in that area. Maybe Cindy found some disturbed pavers and landscaping plastic that was cut through and that was the yard project on July 4h. Maybe she also found that Lanyard there with the expired ID and that was why she went to Universal. Or how about the Tiffany Ring or Caylees Bear.
I dont get Annie Downing at all. First she and Casey are friends then they are not friends because she feels Casey has lied about things in the past. Then Annies is going thru stuff and she needs Casey. But by this time she KNOWS Casey is a liar. But when she is taken to Casey, she shuts her down because she doesn’t want “to go there” about Caylee. HUH???
Casey uses excuse that house is bugged. Well come on Casey lets go talk in the playhouse. Or was that bugged too.
Oh I am just ranting and disgusted…… Sorry
No need to apolly, we have all been there
B
I wonder how Annie Downing feels now that Casey told Lee she was on her “do not trust list”
I think she thinks she is in the drivers seat, so to speak
B
wpgmouse
I promise to respectfully disagree with you, even if I am wrong. Which could happen LOL…. Come Back
lol, that’s what Im talkin bout’
B
Hello, NancyS
Who are the 2 people?
NancyS
Please ignore my question.
As soon as I posted my comment to you, the blog page reloaded
with 4 new posts appearing above it that were not there when
I first read your post.
I thought I was going batty.
Randie,
Thank you for your kind remarks.
Don’t underestimate yourself.
Your enthusiasm in your posts is contagious.
Cheers. :]
NancyS,
I was wrong. I am going batty.
Thank you as well for your kind remarks.
:]
I think she thinks she is in the drivers seat, so to speak
B
LOL Good One…. Blink
Should have done a group response. Sorry for the space I’m taking up here.
SuzeeB,
You have always been a respectful poster with a great sense of humour.
]
Glad you decided not to keep your head low.
341 SuzeeB
I completely agree that Lee’s willingness to get rid of the key before telling LE about it makes him appear suspicious, even if his motives were innocent. But I also considered that when Lee went to Tony’s after midnight (which was shortly after a deputy had been at Tony’s to canvas the apartment for Caylee and pick up the phone), Tony had Amy’s checkbook on a table separate from Casey’s personal items. According to Lee, Tony said he had spoken to Amy and she was going to pick up the checkbook the next day (July 16) but Tony said Lee could take it with the other items. Lee said no, let Amy get it. Did Tony offer the checkbook to the deputy who arrived at 11:00pm, knowing it was evidence of a crime since Amy had already called Tony to say Casey wiped out her account?
My only point is that people were making decisions during the first day or two that seemed innocent enough and reasonable at the time (Amy did pick up her checkbook on July 17) even though, as with the checkbook, they all knew by 11:00pm on July 15 that it was evidence in a crime.
When Lee got the goods home at 2:25am, he said he dumped them on the floor with the female deputy’s permission, but that the female deputy did not stay in the room to observe during the entire time that the items were being looked over. He said she kept walking in an out of the room. When Cindy found the cash in the wallet, Lee said the deputy was out of the room and that Cindy had quickly pocketed the money without saying anything to the LEO. In Cindy’s LE statement, she claimed she showed the money to the deputy and had permission to take it. I don’t know who told the truth about that, but knowing Cindy, I am inclined to believe Lee.
A stack of receipts was offered to LE on July 16 and July 17, and the LEO or LEO’s to whom they were offered declined to take them. When Baez found out about their existence on July 19, he asked for them. Lee said he went to Baez’s office to make a list of the receipts on July 28, the day before his interview with Eric Edwards. Lee did not have to do that, and if he had been hiding evidence harmful to Casey, I cannot think of a rational explanation for his decision to make that list and give it to LE. The dates and times of the cash purchases helped to nail down the timeline, but they certainly didn’t help Casey relative to the clothing shopping trips and movie tickets.
Lee would have been smart to turn the key over to LE just to cover himself. No argument from me there. But I would have to force myself to see a nefarious design in Lee’s decision to get rid of it after talking to Amy.
I don’t think there is any doubt that electronic communications were deleted by the Anthonys. I do believe that on July 4, it was Casey who deleted the MySpace comments from April 24 through July 4 because she realized, from the events of the night of July 3, that both Cindy and Lee had been looking at her posts and comments to see what she had been up to. I also think Casey was deleting like crazy in the early evening of July 15 and screwed up the laptop herself.
