Caylee/Casey Anthony Case: The Tattoo Is “Caylee” Related- And a Clue?
Disclaimer– exclusive original content copyright and property of Internet Network News, LLC and Blinkoncrime.com. Reproduction of this article in whole or in part without proper attribution and source link is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.
Orlando, FL– Late this afternoon, after pouring over 1400 pages of discovery, a contributor to blinkoncrime.com caught my attention.
Could Casey’s tattoo yield clues into the disappearance of Caylee Marie Anthony as long suspected?
Casey told Lee Anthony her tattoo was “Caylee related” during a jail house visit, although she stated there were no further clues associated with it. She chose the stars because Caylee loved the stars. JoJo would hold her up outside to show them to her at night.
However, comparing the image of her actual tattoo, and that of the Art it was based on uncovered during an interview with On the Record Host, Greta Van Sustern, there is a discrepancy.
The tat on Casey Anthony’s left shoulder is missing a “dot” in the Northern most star of the design. What could that mean?
Was she paying tribute to 34 month old Caylee Marie, who did not make it to her 3rd birthday at her hand, by filling in only 2?
Was she honing her “script” whereby the missing “dot” in the star is some sort of validation of the timer 55 theory, or that Caylee would be home by her birthday so she could “connect the dot” in celebration?
One thing is certain, although she was in custody on and off for nearly a year, OCSO only imaged that tattoo a few weeks ago, why?
What did they recently learn?
Thanks to Stacy Dobson, contributing to blinkoncrime.com for this article.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
428 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Blink /Joan
If they do go with the “misunderstanding between friends” defense, I’m now guessing that they will enter this info via Cindy Anthony. Maybe she will testify that Amy told her that she had given permission for Casey to use her checks. Then it will turn into a “she said, she said”, argument on the surface. However, under no circumstances is forgery legal.
AT any rate, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they are digging up dirt on Amy to try to kill her credibility as a witness.
They want to see if jurors know Cindy Anthony. I’d also guess that they don’t want any jurors that have witnessed her inconsistencies.
# 197
# Comment by IVOIRE
IVOIRE,
I always feel that you are shouting with the caplock on. Please tell me that you are not angry with us…lol
Boy, looking back, my punctuation (and use of random unnecessary words) has gone wild today.
“The only purpose of evidence of these, and potentially other, alleged prior bad acts of Miss Anthony is to attempt to show Ms. Anthony had the propensity to not properly supervise it’s students”
Joan
How can they not bow their heads in shame for that gem, eh? I wonder what school Baez represented in the past, or if it was even his case.
#179westsidehudson: in a brief answer: the defense per se has NOT right to any active crime scene, in point of fact there does not exist a defense team since the active crime scene may not include a probable identification of a defendant aka the “unsub”.
Regarding “visitors” to an autopsy: IF the post has not yet been performed and there is a charged defendant, his/her defense team has the opportunity to REQUEST that their expert to be present (juridictional rules apply) and the ME has the right to LIMIT their involvement (again, within the jurisdictional guidelines), those limitation may include observation within the suite only to collegial discussions and pre-tested tissue sharing. Remember that the job of the medical examiner is scientific, to speak for the decedent, and the “guest expert” is expected to evaluate the same scientific material, perhaps taking a differing view but often SHARING the same view. In a like manner, your comment regarding the LE investigators is also true, the case should be bolstered by the facts present and observed.
As Locard’s principle clarifies: one brings to a scene something and leaves something (paraphrased!) and the more “visitors” to a uncharted, documented scene expands the “oops issue”, contamination and “red herrings”.
Just one correction to your comment: “The suspect is given access to items collected so thatthey may perform their own testing subsequent to the collection.” The SUSPECT should never be provided with items, rather his/her defense is offered the opportunity to have experts evaluate the items; and any and all TESTING would be performed prior to TRIAL vs collection.
Not trying to be nit picky but about having whole posts with the caps lock on……?? After a couple of sentences into it I feel like I am being yelled at. Is it just me??
Addressed, thanks-
B
#199 Joan (Canada) – LOVE LOVE LOVE IT!
If Crazy wasn’t such a little snot….the character references might just help her out. OUCH! (sigh)
Hey Bozo….if ya skeered, say ya skeered!
I have set on 3 juries, 2 civil, 1 criminal cases, been years ago. And in reading this questionnaire I say WTH?????????? And I’ll be paraphrasing some of them to shorten….
Shouldn’t #22 be first? Can you read? etc.
What does Race have to do with it????
#4 What difference does it make where I’ve lived before?
#29 Favorite TV show, REALLY????? WTH???
#31 Do you know anyone who knows an atty??? Is this like 6 degrees of seperation????
#39 Do you know anyone who knows someone in Law Enforcement???? again, 6 degrees’
#7 Employment for the last 10 years. None of your beeswax
#8 What would your dream job be??????
