Casey/Caylee Anthony Case: Caylee Pic in The “Big Trouble” T- SOLD TO THE GLOBE BEFORE Remains Found?
Disclaimer– exclusive original content copyright and property of Internet Network News, LLC and Blinkoncrime.com. Reproduction of this article , ANY OF IT’S CONTENTS, in whole or in part without proper attribution and source link is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.
BREAKING NEWS
Orlando, Fl– In the recent depositions by the State Attorneys Office in the case against Casey Anthony one common exhibit was noted in each deposition of George, Lee and Cindy Anthony.
A cropped version of a photo of Caylee wearing the tshirt that is believed recovered with her remains.
All 3 Anthony’s claimed to not have seen this picture before previously, although without being prompted, Lee noted the photo was cropped.
How then, did it get in the hands of The Globe? Could this be the evidence removed from the Anthony home that Jose Baez tells Cindy Anthony to “Zip It” during her testimony and objects to information he considered sealed by the judge?
This edition of the Globe was released October 8, 2008. Six days before Casey Anthony was indicted for murder and remanded to jail without bond.
THE SALE OF THIS PHOTO PRE-DATES THE RECOVERY OF CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY FROM THE WOODS OFF SUBURBAN DRIVE.
One could make the leap that the person selling it would have had knowledge of what she was wearing when 34 month old Caylee Marie met her tragic end.
(EDITORS NOTE: Don’t even try the picture was sold at the yardsale with the clothes and laundry bag– PUHLEASE..)
Blinkoncrime.com poster “Justice 23” contributed to this report.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,441 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
SuzeeB, I think Blink has said that they can and do redact stuff from the interviews and depositions. But I do wonder if it’s a deliberate interview technique that so much of the time the interviewer seems to step all over the answer or sort of help finish the answer and then rush on to another question. Drives me batty but I wonder if is to keep the interviewee off balance or something?
“I think it is telling they did not rerun the photo/article after she was found, personally.”
B
Blink
Do we know this for certain? I don’t even glance at the covers on the supermarket line, because I’d expect to see aliens.
If so, interesting. Although, they may want to use new photos with each new story.
Did you try to contact them at all? Maybe someone should email a link to this page.
Mr. F
So if the state only had that cropped photo, then the reason it was in the deposition was just to ask Lee if he acknowledges that this sure looks like the Big Trouble tee shirt Caylee was found with, and that in fact it was a shirt that the Ants’ owned and Caylee had worn before and not a shirt some stranger put on her?
#650 Suz
Exactly. And the two detectives talking between themselves back and forth. I think most of the time they have the answers before they ask the questions. At least by the second or third statement.
#550 suz
Isn’t the exception to the “Sunshine Laws” anything that is directly incriminating should not be released? That would explain the redacting. I don’t think it has anything to do with any off balancing act. For example, at the end of Annie Downing’s deposition, she is asked what Casey has done that is wrong or bad. She mentions lying and stealing and the rest is redacted. For anyone who doesn’t think the state has the evidence to convict Casey, go back and see what hasn’t been included in the transcripts.
Ada-
that is excellent advice. Iam always more interested in what they do not aks them
B
Next time Kathi Belich is running along side of Baez or the Anthonys, maybe she can ask them if they sold the photo to the Globe. Does she read here Blink?
Lol, she does.
B
Thank you for the kind words westsidehudson!
I just love the intelligent discussion on this blog! So thought provoking.
Thank you B for the reply regarding “confirmation” that the State did not have the full, UNcropped GLOBE photo at the time of the Anthony’s deposition. Good work justice in making the connection when you saw the photo on EBay!
It will be very interesting to learn the history behind that photo – Caylee in the Big Trouble shirt …. WHO took that photo and then later gave Casey a copy of it? Why was it in the dark? Why is it so oddly not a “posed”, say-cheese type of photo – but rather seems to be Casey caught in the motion of either putting Caylee down somewhere or picking her up from somewhere and the photographer did not capture a very flattering image of either Casey or Caylee. What was the purpose of this photo, or the motive behind taking it? Can anyone make out what all the background items are in the GLOBE UNcropped photo? There are obviously cars … but what else? Can anyone tell if the photo was taken inside a car, or inside a home with glass doors?
uz
“So if the state only had that cropped photo, then the reason it was in the deposition was just to ask Lee if he acknowledges that this sure looks like the Big Trouble tee shirt Caylee was found with, and that in fact it was a shirt that the Ants’ owned and Caylee had worn before and not a shirt some stranger put on her?”