IMO, Casey fried the computer when she started making deletions on July 15. She knew something serious had happened from Cindy’s text messages at 4:27p (“Call me asap major prob”) and 4:45p (“Call me”). It seems fairly clear to me that Cindy had only told Casey earlier in the day about a certified letter at the PO but had not told Casey they found the car. Shortly after receiving Cindy’s “major prob” and “call me” text messages, Casey tried to figure out if the certified letter had anything to do with the camera Amy was having shipped to the Anthony residence (something she knew Cindy would not be at all happy about). Amy had asked Casey a week earlier (July 7) if the camera had arrived, and Casey told her Cindy had not said anything about it, so Casey didn’t know the camera had been refused and sent back to the shop.
4:27p: Cindy to Casey: “Call me asap major prob”
4:45p Cindy to Casey: “call me:
4:53p Casey to Amy: “I think your camera is at my parents. I’ll check later to be sure.”
5:22p Amy to Casey: “No, it’s not. I must have put down the wrong address because it came back there. I’ll just have it sent to the boys house.”
5:30p Casey to Amy: “Oh ok. My Mom had texted me something about it.”
In addition to knowing Cindy wanted to talk about a major problem, Casey would certainly have wanted to erase the electronic footprint of her transfer of funds from Amy’s bank account to Casey’s AT&T account. She got the AT&T confirmation text for the transfer at 6:30pm. Text read: “AT&T Free msg: Pmt conf #QPSCAC237316569. Bank Acct debit authorized for $574.60 on 07/15/08 and successfully posted to Acct 04985420-001-04.”
Casey had ample reason to delete files in the late afternoon and early evening of July 15, and after realizing the “major prob” was unrelated to Amy’s camera, she may have correctly concluded that the certified letter was related to the Pontiac, and started making panicky deletions – maybe even tried a universal erasure of the hard drive.
I accept as true Tony Lazzaro’s Scared Monkey comment that the laptop already had a blue screen before Lee got there that night and that Tony and the OCSO deputy who preceded Lee had tried to fix the laptop but could not figure out what was wrong with it. Tony said he and the deputy decided to leave the laptop for Lee. I am going to trust that Klaasend verified Tony L’s identity before he started answering questions on SM, and I cannot believe Tony would concoct a story about working with an OCSO deputy to get the laptop running if that did not happen.
Moreover, during the July 29 undercover “wired car” meeting between Tony and Lee, Lee was describing Casey’s activities that had been discovered and that he had discussed with Detective Eric Edwards for four hours that afternoon (Lee mentioned the movie and Target receipts) and said, “We’ve pretty much found out that she definitely didn’t work unless she did something for you,” and Tony said it was nothing like that and that Casey claimed to be working via the laptop. Lee said, “You remember that night, how we couldn’t even get on to it.” And Tony said he didn’t understand it because Casey had been using the laptop earlier that day. That exchange confirms for me that the laptop was damaged before Lee arrived at Tony’s apartment.
The deputy who had gone to pick up Casey’s phone was back at the Anthony house at 11:55pm, and Lee left the Anthony house shortly after. Lee said when he was about to leave for Tony’s, he offered to pick up Casey’s phone and was told a LEO had already retrieved it. Lee left the house shortly after midnight, went to Tony’s, and returned to the Anthony residence at 2:25am. It’s a 20-minute drive each way, so he had about one hour and forty minutes unaccounted for (deducting the 40-minute RT).
But Nathan said he, Tony, and Lee had a long conversation when Lee came to pick up Casey’s things, and from the July 29 wiretapped conversation, it appears that Lee and Tony tried to get the laptop working while Lee was in the apartment, so I’m not convinced that Lee had time that night to find a quiet place to fix the problem and then start deleting files. I’m not saying Lee never deleted anything from an Anthony computer, but I don’t believe he deleted anything from the laptop before he returned to the Anthony house at 2:25am.
Moreover, from JWG’s excellent timeline of the HP computer activity,
There was no HP desktop activity on July 15 until 8:47 PM, when about 40 seconds of AIM activity occurred. JWG’s belief is this is when the computer was powered on, and AIM automatically launched. Nothing happened for 1 1/2 hours until around 10:15pm. Either Lee or Casey would likely have powered on the HP since Cindy was talking to OCSO at 8:47pm (unless Cindy was on her cell phone and multitasking). But Lee said he had gone into the living room, so Casey may have booted up the desktop since her room is next to the guest room where the HP is set up.