#11 My spouses’ employer, why you gonna get him a raise???
#12 All of my children’s names, occupations or schools???? Is this so Cindy can increase her list of people who disseminate Hatred towards “THE FAMILY”
This doesn’t look like any questionnaire I’ve filled out before, its more like a way to personally attack/smear/harass you.
Do they think if my favorite show is “Son’s of Anarchy” and I’d like to be a ballerina it shows them something???
I think KC needs to wake up and smell the bad lawyering.
As mentioned in other posts, and mine earlier. By the simple fact that she forged Amy’s name on one check and signed her name on another, she has committed a crime, doesn’t matter in Florida if Amy gave her permission, or held a gun to her head and said sign the F@#@@n’ check, ITS AGAINST THE LAW. PERIOD. DONE. CASE CLOSED BOZO BAEZ. Do a little reading, other than Highlights Baez, she is GUILTY of these charges, plead this out and quit making things worse for your client. They can’t bring in the murder that way, and she cops to a first felony with probation and time served.
I’ve got to get some perspective cause this case and these Bozo’s who misspell, misquote, and switch the agencies they are charging (OSCO instead of the proper OCSO) is so basic inexcusable mistakes I’m pulling out my hair that the Judges’ aren’t just laughing at their benches till the pee their collective pants.
And Bozo, I’m not a big fan of John Morgan, he’s kind of a local slimball, but he and his team are gonna wipe the floor with you and make you their bitch.
Sorry blink….I just get so tired of all the bullhonky going on.
You missed these:
Do you know a better agent than mine?
Do you know if Ari Gold would consider playing me in the movie?
B
hey westsidehudson…no, i promise my CAP USE is not shouting.!.it hurts my little fingers to constantly have to use the dang shift button.. i promise—- it is never shouting !
xx ivoire
lol
B
And sorry for the messed up words, when I’m making fun of others who do it, but I’m not writing a legal motion to get my high profile client off the “worlds most hated list” and save her life. Whatever, you guy’s know what I’m trying to say;-)
Silver…. I know your busy, but whats your take on the questionnaire??????????
I would have to think Judge Strickland is getting tired of Baez filing his baseless motions. Hopefully he’ll call a sidebar at the next hearing and tell him to cease his ridiculous behavior. That speaks volumes about Baez and his belief that Casey is truly innocent. If he believed that, he’d stop all of these motions, get the trial underway so he and his client can bask in the golden scales of justice
#196 – westside….
I hear ya. I would think though, that IF Casey were to offer up (the new and improved meaning of) “friend with benefits” as her defense, (ie: Amy SAID I could!!), then wouldn’t Casey have to testify? And if so, it would then go to credibility between her and Amy. Short of Amy lying about her job, her residence status, her family’s personal troubles, and dead animals that were run over by Amy’s father–never mind that Amy, to this point, has NOT been ACCUSED of murdering a child and tossing it into swampland…hang on, I’m about to toss my cookies…
…anyway, I’m just thinking that IF Casey goes with that defense, it would definitely bring in credibility dialogue. I don’t know how the state might work it in, but the one questions I would ask would be “So Ms. Anthony, where was you’re daughter during the time you were in the bank, and at Target?”.
The whole thing just nauseates me. Blech!
RE: FRAUD CASE ONLY..
HEY BLINK AND WESTSIDEHUDSON ..SEE COMMENTS BELOW..
I get the concept, I think we all do, but I dont see how as a practical matter you can contain it as West so astutely pointed out, Amy did not even KNOW about her checks until Cindy picked her up and told her about the other thefts….
BUT , STILL WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE TO WHETHER OR NOT CASEY DID , OR DID NOT COMMIT FORGERY AND THEFT?..HOW AMY FOUND OUT DOES NOT REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT CASEY DID OR DID NOT COMMMIT THE FRAUD…
Cindy called Casey a thief to Tone’s face. George, in his FBI interview, mentions no less than 5 different RECENT thefts from them, one of which was $4100 fake deposit. He says they have copies of all of that, If Casey defends this case, I dont see how that can come in, it goes to state of mind and motive. It does not fall under prior bad acts because she was never prosecuted.
B
AGAIN, I AM ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE CHECK FRAUD CASE..REGARDLESS OF ALL THOSE PEOPLE ,AND WHATEVER THEIVING,LYING ( OR HO-ING) CASEY DID ( AND LET’S NOT FORGET TO ADD THAT SHE STOLE GRAMMY PLESEAS’ NAIL POLISH TOO!) WHAT RELEVENCE WOULD THAT INFORMATION HAVE AT THE FRAUD TRIAL ?..
WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT CASEY DID, OR DID NOT COMMIT THE FRAUD AGAINST AMY, TARGET AND BANK OF AMERICA….