Sure. And it looks mighty silly to deny knowing of its existence, especially since Shyloh discovered that it was used on their own website.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310241/detail.html
pg 366 of Lee’s deposition (Lee is shown the cropped photo of Caylee in the Big Trouble shirt)
……way to just stop, you know, the pictures from posting. You either – they’re either up or you delete them, so we just – I just deleted them. You know, because we were turning all the pages into pages about Caylee, not about, you know, Casey. And besides, the media was using it to pull pictures off of it, so we just – just deleted all those.
Q Can you print before you delete?
A Yeah. Sure. Why not. Yeah.
Q Right
A Absolutely.
[Whereupon, Exhibit Number 2 was marked for identification.] (cropped photo)
BY MS. DRANE BURDICK:
Q I’m going to show you an exhibit marked 2. [Handing]
A Okay.
Q Have you seen that picture before? [Handing]
A Was it always zoomed in like this? Or is it like a portion of a picture?
Q That’s all I have.
A No. I – [examining]. No. No. I haven’t.
Q I show you that to ask you if that’s something that you saw on one of those pages that you may have ultimately deleted off.
pg 367
A No. This – - this picture or this being a part of a picture is not something that I recognize. This is – - I don’t think I’ve ever seen this image of Caylee like this before.
Q Do you believe that to be Caylee?
A Yeah. This is Caylee.
pg 371 of Lee’s depo (pg 370 of 420 on PDF copy of transcript)
FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GEORGE:
Q The picture that Ms Drane Burdick showed you, have you ever seen that shirt before?
A That’s what I was looking at. I don’t – it’s too pixelated and zoomed in. I’m color blind, so I’m assuming this is pink? I don’t know. I – I — it doesn’t stand out to me. I don’t –
Q But the lettering.
A And that’s what I’m – it’s hard because it’s pixilated, I don’t know if that’s a “C” or a “G”, you know, or an “O”. It – it doesn’t stand out to me.
Q Did Caylee have a lot of shirts with writing on them?
A I don’t – I don’t know. I don’t think I would know it well enough. I mean, most of the popular stuff nowadays kids, the youth in general is to get, like, something with a witty, you know, comment on
pg 372
them. But I’m even trying to think when I would have seen Caylee wearing something like that. Most of the time it’s like a sequins, you know, or it’s got a pattern on it more than letters. So –
Q But that particular picture you can’t say you’ve ever – you’ve ever seen her wear that shirt before.
A No.
(notice that LDB says “that’s all I have” – when Lee asks if this is part of a picture (meaning the State must not have had the full, UNcropped GLOBE photo at that time). And IMO Lee does a whole LOT of unnecessary talking about the photo instead of just simply stating “NO”, he has not seen that photo or that shirt on Caylee before.)
Yes Thinker, good work. The state did not have the full photo for the depositions.
B
I think it is telling they did not rerun the photo/article after she was found, personally.
B
ABSOLUTELY But what about all the Bloggers or news media or investigators. or would be investigators. Funny Mr. Investigator himself, Dominic Casey never mentioned it anywhere. OH yea, he is working for the Defense, we think or at the time or something.
For that matter why at this very moment has MSM not picked up on this or at least questioning this. I cant believe it passed under everybodys radar.
For that matter why have the MSM not bringing up the A’s cruise. Do they feel it would be bad form. That has never stopped them.
Oh do tell Blink…
#342 Blink (comment to suz)
Involving Lee by any chance?
On page 6, item 15 here
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/1009/21250069.pdf
Item 15 – One pink wording strip “packages” and one pink wording strip “In” – Q99 {Analyst Note: The letters found with CAYLEE’s remains are believed to be from the shirt she was wearing. They will spell out “Big Trouble Comes In Small Packages.” The words “packages” and “in” were recovered at the crime scene while the remaining words were with the remains. It has been theorized that CAYLEE was intentionally placed in this shirt because of what it says.}
Since Lee and Cindy and George claim to have never seen this shirt, with this message on it, before …. it seems that Casey intentionally put this specific shirt on Caylee to be found with her remains, to send a message to “someone”. Was it Casey’s snotty way of making a final sarcastic comment to Cindy? Is that photo of Caylee in that shirt a gruesome “souvenir” of sorts that Casey memorialized on film?
10/22/2009 A MOTION TO DISMISS FILED PRO SE (ELIGINE WILSON FURLOW) REC’D FROM JUDGE
10/22/2009 A ORDER REQUIRING PROPER NOTICE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRANTED
10/22/2009 A ORDER ON STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL WITNESS LIST RE SPOLIATION MOTION GRANTED
10/22/2009 A ORDER RE: STATE OF FLORIDA’S MOTION TO COMPEL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY
10/22/2009 A ORDER ON DEFENSE’S MOTION TO MODIFY CRIME SCENE AND AUTOPSY PHOTOS ORDER GRANTED
Anybody know recognize these names……ELIGINE WILSON FURLOW? Are these new attorneys?
