The Two-edged Sword of Hearsay

Val,
Another great article!!! Thank you so very much. So, does it mean that they want to have the cake and eat it too? Do you think they are just desperate now or is it just a normal of defense procedure?
Val, I am very curious to what happened to that statement made by TM in the hearing last year, you know it, that somebody other than KC placed Caylee’s body where she was ultimately found?

Well, TM’s gone and I think the defense is going to try to act like that statement went with him. lol So they can avoid the judge’s request for supporting evidence.

Fascinating. It really helps to have all these little strings tied, in a way even slow learners like me can understand.

My question is, does the defense HAVE to do this (not that they’re ‘required’, but that it is prudent for them to do so) to avoid any possibility of KC and Co. coming back on them and claiming ineffective defense? Given the Anthony family’s love of blaming everyone but themselves, I would think even JB would realize he’s going to have a red-hot poker of a finger in his face once KC is convicted, and the fault, as far as the Anthonys are concerned, will rest very firmly with him.

Another greatarticle Val! You have a wonderful ability to weed through all the Bull Sheet and make everything that seems so ridiculous, just that. Just a side not, the first thing i do every morning is grab my coffee and head to the Hinky Meter. Keep up the good work in finding justice for sweet baby Caylee.

Valhall, another great read!
Let me ask you this. What do you think the chances are that the Duhfense might be cooking up a story that Cindy drove Casey to commit this crime? It seems to me that a few of the motions throw Cindy under at least a few wheels on the bus.
I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that the Duhfense is indeed asking for the “cake and eat it too”. They, of all people, should know that it just doesn’t work that way. I for one think Cindy should be shaking in her boots. Just the thought of that alone gives me great pleasure

You make a good point. Hearsay on Casey is also hearsay on Kronk.

I doubt if the defense even expects that any of the testimony against Kronk would be admitted in court. Kronk’s ex wives, son and stepdaughter were not under oath when interviewed and the only deposition the defense asked be taken was Jill Kerley’s.

Following the release of the tapes, Baez said in a news conference, “We are not fooling around.” This indicates to me that this was merely a warning to the state that they were going to dig up dirt on all the state’s witnesses.

I think the defense used the motion to have Kronk declared a suspect to try to change public opinion and to try to pressure the state into removing the death penalty. Neither worked.

Jill Kerley is not a credible witness because of her felony convictions for fraud and the fact that she is heavily medicated to treat her cancer. She has no knowledge of Caylee’s murder and even if Kronk did duct tape Kerley’s hands in her brief four month marriage in 1992, he didn’t know Caylee or Casey and had no motive, means or opportunity to kill Caylee and duct tape her mouth and nose. Casey herself said Zani the Nanny did it, not the meter reader.

The interesting (ironic) thing about the defense’s efforts to have these statements disallowed is that many, if not all, of the circumstances surrounding the statements can also be proven without the statements. The statements simply give flavor to the circumstances–make them more alive, more real, maybe easier to picture in the minds of the jurors.
The car was towed, there was evidence of decomposition in the trunk, Casey never reported Caylee missing……whether Cindy spoke to anybody about these circumstances or not, each of them can be proven without her statements.
Casey’s behavior during those 31 days can also be proven without anybody’s statements. There is the video from Target, the video from Bank of America, the pictures at Fusian, her cell phone pings, etc., etc. And, most importantly of all, there is the 31 days. THAT, in and of itself, is going to be impossible to overcome.

Each of these pieces of evidence paints a picture that clearly demonstrates Casey’s lack of concern for Caylee, Casey’s thievery, the change in Casey’s lifestyle after June 16, etc.

Probably the defense is doing what they believe is necessary. But, it’s kind of like shutting the barn door after the horse has left. Casey Anthony cannot be defended successfully, IMO. The best she can hope for is LWOP instead of the DP.

What about George’s statements to the FBI? Why are they not trying to keep them out? And as for Jesse Grund, was it not Baez that was insisting on his DNA results earlier on?

oooohhhh, this is very interesting!

It’s the old double standard,Thumper strategy. “If you can’t say anything nice (about KC), don’t say anything at all.”

“If ya can’t say anything nice (about Kronk), come sit next to me!”

New evidence released!!

http://www.wftv.com/news/22794649/detail.html

but no one knows what it means….

Val – it’s all scientificky, help! lol

» ClockWatcher said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 08:03:05 }

oooohhhh, this is very interesting!

It’s the old double standard,Thumper strategy. “If you can’t say anything nice (about KC), don’t say anything at all.”

“If ya can’t say anything nice (about Kronk), come sit next to me!”

LMAO! I swear, CW, I do not believe that you have left one single comment on this board that hasn’t amused me in some way. You have the best delivery on the internet. If you ever stop dropping by to give me my giggles I will run away from the internet and be the wild woman in the mountains…which I may end up doing anyway if I can just find a real mountain in Oklahoma to run to.

