The Defense’s claim of missing Discovery

Val: Great post – always sparks my interest. Regarding some of depos, do you think some where kind of choppy. I don’t remember exactly which ones, maybe Tracy’s, I just listened to that one (did not read it), but, I know I stopped a few times, backed up and thought it is just not flowing correctly? Any thoughts?

Annie,

Do you mean the taped interview OCSO did with Tracy McLaughlin? Because there has been no deposition with Tracy yet. I had not noticed the flow issues you are referring to. I might go back and relisten to some of that. Do you have specific timetags where you are detecting this?

I believe that is one of them. Later this afternoon I will do the research on it and let you take a listen. I never kept notes. HUGE WASTE I realize a year later that I should have jotted down some notes. I just never thought I would be this invested still in this case.

Val

Thanks for analyzing this. Very curious, indeed.

Item 12.  “Any and all reports, whether internal or external…”

Wow, this sounds extraordinarily broad. But I guess they want every little thought that helped them arrive at whatever conclusion.

Item 20.  “Any and all standards adopted by the FBI…”

I can’t speak to the actual hard evidence, (#Q66 and #Q104), but it seems as though Baden was making such a far ranging request here, because she wanted to find a way to enter into evidence the big FBI scandal years ago. Maura had posted an article on Blink awhile back, she probably still has it. But here are a couple that I dug up. If Baden can get this in, I guess she’d want to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes to discredit, entirely, all of their (FBI’s) work. (especially anything related to Casey). Maybe Silver can answer whether or not they can get this in without substantiating documents from inside the lab.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0411140299nov14,0,649426.story

Report blasts FBI lab
Peer pressure led to false ID of Madrid fingerprint
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/14/us/50-prosecutors-advised-of-fbi-lab-errors.html?pagewanted=1

50 Prosecutors Advised of F.B.I. Lab Errors
http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/15/fbi.crime.lab.update/

Report finds flaws at FBI crime lab, but no perjury

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:B6CmMoHzSP4J:www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/Chapter5.pdf+fbi+lab+mistakes&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
or
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/Chapter5.pdf

Val

Am I on a time out? Or is it my computer? I just posted and nothing showed up.
At least I didn’t get the blank white screen this time, lol

Good morning,

The crime scene tape interests me, in paricular Q104. Q62, 63, and 64 all have notations saying no latent prints detected but Q104 does not. Makes a person wonder if it is an oversight or perhaps something was noticed and further testing was done.

Could you direct me to your article about the tape please as I would love to read it? Not sure where to look for it. Thanks.

WSH,

Not sure what happened there. Did you clear your cookies or something? That can cause you to have to be approved before showing up. Anyways, it’s showing now!

time out…lmao

Wescott,

It’s not much – just a list of items I found that have no latent print information associated with them.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578

I updated Firefox. Since then, things have been slightly wonky, not sure why.

Thanks very much, I’ll take a look. Have a good one!

This is a little off topic. Does anyone know how Feb. 1st is supposed to work. This is the day the defense needs to turn over info regarding the innocense of Casey.

Some of the defense requests were, quite arguably–if not quite plainly–, beyond the reasonable scope of discovery in this case.

We do not know what has yet to be produced, but we know that, to date, something less than 100% of the forensic evidence has been turned over. (About 90% or so has already been turned over).

It would not be surprising to learn that some of the remaining forensic evidence could arguably tie this defendant directly to the final crime scene.

Why?
Because a trial is an adversarial proceeding. Both sides seek to WIN, and while the defense motivation is clear, i.e. to exonerate the accused, the government motivation can be a on a spectrum ranging from the seeking of justice and nothing else (which is, IMO, the goal of the large majority of prosecutors), to–sadly– the personal/political/job promotion goals of a particular prosecutor (which does take place, though I would caution that this is far from the norm).

While it is strictly forbidden to withhold exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence (and yet– it continues to occur, sometimes due to inadvertence or an honest failure to appreciate the usefulness of a piece of evidence to one’s adversary)– there are, at times, tactical reasons (some proper; some not) for sitting on what can be seen as inculpatory evidence for as long as possible.

Tactical reason #1 is to prevent the defense from challenging the integrity of the evidence, chiefly via some manufactured “explanation”. However, that can also serve to prevent the defense from FAIRLY challenging the evidence, at times.

Here, we have a defense team which has yet to produce a single iota of evidence to support their SODDI theory, though they have touted it, loudly and proudly, not only in the media, but IN COURT. Accordingly, there may be proper tactical reasons for sitting on what the State believes is a powerful piece of evidence, i.e. something which would strongly controvert the “stranger killer” theory.

We can only speculate at this point, so I have no comment other than to provide some explanation.

Finally–and this is obvious– if the defense is seeking documents that have never been provided to the State, they need to pursue that with the non-party whom they believe has the information, and it appears they are, though they need to address it properly–and with vigor–if they believe it is imperative to their case.

As food for thought, you may wish to read this ABA draft (dated February, 2010, i.e. not yet finalized) re: suggestions for ensuring that the parties adhere to their disclosure obligations.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID & INDIGENT DEFENDANTS

REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES

RECOMMENDATION

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges policy making bodies of federal, state, local and territorial courts to adopt, a procedure whereby a criminal trial court shall conduct at a reasonable time prior to a criminal trial, a conference with the parties to ensure that they are fully aware of their respective disclosure obligations under applicable discovery rules, statutes, ethical standards and the federal and state constitutions and to offer the court’s assistance in resolving disputes over disclosure obligations.

REPORT

This year the Criminal Justice Section’s Judicial Function committee has committed itself to the study of how the judiciary may minimize the danger of wrongful convictions. Many factors have been identified as contributing to this problem. For example, certain law enforcement practices, such as the handling of physical evidence, the conducting of identification procedures and interrogations, and the use of informants, have come under scrutiny for their role in convictions of innocent individuals. Blame has also been attributed to prosecutors who have failed to identify and/or disclose exculpatory evidence, or to do so timely, as well as those who have used perjured testimony. Defense counsel who fail to adequately investigate their clients’ cases or otherwise fail to meaningfully represent their clients have also played a part in their clients’ wrongful convictions.

Not all these factors may be addressed by the judiciary, and some are better suited to self-scrutiny by law enforcement, prosecutors and the defense bar. Nonetheless, judges strive to see that no innocent person is wrongfully convicted in their courtrooms. In their role as gatekeeper of evidence, judges may have the greatest impact in preventing wrongful convictions by assuring that the evidence they admit at trial is sufficiently subject to adversarial testing to be reliable.

Providing the parties with equal access to discoverable evidence is probably the best way to assist in a trial’s search for truth through the adversarial system. Evidence, however, tends to be in the exclusive possession of one party alone until that party recognizes and conforms to his or her disclosure obligations under discovery laws and rules, applicable ethical standards and that basic tenet of the criminal law, embodied in the Brady rule, that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense.

Because the parties’ disclosure obligations are mostly self-policed, discoverable evidence is sometimes withheld, inadvertently or not. For example, a prosecutor in good faith may not recognize the exculpatory nature of a piece of evidence, if only because he or she does not look at it from the perspective of the defense lawyer. Similarly, evidence that has the potential to impeach a prosecution witness may be withheld because the prosecutor does not anticipate the potential value to the defense. In addition, newly appointed prosecutors may be unaware of the scope of their disclosure obligations.

Moreover, given the adversarial nature of our trial system, parties tend not to disclose evidence in their possession before they have to. Indeed, parties might not even obtain evidence that might be subject to disclosure unless they are specifically ordered to. Thus, a law enforcement officer may possess documents related to the case but does not disclose them to the prosecutor because the prosecutor has never specifically asked for them, perhaps because he or she was unaware they existed or because he or she did not recognize their exculpatory potential. Whether the prosecutor is aware of the information or not, the obligation to disclose still exists.

Inasmuch as effective disclosure relies on the parties’ understanding and complying with their obligations, the courts’ role is limited. Nevertheless, courts can facilitate full disclosure consistent with legal and ethical requirements. Courts may assist the parties in understanding their disclosure obligations and can enforce those obligations by making appropriate rulings at a time when such rulings may be most effective.

We therefore recommend that courts should, hold a pre-trial conference that focuses on discovery issues and the disclosure of exculpatory information. At such a conference, the parties may be required to identify material that has been disclosed and will address any outstanding disclosure issues. By holding a conference devoted to this issue, courts will help assure that the subject of disclosure is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.

We expect that such a conference will have several positive effects.

First, by holding the conference pre-trial, courts will anticipate issues that might otherwise delay or derail a trial. Mid-trial disclosure of evidence that should have been disclosed earlier will invariably cause a disruption to the proceedings, if not a delay or even a mistrial. In addition, by addressing disclosure issues pre-trial, courts will have an early opportunity to craft an appropriate remedy if they determine that there has been a loss or destruction of material subject to disclosure.