IF THAT WERE THE CASE , THAT EVERY THEIVING , LYING, HO-ING, ACT THAT CASEY HAD EVER DONE WOULD BE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL ( INCLUDING STEALING GRAMMY PLESEAS NAIL POLISH) –THEN THE FRAUD TRIAL WOULD LAST MONTHS ( RATHER THAN THE SIMPLE BLACK AND WHITE CASE THAT IT IS)…
ALSO, I BELIEVE THAT CASEYS’ “STATE OF MIND ” OR “MOTIVE” WILL HAVE NO BEARING IN THE FRAUD CASE WHATSOEVER..WHY WOULD IT?…THIS IS NOT A CIRCMUSTANTIAL CASE.. THIS IS A CASE WITH OVERWHELMING HARD EVIDENCE….AND, EITHER, THE PROSECUTION WILL PROVE THAT CASEY DID COMMIT THE FRAUD OR THEY WILL FAIL IN THAT BURDEN..
THE STATE OBTAINING A CONVICTION IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THE PROSECUTION SHOWING CASEY’S “STATE OF MIND” OR “MOTIVE”; THEY MERELY HAVE TO PROVE ( WITH THE DIRECT HARD EVIDENCE) THAT CASEY ,IN FACT, DID COMMIT THE CRIMES OF FRAUD AND THEFT AGAINST AMY, BANK OF AMERICA AND TARGET…
OK.. TIME TO BRING IN THE BIG GUNS..WHERE IS SILVERSPUR?
IVOIRE
Ivoire- your not addressing the fact that the defense WILL WANT TO defend this case. Of course her motive/state of mind will come in, or their version of it. I agree with many on here she will do the “We were moving in together, we discussed sharing expenses, she gave me her permission”.. There is video and stills, images, her resumes were found in the deathmobile.
Do they have to mount a defense? No, they dont. Does not help them in the least not to, now it is up to a jury to decide her fate in that regard, and don’t forget, I would fully expect Amy Huizenga to file a civil suit for punitive damages much like Zenaida Gonzalez. I have to believe Casey does not want that interfering with her healthy defense fund on the murder trial.
Amy’s affidavit has set the stage for it, imo. I don’t blame her. I’m pretty sure they are not going to assert that Amy was sleepwalking for a month and this was all a bad dream…
B
You know, I understand that it is an uphill battle for the defense if Casey is convicted of the fraud crimes. However, fighting the charges with videotape evidence and the signature on checks can come back to bite them in the ass. If they plead guilty and get it over with, at least they can say, “when our client has done wrong, she admits to it, and suffers the consequences”. In a way, it would demonstrate some level of ethical behavior. Fighting a case so obvious just makes her appear guiltier in the murder case. That she could deny something literally caught on tape says something very deep about her character and unwillingness to admit wrong or back down. It would also harm her in the murder penalty phase, as jurors might make the leap that based on denials of criminal acts, there is a strong risk of recidivism. ( which we all know is actually the case, at least in terms of thefts)
I COMPLETELY AGREE.. Going into a murder trial contrite, can only help her.
B
Blink — does your system boot if there are 2 links in a post? Do I need to break it up?
On occasion askimet will kick it to spam, it is a pita with WP. In general if you put text in between your ok, I try to keep my eye out and no longer bulk delete spam.
B
Pamela 183. I personally really like your posts. I have always thought it unbelievably convenient little Caylee’s remains were found the one and only day the Anthony’s were out of state in California when it happened.
Yep, I would be very interested in knowing the balance of their schedule. Does everyone recall that Larry King appearance the night before? I was F L O O R E D. George said no smell and I was raging around my house telling my family members which interviews and how many times he contradicted that statement. The dollup of compassion I had been saving in my naked to the invisible eye eyedropper for George vanished.
B
FOLKS-
Re: #132/ Defense Motions filed:
A motion typically is composed of the motion itself (allegations known as “averments” set forth in numbered paragraphs); a memorandum of law in support of said motion (presenting the court with the legal authority via statute and/or case law in support of the motion); and, where relevant or necessary, exhibits (portions of testimony, affidavits, photographs, blueprints, etc what have you).
Thus- there is only ONE motion for change of venue, ONE motion to admit counsel pro have vice, etc, etc (they just happen to have filed the memos of law and exhibits separately; could be due to local procedural rules; here, we file it as one motion package).
None of the motions filed here is extraordinary, particularly where the defendant is also facing another trial, for a more famous/infamous crime.
B–
There is no motion to sequester the jury DURING TRIAL.
It is a motion to sequester the POTENTIAL jurors during the Voir Dire process.
Voir Dire is when we lawyers get to meet the jury pool members, introduce ourselves, identify our witnesses to see if anyone knows them (or even knows of them, particular with expert witnesses); and ask the potential jurors questions (so that we can make our selections for strikes– we are only alloted so many, some for cause). It is during this process that we are permitted to learn about the potential jurors– basic things about their background (educational level/employment/marital status/# and ages of children, etc)–and not so basic things about their potential bias/prejudice in favor of one side or the other (for example, a person who has been/or whose close family member or friends has been the victim of a crime, particularly a theft, is more likely to be biased in favor of the State in this case).