I can understand why all the hearsay might be thrown out. What I don’t understand is, why can’t the person who originally said to someone else (what has now become hearsay) be questioned, first hand, during trial? Does declaring hearsay negate the questioning of the person first hand…since, without hearsay, there could be no knowledge of such statements? I hope this question makes sense.
Example: During trial, couldn’t Amy be questioned about her feelings about Casey’s level of honesty and then give examples of her own to support her own feelings and knowledge?
When I read over the document submitted by the defense, it seems to me, it’s simply the defense asking again for the whole case to be thrown out (aside from the hearsay.) Some of it seems almost foolish…such as saying Cindy’s 911 call can’t be accounted for because it was not “new news.” (It was new news to Cindy and everyone else save for Casey.) It reminds me of a person just making a mess of a big roll of string and tangling it as much as they possibly can and then just throwing it into the judges lap saying…
“Here! Have a good time figuring all THIS out. Oh, and by the way, I want to be paid by the state for tangling all that string up.”
Of course, I have no doubt that Judge Strickland can untangle that ball very quickly and make a good job of it, too.
Val, thanks for untangling all the info for me as far as presenting this. I’m at the edge of getting lost in all the legal stuff being tossed around.

EXACTLY—–The circumstances SURROUNDING the statements can be proven without those statements. Very good comment made above. Can a circus have more than three rings! The biggest and stupidest show on earth–Casey defense–oh, no I made a double dammit comment. Valhall, I really do like your articles, funny and to the point.

I havent read the released documents—scared of scintificky stuff too. Awaiting your help on that

Mimi–yes, I hadnt thought of that. Just ask the person who initially said something with their backup for saying it. Hope that is what they can do. That makes perfect sense. Our good Judge Strickland can untangle that ball of string and throw it right back in the defense’s lap and laugh while doing it. I am sure what he has had to deal with and make a judgement on from the defense is so ridiculous, it practically makes his eyes roll back in his head

Val,

Chromatography? Plant? Chemical substance? Blood? Could they find blood evidence in the plants that infiltrated Caylee’s body as it decayed in the bags through Chromatography? Sorry if I’m being too far-fetched, again.

A real mountain in Oklahoma? Hey, you’re ValHall! You could always build one, and then go run to it!

awwww, thanks Val!

But please! There will be NO running away, we need you too much!

Plus, I would just go all Margaret Wise Brown on you.

(The Runaway Bunny)

Clockwatcher,

We’ll just go with her.

Great comments by Val and the other bloggers regarding the defense’s wish list of what should be excluded as evidence under the hearsay rule. I especially appreciated curiousmom’s comment that most of what is listed can be proven by the testimony of the respective parties and/or by the tons of evidence already turned over to the prosecution and the testimony and evidence that will be presented at trial. It appears to me that this wish list will prove to be an exercise in futility and may, in fact, jeopardize the defense’s allegation that someone other than Casey murdered and dumped Caylee’s body in the woods.

lol Willow! Bring the Taj Mah-tent!

Clockwatcher,

You got it, Clockwatcher. But it will be only a temporary abode because if she’ll build a mountain I’ll bring the pines for our log cabin community. You’ll have to build the watchtower, eh? And this does mean of course that we can stop searching for any hope of a real mountain in Florida, huh?

But for now, I’m having trouble finding my “swimmies” for this swim in the gene pool. I did find my nose plugs and Little Mermaid beach towel though.

Mimi
My thoughts mirror yours regarding statements made to persons (ie. Cindy to Amy) Just put both of them on the stand and they tell what they told each other. However, I don’t think “feelings or impressions of someone” would be admissible. Amy saying “I thought Casey was lying or stealing” would not be admissible even if there was evidence that supported it. However I do think any conversations that happened would be admissible if both parties were able to be questioned and cross examined, I don’t see the problem.

Oops, Clockwatcher,

A watchtower with a clock so large that it will put Big Ben to shame.

Great article and comments.
The endless black hole of motions that AL loves. I really feel sorry for the people that have to schelp through all of this nonsense.

What a tangled Web Casey and her Defense have woven!!
Once Cindy made that all important 911 call, the wheels went into motion and everyone was suspect in her eyes. Everyone.

If the 911 call comes is allowed, I’m wondering if they can omit the ‘it smells like there was a dead body in the damn car’ bit?
What about George & Lee’s reference to the decomp odor in the car? Their names are not on the list and what protective umbrella do they fall under?

Regarding the ‘Remains of Caylee’ and the ‘Finding of Caylee’s Remains’…

Val, I must be slow…..so would you explain just what that infers?

I want to live in a log cabin on the imaginary mountain! Do you think maybe we’ll find the imagi-nanny there too? Juliette Lewis? I will bring stuff to build a network and give us wi-fi access wherever we are in the compound. We could call the compound Fusian.

Sanny,

It appears the defense is, in fact, trying to have their cake and eat it to. What they want to get excluded is Kronk’s statements about what he reported in August. BECAUSE THOSE GO AGAINST THEIR WHOLE “THE BODY WASN’T THERE” THEORY.

What they don’t want to get excluded is anything else about Kronk. Like he had duct tape one time, or he made a comment to his son that causes contradictions in his story about his August tip, etc.

They are attempting to stack the deck, if you will.

Which is real appropriate considering they are busy building a house of cards.

Call me ignorant, how can, for instance, Cindy’s 911 call-comments be hearsay when, in fact the comments ARE RECORDED? Makes no sense! It isn’t what was reported that Cindy said – her exact words were recorded for the whole world to hear exactly what she said!

Well shoot – real life has intruded on my lurking. lol
I have to leave but want to make an observation first.