Second, to the extent that the disclosure process assures a fair trial based on all available evidence, by resolving disclosure issues prior to rather than during trial, courts enhance the truth-finding function of the trial. Because evidence may contain leads to other evidence, its use to the opposing party may be compromised by late disclosure. Moreover, because the course of a trial, including attorneys’ strategic decisions, may very well change depending on the anticipated evidence, the value of previously undisclosed evidence that comes to light late in the process may be difficult to gauge but not insignificant.

Third, previously undisclosed evidence may have a bearing on pre-trial suppression issues. If such evidence is disclosed at trial, it may require the re-opening of an already concluded hearing.

Fourth, undisclosed evidence negatively impacts plea negotiations. To the extent that full disclosure assists the truth-finding process and the parties’ ability to evaluate the merits of their respective positions, a pre-trial effort to identify and locate all discoverable material will facilitate plea bargaining.

Finally, but not least importantly, there is a significant benefit to be gained by bringing the parties together in court for such a conference. The discovery process is mostly conducted off-the-record. In some jurisdictions, the attorneys who try the case do not appear at preliminary calendar calls. By requiring the attorneys who will try the case to appear, courts will assure that they take responsibility for their respective positions, which may previously have been offered, if at all, only by another, or several other, attorneys.

These conferences may also have the prophylactic effect of preventing non-disclosure of discoverable evidence because they require the parties to focus precisely on the question of whether they have disclosed everything they are required to disclose. Certainly it will be difficult for a party either before, or particularly after, such a conference, to claim that he or she did not realize that his or her disclosure obligations called for the production of discoverable material.

Further, the conference may serve as an opportunity for a court to rule on whether certain evidence is discoverable. A common problem with Brady material is that judges and prosecutors may not recognize the exculpatory significance of a piece of evidence because they do not understand the use the defense may make of it. This problem can be alleviated by the conference. In the first place, the court can invite the parties to show it undisclosed evidence that was withheld on the ground that it was deemed not to be discoverable. A judge may be in a better position to recognize the exculpatory nature of the evidence or its value as impeachment material than a prosecutor. If not, the defense attorney may be able to articulate a reason why certain evidence is discoverable. In addition, such a conference will amplify the appellate record with matters that, if they occurred at all, would otherwise likely have occurred off-the-record.

Not only will the conference encourage candor, but it will also encourage effective advocacy, because it serves as an invitation to the parties to consider what discovery demands an effective advocate in their position would make. To the extent that effective advocacy enhances the truth-finding function of the trial, the conference encourages it. Moreover, if the defense makes specific requests for material that the prosecution did not think to seek from law enforcement – not knowing its existence or recognizing its relevance – such requests may lead to the discovery of evidence that might otherwise have been inadvertently non-disclosed.

We anticipate that attorneys for both sides, but particularly prosecutors, because they have more disclosure obligations than defense counsel, may object to this proposal on the ground that it implicitly disparages their understanding of their ethical duties. Although the pre-trial conference requirement is not intended to disparage anyone, and although all attorneys are presumed to understand and fulfill their duties, the conference has the benefit of causing the parties to think twice about this important subject and make doubly sure that they have in fact complied with all applicable disclosure obligations.

This subject is of no small concern, given the large number of documented wrongful convictions that can be attributed to prosecutorial error, including the use of false testimony that was contradicted by undisclosed evidence and the non-production of exculpatory evidence that was not disclosed until trial or later. To the extent that these errors are attributable to well-intentioned prosecutors, as the vast majority are, the requirement of a conference in which the judge will ensure that the parties are aware of their discovery obligations and invites the parties to address their discovery concerns on the record will add an additional safeguard against non-disclosure that currently may not exist.

For these reasons, we think that a pre-trial conference to address and resolve issues of disclosure will reduce the risk of wrongful convictions based on failures to disclose.

Respectfully submitted,

Chair, Criminal Justice Section

February 2010

Very interesting Silver

I think that the defense and the prosecution are playing little head games with each other. Maybe the prosecution is intentionally “holding back”. It might be an important piece of info, or it could be out of spite because the defense has not been reciprocal. Either way, I suppose it could be tactical.

It seems to me, however, that Lyons and Drake appear to be wanting to “make nice”. They seemed to indicate in court that they were going to be more cooperative in sharing info. I saw a slight touch of softening, if you will.

My feeling is that Lyons sees the importance of not making the relationship too adversarial, so that if Casey would ever accept a plea for the murder charge, Lyons would hope that the prosecutors might budge more on the terms or sentence, vs. their tough stance on the fraud charges( which the judge ended up having to resolve).

I don’t know why I wrote Drake, I meant Burdick. Sometimes my mind has a mind of its own.

FYI: Florida leads the nation is death row exonerations.

Imagine being an innocent person, sitting on death row.

Imagine that evidence–which could have cleared you–was inadvertently–or worse yet, intentionally, withheld. This does happen from time to time, and it is a mistake to believe that the system is perfect. (Did it seem perfect when OJ Simpson was found “not guilty”?? Hell, NO– to many Americans, and perhaps to the women who have naively/stupidly allowed him into their lives since he was acquitted, and who now bear the scars–both emotional and physical–as proof).

I am not anti-DP, but I am only in favor of the very cautious application of it, for once that sentence has been carried out, it can never be reversed if foul play– or even a mere mistake–is later discovered.

It makes my heart heavy with concern when I read some posts on blogs where people express anger that the DP is not carried out more frequently and more swiftly.

Andrea Lyon, citing some psych study–as though that were authority for the court to actually consider– spoke to the court about the improper use of the DP, i.e. as a tool to “force” an innocent person to plea to a crime he or she did not commit.

I am certain she knew this was not proper legal “authority”. I believe she may have been laying the ground work to potentially position her client for a plea. I believe the same about her comment “She didn’t kill her kid” on the Today Show interview.

Here is why.

Casey does not want to admit to killing Caylee for a HOST of reasons, and not simply to avoid the legal consequences. She has a strong interest in keeping the Anthony clan (particularly Cindy) from “knowing”/accepting that she did it. The defense can help her maintain that family support by having her enter a plea, while still refusing to state that she did the deed.

Pursuant to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure:
“Before the trial judge accepts a guilty or nolo contendere plea, the judge must determine that the defendant either (1) acknowledges his or her guilt, or (2) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE OR SHE FEELS THE PLEA TO BE IN HIS OR HER BEST INTEREST, WHILE MAINTAINING HIS OR HER INNOCENCE.” (emphasis added) (by yours truly, of course)

I’m not suggesting that Casey has confessed to her attorneys. I’m not certain she will ever tell a single soul about what she did to Caylee.
But at some point, it will have to sink in that she is facing the very real possibility of being put to death by the State, and at that point, the option of staying alive–even if in prison for LWOP–or simply for several decades–will perhaps be more appealing.

The last thing she wants is for a jury to say she intentionally–and with cold, callous premeditation–took it upon herself to commit the heinous, atrocious and cruel murder of “that little girl”. (Although, if it goes that route, I believe we can expect Cindy, George and Lee to continue with their blinders on/their crazy theories and denials).

BTW-

IMO, Cindy, George and Lee all know she did it.

But so long as Casey does not admit to it, they can all continue this charade, and “save face”, which appears to be their main goal (vs. JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE).

This family has a well-entrenched habit of keeping/attempting to keep dirty little secrets from public view–and sadly, still believes that it can pretend that Caylee’s murder is just another piece of “dirty laundry” to hide– or run through the wash, and forget (like Casey’s decomp-smelling “work” clothing that Cindy took it upon herself to cleanse of ties to Caylee’s demise).

It struck me that Baez seemed a little taken aback at the prosecuter coming over to stand by him, all relaxed and happy, and saying sure, I think we still have some fingerprint evidence. It wiped the “outraged”smirk off of Baez’ face. I think he only mentioned the FBI as a smokescreen to veer away from having to say in open court why he has not turned over even the simplest list of witnesses or completed any depositions. He wants everyone to wait years and years for justice.

“I’m not suggesting that Casey has confessed to her attorneys.”

Silver

It always struck me as odd that Baden said, “people confess to things all the time”. Why bring that up unsolicited? I wish I had a link, but alas do not.
It was on one of the media storms/tours. And it was while she was representing Casey. They weren’t discussing other cases, as I recall.

IMO, Cindy, George and Lee all know she did it.

Of course Silver. Otherwise people that have demonstrated a hair trigger rage or aggression would have lost their minds with outrage that the “real perp” wasn’t caught.

The only thing that they have ever produced real anger about was when people suggested Casey was guilty.