HERE–
They want to question potential jurors separately, because they want to know who has been exposed to the fairly wide pretrial publicity. If they do it en mass, all it would take is ONE potential juror to say, in front of the entire group, something like, “I can’t be fair to Casey, because I think she MURDERED HER DAUGHTER, and I hope she gets the DP.” That could clearly TAINT the remainder of the potential jurors within earshot. You don’t want a potential juror to infect the remainder of the panel with prejudicial information.
I generally have no problem with agreeing to do basic voir dire in a group, and then, if necessary, calling particular jurors into an antechamber with counsel and the court crier or tipstaff present to individually question certain jurors outside the presence of the entire group. This is common practice when jurors claim a “hardship”, i.e.,they say they can’t sit on the jury for one reason or another, and we call them back to see what that’s all about/if it is a meritorious claim or not; and with the intent of not revealing their personal basis for claiming a hardship to others, as some reasons given are quite personal. If they also raised their hand for knowing a particular witness, etc during the open voir dire, we will further question them about that at this time.
******
B-
Just because she may have been enraged by Cindy/by a fight with Cindy does not mean she did not premeditate the killing.
Ultimately, it will be up to the jury. The State has a couple of avenues to go for the DP. Remember, she is also charged with Agg. Child Abuse…and Caylee is dead.
Check out Florida statute 921.141: (hint- look at Aggravating Circumstance (5)(d) in particular)
921.141 Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence.–
(1) SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS ON ISSUE OF PENALTY.–Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as authorized by s. 775.082. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable. If, through impossibility or inability, the trial jury is unable to reconvene for a hearing on the issue of penalty, having determined the guilt of the accused, the trial judge may summon a special juror or jurors as provided in chapter 913 to determine the issue of the imposition of the penalty. If the trial jury has been waived, or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose, unless waived by the defendant. In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (5) and (6). Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received, regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Florida. The state and the defendant or the defendant’s counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death.
(2) ADVISORY SENTENCE BY THE JURY.–After hearing all the evidence, the jury shall deliberate and render an advisory sentence to the court, based upon the following matters:
(a) Whether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5);
(b) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and
(c) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.
(3) FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF SENTENCE OF DEATH.–Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury, the court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, shall enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death, but if the court imposes a sentence of death, it shall set forth in writing its findings upon which the sentence of death is based as to the facts:
(a) That sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5), and
(b) That there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.
In each case in which the court imposes the death sentence, the determination of the court shall be supported by specific written findings of fact based upon the circumstances in subsections (5) and (6) and upon the records of the trial and the sentencing proceedings. If the court does not make the findings requiring the death sentence within 30 days after the rendition of the judgment and sentence, the court shall impose sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with s. 775.082.
(4) REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE.–The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida and disposition rendered within 2 years after the filing of a notice of appeal. Such review by the Supreme Court shall have priority over all other cases and shall be heard in accordance with rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.
(5) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.–Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:
1(a) The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation.
(b) The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.
(c) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.
(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.
(e) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.
(f) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.
(g) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.
(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.
(j) The victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his or her official duties.
(k) The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim’s official capacity.
(l) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.
(m) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.
(n) The capital felony was committed by a criminal gang member, as defined in s. 874.03.
(o) The capital felony was committed by a person designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21 or a person previously designated as a sexual predator who had the sexual predator designation removed.
(6) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.–Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:
(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.
(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to the act.
(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.
(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.
(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.
(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.
(h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant’s background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.
(7) VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE.–Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances as described in subsection (5), the prosecution may introduce, and subsequently argue, victim impact evidence to the jury. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim’s uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community’s members by the victim’s death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as a part of victim impact evidence.
(8) APPLICABILITY.–This section does not apply to a person convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital drug trafficking felony under s. 893.135.
******************************************************************
Silver-
thank you, that was what I get for not reading the motion itself before commenting, I have since then, and I still am not grasping how the prior bad acts, and lying and the possible bleeds over into the murder trial plays out for the fraud case.
On the premeditation, you and I agree that is the case. Where we differ is that you feel the duct tape was applied to cause her death, and I shortly thereafter to deflect, or the “o” theory. I would say conservatively those that believe Casey killed Caylee over 90% agree with you. I am working on processing why I just cant get there.
B
#195-
I found this link and explanation on the IRS filings for non-profits. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/technology/1017964159.php
It will take you to the Guidestar site where I did find the Caylee Marie Foundation. According to the site, if there is more that $25,000 these forms must be filed to the IRS and they will in turn appear on the Guidestar site as they mine for non-profits over $25,000. There are tabs on the pages to take you to the financials and the IRS documents. I would assume, because they are on the site, there was more than $25,000 last year (info would only be for 2008 at this point). You have to register (appears for these particular reports it is a free registration). I didn’t register, but maybe someone else would. Blink, maybe?