I have long thought Casey’s mindset is “whys everybody always picking on me” and now it seems its rubbed off on her lawyers– in a backwards sort of way–. My gosh its like the prosecutor is trying to MAKE her look guilty or something. That is not fair.
Can’t you just hear her whining – “It’s not fair Andrea- they misconstrood everything”.lol

I love this site and feel as if I know everyone because I lurk so much. Don’t know how ya”ll keep up. By the time I read all the comments and want to make a comment the subject has changed and I look like a dummy. Ya’ll Rock

Singing my song, “the defense will have to fight for every dime that they get”. I hope those folks in Tallahassee will hold their feet to the fire! There is hope yet for all you Floridians!

Thanks Linda! I work about a half mile from where Casey’s Condo is located. Everytime I have to drive by that place I am reminded of how much it is costing the taxpayers for her to lay up in bed and read and eat bon bon’s while we (taxpayers) are going to work everyday! It’s a hard pill to swallow let me tell ya. And to have her Duhfense blatantly wasting much of the money is even harder to take.

I wonder how much time was spent on the list of “Hearsay” statements that was submitted to the Judge, and how much time he now has to spend reviewing it, and how much time the SA office has to spend on it. GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

Valhall or Silver, can a private citizen file a complaint to the bar?

The example of evidence might be linked to a DNA profile ladder. CTATCTATCTGTCTATCTA
CCTATCTATCTATCTGTCT

Look at the different colored lines, blue, red, green and black, represent the CTA&G genetic sequences. WHAT is this all about Val? I have been reading here for a year but first time posting today… Thanks! C. 8O

Not sure if I’ve read correctly, but my understanding is that it’s important for both sides that every issue that could lead to a mis-trial or to accusations of ineffective counsel need to be addressed ahead of time.

Is there any chance the defense doesn’t for a moment believe they’ll win on most of these issues, they’re just covering their own backsides against the moment KC and her family start screaming ‘ineffective counsel’?

I doubt if Casey screams ineffective counsel due to the fact that I personally believe Baez keeps her pretty much in the dark and hasn’t a clue what is really going on. (THE TRUTH THAT IS)

Valhall–another great post chica!!!

I find it IRONIC that the defense files these motions attacking all this “hearsay” testimony but has NOT filed one motion attacked ANY of the phsycial evidence that was found at the remains site, car trunk, NOT ONE THING? Where are their supposed EXPERTS to refute all that “junk science” they were shouting about??

Seems to me, that this defense strategy to attack the TRUTH about their liar client but NONE OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE tells me they are grasping for their last bit of air before drowning in their Casey Koolaid!!!!

Valhall–don’t you think it ODD that this is the BEST DEFENSE they can come up with so far????

Did you catch this part of one of the motions on page 7? I Laughed so hard at the idiocy and irony of the whole thing. They have got to be JOKING–I thought–but hence, once again, they were not. Do they read their own motions and still don’t see the hypocrisy of their own requests??

Here it is:

I was just reading this motion, (page 7)

“Here, testimony will be presented at trial as to Miss Anthony’s relationship with her daughter, Caylee. This testimony will relate to Miss Anthony’s competence as a mother and the love she had for her daughter. Such testimony will be presented to establish that the allegation against Miss Anthony are wholly inconsistent with the relationship she had with her daughter. At this time, the defense is not in the position to announce which witnesses will testify to Miss Anthony’s quality as a mother. Yet, these witnesses will have personal knowledge of Miss Anthony’s qualities as a mother. Their testimony will not be prejudicial to the jury because Miss Anthony’s quality as a mother is relevant evidence that will combat the various circumstantial evidence that will be presented by the prosecution.”

http://www.cfnews13.com/upload…nion%20Testimony.pdf

WHO THE FRIKK ARE THEY KIDDING? Witnesses to her “qualities as a mother”, don’t spit your drinks on your computers reading that folks!!! I did!!!!

Can you believe the GALL the audacity this defense team has to try and EXCLUDE any and all testimony and statements about what Casey was REALLY LIKE, a liar, a thief and DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD MOTHER but want to INCLUDE statements about how great of a mother she is?????

What nerve!!!

You can’t have it both ways Baez. If you want to INCLUDE how great she was, then the SA should be able to introduce all EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. Don’t be mad if they can come up with WAY MORE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR STATEMENTS THAN YOU BAEZ BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND SHE NEVER WAS A GOOD MOTHER!!!!!

I should have clarified that I meant she’ll start screaming once the Guilty verdict has been rendered.

Thanks again for another great article. I am amused by the defense motion saying that although Cindy sounded hysterical in her 911 call, it should not be deemed as an excited utterance. Cindy knew that Caylee had been missing from the house for 31 days. I guess Cindy thought Caylee got her own place!

When I was going through the documents, I saw that LE took a prescription written for Caylee for Gentamicin. It is a strong antibiotic that is administered by injection. Injection????
I also saw that well before July 2008, Cindy was taking muscle relaxers and antidepressants. Sorry if I am repeating hearsay, gossip or innuendo.

For all those times you want to smack the taste out of Bozo’s (I mean slimeball Jose Baez) mouth, here you go:

http://www.backtobasicstoys.com/item/productid/5225/

I think we ALL would love to have one of these for every time he files another motion that is so ripe with hypocrisy, idiocy, and just plain stupidity. ENJOY!!!

Like all aminoglycosides, when gentamicin is given orally, it is not systemically active. This is because it is not absorbed to any appreciable extent from the small intestine. It is administered intravenously, intramuscularly or topically to treat infections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentamicin

*My guess would be topical. Like in a cream.

twinzmama4caylee said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:15 }

According to the defense motion, those pictures of Casey portray a woman who is wild, promiscuous, irresponsible and immature! Why would they write something like this? Who can refute it?