On 48 hour, “do you want justice for Casey or justice for Caylee?”…Cindy stopped cold, paused, then worked out, “I think both” (paraphrasing). But she had to think. It wasn’t an automatic, I want justice for my baby granddaughter and my daughter. There was no outrage there. She almost looked scared to answer the question…very telling.

WSH,
I remember that comment that Baden said, “people confess to things all the time.”
I have searched high and low for it to no avail, then thought maybe I dreamt it.

Was it related to the defense worrying about them being recorded? Baez complaining about the clicks on the intercom…

I’m glad someone else caught that.

JMJ

I do not recall the context or the show. But that strange little soundbite never left my head.

Here’s a link to Linda Kenney-Baden’s August 20 motion (91 pages) outlining her attempts to get information from the FBI and Oak Ridge. The motion contains many exhibits, including correspondence about specific items the defense requested.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10175491/Casey-Anthony-Defense-team-91-page-motion-20Aug09

FYI – Valhall, you reference Linda Kenney-Baden’s March 27 request to the FBI. I think you mean March 17 although I’m certainly willing to be corrected!

Here it is JMJ. I got the quote slightly mixed up. It still is a little strnage there is video on the page:
VIDEO: Casey Anthony lawyers on TV say state lacks evidence
By
Drew Petrimoulx
@ October 2, 2009 12:40 PM

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/10/video-casey-anthony-lawyers-on.html
……
But when asked why Casey waited a month to report her daughter missing – partying all the while – Baden couldn’t answer.
“People do stupid things all the time,” she said. “People confess to crimes they didn’t commit.”

“It still is a little strnage there is video on the page:”= It is still a little strange. There is video….

“ (2) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE OR SHE FEELS THE PLEA TO BE IN HIS OR HER BEST INTEREST, WHILE MAINTAINING HIS OR HER INNOCENCE.” (emphasis added) (by yours truly)”

This bothers me Silver…..A deal was offered to Casey in the beginning and refused, what reason would another offer be submitted to her?
Doesn’t the state have to agree to an offer in order for it to pass, and why would they let her plea now with all the evidence they have against her.
I would think that the powers that be plus the general public would not accept her maintaining innocence in a plea just because it would be in her best interest…what justice is that? Surely there must be some contingency in order for we the state to have some form of acknowledgment or once again Casey will have got away with another “dirty little secret”.
I admit that I really do not know the law very well but it just doesn’t seem right somehow that a plea could be just for one’s self interest.

I really don’t think the Anthony’s will ever believe their daughter killed Caylee, even with a verdict of guilt. They have been saying innocent so long now they are starting to believe their own spin.

I agree that Casey wants to “SHOW” Cindy she did not kill hte baby, for some sick reason she probably believes her mom believes she didn’t do it, but there are a lot of things Cindy had already said indicating she has come to terms with the fact that KC killed Caylee, July 15, She says “what did you do” her message to the detectives “KC had help” regardless of what the scenario says, and hte smell in the car. George also knows she did it, during the news conference with Mr. Nejame, he states he, Cindy and Lee want to know need to know what happened to Caylee.

He never mentions Casey’s need to know it clearly shows regardless of their sick actions that they know. It is kind of like when you know something bad happened and then hearing it out loud makes it harder. They are waiting for the harder because it can and will only go one way, a plea, hopefully not, or a needle. Confirming the ugly here is approaching soon and I am willing to bet Cindy or George say nothing after the conclusion.

Tug,

(2) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE OR SHE FEELS THE PLEA TO BE IN HIS OR HER BEST INTEREST, WHILE MAINTAINING HIS OR HER INNOCENCE.” (emphasis added) (by yours truly)”

I think that that statement will be a HUGE bone of contention for the state. I believe that if a plea is to be worked out, they will want her to admit guilt, probably more so than their concern about the amount of years she’d get in a sentence. At least I would, if in the same position, (with all the jerking around), but who knows?

No case is a slam dunk. Even this one. So if both sides can come to terms with a plea that they can agree on, it’s worth it. It will save taxpayers money. Remember, there will be a COV, and either the state will pay for all witnesses to travel to another locale, or they will pay for jurors to be set up in a hotel, plus whatever it costs to have expert witnesses, and detectives or police off the job and in court, while perhaps others get overtime (what have you) to cover for them. Also, flying in people from all over the country; that would really add up.

Val this link is to the 91 page motion.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10175491/Casey-Anthony-Defense-team-91-page-motion-20Aug09

I do not want to disappoint anyone, but if anyone here is from Florida, you probably remember this case.
Geralynn Graham is in jail STILL awaiting trial for murder of Rilya Wilson, a 5 year old little girl in her care through DCF. Geralynn claimed that DCF came one day and took her away. Her partner will testify against her. This case is from 2001 and she has not gone to trial yet!

“If Rilya is dead — and most believe she is — how and when did she meet her demise? Miami-Dade prosecutors can’t say for sure, but insist that circumstantial evidence points to foul play.

And when will Geralyn Graham, 64, her jailed caregiver indicted for murder nearly five years ago and facing the death penalty, go to trial? Hopefully by fall, say her lawyers, who still must take depositions from several key witnesses.

“My client absolutely claims she is innocent of all the charges pending against her, and looks forward to having the opportunity to have the jury hear the quality and type of evidence the state will offer,” defense attorney Michael A. Matters said.

The high-profile case sparked massive public interest and drastic reforms at the Florida Department of Children & Families, but Graham has remained largely out of the limelight in recent years. No trial date has been set.

For now, she is behind bars at the Miami-Dade Women’s Detention Center. Done serving a two-year sentence on an unrelated case, Graham is eligible for a bond of more than $200,000 but cannot afford to get out, Matters said.

Both sides acknowledge the case has proceeded slowly, in part because the state is seeking the death penalty. Graham had to get two new lawyers in April 2006 because her previous attorney was not certified to handle capital punishment cases.

“Prosecutors always want to get their cases before a judge and jury as quickly as possible when recollections are clearest and witnesses are easily accessible,” Miami-Dade State Attorney’s spokesman Ed Griffith said. “However, in many cases, particularly murder cases, circumstances can make that difficult.”

Both sides declined to discuss the evidence.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1429923.html

This is OT, but in response to some comments:

I think that if the Anthonys ever came to terms with what Casey did, their lives would not be over. This is a very forgiving country. All they would need to do is spend one hour on Oprah’s couch, or something similar to explain the process, its difficulty, of coming to terms with a family member doing something horrible. They could be advocates for the other victims of crime: the perp’s family members. I believe that there is probably more of a need there. Missing children platforms are no- brainers for non-profits. There are many already and people are willing to get right on board.

However, no one truly considers the pain and loss that families of convicts suffer . They have the burden of taking on shame, which may, in fact, be from no cause of their own. I’m not saying the Anthonys are, or are not, responsible in part for Casey’s development. I’m saying that they could find real purpose, and that over time, with transparency, MOST people would forgive.

Thank you WSH…makes it a bit easier to think the state will want an admission of guilt. I see your point and agree.

I still beleive that if Baez had any brains at all he would be sitting down with Casey and trying ti convince her that it would be in her best interest to try to come up with some kind of plea agreement with the SA. I just can’t imagine that any attorney worth anything would keep on with this charade of a defense. This entire idea that Kronk had something to do with this is surely going to backfire on them and more than likely will infuriate the jury.

Terri

I think it may be a SSSSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW plea.

I believe Baez probably would have her plea. I think that they are showing Casey that they are doing everything they can, pulling out all the stops; when that fails, maybe she will come to terms with the situation and consider a plea. They can’t force her. I think it is true what others have said, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR CASEY TO ADMIT FAULT. That’s why I believe it was such a long time coming with the plea in the fraud case. It probably took all that time for Lyons and/or Baez to coax her into it, and to show her the futility of fighting it. Casey still probably believed that there was a way to talk herself out of it:ie. some big misunderstanding or some other nonsense.

JMJ said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 10:01:45 }
Rilya is the poster child for DCFs mistakes.They failed the system to protect this child.

Valhall,
What do you think LKB is up to? She is up to no good, in my opinion. She was stating on National Media that there was no duct tape around Caylee’s mouth… when the interviewer asked her about the duct tape… LKB might dispute it… on the other hand they have jill Kerley talking about the duct tape. To me it’s just smoke and mirrors, and maybe going for a mistrial. It’s confusing to some people.

On pages 8&9 someone had written about chemicals that killed victim.I find it strange that since Dr G said she did not know what killed Caylee.
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/1106/21541051.pdf

» FRG said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 10:01:45 }

If they (state) have FBI agents who investigated Kronk, and on the other side, they have a woman that has had brushes with the law and may have a personal vendeta, it all comes down to credibility. If the jurors don’t trust police through personal experience, it can go one way. If you have men on the jury that have had nasty divorces, it could go another.