Second post to follow on payroll taxes.
How does the defense expect that no one hears about this case! everyone is familiar with cindy anthony and her side kicks!
Jose baez is plastered all over the TV and is always making statements to the media.
I hope Judge Strickland puts a stop to this stupid nonsense!!!
Second part of post on non-profits.
If C & G are taking salaries from the foundation they would typically be treated as employees and payroll taxes withheld just like yours or my paychecks. But, non-profit payrolls can be tricky so see this link.
http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Nonprofit-Payroll—How-to-Pay-Your-Staff&id=2921987
Either way, whether they are employees or 1099′s taxes would be required payments on their income.
Ok, second part of post on non-profits went through. Don’t know where the first part keeps going.
First, here’s an article to read (because I’m having trouble getting this to post I’ve left the www. off, so copy/paste this into your browser and add the www. at the front. ojr.org/ojr/technology/1017964159.php
If you go to the Guidestar site www2.guidestar.org you can find Caylee Marie Anthony Foundation. If I understand this correctly, Guidestar mines for non-profits with over $25,000 to report. I don’t see any info yet, but it is possible nothing’s been filed yet — they may not be on a calendar year. But to answer the immediate question, yes they have to file and yes it is public. If you walk into the CMA Foundation they must give you a copy.
I think its easy for those of us who are sooooo involved to assume (and we know what that does) that there is no one who doesn’t know the case. In fact, there are many many people in Orlando that I’ve spoken to who either only vaguely know about the case or know nothing at all. Many people do not follow the news that closely, and most young single adults, who haven’t had children and are busy in their own lives don’t listen to anything that doesn’t directly affect them, kind of like KC.
I feel that moving the trial, will cause a great deal more media attention to the case because of the expense, and the idea that in a city as large as Orlando, you feel you couldn’t find 12 plus alternates, impartial/unbiased jurors, you are wasting alot of tax payors money. My husband is a perfect example, I am no longer aloud to talk about anything Anthony, and have been banned for quite awhile, he doesn’t want to hear it, knowing it will be another year for the trial, and anything up to then is just conjecture and speculating. He would much rather watch “Son’s of Anarchy”(great show) and “Dancing With the Stars” (go figure). I think they are better off to stay in their hometown. They have got to reign in the Anthony’s, her parents are her main problem, and Cindy might get Casey convicted just because of her dispicable behavior, and Lyons needs to put a leash on Baez, give him some crayons to fill in his HIGHLIGHTS pages and keep him off the air.
BLINK AND SILVERSPNR….THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU…AND MAURA. for all that you write, and research, and the time you donate to this site. Its an invaluable tool for the rest of us
Blink, great one !
“Amy was sleepwalking for a month and this was all a bad dream” LOL!
#205 Thanks joypath. Your post cleared up a lot for me…and when I said the suspect, I did actually mean the suspect’s experts. Imagine if suspects were given access, no one would be in jail!
# 217 Thanks for all the info in your big post too Silver.
Re# 214
I’m not sure where I stand on the duct tape scenario. Further upthread, someone mentioned, if the tape was applied before Caylee’s death, she would have fought it off or tried to get it off (ugh!!!)…either she was knocked out, drugged, suffocated/drowned then the tape applied (“o” theory) or worst, it was put on and her hands were bound or Casey held her till she (ugh….) stopped breathing.
All I can say is….tick…tick…tick…you’re time is coming Casey. (You too, George & Cindy) Be prepared. Better have a good explanation than this line of cr*p you’ve been spewing here lately…..
#219
My Re: is for #217…not #214
I can’t seem to get the rest of my non-profit info to go through, so I’ll just summarize without any links.
I cannot find any record of the Form 990 filed as yet with the IRS. That may not be surprising because the Foundation was formed 10/22/08 and they may not report on a calendar year, but a fiscal year starting when they formed. That said, there should be a 990 filed in the not too distant future that would cover the fiscal year to date. This is available to the public and they must give you a copy if you walk in and request one.
I suspect what we will see is that licensing fees etc are coming into the foundation and then in a twisted sense of trying not to show any impropriety, it is legally being distributed to say Save the Kids (is that the bogus organization name?) and that G & A are on their payroll. JMO
I am not certain that I have got to the point where I think that the duct tape caused Caylee’s death. If so, I would argue she was substantially drugged before the tape was applied. If Casey had been thinking of doing away with the inconvenience/competition that was Caylee, the big question would be “when?”. Something happened that drove Casey and Caylee out of the Anthony house–nobody named Anthony told OCSO that they expected Casey back that night of the 16th, and Cindy kept talking about Casey needing her space or needing to bond with Caylee. Nobody started a serious search until July 3.