No, it is Pro Se. My guess is someone with 15 minutes-
B
Blink- I am confused.
In one reply I think you are saying that the SA did not have the full, uncropped version of this photo and Globe cover until after your article of 10/20.
Then I read more and think you are saying the SA had full knowledge of this and that is precisely why it has been sealed and Baez told Cindy to “zip it.”
Can you please set me straight?
Also, if the SA did NOT have the full photo and Globe info, then WHY ELSE would this information be sealed?
Thanks!
No.
The State had the cropped photo, apparently as did the rest of the free world, never the full photo or the connection to the Globe, and now The National Enquirer.
How Caylee is paying for her counsel, has been sealed by Judge Strickland. So to that end, I suppose Baez was thinking this was safe territory. However, once that “photo” becomes evidence, the selling of it may be “sealed” as Baez tried to “extend” during Cindy’s deposition, but if it was owned by Casey or she had access, you betcha that comes in.
B
Blink, Good Morning
Your opinion that the t-shirt was not on Caylee is really starting to grow on me. In the last big State release, page 9727 shows a torn half-portion or so of the shirt (I guess it’s the shirt), some of the loose words and letters, a big black box redacting part of the photo, and the garment tag attached to the SEAMLINE OVERCASTING of where the collar would be sewn to the garment.
That is some strange “wildlife” or other environmental destruction that is pictured on page 9727. The large portion is pretty clean in that it has no holes or rips within it and the edges are pretty uniform, unless the redacted portion is showing otherwise.
I’ve ripped old t-shirts many times to make tie-strips. The hand-ripping is interrupted or veers off when it hits a seem. I have ended up with just the loop of the overcast seam just as pictured in this case. Another thing I notice when hand-ripping a t-shirt, is the give of the material will sometimes produce a stretched and curled piece, if the piece is large enough. Similar as in the evidence photo.
Now you’ve got me really thinking if the destruction was actually done by animal or human.
Furlow v. State Of Florida et al
EasyEdit
(What’s this?) What is the EasyEdit button? This website gets better when people like you add to it. Just click the EasyEdit button to start. (help)
Last update: No updates (content history | content tools) (help)
Keyword tags: None
Plaintiff: Elgine Wilson Furlow
Defendant: State Of Florida and Orlando Police Department
Case Number: 6:2009cv01688
Filed: October 1, 2009
Court: Florida Middle District Court
Office: Orlando Office [ Court Info ]
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Judge Mary S. Scriven
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause: Americans with Disabilities Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: No
Furlow v. State of Florida Court’s System et al
EasyEdit
(What’s this?) What is the EasyEdit button? This website gets better when people like you add to it. Just click the EasyEdit button to start. (help)
Last update: No updates (content history | content tools) (help)
Keyword tags: None
Plaintiff: Elgine Wilson Furlow
Defendant: State of Florida Court’s System, 5th Drict Court of Appeals and Orange County Jail
Case Number: 8:2009cv00658
Filed: April 8, 2009
Court: Florida Middle District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office [ Court Info ]
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Judge James S. Moody Jr.
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause: Federal Question
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:42:1983 Civil Rights Act
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-flmdce/case_no-6:2009cv01688/case_id-232309/
Civil rights case against Orlando PD/ELIGINE WILSON FURLOW
Thoughts?
Oops, Thinker posted the same, wasn’t there when I grabbed mine.
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
Prev | Next
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
#380 Kleat
“So, they are emphasizing the ‘Teddy’ for some reason, maybe they just didn’t have ‘mama’ with them, maybe the police did at that time, don’t know. (btw, I find ‘mama’ a strange name for a ‘baby’ doll– could it be that she called the babydoll ‘mama’ because someone suggested it to her? BTW– what did Caylee call Casey? Mommy, mama… ??”
I agree “mama” is a strange name for a babydoll, and this may be a huge stretch, but humor me on this one … from what I remember, Cindy tells LE Caylee slept with Casey allegedly every night. Whether this is actually true or not is yet to be seen (verified) because nothing the Ant’s say anymore really holds any merits since they all seemed to lie. How can you really trust anything they say about anything? My opinion is that will most likely hurt them a LOT come trial time. They will essentially be a non-factor in the trial for anyone and would only really be able to sit back and hope/pray the jury is stupid when rendering their verdict, because the Ant’s testimony is basically shot in trying to help her.