“She was stating on National Media that there was no duct tape around Caylee’s mouth”

She is just going to argue that the tape fell into that position and that no one knows where it actually was. However, it HELD THE MANDIBLE IN PLACE. That psitions it over the mouth, but she can still say what she wants to create reasonable doubt.

vendetta

WSH, I agree that many people would understand and forgive the Anthony’s. Funny, after reading the comments I was going to leave one very similar to your’s. I had not considered that they could assist others in a similar situation, but yes, I can very much see that. I don’t see them ever changing their stance. Cindy has dedicated her life to proving Casey is innocent and is very busy doing so. It will continue for the rest of her life. If thoughts of Caylee enter her head, Cindy probably gets on the computer or re-reads some discovery. Keep busy, don’t think about Caylee, it’s just too painful.

I will point out that the FBI lab DOES NOT return all evidence sent to them routinely. First, some of the evidence is consumed by testing. Then there is evidence from which they find nothing they consider probative and which the State may tell them to dispose of instead of returning it (the FBI has stated in one of there documents in this case that they DO dispose of such submissions when asked to do so by the state – a BIG MISTAKE as far as I am concerned since any lab can make a mistake and the FBI lab has made their fair share of them in the past – so that evidence COULD have been probative and the Defense had a right to have it independently tested). Additionally, the FBI has been known to lose evidence now and then (as have all LE departments now and then) – or should I say misplace it.

I think that the defense has a right to be concerned since the FBI already destroyed the evidence which had the heart shaped adhesive on it. Additionally, the items requested outside the scope of this particular case are reasonably calculated to determine if there are still problems in the FBI lab or if there is a new crop of problems with the lab and evidence handling. Given the fact taht the FBI technicians got their DNA on some things where proper protocol would have prevented it, it is not an unreasonable request as far as I can see. I also disagree that the state does not bear ultimate responsibility since all of the testing (other than the body farm) is within the current capabilities of Florida LE forensic labs. So, if you are going to send things to the FBI then you have to be prepared to prove that they are handling evidence appropriately and that their results are reliable. If you can’t do so, then the FBI should not be one of the entities that you send evidence to.

Basic fairness and integrity of the forensic case requires that, in my opinion.

William

They were permitted to see resumes and current standards, QA, chain of custody, etc as they apply in the time line for the case. Yes, the FBI has had major screw ups in the past. But I think that the decision was to limit the scope to around the time the items related to the case were tested. I don’t know how wide a span of time would be fair, on either side frankly.

With any lab or organization, perfection will never be achieved, because humans run them. So it isn’t unusual that some DNA from techs might end up on evidence. It’s unfortunate, but happens.

“I think that the defense has a right to be concerned since the FBI already destroyed the evidence which had the heart shaped adhesive on it.”

We don’t know if that will come in yet. They only have one tech to testify on this. No photos. There are other things that tie the remains back to the house, and Casey.
They may not risk it. No one should have leaked this info. But in the end, they may not use it. If the jurors can’t see it themselves, they may not buy it anyway.

WSH:

If it were only th DNA – it would be one thing. It is also the destruction of evidence simply on the word of a single examiner that really gives me heartburn. What if the real reason it was destroyed was because it was favorable to Casey (for example)? The point is that people DO make mistakes and that is why they should be DOUBLE and TRIPLE checked in a death penalty case and certainly not allowed to destroy or throw away materials on the State’s say so.

Once destroyed or thrown away, the defense has NO opportunity to test the evidence in question. Also, the defense should be able to have experts there on evidence which will be totally consumed by the testing for the same reason – PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES.

True William, and I agree. But there are tests that will consume pieces of evidence , (as you said) simply in the process of testing. I guess that is why some labs permit defense lab experts etc in while doing the tests. My guess is that the FBI does not.

I would think it foolhardy to bring in evidence that there is no photo of. Especially since other evidence is more compelling, like the circumstances and behaviors.

In a local lab situation the judge would have jurisdiction and could order that the defense be provided proof of lab standards being obeyed and that correct evidence handling protocols are in play. Since the State chose to send it to a lab outside of the jurisdiction of the Court, ultimately, the State should bear responsibility for proving these things.

I guess it wouldn’t be a bad idea to videotape testing in facilities like the FBI. (kind of like a cop car cam). This way the integrity could be proven. It would probably keep techs on their toes.

As to destruction, we must keep in mind that a lot , if not most times, when evidence is being tested, the perp is still on the loose and it is in the public’s best interest to find him. So if that means evidence might be consumed, finding the responsible party may outweigh the loss of the item. In those cases the loss of the item might hurt the prosecutor, if the perp isn’t in the system, or there is not enough DNA and it is degraded etc, and then down the road there is much better more reliable technology. I guess all of this stuff must be weighed.

WSH:

Not bringing in the evidence without pictures does not solve the problem since only independent testing of the same item could determine that there was nothing there which could have helped the defense. Also, I point out that the car trunk had been gone over multiple times and then Dr. Lee found additional evidence in the way of human hair in the trunk. At that point, Dr. Lee turned it over to the state forensics lab and then they went back through the trunk again and found even more evidence that had been missed before.

Any of that evidence might have been important to a defense and if the state could have destroyed the car on a whim before Dr. Lee saw it (as an example) then it would have been lost forever.

I hate to say it. Being a past fan, I no longer have the utmost confidence in Lee.

That said, whose hairs were they?was it falling hair from techs? Did we ever find out? I forget.

I wouldn’t count on that one mistake by FBI with the residue to set Caysey free,there is much more evidence against her starting with 31 days of shopping, stealingand partying. As far as the Anthonys, forgiving a child comes natural as a parent,to say our country is forgiving when it comes to covering up for the death of an innocent baby,
to protect the murderer, I don’t think so,but thats JMO.I would not be.
There were choices by both Casey and her parents to allow Caylee to live and they all made all the wrong ones and they will not have to suffer the consequences.

Sorry, that was they will all have to suffer the consequences!

Smith,

I would say that I believe that they have begun suffering consequences, although not in a legal sense. I can’t say if their actions rose to the level of criminality, that would be for LE or the state to decide. Did they breach a standard of ethics outside of my own, no question. Have they pissed me off? Most definitely, yes .

I can’t speak to the capacity for others like yourself to forgive, but I do consider that largely, people can, given the right circumstances with full disclosure.
I think that we can all suspect that there was some kind of pathology that probably still needs to be overcome by this family. If they can work out of that and If that ends up later helping someone else, maybe it could be a good thing. Even if they are charged, arrested and later released. They did not kill Caylee.

But you are entitled to your feelings and opinions and I sinderely mean no disrespect.

I have no desire for Casey to be free. I do desire for her to receive a fair trial so that she will not have reason in a few years to force the state to do it all again or worse so that she is able to totally escape justice in the end.

The problem is that you are supposed to have the right to confront witnesses against you and to test the testing of evidence and what have you. I do not like loose ends, they tend to unravel at inopportune times. Murphy tends to rear his head and invoke his laws. Things tend to come apart when you leave loose ends….

Wsh: I think the hair turned out to be consistent with the other hair that they already had samples of from the trunk. Thge concern though is that it occurred and that it was after a lot of techs had combed through the trunk gathering evidence….

WSH,thank you for your response, you did not disrespect me.We all have our own feelings and opinions and I respect yours.

sinderely/ sincerely

William

I believe any mistakes can be problematic. Is the car hair going to be a humongous hurdle? I’m not sure. I know that the defense will try to make it so. And so there will be a balance. But the jurors will have to look at the preponderance of evidence, and make a decision. Will they be more put off with the stupidity of missed evidence, or will they be put off with the “stupidity” (Baden’s idea) as to why Casey never reported Caylee missing?

WSH:

We will have to wait and see – I reckon.

I am just saying that it is not so unreasonable for the defense to want proof of competency given the mistakes that they can already point ot in evidence handling. especially when the end result is that an item is gone out of their reach forever….

I would say that most normal people will have a real problem buying any excuse for the silent days of partying that Casey did. A huge hurdle there, no doubt about it. Of course, they may equally have trouble with convicting someone when some of the evidence has now gone missing and when there are known problems with evidence handling from other indications – even though they may not be huge problems. The point is that some people will be uncomfortable with that in our system of justice. Do I think that it will be more than 6 people? No. Not even close.

But what if one of them is an appellate judge?

I really don’t think that residue is going to be a big deal JMO,there is so much other evidence that it will be push away from the jurors minds once the other things come into play. To me, what will the importance be about the heart sticker, I say really nothing, compared to the ordor in the car ,the laundry bag from the house,all the lies,thats what would make me sit up straight,not if there was sticky residue on the duct tape.

“especially when the end result is that an item is gone out of their reach forever….”

William, that one technically was not a mistake, but a decision to risk losing that small evidence vs testing for other.