To say it was an accident of some sort doesn’t explain why nobody was looking around for Casey and Caylee for a couple of weeks. Something had to have happened– but none of them guessed it was Caylee’s death. Even after the car turned up in Orlando, not in Jacksonville, with its horrible smell, nobody wanted to think it is Caylee.
So: based on searches in March, premeditated murder. Done by sudden impulse by a person who just did not really care about what she did. The tatoo: it marked Casey’s transition to adulthood by cutting the ties to Cindy for good. The large tatoo had to be painful, rites of transition often involve pain. Once the pain had been gone, so had any thought for Caylee. The star without its fire could so easily be the dead child.
Casey herself made the insanity defense impossible, but I keep wondering how Baez could resurrect it. What did Cindy do or say that made giving Caylee over to the grandparents not an option? It had to be something unforgiveable. Because the check fraud case plays out during those days of a missing Caylee, Baez has to tie her actions spending that money into the murder case. I just don’t see how he is going to do it. He has to do it so that the murder/death will work out right, but then the State will know what he is planning. His “aha”, that is, and Cindy saying that once we know what happened, we will talk about Casey being mother of the year. The check fraud case going first must have really complicated things for Baez.
Is there any possible insanity defense based on Casey totally repressing the murder/accident? Maybe imagining her actions as those of an hallucinated nanny? If there is, then the defense for the check fraud will be the same. I can see how the Defense would rather keep something like that private for the next year or so.
Blink, I am the mother of two, and the grandmother of four. I can’t for the life of me imagine anyone putting tape over a child’s mouth and nose. However, if I stop to think “what could I do?”, absolutely nothing comes to mind. Could I drown them? No. Could I choke them? No. Could I shoot them? No…..etc. I don’t think we (you and I) can wrap our minds around that because it isn’t something we personally, as mothers (or grandmothers), could possibly think about doing. I think we want to give Casey too much credit. We don’t want to believe she could do that to that beautiful baby. Then I remember the things Casey did after Caylee’s death. I wouldn’t have been able to those things either. Perhaps, we need to accept the fact that Casey is truly a monster, capable of doing unspeakable things. In the next breath, Thank God that we will never know the feeling of being able to even imagine those things.
I have been a frequent “lurker”. Lots of good insight on this site. Nice to know there are many who care for precious Caylee.
I was so relieved to read Silvers post above. I too totally believe that the duct tape IS the murder weapon and finally someone agrees. I blog on 2 other sites and this opinion is so in the minority. Ppl say she “can’t be that deranged”. I have become very frustrated. Most believe that she staged an accident or didn’t like the drainage from her mouth post-mortem. I too cannot understand why some are ignoring the cause of death–the tape. To me it is staring us in the face.
Blink-
She could have chloroformed her into a state of sedation and THEN applied the tape. Does that help?;)
I doubt the State will concede she applied the tape after death. It is strong evidence of INTENT to KILL/PREMEDITATION. It is strong evidence of the HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL AGGRAVATING FACTOR.
(I also doubt Casey was using chloroform for sexual purposes as you suggested in the past. The girl used sex to get men to like her. She wasn’t that into it herself. OH. She had more than her fair share of it/of partners, but I don’t think it was to satisfy HER OWN SEXUAL DESIRES. I think it was to trap guys, mainly. How do I arrive at that conclusion?? Read her IM chat with Anthony R. He offers to perform oral on her, and she declines. YOUNG! I think a lot of that girl-on-girl showmanship at the club and at parties is sadly reflective of the impact of those horrible “GIRLS GONE WILD” ads that they show late at night on TV. Girls think they have to do the faux-lesbian-show to entice the boys. I miss the Brady Bunch, Room 222 and the Partridge Family! Casey was constantly desperate to have someone “love” her, but she also couldn’t stand to be loved either, or not for long. Very BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER-IS, says my forensic-psychiatrist pal)
*****
I know folks are struggling with some of the rules of evidence (in particular with regard to “prior bad acts” vs. prior convictions), and the rules I set forth in a post a while back about when prior wrongs, acts, crimes are inadmissible vs. admissible for a special purpose of proof. It’s OK. This is not something you can just grasp by reading the rule. It takes examples, and this is one of those areas where the limits are always being tested.
Let me explain something.
Just because Amy H is a witness for the State in both trials, and just because she may testify about something or some event that has (or may have) meaning in both stories, does not make the cases related from a legal viewpoint. So while the jury in each case may hear about that car ride over to Tony’s apartment in both cases, that is merely ancillary to the disparate charges that Casey faces in these two, separate trials, for these distinct crimes.
This is entirely different than a situation where the defendant is charged with felony-murder, for example. (X enters liquor store with loaded gun, intending to rob the owner of the contents of the register, but ends up shooting a customer during the commission of the robbery).In that case, the charges (robbery or attempted robbery if he did not carry out the robbery, and murder) are all heard by the same jury at one trial.