Thanks WSH.

IMO, all the relevant information will come in without having to use hearsay statements. The SA knows to call the right witnesses. They will not call, e.g., Amy to testify as to what Cindy told her about some fact, unless Cindy LIES about that fact on the stand, in which case the otherwise-hearsay statement would be admissible to counter the lie.

I think Val is right that the defense’s biggest problem will be “opening the door” to information that might otherwise be inadmissible. If the defense is planning to say “Casey was distraught,” then it is relevant for the SA to show that Casey was partying; if the defense says “Casey went nuts after the kidnapping and started ‘ugly coping’ at Fusian,” it is relevant for the SA to show that Casey was behaving ‘ugly’ at Fusian even before the alleged kidnapping; if the defense says “Casey was the best mom ever and would never kill Caylee,” it is relevant for the SA to show that she was neglectful and resented Caylee; etc. etc.

Now, what if the brilliant AL figures all this out and they come up with a trial strategy that avoids any “door opening”? They would carefully explain the strategy to their witnesses, of course…and then Cindy would get on the stand and, without being asked, would start tacking on all sorts of “door opening” comments to her answers. I.e., “Mrs. Anthony, did you have any reason to believe at that time that Caylee was in any danger?” Cindy: ” No, because Casey was a perfect mother, and besides she told me Caylee was with her, and Casey has never done anything to cause me the slightest doubt regarding her honesty.”

AZ Lawyer- Yep that’s Cindy. You know it would happen. The woman just cannot keep her mouth shut can she?

AZ…

lol – snort

Cindy “doorman” Anthony is going to be an issue. They may have to sedated her back to that state she was in in that November 2008 video where she looked like she was in the throws of the “thorazine shuffle”.

Yes, and what room will there be for the ‘I was afraid so could not tell about the missing baby, and had to ‘lie and steal and do anything I had to’ reasons for Casey’s lies? Maybe there’s an exception rule for the defense that won’t exclude the lies Casey was forced into by the kidnapper. And darn, the ‘Ugly Coping’ defense could be excluded too, couldn’t it? (not that it was going to help if Casey is still trying to cope ugly this many years after the traumatic event)

“thorazine shuffle”. Val, another great artiucle and great posts by all, I think that was the only time Sindy was actually “‘bearable” .maybe double dose her this time! Thanks for all the great insight everyone!

twinzmama4caylee said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:45 }

OMG I had one of those when I was a kid!! I loved it. 8)

I think the defense knows a good deal of the info they are asking to be thrown out will stay, but it doesn’t hurt to try.

Hahaha Willow,
You kill me. I so want to come on the mountian gene pool swimming event with ya. Hope you found your swimmies….i have some extra goggles and snorkles. LOL K, back to reading, just had to commment on that. I just laughed out loud and scared my sleeping puppy.

» AZLawyer said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:50 }Cindy: ” No, because Casey was a perfect mother, and besides she told me Caylee was with her, and Casey has never done anything to cause me the slightest doubt regarding her honesty.”

AZ

If she states something like this, it would seem that the felony charges could come into play, right? I mean if you call someone honest, then counters to that would include the dishonest act of stealing money through router numbers on checks from the grandparents, as well as stealing Amy’s money for which she was convicted.

Is it unusual to file these motions on hearsay so far in advance of a trial? If so, do you think this is taking a stab at the public’s perception as to what is real evidence? On the flip side, they have, in a sense brought to light what the public has heard and reinforced it.

Zea BJ: Gentamicin is also delivered as a topical ointment and eye gtt formula.

Sorry– gtt is “drops” in medicalese.

Cindy could try the old ‘it’s irrelevant’ technique on the stand, failing that, she could ‘wink’ at Brad, sip her brand name throw-away water bottle, threaten to get up and walk out, toss the whole court into an emotional kerfuffle, upon warning from the judge, do an under-her-breath ‘Strichhland’s a hardass’, and give the prosecutor one of her vertical eyebrow glares designed to unnerve.

She has a year plus to practice.

» KZ said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:11 }
[Unread Comment]

Sorry– gtt is “drops” in medicalese.

Thanks

O – M – effing – G

maybe we are about to find out baby daddy info

ROFLMFAO Twinzmama4caylee, I think it looks just like him.

Kleat said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:38 }

This is what I’m waiting for, the BIG show staring Cindy Anthony!

Mrs C Hop said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:51 }

That’s what WFTV was eluding to in their report.

Hey, WSH, thanks for that info. on Gentamicin. I looked into examples (courtesy of wikipedia) of ills it could be prescribed for:

Gentamicin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic, used to treat many types of bacterial infections, particularly those caused by Gram-negative bacteria.

Example species:
The proteobacteria are a major group of Gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Shigella, and other Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas, Moraxella, Helicobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Bdellovibrio, acetic acid bacteria, Legionella and alpha-proteobacteria as Wolbachia and many others. Other notable groups of Gram-negative bacteria include the cyanobacteria, spirochaetes, green sulfur and green non-sulfur bacteria.

Medically relevant Gram-negative cocci include three organisms, which cause a sexually transmitted disease (Neisseria gonorrhoeae), a meningitis (Neisseria meningitidis), and respiratory symptoms (Moraxella catarrhalis).