Do you remember there where pictures floating around out there with an area that was showing what looked like residue on the tape? If I can find them I will post them,if they are real why couldn’t they use them at the trial? BBL

Ilove to read your writings! Is this the link you are looking for?
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Renewed%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Bench%20Notes,%20Standards,%20Data,%20and%20Communications%20with%20Law%20Enforcement,%20et%20al.PDF

I feel that Cindy closed ranks mere minutes after her 911 call. Even if Casey was the sort to break down and admit to the crime she had to overcome the hurdle of Cindy’s “Thin Blue Line”. The tone was set and Casey’s mother transmitted (in words and deeds) that Casey had their full support if she continued to lie. If she crossed that line (“Don’t worry, I didn’t say anything…” then tacitly the support would have been withdrawn.

Casey is really no rebel and she is not an independent thinker. She’s following the party line within her own screwed up definition of what that is… as much as she stole and lied it was always within accepted family guidelines. To us that would seem outrageous but it was the norm.

From the outset her parents could have set a different tone and given her a little psychological wiggle room to cop to what she did. But no. In so many words she was ordered to hold steady.

About the Anthonys and forgiveness. As far as I’m concerned they can scream and moan and cry and abuse the searchers and law enforcement, they can proclaim their daughter’s innocence, they can hold steadfastly to their “love” for her, they can swear she’s being persecuted and railroaded… whatever. But to me what they’ve done is unforgivable as they did their darndest to ruin the lives of her friends. Do you think Cindy would have sleepless nights if Jesse or Amy or Ricardo were behind bars right now? Sadly I don’t.

I don’t have to think about forgiving them because I don’t care about them. I couldn’t even think of them in those terms. They’re just abstract horrific examples of bad character and I doubt they’re redeemable. Just my take on it.

Silver & WSH – Reading back in the comments I see you’ve touched on some of the things I just mentioned. Coulda saved a lot of time by just reading first and saying *ditto*… ha, that’ll show me.

Terri what you where saying about Baden saying their was no duct tape on caylee’s mouth saddly i think the crimescene photo’s will speak for themselves, I believe the impact those photo’s will have on the jury will be tremendous if they had to cut that sweet caylee’s hair to get the duct tape off…Can you imagine don’t even want to wonder!

This is the “Fingerprint” section in the defense’s Amended Motion to Compel DNA Bench notes/Reports and Standards, filed on January 28, 2009 (the motion was argued on March 12):

22. Fingerprints:

a. (i) A copy of the latent print and print card as set forth in discovery page 3173; (ii) A copy of the 18 fingerprint lifts as set forth in discovery page 3233; (iii) A copy of the eight areas of latent fingerprint lifts developed with dye stain as set forth in discovery page 3234; and (iv) A copy of the fragment of the latent fingerprint lift from exterior trunk of the vehicle as set forth in discovery page 3194.
b. All photographs, latent lift cards, and other duplications of the latent lifts that are in possession of any law enforcement agency including but not limited to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and/or FBI;
c. Any and all automated fingerprint searches performed on the above latent fingerprints.

Linda Kenney-Baden’s orginal March 17, 2009 letter (in full) to Amanda Choi is in the docstoc link upthread. Here is the “Fingerprint” section from that letter (19 a-e):

19. Fingerprints:

a. (i) A copy of the latent print and print card as set forth in FBI reports of this matter; (ii) A copy of the 18 fingerprint lifts as set forth in FBI files in this matter; (iii) A copy of the eight areas of latent fingerprint lifts developed with dye stain as set forth in FBI reports in this matter; and (iv) A copy of the fragment of the latent fingerprint lift from exterior trunk of the vehicle as set forth in FBI files in this matter;

b. All photographs, latent lift cards, and other duplications of the latent lifts that are in possession of any law enforcement agency including but not limited to and/or the FBI;

‘c. Any and all automated fingerprint searches performed on the above latent fingerprints;

d. Any and all bench notes, other notes, or other written memorializations of any visual comparisons made by any criminalist, fingerprint examiner, or law enforcement officer including including the FBI concerning the above listed latent prints;

e. Any and all standards, policies, or checklists concerning points of interest concerning the identification or exclusion regarding fingerprint comparisons.

Although in Linda Kenney-Baden’s March 17 letter she removed the discovery page numbers and referenced FBI reports and files as the source of the information regarding these latents, I believe she is referring to the same prints set forth in the January 28 motion.

The discovery page numbers referenced in the January 28 motion were in a large set of discovery released to the public on January 21, 2009.

The following file contains discovery pages 3173-3215.
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530366/detail.html

The following file contains discovery pages 3216-3274.
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530350/detail.html

Discovery pages 3233 (referencing 18 fingerprint lifts) and 3234 (referencing eight fingerprint lifts developed with dye) referred to the items picked up at the Anthony house on August 7, 2008 at Cindy’s request.

According to the OCSO report, the 18 latents were processed by OCSO CSI Alina Burroughs and sent to the OCSO Identification Unit for further examination. Linda Kenney-Baden’s March 17 letter to the FBI references “the 18 fingerprint lifts as set forth in FBI files on this matter” – Kenney-Baden is either in error or the 18 latents (or copies of those latents) were sent to the FBI after being processed by OCSO.

Page 3173-74 appear to contain a summary of evidentiary items (photographs, latents, and physical evidence) relating to the Pontiac. There is one latent referenced in the summary list although the location of that latent is not noted in the summary. Nevertheless, I think it might be the same latent referenced on discovery page 3194 (a fragment from the exterior trunk of the Pontiac). If not, then two latents were lifted from the car, and we only know the original location of one of them.

NOTE: OCSO CSI Michael Vincent dusted the exterior trunk of the Pontiac for latents on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 and saw nothing (discovery page 3219):

“LATENT EXAMINATION:
b. At approximately 1340hrs the assigned CSI conducted a latent exam using the dusting method, on the interior and exterior of the trunk lid. No identifiable latent impressions were developed.”

HOWEVER, OCSO CSI Geraldo Bloise processed the trunk for latents eight days later on Thursday, August 7, 2008, and he found a fragment (discovery page 3194):

“I processed the exterior and the interior of the vehicle for possible latent fingerprints using black powder. As a result, I was able to locate and lift a latent fingerprint on the following area of the vehicle:

1. Fragment of latent fingerprint was lifted from the exterior trunk.”

CSI Bloise did not state in that report where that print was sent for examination.

*****

I have seen no reports regarding the examination of these fingerprints, so it is possible that these are – at least in part – the “latent print related items” Ashton referred to that the defense is waiting for.

As for Kenney-Baden’s apparent belief that these latents were examined by the FBI, I have to say the reports written by OCSO CSIs are sometimes confusing. For example, Geraldo Bloise inserted a couple of lines about finding the fragment on the trunk exterior between longer sections dealing specifically with FBI submissions from OCSO. Moreover, Bloise did not indicate what he had done with the fragment he lifted from the trunk.

Also, I suppose it’s possible, since we have not seen any reports pertaining to the results of any examination of the fingerprints lifted by OCSO CSIs that the prints were originally sent to the OCSO Examination Unit and then a decision was made to have the FBI conduct the examinations and analysis. Maybe it was something that fell through the cracks which is why we haven’t seen any reports and why the FBI claims the latents were never received by their agency.

****

PS – Section 7 subsets g and h

g. All RFU adopted protocols

h. Statistical worksheets

That is perplexing Maura. Thanks for all the research.

About the statements Baden, Conway and Baez have made about the duct tape, whether there was ANY, whether they’re going to argue the positioning of it or that it was not the cause of death or abuse … whatever their position was on it … I agree, with others here who say how can they claim the duct tape to have nothing to do with the murder and then turn right around and attack Kronk because his ex said he used duct tape on her ????????
Either there WAS duct tape or there WASN’T, either it WAS used on Caylee or it WASN’T … you can’t have it both ways … I suppose it doesn’t matter much what they say in the court of public opinion and we’ll have to wait until trial to see which way they go with it …

Denjet

That was a most excellent rant. And so true!

:
Val, or anyone who can answer this for me … is all the talk about latent prints really ONLY about latent prints? When referring to latent prints are they referring to ALL types of prints? I guess I’m still holding out for an impression or visible prints on the duct tape ??
This wording has always confused me in the discovery where only latent prints are discussed …

TIA

Thanks WSH!
The defense better hope one of us who are very knowledgeable about the case doesn’t get on the jury !

Hinky!!! “If it does, then the defense is blatantly wading in the delay pool…nude and grossly drunken…in broad daylight…with lampshades on their heads.” That might be the funniest visual I’ve had so far this year! LOL LOL LOL . . .