But I got off topic here … getting back to it …
According to at least Annie Downing anyway, it seemed Caylee was very attached to Casey and couldn’t be out of her sight w/o Caylee getting upset (which psychologically speaking, if true speaks volumes about bonding/non-bonding issues). I always wondered if Cindy was telling the truth about Caylee sleeping with Casey in Casey’s bed every night, which at age 2 seems really odd to me (most pediatricians also agree this is a very BAD habit to get into … once done is very difficult to break w/o major behavioral issues regarding bedtime — some friends of mine know this first-hand as well). If it’s true however, might that explain Cindy’s alleged constant hounding of Casey to come home when Casey has been out and badgered by Cindy because as Cindy says in one of her interviews with LE, “I want to go to bed”. It was 10 PM that particular night … Caylee should’ve LONG have been in bed already so what was the problem? Why couldn’t Cindy have just went to bed since Caylee would’ve already long been asleep? UNLESS … for reasons unknown, Caylee really did sleep with Casey each night and couldn’t fall asleep until/unless Casey was there with her, hence the “mama” name for her baby? Cindy’s idea for Caylee’s favorite babydoll name to help “comfort” her to sleep when Casey was away from home so much and out late, not there when Caylee would be originally put to bed without her? There just seems to be many oddities regarding sleep habits in the Ant home as well. Much of it doesn’t make any sense.
Friends of Casey often describe Casey as somewhat careless in regard to Caylee’s welfare, etc and yet Annie Downing almost seems to go out of her way to try to describe Casey as an overprotective mom who doted all over her, severely contradicting many of her other friends claims that Casey took her daughter to wild parties which were inappropriate, left her with basic strangers in Tony’s LR while Casey and Tony partied it up in his room, etc. Major gap in the visual on how people seemed to see her in regard to Caylee’s care to some degree. My question is, Why does Downing seem to constantly go so far as to stick up for Casey and seemed so surprised by the outcome of this when many of her other friends seem to see her as questionable? Does Annie know something they don’t know? I’ve always wondered about this and still speculate today.
I believe Annie knows more than she is saying, definately.
B
#558 Thinker
Is this the case against the police for justifiable homicide?
“Pro Se” is representing one’s self, as far as I can gather. How does this make sense in this context? Is this person just a whackadoodle who files cases? I couldn’t fond any further info. You would think that if ‘it’ was a lawyer, they might be listed somewhere, but I didn’t see anything.
#654 Ada
Exactly Ada, that is what drives you crazy. How can LE expect us to solve this case unless all is revealed. LOL
Before I post this I have to tell you that I have not finished reading the entire comment section, 632 comments are a whole lot of comments to work through. So, I apologize if this has been said already or possibly more than once.
It bothers me that people are so focused on George and Cindy taking a 3 day cruise. I’m not a sympathizer (at all) in the sense that I think they’ve acted in the right way. I certainly don’t. But, I think people are unreasonable about what they expect from these people. I don’t think they have done right by Caylee but I also think they did love her and she loved them. Does it really matter if they took a 3 day cruise? I know some people will argue and say that it was on blood money but you know the money is theirs to use and 3 day cruise from Florida is like nothing in terms of costs. But, also, honestly, their lives are ruined. Does anyone doubt that? You may think they deserve to have their lives ruined but really what behavior, at this point, could they do that would possibly make things right. If they walked around in black all day people would accuse them of being insincere. While I believe that their cotinuining blind support of Casey does dishonor Caylee I also think it isn’t that suprising. Caylee is gone. Their only daughter is facing the death penalty. I doubt Cindy and George even like each other that much but what else do they have? And, as for their bathing suits, tattoos, or earrings, who gives a flip?
My main reason for objecting to this constant type of chatter is that it takes away from the central issue of Caylee. If they go to jail some day for obstruction or perjury or whatever so be it. They’ve dug their own bed where that is concerned. But, I can’t imagine the amount of stress, denial, and fear they are feeling. If it were me I would have gone some where far away. Short of calling Casey out, which could result in some serious consequences for her, what type of behavior would we find appropriate? I am not sympathtic to them I just feel like it does nothing but flame unnecessary feelings and they aren’t being rational. “Normal” people would eventually break but the more you put Cindy in a corner the more she’ll lie and she’ll act like a caged dog you are poking a stick at. She isn’t going to give you more because the public hates her. And, the more danger, real, deserved or not, she feels towards her family or herself the more she will likely fight back.
I wanted to address one other thing – some people have pointed out that Cindy is working despite being on disability. People on disability can work to their ability but if they earn over a certain amount their benefits get cut down or discontinued. I’m not sure what she is on disability for but that is really the case. Leaving a child with her, well, that’s a whole other issue.
Thanks, just wanted to get that off my chest.
Will Ms. Drane-Burdick find a way to get her question answered by Cindy, after being effectively shut down in her own depo by Mr. Baez and his direct order to the witness (NOT his client) to ‘Zip it’?