Medically relevant Gram-negative bacilli include a multitude of species. Some of them primarily cause respiratory problems (Hemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, Pseudomonas aeruginosa), primarily urinary problems (Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Enterobacter cloacae, Serratia marcescens), and primarily gastrointestinal problems (Helicobacter pylori, Salmonella enteritidis, Salmonella typhi).

Gram-negative bacteria associated with nosocomial infections include Acinetobacter baumannii, which cause bacteremia, secondary meningitis, and ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units of hospital establishments

Pretty scary reading considering a baby had to be treated with such a heavy duty medicine.

Isn’t that madicine also used for pink eye?

Geeze that would be Medicine!

Cindy would also have the option to say ‘I told the sshherrifs office things but I wasn’t under oath and didn’t know I was being asked to tell the truth and swear to it’ on my first sit-down with them. I didn’t know I was to swear to anything and they tricked me at the end of the second interview when they asked if I’d swear, I told them I needed to clarify what they mean by ’swearing’, is it as in ’swear’ words or an ‘oath’– please CLARIFY, you are confusing and I’m right and you are wrong, again’.

The gentamicin is not a big deal– likely prescribed for a minor skin issue or pinkeye. The relevant issue is that Caylee HAD a prescription……which means she saw a doctor. Could be used to show Casey was attentive to Caylee’s needs…….OR could show Grandma Cindy took Caylee to the doc and bought the medicine for her.

» Kleat said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:38 }
[Unread Comment]

Cindy could try the old ‘it’s irrelevant’ technique on the stand, failing that, she could ‘wink’ at Brad, sip her brand name throw-away water bottle, threaten to get up and walk out, toss the whole court into an emotional kerfuffle, upon warning from the judge, do an under-her-breath ‘Strichhland’s a hardass’, and give the prosecutor one of her vertical eyebrow glares designed to unnerve.

She has a year plus to practice.

_____________________________________________________

That was soooooooooooo funny. I had to get up and walk away.

I hope she doesn’t have her gum. That could get her in a sticky situation for sure!!! 8O

Kleat

Cindy can’t win if the 911 tape comes in.

If she wasn’t upset, and was only saying that the car smelled like a dead body to get police there, she will look like:

1.A cold hearted grandmother, for not being concerned when initially informed that her granddaughter had been kidnapped, and for nearly a month, making recovery all the more difficult.

and/or

2. A ridiculous liar. Why add that the car smelled like a dead body, if you didn’t think that? It’s not as if the police aren’t going to show up if you are calling on a kidnapped child, regardless of how long ago that transpired. It goes beyond suspension of disbelief that she felt that comment HAD to be added in order to get LE to show up.

But you are right,on the stand she will likely go bananas, and her head will spin like Linda Blair’s, and she’ll spew the equivalent of verbal pea soup in order to get out of it. I can’t see anyone being able to coach her to the point of remaining calm, cool collected and convincing.

Val,
Is this true? 8O
Snip:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/03/casey-anthony-dna-results-no-big-deal-wkmg-says.html/comment-page-1#comment-73627

“There was nothing new in the discovery, Pipitone stressed. “Bottom line: This is just one more piece of a puzzle that both sides will try to assemble in a way that benefits their side as they prepare for a trial,” Pipitone said.

“No big deal,” Pipitone summed up. But the story led WKMG’s noon newscast.”

FRG

How can he say no big deal?

No one even knows what’s on those disks. Maybe they ARE no big deal but from what I have read, no one knows.

» Kleat said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:38 } Cindy could try the old ‘it’s irrelevant’ technique on the stand, failing that, she could ‘wink’ at Brad, sip her brand name throw-away water bottle, threaten to get up and walk out, toss the whole court into an emotional kerfuffle, upon warning from the judge, do an under-her-breath ‘Strichhland’s a hardass’, and give the prosecutor one of her vertical eyebrow glares designed to unnerve.

She has a year plus to practice.”

Kleat – I just got done watching a youtube of a portion of her deposition with Mr. Morgan coincidentally, and I have to say that you NAILED that!! A perfect “10″ if I might say!

» T2M said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 12:03:29 }
[Unread Comment]“FRGHow can he say no big deal?
No one even knows what’s on those disks. Maybe they ARE no big deal but from what I have read, no one knows.”

Doesn’t that station get a lot of scoops from the defense? My guess would be, if he is correct, that those charts correspond to info that we have already seen, somehow?

Kleat- I think it’s highly unlikely that Cindy will be able to hold it together on the stand, and will be charged with contempt of court. She may yet see the inside of a cell!

Thinking back to Lee asking Casey “is this like last time?” I have to wonder (1) what exactly was “last time” and (2) if such a scenario was cause for Cindy not to become immediately un-glued and more insistent on talking to Casey first.

Trying to get my head around thinking of Casey as someone who is not only socio-pathic but has the social skills of a 13 year-old.

Here’s hoping Lee does the right thing and details the truth for Caylee.

WSH, Linda Blair, head spinning, and the colour pea soup green, not a nice vision but it explains the colour of sweater for the video depositions, doesn’t it! Brings in another liner lesson from Vinny, ‘I blend!’

I’ll be very interested to hear how the Defense questions Cindy on the stand about the June 15th fight. After all, JB has already heard Casey’s side – makes for some pointed questions with details that the State doesn’t know about.

I don’t think JB is trying to get the June 15th fight out at all. Just the second-hand (hearsay) comments about it. Once he has Cindy up there, it will be ‘game on’.