I’m not sure if this won’t be more confusing, but here goes:

Latent prints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Latent_prints
Although the word latent means hidden or invisible, in modern usage for forensic science the term latent prints means any chance of accidental impression left by friction ridge skin on a surface, regardless of whether it is visible or invisible at the time of deposition. Electronic, chemical and physical processing techniques permit visualization of invisible latent print residue whether they are from natural secretions of the eccrine glands present on friction ridge skin (which produce palmar sweat, consisting primarily of water with various salts and organic compounds in solution), or whether the impression is in a contaminant such as motor oil, blood, paint, ink, etc. There are different types of fingerprint patterns such as an arch, tented arch, a loop, and a whorl. Each indicate what type of fingerprint it is.

Latent prints may exhibit only a small portion of the surface of the finger and may be smudged, distorted, overlapping, or any combination, depending on how they were deposited. For these reasons, latent prints are an “inevitable source of error in making comparisons,” as they generally “contain less clarity, less content, and less undistorted information than a fingerprint taken under controlled conditions, and much, much less detail compared to the actual patterns of ridges and grooves of a finger.”[6]

Denjet,

I don’t think there is a chance in ^&*@ that any of us would be allowed on the jury. We shouldn’t even try, we don’t want any reason for her to appeal.
The defense has not “gotten the picture” that the jurors will not be leaving their common sense at home.

Baden may fight about not having a video of the murder, Lyon’s “no cause of death” rant, and Baez can talk all he wants about how they won’t try this case in the media; but if there was any &^*# chance of a compelling reason why Casey did not notify anyone that Caylee was missing, until she told Lee on July 15th, waiting for years to give us a clue doesn’t make sense.

Casey’s waiting the 31 days seems to have helped lose a lost of potential forensic evidence, maybe that was her plan.

Btw, thank you to William Smith, for continually reminding us about the seriousness of any loss of evidence. It would be nice to have everything nice, clean, clear but most cases are not that way, are they? Common sense will prevail in this case, I hope.

If there really was a “smoking gun” type of evidence with the latents or anything else, wouldn’t LE or the prosecution have made that clear. Maybe there is just partial prints that really do not rule out someone but again don’t rule in someone.

The craziness of Cindy, George and Lee trying to say that the remains maybe are not Caylee. WTH is wrong with these people? Maybe they WANT the jurors to think they are crazy, so that it will lessen the STUPIDNESS of most of their comments. Do they want to impeach themselves, so that all of the rest of their stuff is drowned out??

» JMJ said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 04:01:34 }

I don’t think there is a chance in ^&*@ that any of us would be allowed on the jury.

LOL – perish the thought. So I fill out my little questionnaire and I go in for jury selection and they ask me if I have formed an opinion of guilt or innocence in the case and I respond:

No, I think Princess Poopie-Pants deserves a fair trial just like any other person.

Shortly thereafter I’m driving home.

Thanks WSH, about the prints …

As far as jury selection goes, if I were called for jury duty and questioned … I would be tossed in a heartbeat !! But I’ve got to believe that even people who might not know too much about it if asked might know enough to say “You mean the chick who didn’t report her child missing for 31 days ?” or “you mean the Tot Mom ? ”

I find it hard to believe there are a whole lot of people that have never heard anything about the case … JMO

I recently mentioned the name “Casey Anthony” to my sister-in-law who lives in Georgia and she didn’t have a clue as to whom I meant. Of course she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and watches the Comedy Channel all day, so she probably is not representative of the population, at least I hope not. Now that I think of it she is pretty dumb about everything except Family Feud.

Maybe that was Casey’s plan all a long to hope that evidence would be gone the longer Caylee was laid decomposing in the woods.Maybe she thought she would never be found or that she might have a chance to go back and get the body and put it somewhere else. I personally think she panicked and tossed her in the woods with intenions of going back to take her somwhere else but the thought of going back in there spooked her and the thought of putting Caylee’s rotting body back in her car was too much. Sorry to be blunt, but that is what I believe happened. Any other thoughts from anyone?

Sorry for all the mispellings I’m typing in the dark,so I don’t wake the hubby up!

I too have a family member like that also !! LOL

» Caroline said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 05:01:10 }

“my sister-in-law…..watches the Comedy Channel all day”

Hey, don’t knock all of the comedy channel. There is some sharp wit on in the evening! LOL

Love your work Val. Just a reminder that when Baez, Baden and Lyons spew forth the spin regarding no duct tape on Caylee, make sure you put in your mind’s eye the fact that these same people have seen the photographs from the crime scene and the medical examiner’s office prior to the removal of the tape and they know they are telling a damn lie! Makes me sick!

Is it possible that the potential jurors will be asked if they have read, contributed and/or responded to any of the blogs regarding this case? I’d just admit to it ’cause I do not want my innocent little laptop being inspected by ANYONE! A few months ago, I spent an entire afternoon trying to figure out if chloroform was produced when hair dye comes in contact with water. Then I gave up because I would have had to do the equations myself. I traded my lab coat a few years ago for an apron. Oh, the reason I was interested was because Casey had said Caylee’s hair might have been changed and because Morgan asked Cindy about coloring her hair.

I for one believe in our JUSTCE system and I know that with experience everyone knows what they can overcome in the face of guilt. The residue to a heart sticker isn’t what made LE tick. They have knoweldge and degree’s under their belt and they did not rush to judgment in this case. They worked with they were given therefore giving Casey every opportunity to make the right decision in her life. What I consider troublesome is the facts, like when Baez is so willing to lie on national tv, and in the same breathe say that’s not what I said. Judge Mills said a mouthful when she told Baez that his Motion in Limine is a prosecutor’s motion.

Their continued stupidity should warrant termination by their client. Kronk doesn’t have anything to fear, he too has experience and instincts gained by making life decisions to be a working member of society, unlike Casey. I agree with the post that the A’s don’t need forgiveness from us the people, I also don’t put them in the light the way they put themselves. The FBI makes mistakes, but their mistakes are nothing in comparison to Casey’s and the defense’s. If there are other finger prints and they are Casey’s that is a small part of the act, but when you total up everything, only one person did this and that is why her dream team hasn’t been able to free her.

The Judge said it is illegal to hold someone in county jail for more than a year, this is true, so why then does she still sit there now going on 2 years? If the Judge felt anyone else had a hand in this child’s death, he on his own would lessen her bond so she could be out assisting with her case. I am sure he knows now that Casey is capable of calling 911, she calls when the protestors are throwing rocks and who knows what at her house, she is capable of taking down license plate number with complete description, but she never once extended her daughter the same courtesy. I for one believe in the guilty verdict in this case and I have no doubt at all. Maybe I might be called to sit in on this jury, and yes I can be impartial because somethings just don’t lie.

» Karen Lee said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 06:01:00 }
“Is it possible that the potential jurors will be asked if they have read, contributed and/or responded to any of the blogs regarding this case? I’d just admit to it”

Yes, and…You should admit it, Karen Lee. It is your civic duty to judge one of your peers in absolute fairness, honesty and objectivity. I commend your integrity.

I too have spoken to many in Cols that do not remember this case. I have to prompt them with Nancy Grace and then they will say the mother did not report her missing for 31 days. I then get the question “what is happening in the case now”.

Val, my answer to the question” Have you formed an opinion of guilt or innocence in this case?” I have to answer ” Absoultely Guilty, In A Backwards Sought Of Way” Guess I ‘d be driving home right behind ya.

WSH:

Except when the prints are used for mDNA. Then they contain more information than the controlled prints…

WSH:

http://www.fdiai.org/articles/dna_extractable_from_fingerprint.htm

I think someone put my name and Smiths name together earlier. lol – her husband might not like that.

» JMJ said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 04:01:34 }

Btw, thank you to William Smith, for continually reminding us about the seriousness of any loss of evidence. It would be nice to have everything nice, clean, clear but most cases are not that way, are they? Common sense will prevail in this case, I hope.

Lynn and Val, my answer to the question about forming Casey’s opinion of guilt or innocence would be:
Well, I think she’s guilty, but I’ll be sure to listen carefully to ALL of the evidence before I finally vote. I don’t want to take a chance of her winning on appeal.

It’s going to be crowded on the highway driving home.

LMAO! You gals are cracking me up.

We’ve got a virtual convoy going at this point.

breaker breaker 1-9!!!!

» Lorna said: { Jan 28, 2010 – 07:01:04 }

The Judge said it is illegal to hold someone in county jail for more than a year, this is true, so why then does she still sit there now going on 2 years?

The Judge was not talking about people waiting to be tried. He was talking about people adjudicated as he had adjudicated Casey’s fraud/check/theft cases.

There are cases of people who refused to do what a judge ordered and spent several years in jail without any type of criminal charge – because they were held in contempt of court.

William: also, Casey has waived her right to a speedy trial, so the one year rule would not apply to her. But I agree, Judge Stan was referring to sentencing.

Even without waiver at this point there would be no problem on the murder charge hold since all of her previous jail time went toward time served on the other sentences. She started her jail time all over again from a legal standpoint on the day of that hearing.