Will they have this figured out by the judge, as to whether the questioning of a ‘THIRD PARTY’ (and Mr. Baez did ask the question at some point, didn’t he, of one or other of the Anthony’s if they hired him at the beginning, and the response was ‘no’).
So Mr. Baez had NO RIGHT in someone else’s deposition, with someone else’s client (Brad sat in, was there, didn’t have laryngitis) to direct orders at that client during the deposition. He also, from what we learn by reading these state and M&M depos, is that Florida has rules regarding how depositions are taken, what latitude of questions, and clearly how an attorney or witness is able to object to a question, and what objections are valid.
Baez will need to go to the courts to have his new “ZIP IT Paradigm ’09 ” accepted as legal-lingo and adopted into law for depo procedures, so that any attorney or deposee, or interested third party in attendance, can just make the ‘zipit call when they feel they do not have to answer as opposed to the more cumbersome ‘Object– with reason stated for the record’.
(woulda been useful for Brad in the M&M depos, doncha think!!)
—those newest depos are eye-killers! still working on the end of Pt 2 Cindy– but SOOO revealing in contradictions, but also in Cindy’s ‘new and improved info’ that is ‘added-in’ on behalf of other witnesses and herself. (in the past, Cindy has always deflected any question about what George knows, but in this one, she adds it in voluntarily– like the part about George seeing a ‘man in a ball cap’ driving Casey’s car in their area– twice during the ‘missing’ days. (she had no direct knowledge– there’s many pics of Jesse Grund in a ball cap– but I remember there’s a whole hat rack of them on the wall beside Casey’s bed in her own room.) George did not say anything about a ‘man’ driving Casey’s car– George ex-cop, past used-car dealer come hobbyist car-detailer George, we didn’t hear him say anything about this in his early interviews with authorities– that could be pretty significant to ‘forget’ to tell authorities back then.
What is the implication IF Baez KNEW that the photos being sold to such as the ‘Globe’, could show the clothing that was with the baby’s remains?
Can a lawyer say to a client, here’s a ‘what if scenario’– ‘if’ someone were to publish the right photo of Caylee wearing ‘x’, IF the worst has happened and IF her body is found, then this could be a good thing for ‘us’ for your legal defense fund, now and increasingly, if we do things right, in the future. He has clean hands, points Casey in the right direction to ‘choose a photo’– the RIGHT photos.
Can he do this if his client has divulged what is with the remains? (We know now, why George’s statement of July 16th seeing the baby and Casey, what was worn by the toddler, is SO important to be accepted as undisputed ‘fact’.)
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/casey_anthony_new_evidence_death_penalty_caylee_pychopath_profiler/celebrity/67548
Blink
The National Enquirer and The gLobe are both owned by American Media.
The photo in question is being used right now at the link I posted above.
#599 Marcy
I do not think Cindy controlled Casey. Casey controlled Cindy and George. They allowed her to get away with her antics for way to long. The problem is Casey has everyone “Believing” Cindy controlled Casey. The only time Cindy cowered was with Casey. Cindy did everything for Casey and still is. When Cindy knew she had to defend Casey then Cindy became uncontrollable.
Just ran that name, “ELIGINE WILSON FURLOW” on the My Clerk website. Seems this person has their own set of legal troubles. After looking this up, I’m thinking this was filed to Casey’s account by mistake.
The background was most definitely photoshopped. You can see the line in the upper left corner where the light in the background was to begin with. (It also appears to be a window ledge.)
westside,i had just remembered that story and people here have offered again and again that you dont know how you would react in certain situations,but the examples were always of people underreacting,as way to explain the 31 days(cindy or casey),i offer that as an example i experienced of hearing of someone who’s reaction instantly went proactive- coverup and this was the shocker the son was trying to convey between his nervous laughs,and made me wonder later what she would have done after that. i just see cindy as this type(someone who would engage in a coverup,if it involved family crises,even a murder).
Blink:
I have been a lurker on this case from day 31. I just want you to know that the NationalEnquirer.com has a clear, large photo posted on line today of the “shirt” picture with Casey. The background is clear, and this photo was taken in someone’s room. Just wanted you to know. I am going to try and add the link here, but I am not sure if I am doing it correctly.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com
TY Pug, “Eagle Eye” Westside posted it a bit ago.
Anyone else remember who was connected to American Media?
HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM??
B
Apologize for not going by post number, but am pressed for time.
Glad to have entertained with that defense diagram. Have enjoyed reading so very many of the contributions here as well. Impressed with the commitment to meaningful detail.
*****
Someone asked if/when the lawyers can make inferences about the evidence at trial. The answer is yes, but only during closing arguments.