‘Ugly-coping which was all Cindy’s fault to begin with,’ will be the order of the day.

Thanks, Tally Ho, I did neglect to include the screwing on and off of the plastic bottle caps… but you have to leave something to the ‘magination.

WSH

That’s what the WKMG site is saying, that we have seen the reports that go with the charts, but WFTV is reporting the disks have no lables so they don’t know who the DNA belongs to.

Yes, they get a lot from the defense and JB aid in court once that he gets his discovery from one of their reporters, they have been sympathic to the defense and the defendant since the story broke. I’m a little iffy when I read their reports on the case.

To Lee’s ‘hearsay’ statements, even those on video tape, or especially those on video tape, what is the role of statements made by someone doing ‘an investigation’ as Lee was doing? He’s trying to make Tony L. think he’s on side, so what Lee is saying may be his knowledge, or may be his spin to make Tony L think one way about Lee, so he opens up. Is that whole investigation ‘technique’ by a layperson, off limits?

Wish Silver was here to answer this. Is there really any legitimate way that Judge Strickland would be able to keep out Cindy’s 911 call?? How in the world can her comments NOT be considered an “excited utterance”? The rationale in the motion seems utterly ridiculous! (That Cindy was NOT under stress because she knew Caylee had not been in her home for 31 days.)

Is the program missing to view the disks properly, a program that ‘runs’ the data, like an animation? Like an MRI results program, without which, someone can see still images only?

I think you can get the program online.

BioEdit Sequence Alignment Editor??

I don’t know if this is the right one, but Val said she had the program.

My guess is, the biggest problem Cindy will have in changing her story to ‘rotting pizza’ is, she’s not the only one who made the dead body comment. It’s one thing if only one person comments on a dead body smell (maybe they’re being dramatic to get the police out sooner or maybe they’re just wrong), but when several people say the same thing, and it is then proven there WAS a dead body in the trunk…well, that’s a lot harder stink to wave away. No way on earth is she going to survive cross examination even if the defense gets a great deal of the ‘hearsay’ thrown out.

And with all the exposure she’s given herself, surly the SA knows exactly how to handle her on the stand. Stright for the jugular, baby, pushing every emotional button she’s so beautifully laid out for them. Softly, softly with George (he needs compassion), but quiet brutality for Cindy. They’ll need a bucket and a mop when she’s done.

like someone said before…and i still don’t get…

how can a recorded statement be Hearsay? I mean the jury doesn’t have to believe Cindy or the 911 operator about what was said because they can just listen to the call right…

I mean wouldn’t the defence have done better to challenge cindy’s qualifications on sniffing out dead bodies…

http://www.wesh.com/news/22795525/detail.html

EXCERPT:
9 CDs Of DNA Evidence Released In Casey Case
Young Mother Charged With First-Degree Murder

POSTED: 8:53 am EST March 10, 2010

ORLANDO, Fla. –

Nine discs of new evidence were released in the case against Casey Anthony Wednesday morning.

The CDs feature DNA charts and graphs with no explanation, and no new photos or documents.

One defense attorney said the discs contain some kind of DNA standards requested by the Anthony defense team. The data on the discs requires special software to view.

I agree potatoHead, I think ole Slimmy is gonna turn the tables on Mommy Dearest when he gets her on the stand and try to blame all of Casey’s problems on her. They can’t claim insanity but they can try “The Devil Made Me Do It Defense”.

Looks like we will be buying some new software for Casey

Val, Not to worry for the lack of mountains in OK. The south east part of your state has some wonderful timber covered giant economy sized hills where one could easily hide out. Wouldn’t mind living there myself.

Hearsay Exceptions When the Declarant’s Availability Is Immaterial [nl] 1.
Present Sense Impressions. “A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter,” is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)). An example is the statement “That green pickup truck is going to run that red light.”
2.
Excited Utterance. “A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition” is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(2)). For example, “The robber is pointing a gun at the cop!” is admissible.

I would think that either of the two above exceptions could be used to let Cindy’s statement in:
“There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today, and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”…present sense: “IT SMELLS” , she said this relatively soon after picking up the car. Even if Cindy was aware to some extent (at least from her house) that Caylee was missing for nearly a month, she didn’t know that the car smelled like a dead body until that very day.

WSH

According to Cindy she didn’t know Caylee was not with her mother until that time, so that is also a reason that call will be allowed IMO.

But it is clear Cindy will be on the hot seat over the fact that Caylee was gone for over a month before she became concerned, and I say GOOD! She should be on the hot seat over that.

I think we all need to slow down, take a deep breath, and not spend so much time discussing and analyzing everything to death. We cannot forget that the talented and extremely good looking Jose Baez, Esq. stated on many occasions over the past 20 months that Casey had a very good reason for not telling anyone that Caylee was missing and it will all come out at trial. We’re all going to say “OH, that makes perfect sense”. I just can’t believe we have to sit and wait for over a year more before we hear the reason. Gosh darnit!

So, why bother with the Kronk, hearsay, junk science stuff when they already know the truth because Miss Honesty of the Year told them?

» T2M said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 12:03:52 }

Uh, Yep.

Someone on Bill Sheaffer’s blog wrote that they thought that defense might say Casey suffered black-outs. That’s a new one. I’ll try to go find it.