I agree with Smith about Casey’s intent on going back for the body in the woods, but she couldn’t risk being seen.
Re Kenney Baden’s requests from Oakridge Laboratory: as they say in legalese, defense pseudo-scientific counselor, Mrs. KB “has a duty” to pick at everything, so as to distract, divide and conquer the prosecution. Expect it, and even be glad she does, because a jury will soon tire of her brash accent and off-putting, superior attitude and personality. No one will take that hard-looking bleach blond seriously. As I recall, she sort of petered out during the Phil Spector trial, feigning illness. Read: she knew the case was a lost cause and a sure conviction. I think I remember reading something about her leaving the case toward the end–I’m not sure, though.
Were Casey to have searched high and low to find three other lawyers the jury will love to hate is impossible. (Not sure about the reconstruction guy, but likely, he has hired some people from “Avatar” to digitize some improbable CGI whose purpose is to dazzle and entertain, not unlike the Michael Peterson defense’s recreation.)
In the appearance dept, AP photographer Red Huber’s photos of Casey at the check fraud hearing were so sharp that it appeared she was sporting one of those hair bump things-either that or she has a bony tumor at the top back of her head. Merely an observation–it was so noticeable that it was easy to spot. She was trying to look taller, after all, it’s all about Casey.

All that’s needed for the state to win this case is a bit of jurisprudence, coupled with a smidgen of common sense, along with the preponderance of evidence, to which is added a blundering and blubbering Baez, who will forever need rescuing by Lyons, who will probably be sporting a crisply starched, white, Liz Claiborn, that will resemble an official lab coat, complete with a pocket full of Bic Clicks, hoping it will better enable her to look the part of a “real” forensic expert, herself, and not one of those “junk science” people she’ll be cross examining, but to no avail, because sooner or later she or Baez will come face to face with such as Dr. G., and no one but no one’s more convincing that Dr. G., who’s so much cuter than Lyons and Baez and Casey combined, besides, and who will so well remind the jury, and much more eloquently so, about all of those tedious little facts like the duct tape that held the mandible in place and kept the baby’s hair in a single matted mess!

But of course there is a bit more to it than that, but it’s late and so Good night and God Bless. (Darn. I shouldn’t have said that. You might think I’m Cindy. But, I’m not taking it back.)

Stay warm. Stay safe.

Love your blog, Valhall, I read it all the time. I’m not very savvy with the scientific stuff and appreciate all the work you and your peeps do.

I have one tiny bit of information for an earlier comment:

I heard Leonard Padilla a while back (on Levi Page?) state that all of Tracy’s deposition was not released by LE.

The year in the county belief is based on sentences. If you draw 2 years, upstate you go. That is why you see a good bit of 23 month sentences. I can agree that the pen is more dangerous and I understand why someone would want to stay in the county. Once ‘upstate’, I could not imagine doing a couple years in the county as a sentence. Time drags at the county there is nothing to do, even if it is “safer”. Another common belief is that you have to have a trial date within 180 days. If the defense files a continuance for any reason, all bets are off. As always, I want to state I am not a lawyer, nor in law enforcement. Additionally, any experiences I draw on are all base on SW Pennsylvania. I just wanted to throw some light on the subject.

To Wiliam Hill,

Sorry about the name mix up, but at least you knew I meant you. Thanks again.

I really cannot imagine that Casey will not be convicted, based on what we have seen so far. I cannot think of ANYTHING that will get them past the 31 days. Casey was her mother, her protector, and Caylee ends up dead under her care???
Zanny is a figment of her imagination, along with the whole cast of characters with complete first, middle and last names. After all this time, does anyone think she would be able to remember her story, with such vivid detail, that she gave to the investigators on that drive around??

It does not appear that the defense has come up with anything compelling as of yet.
I do remember all of the spaghetti thrown during the OJ case and the Peterson case that turned out not to have any truth at all. BUT, look how those cases turned out differently.

The defense lawyers on the TV shows, back then, were always playing devil’s advocate for both the OJ and Peterson case. I don’t really see that happening here. It seems that even Casey’s defense team doesn’t believe they can win. Look at AL’s expression in her eyes when looking at Baez while he is stumbling, fumbling through his little speech in court. Did anyone catch that Strickland basically called on Lyon to come up for the defense or at least to confer with Baez.
Baez is such a bad speaker and he thinks he is doing fabulous!!!

Whoever posted that it looked like Lyon and Baez were trying to corral a bull had it right, and this was only the fraud case. Casey cannot help herself. WHO would be excited to enter that courtroom to plea guilty to anything???

JMJ,

As I understand it, had the defense anything, and anything at all, they would have had to have presented to the prosecution by now, and thus far all they have offered is the non-existent nanny and Kronk.

Willow –

Back on November 27 on Websleuths, Richard Hornsby said the following about timetables for discovery disclosures by the state and the defense: “The 15 day time period only applies to the state, they have 15 days from the date they obtain evidence to turn it over to the defense. The defense’s obligation only requires they turn over evidence once they decide they will use it in trial.”

Of course, the defense cannot announce the day before trial what they intend to use; there is still an obligation to turn over what they have early enough to allow the prosecutors to depose witnesses and investigate claims, but Hornsby’s point is that the defense is not legally obligated (as the state is) to hand over evidence within X days of getting it.

Also, many months ago, Greta Van Susteren said the reality is that the defense often does not formulate a defense until the state has rested its case before the jury. By the time the trial begins, the defense will have to have anything and everything on record that they might use to defend Casey, but that doesn’t mean they will be locked into using a particular strategy. That’s what I see in, for example, the defense’s simultaneous pursuit of Jesse Grund’s phone records with their request to perpetuate Jill Kerley’s testimony against Kronk. And it’s what we’ve seen with Linda Kenney-Baden’s claim on 48 Hours Mystery that “Somebody else is the killer of this child” even while she said the defense was preparing to challenge the state’s claim that the duct tape on Caylee’s skull had been placed over her mouth and airways. If someone else killed Caylee, it doesn’t make sense that Kenney-Baden is preparing to challenge the placement of the duct tape – Kenney-Baden is representing Casey the Innocent, not Caylee’s mystery killer. But these seeming contradictions in defense strategy do make sense in light of Greta’s comments – Casey’s lawyers are setting up any and all defenses now and will decide at trial which ones have the best chance of succeeding.

As for what we can expect Monday, back on October 16, Judge Strickland set a “loose deadline” of February 1 for filing defense evidence (names of forensic experts or evidence) to support Todd Macaluso’s August 21 claim to the court that “There’s substantial evidence, that we’ve discovered . . . that the body or the remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Correctional facility.” Strickland said if this evidence could not be provided by the February 1 deadline, he expected a reason from the defense explaining why they are not able to provide the requested evidence.

So I’m not making any bets about what the defense is going to do or say on Monday. Strickland did give them some wiggle room, and the defense is going to delay handing over information to the state for as long as they can get away with it.

Q104 comments.

They also have the new wiggle room that the judge just gave to everyone at the last hearing. They were all going to get together after the hearing and iron out a tentative schedule for discovery on both sides and a ballpark date for when they might be able to head to a trial. I think that this deal will be the main thing reported on Monday, assuming that they were able to arrive at a deal that is.

Q104 is Henkel brand duck tape.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=999

Hi All – I’m sorry that I didn’t get a chance to wish Vall a Happy Anniversary on the blessed date, but I am truly grateful for the thought provoking posts that are provided to all of us to read!

The defense’s strategy is really beginning to annoy me…hope it does the same for the jury pool…How absolutely “zanny” can it get? Lets see….No. 1 – Zanny did it No. 2. Zanny is Amy, No, Ricardo, No, Tony, No..Jesse…No. 3 The Meter Reader did it…

The Prosecution will say, “Let the evidence show that Miss Princess Poopy Pants did it!”

Uh….Hello, Truth? Are you there? Will you speak up a little louder please? Apparently, the defense isn’t hearing you hear….Thank you!

Maura,

I am so sorry that I missed your post, and thank you for responding as well as for the wealth of information you so graciously provided. You are a wonder, Maura, and I don’t know what we’d do but for you to help we layfolk better understand the legal system; so my appreciation is most sincere.

I would question the defense’s attempts to implicate such as Kronk, if but to create “reasonable” doubt, for surely it seems most unreasonable to me that the defense would ever be able to create such a doubt as to Casey’s guilt, in the minds of a “reasonable” jury who will be inundated with facts that point but to Casey, and even because you are so incredibly knowledgable, Maura, at this point in time, what would you suppose is the defense’s best stradegy?

Thank you so much for all that you do!