*****
Someone asked about the initial written statements given by CA and GA. I can tell you without even bothering to look them up:
NEITHER ONE OF THEM MENTIONED THE CAR/JOHNSON’S/THE SMELL. (which caught my eye on day one-it says a lot)
CA can say as many times as she likes that the only reason she said it smelled like there had been a “dead body in the damn car” was to get the police to finally get there. To that nonsense, I say:
A) All you have to do to get the police to rush over is to report that a child is MISSING (and particularly for that absurd length of time)
B)What is her reason for telling the same thing to her co-workers at Gentiva? She told them that the car smelled like a dead body BEFORE SHE CALLED 9-1-1. She didn’t need to think up a ruse to get THEM to haul a** over to Hopespring to investigate an alleged “missing”/”kidnapped” baby. So.. yeah, NO… That LIE will not FLY.
*****
Someone mentioned the privilege log. I went over this before when Dominic Casey’s lawyer asserted work product privilege as the reason he should not be deposed in the civil action (ZG v. Casey Anthony -defamation suit). HE did not “have” a privilege log. A privilege log is prepared by counsel on behalf of a party or –in this case– a non-party who is asserting privilege to fight a subpoena to testify in a deposition. FYI: The Order that was linked by the same person is fairly standard as to the form that courts require counsel to adhere to when preparing a log.
*****
Someone asked why the State was questioning CA and GA re: the time-line due to the fact that CA and GA have already given time-lines in the past. The answer is because this time, they were being questioned UNDER OATH. That is a BIG difference. It is one that neither CA nor GA appeared to grasp. Remember, the immunity afforded them via the compelled testimony does not guard them against charges for PERJURY. The fact that the SAO moved for a copy of GA’s GJ testimony AFTER his deposition is quite obviously significant. And lest we forget, both CA and GA will be called to testify at trial. (more testimony UNDER OATH which is subject to comparison with their deposition testimony)
*****
BTW- I thought Drane-Burdick did follow-up with Cindy quite nicely on what her “investigation” has revealed.
Here is a GOOD example: (another Cindy UNINTENDED ADMISSION is revealed)
Drane brings up Danielle Brophy (sp?) p.458. This is the person who allegedly contacted Cindy on several occasions, at first allegedly to “bash Casey”, but then to say that Casey “didn’t do it”. While discussing this nonsense (including the nonsense allegation about Jesse committing a rape, etc), Cindy volunteers information about tipster Luke Phillips, whom she says claimed to be associated with a group of former professionals, etc who investigate missing persons cases. Cindy –in an attempt to cover tracks– offered up some fairly damning information at this time, to wit:
Luke said that Caylee was “alive and okay”; and that Caylee “has comfort with her.”
Cindy commented, “Well, I knew that “Teddy” and “Mama” was [sic] here, and the only other thing that I could think of was her blanket. And I didn’t say anything to him. And he asked me specifically if there was something the size of a blanket….(blahblah).. And I said, ‘Why do you ask?’” And he goes[sic], because one of the people he worked with has a strong,..could sense Caylee was OK, but she had this blanket and that seemed to comfort her. I mean, she wasn’t OK mentally, but physically she was OK, but this blanket gave her some comfort… (blahblahh)… It was one of those moments, like–does he actually have some credibility or some knowledge of something? BECAUSE NO ONE HAD KNOWN– I DIDN’T EVEN TELL GEORGE OR LEE THAT CAYLEE’S BLANKET WAS THERE.”
And when Drane asked when she got this tip? The answer was “BEFORE CASEY CAME HOME THE FIRST TIME.” p.468
Got that? BEFORE Casey came home for the very first time, Cindy is saying she spoke with this tipster who mentioned that Caylee’s blanket was WITH CAYLEE, and that Cindy KNEW IT WAS THERE WITH HER (and says that she didn’t share this info with George or Lee). Now HOW ON EARTH would she have known that the Winnie The Poo blanket was “THERE” back in July or early August of ’08 if the killer didn’t TELL HER it was there??
Q: Who ELSE (is the ONLY PERSON to have) said that Caylee was “OK”– not mentally, but physically. (A: THE RIDDLER/KILLER)
*****
And then, when Drane brings up the Hoover tape, p.471, Cindy launches into the whole connection between this Luke Phillips character and Jeanette Lucas. Ya see… Luke assured Cindy that Caylee was OK PER JEANETTE.
??? If someone called me to say things like this, do you know what I might suspect?? I might suspect that this person/these persons were perhaps a) f***ing with me, or b)were aware of too many details for comfort, and that they either had been tipped off themselves by the killer somehow–or someone on behalf of the killer–, or that they, themselves, were involved in it somehow.
Some stranger just calls out of the blue and they tell you this special blanket is with Caylee (per Cindy he described it to a T).. and then months later, she is found with this special blanket.. and you don’t automatically SUSPECT that these people either had something to do with her death, or that they had some contact with the killer who provided them with this information??? HUH?? Yahhh. Riiiight.