T2M said: But it is clear Cindy will be on the hot seat over the fact that Caylee was gone for over a month before she became concerned, and I say GOOD! She should be on the hot seat over that.
********

I’m not so sure about that. After all, Casey was a grown woman in the eyes of the law, and Caylee is her child. It was not Cindy’s responsiblilty in any legal sense to be monitoring Caylee’s whereabouts when Caylee was with Casey. I could be wrong, but I don’t think she can be held legally responsible for not hunting Casey and Caylee down during that time.

And in all fairness, she WAS concerned and there is evidence of her concern in all of those phone calls she made asking to speak with Caylee. But again, while she may have been worried about what was going on, it wasn’t her legal responsibility to follow Casey around to make sure she was parenting correctly.

ChicagoJudy said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 12:03:19 }

Your so right, we have to remember, there is a prerfectly good reason for not reporting a 2 year old missing…ever!

I can’t think of a good reason right now but am sure there is one, …or not.

Also I think a reason the call will come in is, in the background you can hear her asking for more time, saying she won’t talk to the police she has nothing to say to them, shows she had no intention of reporting and planned to be uncooprative.

Here’s a long comment Silver wrote last year at BoC on hearsay evidence.

*******

221 Comment by silverspnr — September 7, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

Blink/All-
I apologize in advance for the length of this post.
B-please feel free to ditch it if you think its too much.
All-if B allows it, please read it carefully before you ask any follow-up questions– or just skip it entirely. I may or may not have time or feel compelled to answer, btw.
Thanks.

Here is my comment on the Florida Rules of Evidence on Hearsay (please note the spelling; it is HEARsay, not “heresay”).

What people believe hearsay means in the lay world is a far cry from what this EVIDENTIARY RULE (which is actually more akin to a set of rules) means in the world of the courtroom.

The PURPOSE for which an “out-of-court” statement is sought to be introduced is KEY, because if it is not being offered for the TRUTH of the statement, it isn’t even “hearsay” to begin with.

There are MANY situations in which evidence of an out-of-court statement is offered as evidence at trial FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. Sometimes an out-of-court statement has direct legal significance, whether or not it is true.

For example, an out-of-court statement may constitute an offer, an acceptance, a promise, a guarantee, a notice, a representation, a misrepresentation, defamation, PERJURY, compliance with contractual or statutory obligation, etc.

MORE OFTEN, an out-of-court statement, whether or not it is TRUE, CONSTITUTES CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE TRIER OF FACT (the jury, or the judge in a bench trial) MAY INFER, ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER EVIDENCE, THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A FACT IN ISSUE.

For example, a declarant’s out-of-court statement may imply HER PARTICULAR STATE OF MIND, or it may imply that a particular state of mind ENSUED IN THE RECIPIENT.

Or, for example, evidence of an out-of-court statement, PARTICULARLY IF IT IS PROVEN UNTRUE BY OTHER EVIDENCE, MAY IMPLY THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY, OR FRAUD.

Of, for example, evidence of an out-of-court statement made by a witness, IF INCONSISTENT WITH THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY, MAY IMPLY THAT THE WITNESS IS AN UNRELIABLE HISTORIAN. (***waiving at YOU, again, SPINDY, and Georgie Boy–and Lee pre-immunity***)

Conversely, evidence of an out-of-court statement made by a witness that is CONSISTENT with the witness’ testimony may imply the opposite. (there are other rules governing IMPEACHING a witness with PRIOR STATEMENTS OF that witness or other witnesses which go along here)

SO:
Whether a statment is hearsay DEPENDS ON THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LAWYER IS OFFERING IT. If it is offered because it was true, it is hearsay. However, if it is offered because it was SAID, HEARD, OR RELIED UPON, ITS PROBATIVE VALUE IS ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO THE STATEMENT’S ABILITY TO CONVEY THE TRUTH, AND IT IS NOT HEARSAY.

FALSE EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ARE NOT HEARSAY. For example, a FALSE ALIBI may be offered by the State precisely because it is NOT TRUE, and therefore shows a CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.

The Federal Rules of Evidence list 24 exceptions from the hearsay rule in which the availability of the declarant is immaterial, 5 exceptions in which the declarant must be available, and 4 exceptions from the definition of hearsay–which are, in reality, exceptions from the rule), for a total of 33)

The Florida Rules of Evidence also list 24 exceptions from the hearsay rule, and while many are based on the Federal Rules, they do not mirror them entirely. This is why it is important to know the rules in every state in which you practice OR COMMENT UPON.

The hearsay rule is applicable in both civil and criminal cases. In a criminal case, however, hearsay that is offered against a defendant under an exception from the hearsay rule may sometimes be excluded because its admission would violate the defendant’s right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” [or her] under the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Both the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution (6th Amendment) provide that an accused has the right to CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE witnesses presented against him or her. The hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause generally are designed to protect similar values and stem from the same roots. Both are intended to exclude UNRELIABLE evidence by subjecting it to cross-examination or by providing a set of conditions that, when met, obviate the requirement of cross-examination.

REMEMBER: Once the hearsay hurdle has been overcome, other rules of evidence may still prevent the admission of the statement. So, as you listen to the recently released interviews, consider any statement that may be offered, and try to come up with a reason that you could convince the judge it is being offered either a)not for its truth, or b) whether it falls within an explicit exception to the hearsay rule. Then, consider whether it is relevant for any purpose, etc. If a lawyer fails to work this out ahead of time, and cannot offer a reason for the court to admit the statement, shame on him/her. There are some calls that are so obvious, the judge will know how to rule without an explanation, but it always pays to know these rules and court opinions to back yourself up. Key in the criminal case is an understanding of the relationship between hearsay and the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause, for although a statement may fit within an exception to the hearsay rule, it still must be tested against the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Here are the relevant Florida Rules of Evidence: (I have only added some comments, because otherwise this will end up a BOOK.)