Willow

Hi Maura, great post on what the defense has to/doesn’t have to do. Question:
Does the defense have to set out in their opening statement what they plan to present at trial? If I understand correctly, the prosecution has to give an overview of the evidence they plan to present in their opening statement–what they plan to present to prove their case. Does the defense also have to do that (not that they have to prove anything….but, do they also have to give an overview of sorts)? Or, can they just say whatever they want, and then shift gears as they go through the trial?

I may be totally off-base on what the prosecution has to do. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on tv.

Just a question please – if the defense has to say what evidence they have by Feb 1st. How will we know? Will there be a hearing or what? Thanks!

I looked at this and don’t recall anywhere in the documents saying there was an unidentified hair on the duct tape. Is this true?

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/10/video-casey-anthony-lawyers-on.html

“Baez and Baden talked about a hair found on the duct tape that was over Caylee’s mouth, saying it doesn’t match the DNA profile of Casey or Caylee.”

RE: the unidentified hair on the duct tape
Depending on where kc was when she taped Caylee it could be anybody’s. If she laid the roll down on the carpet or carseat or even the ground a stray hair could get stuck to the roll and be torn off along with the piece.
She was traveling with a bag of garbage from Tony’s place, a lone hair could have fallen out…..
That being said, I’m quite sure the defense would like to use that one piece of evidence to load the rest of their BS case on. I’d be willing to bet they would never make an effort to identify it, it’s much more open ended if it could be any one of their many, many fall guys. One or two or a few unidentified pieces of evidence still will not be able to cripple the State’s case. All the circumstantial evidence is enough to convict (IMO) and here’s to hoping there’s something we haven’t heard yet that’s the proverbial smoking gun.

Congrats Val~ I love it here and your articles rock!

I have a question. This was probably discussed before, so excuse me for asking again.

When does the defense have to turn in all of the witnesses and their own discovery that they plan to use at trail?

Is it two weeks, one month before trial? Or is it open ended? How much time does it give the prosecution to investigate and do their own depositions? Or does the prosecution then say they need more time? This seems like it will just drag on and on, are there rules to this kind of thing?

There were no hairs found on the duct tape on Caylee’s skull or on Q104 – the other piece of Henkel duct tape found at the scene (but not a piece found directly on the remains).

There was some confusion in September 2009 after the release of 1,000 pages of discovery because Brad Conway announced the presence of a hair on the duct tape, but he backed off that statement in a press conference the next day and said there is nothing in discovery to support the presence of an unknown hair found on the duct tape.

It seems there was initial confusion about two separate pieces of forensic information in that discovery release:

1) the presence of a spot of unidentified DNA on one of the pieces of duct tape from Caylee’s skull; the sample was so small that tests could only determine the sex (female) and the size of the allele on one locus. That allele size did, however, exclude Casey, Caylee, and Cindy as the donors of the DNA. Also, the allele size does match the allele of one of the female FBI employees who handled the tape (DNA from two females was found on the tape, one DNA sample was large enough to allow it to be conclusively matched to an FBI analyst, the second DNA sample is consistent with a second FBI analyst, but the sample was not large enough to conclusively match the DNA to the second analyst or anyone else) .

2) A single hair was found on item Q107 – a collection paper from the crime scene. The hair is a Caucasian head hair, dark brown, fine, 5 inches long, and is not similar to the head hair of Caylee or Casey. There is no information in discovery to suggest that the piece of paper was left at the scene by the same person who left Caylee’s remains and the items with her remains, but the paper was found in the vicinity of the remains, so the defense is making the most of it.

Willow,

I have no legal background; I am merely giving my “Jane Citizen” perspective, based on what I’ve read. I don’t know what the defense’s best strategy is, but I have been paying attention to Richard Hornsby’s comments over on WS.

Here’s what he said:

November 30: Richard Hornsby on WS Hornsby #1: “I think they will have to completely abandon the Nanny theory to have any credible chance.”

November 27: Richard Hornsby on WS Hornsby #1: He was asked how Casey would change the nanny story without taking the stand. A: “Unless the defense has listed another witness to explain away the nanny (they have not) I cannot conceive of any way to explain it away convincingly without her doing so.”

November 28: Richard Hornsby on WS Hornsby #1: How could the defense reconcile the Kronk conspiracy with the original ZFG story? “The only way I could see it happen is if Casey testified that she completely lied about the entire Nanny story – and then give some type of explanation consistent with Ugly Coping. In law, once a person testifies they completely lied about a story, there is nothing to impeach them on anymore – because they have already admitted all the previous statements were a lie. So the judge is unlikely to allow the State to ask over and over again that each individual statement was a lie; since she would have already unequivocally stated so. At this point the State would have to be prepared to cross-examine her about her new story and it would be up the jury to decide how much weight to give to both her explanation for originally lying and her new story.”

Curiousmom,

Here’s a link to some information about opening statements. It’s from the website of a Florida criminal defense lawyer:

http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.html

Maura,
Along with everyone else here, I really thank you for your posts. I looked back up and saw that you answered my question before I even posted.
I don’t know what you do for your career but you have amazing recall. Do you keep it filed in a particular way? You also seem to find more information from the documents than I am able to, and can present it in a clear and understandable way.
I should just stop posting and read.

I have a question about the napkins. I was looking at a letter on Page 9602 Karen Cowan who stated: The reason for the question and emphasis in that these hairs were found in what the entomologist/body farm is calling “death or grave wax.”
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html
Caucasian light/med brown . This type of hair was throughout the evidence where her body was found (laundry bag, blanket, ect.) Could this be Caylee’s hair? Does this help prove that the grave wax was due to her body being in the trunk?

Little Mermaid pull ups P.9675 from house and pics of them are on P.9786 The evidence shows that the pull ups that were found at the scene had teddy bears ballooning and parachuting P. 10223 Could this be a swim diaper and not a pull up? They never found that exact match. Not sure if they ever took any swim diapers.

One more thing….. seems like the Big Trouble shirt came from Caylee’s overnight bag. One that Casey maybe carried in her car so when she spent the night somewhere, she had clothes…. like telling Cindy she was staying overnight at the Nanny’s but she stayed at Ricardo’s. Was wondering if she used clothing that Caylee was outgrowing, like shirt and shorts, for the stay in the car overnight clothes. Maybe the Teddy bear pull up came from an old package…not at the Anthony’s house anymore because there were only a few left and the went into the take along overnight bag.

I also believe the hair tested that came back positive for decomp was described the same way as hair on napkins– that doc is so long it is hard for me to tell u exactly where everything is

Sorry this is so behind the postings, but I was doing some catch up reading and wanted to comment…
The hairs found by Dr Lee were not loose in the trunk. The hairs were collected from the trash which was removed from the car and recovered from the dumpster. If you go back and read the discovery pertaining to Dr Lee’s findings you will see the hairs were recovered from soda cans and napkins. I believe these hairs came from Anthony Lazarro’s apartment and belong to the residents of the apartment. When LE was first processing the car they were concentrating on finding evidence to indicate wether Caylee was dead or truly missing. Their main focus was finding additional hair with death banding. I feel Dr Lee’s “hairs” are just another red herring thrown out by the defense.

» Lizanyx said: { Feb 2, 2010 – 04:02:21 }

Thank you for the legwork. That certainly makes a difference, if true.

Unidentified hair on the duct tape. I don’t see what the fuss is all about. That stuff is sticky. I could go into my garage right now and find dog hair, horse hair and most likely a hair from someone in my family. I have bought duct tape that was not wrapped in the store and I am sure some strangers hair could get stuck to it. I lose at least 10 hairs everytime I blow dry my hair. I spend extra time every morning cleaning the hairs up in the bathroom. Is this the reason the defense came up with a stranger did it theory? They better not pick me as juror, I would eliminate that senario in a hot second. Geez.

will the picture of the toy horse that was in the bag with Caylee ever be shown as evidence? never hear about that – obviously no fingerprints, right?

Val, is this a good place for this news article?

Casey Case Prosecutors Want To Withhold Info
http://www.wftv.com/news/22425689/detail.html
Posted: 5:47 pm EST February 3, 2010Updated: 5:59 pm EST February 3, 2010
Comment On This Story ››
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — In the case against Casey Anthony Wednesday, prosecutors revealed they want to meet with Judge Stan Strickland privately to get his permission to hold back information from the defense.

Repeatedly, the defense has asked for more information from federal investigators before moving their case forward, but it’s unclear whether that’s the evidence at issue.

Prosecutors also argued that, if the defense questions every material witness under oath, Casey’s trial won’t start before May of 2011.

This is an interesting theory on “Casey Case Prosecutors Want To Withhold Info”, I would love Silver’s take on it:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2010/01/25/cayleecasey-anthony-case-plea-sans-adjudication-in-court-today/comment-page-10/#comment-1541957
RJ says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I wonder if the State has “learned” something from Dominic Casey? Something that neither DC or the State want to divulge to the defense at this time. Something that might result in charges happening in the future?