*****
If I have time, I will try to make it more understandable for all.
****
As to that juror questionnaire, it is not really that far of a stretch, folks.
It is STANDARD in PA for juror pools to answer questions about their educational background/employment history/race and religion(there is a place to check for “other” or to not answer at all)/reading abilities/relation to lawyers and/or doctors, etc/ whether they or something in their family, etc has ever been the victim of a crime/whether they are more or less likely to believe a police officer on the stand than they are to believe a non-LE witness/whether they have ever sued anyone or been sued/whether they have a problem with following the judge’s instructions and applying the law to the facts of the case/etc
The lawyers who are trying the case have a right to learn information about people who will end up deciding the case. Otherwise, how would they be striking a juror during the selection process other than for an impermissible reason such as race/gender???
Jury selection is one of the most crucial parts of the case. (If they had tried the OJ case in Brentwood vs. LA, do you honestly believe the “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” crap would have flown??!) COME NOW. Who is on the jury makes a HUGE difference.
Silver-
That theory (chloro preceeding tape) is about the only plausible scenario I could palate, but again, if they cannot tie Casey to the tape forensically, or tighten the window for it’s application, I truly dont believe that the state would hang their case on that considering they put the DP BACK on the table following the recovery of baby Caylee.
What is of particular interest to me, is that there are 2 Ricardo Morales interviews. NEITHER asks about the chloroform on record, although he admits she accessed his computer and they KNOW the same searches on the same day, are on his, AND his deletion of the chloroform image. Who believes they have not asked him? If it were exculpatory, or he had no knowledge ( think Annie Downing interview) why would they withold it? Either there is another Morales interview or surreptitious recording, or that info is critical to the investigation and wont be released, imo.
Are you saying that the questionairre as presenting will fly, even requesting the spouse info?
B
#226 dddeerma
I agree. I believe whether or not there was a fight or something else between Cindy and Casey that Casey had every intention way before that to get rid of Caylee for whatever her actual reasons. The searches on the computer in March alone I think are enough to show that, not to mention the chloroform in the car after-the-fact, etc. Regarding those computer searches in March, IIRC it was around her 22nd birthday in March when something allegedly changed.
Is it possible Cindy commented to Casey about moving out of the house (or that she would be kicked out) once she turned 22 or 23 because she should be on her own and providing for Caylee herself? The comment Casey wrote to Mark Hawkins on Facebook around that exact same timeframe seems to play into her mindset and IMO her future intentions for Caylee. The comment was, “Just thinking about some major changes” … computer searches and 3 mths later, and Cayleehas “disappeared.” Eerie now that we actually know how that story ends. Definitely pre-meditation in my mind, but that’s just me.
If Baez and Lyons are going to fight the fraud case why would they have sent a cheque to the Bank of America if Casey were innocent. Didn’t the bank send them back a letter. Maybe this is what the defense means by the concept of preventing admission of previous bad acts and lying as I’m sure they would not want this letter to be seen by jurors.
Anyone else have any personal feelings on Annie Downing, Casey’s former best friend from Sawgrass?
Just something about her that makes me wonder about her … don’t know what it is. Also very strange I thought was out of all of Casey’s former friends who also knew and cared for Caylee who gave interviews to police, Annie Downing seemed to be the only one who actually had any major emotional reaction to the whole event. She actually cried in a few of her interviews and seemed hesitant to answer several questions or elaborate further on her answers.
Still wondering also what happened to have Casey and Annie’s best friendship suddenly come to a screeching halt. Annie was hostile to Jesse for asking her this very question … about why she and Casey were no longer friends. I just don’t see why that’s such a big deal. I just don’t feel Annie has been completely truthful and it seemed Yuri Melich in the last interview with her seemed to think something was up with Annie as well. Is it just me or do red flags go up for anyone else when Annie speaks?
Blink … I know you probably can’t answer this, but do your sources tell you if Annie will in fact be one of the State’s star witnesses?
I will not comment as to “from a source”, however, my personal opinion is definately.
B
I don’t understand how the defense can request that no evidence from the murder case be admitted in the fraud trial. Didn’t Casey say in one of the taped jail visitations with her parents: “And with Amy, you know, I mean, I feel guilty about that. I feel extremely guilty. But I was under a time of desperation. Tell Amy I am sorry.” Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.
Blink, in regards to the infamous photo of Casey and Lee high-fiving one another, for one, will that be admissible in court? Also, in your opinion, how do you perceive that? Forgive me if this has already been addressed
Yes, I do, I think it will be introduced by the defense in reaction to Lee’s immunity deal
B
I have a juror questionnaire right in front of me. Jury Summons,
Thursday 10, 2009 Osceola county, should be the same for Orange Co.