Cindy was asked–and denied sending Dominic Casey into the woods. p.477 Which is interesting, since when Dominic was questioned by LE about what tips he would investigate, he told them that Cindy was basically calling the shots. (And then he stumbled like a drunkard failing a sobriety test on the highway when he was interrogated about Jeanette Lucas.. and why he believed THAT particular tip.. about why, if he believed it, he did not alert LE… about why he went back..and went back.. and went back…)(and let’s not forget him pretending to have been on the phone with his daughter at first, etc, etc)
*****
B-
I can tell you that I have tried many cases, but that I have NEVER represented a DEFENDANT in a CRIMINAL case.
I can tell you that I would have handled things differently from the get-go.
I can tell you that I would have been 100% honest with my client about the evidence, the charges, the potential for the DP, the benefits of a plea bargain.
I would have presented her with the good (not much, and that is being generous), the bad (plenty, and that is being conservative), the ugly (a mountain of it, with a bella vita tattoo of a cherry on top).
I would have confronted her with the bad and the ugly, and I would have asked for explanations. If I got nonsense in return, I would have said so. I would have said why. I would explain how a jury could/would see it. The job demands nothing less. Her liberty is on the line. Her life is on the line. You can gain someone’s trust and respect by being honest with them about that. You do not have to go along with their horse manure and try to develop the trust via a ruse.
I would have explored her mental state/capacity through expert examination and testing.
I would have explored the family dynamic and history.
I would have explored her medical history (particularly that instance of the seizure).
I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS have conversed with my client’s parent in the manner that Baez conversed, via email, with CA. (“Rosebud”).
I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS have hired the likes of Dominic Casey, and used him in the manner in which he has been used.
I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS have done that deal with Padilla. (although I am grateful that they did, because it revealed other pieces of the picture-puzzle for the jury to observe and consider)
I would not have made those horrendous procedural errors. (How do you take a MURDER case when you clearly do not possess the skill and experience, and refuse to get on the ball asap re: the most basic procedural rules? A woman’s LIFE is on the line. That is an awesome responsibility. This is not about being on TV. This is as serious as it gets).
If she doesn’t admit it–in any form– and maintains her not-guilty plea, they are stuck. They have to go with that.
If she admits it to them, but wishes to maintain her plea? Again, they are stuck with that–and they are required, by the Rules of Professional Conduct, to zealously represent her and challenge the State’s case against her (no matter how they feel about her and/or what she did). That is the job, folks. You don’t get to just walk away if the client admits it. Believe me, I have heard stories from experienced criminal defense attorneys whom I respect. They have been placed in that unenviable, heart-wrenching situation by clients. They cannot walk. They have signed up to do their job, which is to put the government (State or Federal) to the test. No one in the United States of America deserves less. It is part and parcel of our system of justice. We must abide it. (Plus, you cannot just quit. You have to seek court permission to withdraw as counsel, and those motions are not taken lightly; there has to be good reason, and it cannot be “my client did the crime”. The lawyer cannot share that information with the court. That is privileged information, and the CLIENT holds that privilege, not the lawyer).
Look….They are in a bad spot.
She has placed them between a rock and a hard place, not only with her behavior over that 31 day period, just for starters, but from the second she spoke with LE, she did some major damage (to put it lightly).
She did more damage than people understand.
CA, GA, and LE have done –and continue to do–more damage than they understand.
There is a LOT of damning evidence. A LOT. Her behavior. The lies. (include cell phone records, text messages, IM chats). The cadaver dog hits. The backyard. The car. The hair. The DECOMP. The trash bags. The laundry container(s). The duct tape. The dump site. And let’s not forget about the bugs (who may be telling part of the gruesome tale on their own).
Remember this: people were routinely convicted of murder long before DNA evidence, etc was on the scene.
The jurors are still going to be asked to use their COMMON SENSE when they consider all of the evidence. The State will build the puzzle in front of their eyes. They will see Casey for who she is (not for who her mother and father claim now her to be, when there is sufficient evidence to contradict their own claims– “Mom has thrown it up to me many times… that I am an UNFIT MOTHER”, etc. And someone please explain to me how a young mother who does NOT work is excused from getting up in the morning with her young baby girl to give her breakfast, bathe her, supervise and LOVE her, unless she is sick or incapacitated.. or just needs an OCCASIONAL break?? NOT A GOOD MOTHER WHO COULD BE TRUSTED AT ALL.)
Oh.. And, of course, the jury will see Caylee, and they will wonder what kind of mother and grandparents could go so far to cover up this ghastly crime.