At 10:15pm, activity on the HP resumed. At this time, George, Cindy, and Lee were writing their OCSO statements (timestamps on the statements were 10:11pm and 10:16pm). Per JWG, for the next five minutes it appears there were repeated attempts to log into Casey’s ATT wireless account, culminating in a visit to the “lost password” page to presumably have a new password sent to her email account. A successful login to Yahoo may have occurred at this time. Given that Casey had told 911 she received a call from Caylee around noon but did not have her phone with her, she may have been at the computer with a deputy and conveniently “forgot” her password, so the records could not be retrieved for OCSO. (Source: JWG)
10:30pm – HP activity resumed after a 10-minute lull. An attempt was made to either register with or log into an existing “Lava Life” account. This lasted for about a minute (JWG thinks Lee was looking at the internet history). Attempts were then made to log into Facebook (unsuccessfully). (Source: JWG)
10:43pm – a successful attempt to log into Casey’s MySpace was made (MySpace Page ID #10472558). For the next 10 minutes comments and inbox messages were viewed. (Source: JWG)
10:57pm – a successful attempt to log into Facebook was made, although the account is not clear from the file path. Numerous photos were viewed for the next 3 minutes. Activity stopped. (Source: JWG)
11:00pm – an OCSO deputy left for Tony Lazzaro’s to get her cell phone. Tony said it was a male deputy, and Deputy Ryan Eberlin’s report indicates that Deputy Ryan Williams was sent to Tony Lazzaro’s apartment to search the residence and get Casey’s cell phone. This is when Tony said he and the deputy tried to get the laptop booted up but could not get rid of the blue screen.
11:15pm – a return to Facebook with what appeared to be a single upload. (Source: JWG)
11:19pm – a second attempt to login to the ATT wireless account. (Source: JWG)
11:23-11:35pm – a rapid-fire mixture of MySpace and Photobucket views. On Photobucket, it was images. On MySpace, it was images and messages. (Source: JWG)
11:35-11:50pm – many, many views of Facebook photos after what appeared to be a successful login. (Source: JWG)
11:55pm – OCSO deputy Ryan Williams returned from Tony’s with Casey’s phone and began calling through Casey’s contact list.
July 16, shortly after midnight, Lee left for Tony’s to collect Casey’s things.
1:40am – HP computer appeared to reboot (this is JWG’s wording, and it’s unclear to me whether the HP had been shut down earlier or if the HP powered down automatically due to lack of activity or what). If the reboot was manual, it could NOT have been Lee. (Source: JWG)
2:25am – Lee returned to the Anthony home and dumped Casey’s belongings on the living room floor. He and Cindy went through Casey’s things while a deputy walked in and out of the room. Lee said it was a female deputy, so unless additional LEO’s had responded, it was Adriana Acevedo.
2:32am – successful login to Yahoo mail. Activity stopped at 2:34 (possibly after seeing no email existed). This could have been Lee because we know he checked her Yahoo account, but if he was going through Casey’s things, it was someone else. Perhaps he checked the Yahoo account before dumping Casey’s things out.
On July 16 (time unknown) OCSO Investigator Awilda McBryde printed screen shots of Cindy’s “My Caylee is Missing” MySpace post and Casey’s MySpace July 7 “Diary of Days” post. Since these were screenshots of the actual pages, those posts had not yet been deleted when McBryde printed them off. In the recently-released interview, Cindy told Matthew Irwin that Yuri Melich had been provided with a zip drive containing Caylee’s pictures because the Anthony computer printer had no ink. So the July 16 screenshots of those MySpace pages had not been printed by a LEO inside the Anthony house in the early morning hours of July 16.
I think JWG is accurate in surmising that the computer searches (AT&T account, MySpace, Facebook, etc.) were being conducted by or in the presence of a LEO. Casey claimed she was in contact with Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez via phone calls, via text messages, via IM, and via MySpace comments. Casey also may have been pretending to look for a photo of the kidnapping nanny.
Given there was no ink in the printer, it’s possible that the LEO who was likely involved with those HP searches on the night of July 15 called someone at OCSO headquarters and the screenshots were printed in the early morning hours of July 16 from a remote location. At any rate, those MySpace posts that appear in the discovery – extremely damaging posts for both Cindy and Casey – could not have been deleted by Lee before McBryde printed them off. The date stamp on each screenshot is July 16 (as noted, there is no time indicated, only the date of the printout was captured at the bottom of the screenshot).
When the computer forensics crew searched the HP, they found a copy of Cindy’s “My Caylee is Missing” post in unallocated space, so I am guessing Cindy deleted that post before noon on July 17 when the HP was picked up, hoping OCSO would not see it, but didn’t realize they had already found it. Cindy also deleted her damaging Yahoo email to Casey that had been sent to Casey only about 36 hours before the HP was picked up. The person who deleted that email and Cindy’s MySpace post would have needed to know the passwords. I think Cindy deleted the email and the MySpace post herself.
Outstanding. I do agree with you on the laptop being “fried” by Casey, but didn’t Det. Edwards call Lee out on deletions made remotely of some kind?
B