Please answer all questions using blue or black ink and bring completed questionnaire with you when you report for jury duty.
juror comepenstation:
employer pays regular wages during jury service
employer does not pay regular wages during jury service
juror name:
previous employer:
spouse’s employer:
single, married,separted,divorced widow(er)
do you have any children under the age of eighteen? yes, no.
have you or any memeber of yourimmediate family been party to any law suit yes, no.
have you or any member of your family been accused, a complainant,or
a witness in a criminal case? yes, no.
have you ever served as a juror? yes, no.
are you a close friend of or related to a law enforcement officer?
yes, no.
occupation:
previous Occupation:
spouses’ occupation:
Number of years of residence in fl, in osceola county.
re:
Todd in Tulsa:
“Blink, in regards to the infamous photo of Casey and Lee high-fiving one another, for one, will that be admissible in court? Also, in your opinion, how do you perceive that? Forgive me if this has already been addressed
Yes, I do, I think it will be introduced by the defense in reaction to Lee’s immunity deal
B”
Todd, really, really good question.
That high-fiving was truly a disgusting display of utter disregard and disrespect for their “missing” 2-year old niece and daughter. And that is putting it nicely.
Blink, the defense – - how so, in your opinion? Accomplice, mover, sister-supporter? What?
What is also extremely telling, is when Padilla was in the Anthony home, there was that news bulletin concerning the searchers out looking, and her response was, “they haven’t even found the clothes she was wearing”! I hope that also resonates with the jury
Has anyone seen the checks?curious if it is possible that Amy presigned them,in case of an emergency with the car.wondering if that could be the misunderstanding??
I’m curious about the defense’s earlier position that it was ‘too busy’ to prepare for the fraud case ahead of the murder trial, siting Ms. Lyon’s duties of teaching for one thing.
Then, Ms. Lyon attaches a three page document to define a single legal term, which is nothing more than showboating– if the defense can put in the time to do that, which is really not what the argument is about, and hardly needs the judge’s time or consideration (I’m assuming he will interpret ‘spoliation’ as it is ‘meant’ in the motion and not be confused about what the defense meant, even though the state called them on it), then how can they claim they have not enough time? Seems like a bit of overkill to me– but guess that’s the perks of having students hone their library and case law research skills in time to meet a mid-term essay deadline for grading and maybe bonus points. It is getting to mid-term, isn’t it??!
Blink– how so, on the Lee-Casey hi-5?? Do you think the defense will attack Lee for his role, or play up to him, sympathizing with his conundrum that the mean state has put him in?
Don’t tell me…he was “working” for the defense and the H-5 was “work product” related. With these people, I’m not kidding.
#222 PAMELA–
HIGHLIGHTS pages…LOL…you’re taking me waaay back! Nice visual, Baez and his 64 color box. Thank you for the dose of levity.
#240
There are copies of the checks. They were not presigned because Casey signed one with her own name!
#240midwestmom, you can see the checks here if you scroll down the page. http://www.acandyrose.com/caylee_anthony_timeline2008July.htm
The first check you’ll come to, Casey has signed her own name. On the next she has signed Amy’s name.
Blink #216 You replied:
“The dollop of compassion I had been saving in my naked to the invisible eye eyedropper for George vanished.” NICE!
I second that and add, my dollop of R E S P E C T I had been saving in my naked to invisible eye eyedropper for LK vanished when he did the second staged interview. What a waste of time and money that was. I wonder how much the Anthony’s were paid.
# 240-Although the jurors will view this trial in a vacuum of limitations set forth by the court, in terms of prior history not being permitted, we have been privy to ALL of the release thus far.
Casey (admittedly) stole from her grandparents, Lee, Lee’s roommate, Cindy, Caylee, and likely countless others, all prior to or around the time of Caylee’s disappearance. It was no emergency then, and it was no emergency when she stole from Amy, even if any of Amy’s checks had been signed. Since when are purchases of beer, clothes and bras an emergency? Please, don’t even answer that one, it was rhetorical. Casey has a history of being a thief, even though her parents covered for her and never let her endure any consequences. It is beyond reason, or even imagination, that this theft from Amy was the one time that there was a ‘misunderstanding’.
If you looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…..you have yourself a duck.
IF ‘it’….looks like a duck.
Todd # 239
That’s where it gets strange for me. If that testimony is entered, I believe it will come in from Tracy. I’m not sure how to ‘take her’. On the one hand, she was telling LE some potentially incriminating statements that Casey uttered (while laughing). On the other, she was donating money to Casey and passing along emails to D Casey and Cindy.
So, in my mind, I see her as the type of witness that might ‘roll’ on cross-examination.
Leonard Padilla, if he is even called, will have no credibility with the court. His ridiculous hyperbole, along with factually inaccurate statements and theories will render him useless, on either side.
I agree Tracy is a wild card now. Leonard spent no more than 5 minutes with Casey. Everything else is hearsay.
B