*****
The defense got the State’s entomology evidence recently, did they not?? Not a peep yet. No media tour. Not even a crack, sizzle or pop.
Did everyone get George’s description of the SOUND that the MAGGOTS were making in the trunk of that Pontiac??? I can’t go back now– too tired– but I believe he described it as sounding like hamburger sizzling in a skillet. That’s not one or two… or even just a few maggots. There is no way you would go to work/go back to work. You would call LE, PRONTO.
Unless… You wanted to conceal/destroy evidence for some reason.
*****
Just FYI: A “pro se” filing, is a filing that one does on behalf of ONESELF. A person unconnected to the case cannot file a “pro se” motion on behalf of Casey. Plus– wrong caption/wrong jurisdiction/wrong judge, etc. Something got mis-filed at the court.
*****
More to say, but need to run.
Phew. Yowza and Willyskip.
(coming up for air that was a ride, Silver, thank you.)
WRT to the dialog about Cindy, Luke P and Ginette Lucas, I would only point out what Cindy left out of that whole exchange-
“The handler”.. Dominic Casey
B
I have read here for a long time but I have only posted once to Kleat but usually my questions are answered by everyone else and I enjoy the difference of opinion.
I was reading more of Cindy’s depo lastnight about what she took out of the car and she said that there normally was a red plaid blanket in the trunk in that collapsible bin but that wasn’t one of the items that she said she removed and if it’s on one of the inventory reports I missed it, I also remember there were red fibers found?? Do you know what happened to the red blanket that Cindy told LDB??
TIA, I think you do a wonderful job!!
Blink, Suz, am I digesting this pic thing correctly? If someone sells the media a bunch of pics and suggests one in particular to put on their cover, then that persson must KNOW that pic IS significant. If little Caylee were taken by Zanny or anyone else, how could anyone other than her killer KNOW for sure what shirt she would be wearing when she was left in the woods. Isn’t that the conclustion we’re getting from this?
Yes, Blink. Wasn’t it the KidFinders Network? Sheeeshhh!
Nope.
B
Anyone else remember who was connected to American Media?
HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM??
Spill
rotfl. Sometimes you guys have me in stitches when I see all the comments in the queue in order. For such serious subject matter, it is a welcome respite, thanks all.
B
Yep.
Westside/Pug!! You saved our eyes!! THANKS!! Great find to compliment Justice 23′s Globe find– and this close up link shows NO little ‘heart’ hair clip worn by Cayee.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/casey_anthony_new_evidence_death_penalty_caylee_pychopath_profiler/celebrity/67548
Interesting that these extra publications have the source photo too– were they waiting on the break in the story– sitting on the photo until the right time, or did they just get it.
Yep.
(to the new cover)
westsidehudson, thank you
Larry Garrison or Davis????? American Media????
“George did not say anything about a ‘man’ driving Casey’s car– George ex-cop, past used-car dealer come hobbyist car-detailer George, we didn’t hear him say anything about this in his early interviews with authorities– that could be pretty significant to ‘forget’ to tell authorities back then.”
Kleat_ Exactly! I remember thinking, wow, how much are they willing to add to this story.
Anyone else remember who was connected to American Media?
Baez?
Baez’s daughter?
Todd Black?
I give. I have to go. I’ll check back later. Have a good one all. I hope we can make it through a couple of days where a child is not murdered in Florida, or anywhere else. BYE
Todd Black
Anyone else remember who was connected to American Media?
Geraldo Rivera?
(sorry “new photo”, not “new cover”)
“Anthony Family photo” puts much into perspective.
Sickened, just sickened.
Blink, in regards to justice #667, do you think Annie could have been the possible “help” for Casey that Cindy was refering to at the beginning? If not, what kind of knowledge do you believe Annie possesses?
Skip Davis?– looking…
http://www.americanmediainc.com/
American Media rags—
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
COUNTRY WEEKLY
FIT PREGNANCY
FLEX
MEN’S FITNESS
MIRA
MUSCLE & FITNESS
MUSCLE & FITNESS HERS
NATURAL HEALTH
SHAPE
STAR MAGAZINE
Interesting pdf in ‘Case Studies’– shows Ford Fusion nicely tied into AM’s ‘Fusion Fitness’ theme– (coincidentally, nice tie in for FORD in the CA case as the notorious ‘Nanny-Mobile’ (where’s the Bat Phone??
I mean to say responding to Blink’s question: Anyone else remember who was connected to American Media?
HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM??
B
Todd Black – read Blink’s article here:
http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/02/04/todd-black-jose-baez-defense-attorney-for-casey-anthony-and-the-florida-bar-could-there-be-further-inquiry-request-for-inquirycomplaint-filed/
I’ll bet you can shorten that link, Blink! Sorry