90.801 Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.–

(1) The following definitions apply under this chapter:

(a) A “statement” is:

1. An oral or written assertion; or (***note: assertion can be NON-VERBAL CONDUCT INTENDED AS AN ASSERTION*** and NON-VERBAL CONDUCT INTENDED AS AN ASSERTION INCLUDES ANY GESTURE DESIGNED TO SERVE AS A FORM OF COMMUNICATION*** SUCH CONDUCT CAN INCLUDE HEAD-NODDING AND SHAKING)

2. Nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion.

(b) A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. (**note: the “declarant” is THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT, and NOT the person who repeats it on the witness stand**)

(c) “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is:

(a) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; (**these are known as a PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, and when offered to IMPEACH OR REHABILITATE a witness are not hearsay, because the probative value of the statements does not depend on whether the out-of-court statement is true, but on the INCONSISTENCY or CONSISTENCY that serves, respectively, to ATTACK or SUPPORT the WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY)

(b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication; or

(c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.

(***notice 2 (a)-(c) are specifically OUTSIDE the definition of Hearsay, and they are, in reality, more exceptions from the rule)

***A statement offered to show the EFFECT ON THE LISTENER/effect on the listener’s STATE OF MIND is not hearsay, because the statement is offered to show that a person heard it, and acted on it in a particular way as a result of the information supplied, not because the information is true***. Example: An officer’s statement to a victim that the defendant was in jail was NOT hearsay when offered to show the jury why the victim hesitated in identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. This example highlights a key point: the listener’s RELIANCE on that statement must be RELEVANT.

(Don’t know about Florida, but here, in PA, it was recently held that a police officer’s course-of-conduct testimony was admissible where defense counsel had attacked the adequacy of the police investigation and its focus on the defendant/appellant, rather than on others. See Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 889 (Pa. 2005)). Also see Commonwealth v. Jones, 658 A.2d 746 (Pa. 1995), where it was held that a witness’s advice on how to commit murder–choose rainy night, in isolated area outside of certain townships, without leaving physical evidence–was admissible to EXPLAIN police conduct when the defendant challenged MANNER AND THOROUGHNESS of investigation).

***Statements that are probative of but do not directly assert as speaker’s state of mind are not hearsay. They differ from a witness’s direct expressions of his/her state of mind or emotional condition. For example: “I am afraid to go home.”; “I love him”, etc. These are not hearsay, because they are not being offered to prove that X was afraid to go home or that X loved Y, but rather to prove X’s state of mind at the time the statement was made. This is distinguishable from the “State of Mind” hearsay exception as set forth below.

***A statement in which the declarant indirectly asserts a PRESENT state of mind or feeling that is otherwise relevant falls outside of the hearsay rule, because, again, the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So, for example, a victim’s friend’s testimony that the victim told her that the defendant said, “if he ever found victim with another man he would kill them both” was IRRELEVANT, and therefore inadmissible in the defendant’s first degree murder trial where the defendant advanced a “heat of passion” defense, in which only his state of mind at the time of the murder was relevant. See Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2001).

90.802 Hearsay rule.–Except as provided by statute, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.–The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.–A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

In other jurisdictions (including here is PA), this is called a “present sense impression”.

For this exception to apply, the declarant need not be excited or otherwise emotionally affected by the event or condition perceived. Rather, the trustworthiness of the statement arises from its TIMING. The requirement of contemporaneousness, or near contemporaneousness, reduces the chance of premeditated prevarication or loss of memory. A present sense impression must describe or explain events or conditions perceived. Opinions and conclusions are not admissible under present sense impressions, even when they are made contemporaneously with an observation.

Here is PA (again, not familiar with FL), a declarant’s description of an event or occurrence OVER THE TELEPHONE may qualify as present sense impressions. So, telling someone over the phone, “My car stinks like a dead animal is plastered to the frame”, could come into evidence under this exception. (Could also come in as an “ADMISSION” of a party-opponent, see infra for more detailed explanation).

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.–A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

**This exception has a narrower base than the exception for present sense impressions, because it requires an event that was “startling”. HOWEVER, it is broader in scope because it need not describe or explain the startling event of condition; it need only RELATE TO IT, AND it need not be made CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the startling event.

(”Finally admitted she’s MISSING!!…We’re talking about a 3yo little girrr-hhl!!..I found my daughter’s car today… It smells like there was a DEAD BODY IN THE DAMN CAR!!.. SOMETHING’S WRONG!!!”) (sorry if those are not accurate, just going off of memory here, but you get the idea– you can tell she is EXCITED about a STARTLING EVENT/CONDITION and was making those statements under the stress of it. Here, we have 2 startling events: finding the Pontiac with death smell at Johnson’s and Casey’s admission that Caylee was “missing”. When two events are inextricably linked such that the trauma of the second event necessarily included a reference to the first event, the declaration about both events may qualify as an Excited Utterance. There is no specific length of time lapse between the startling event and the declarant’s exclamation that determines whether the statement was spontaneous or reflective. As long as the statement is made by someone WHILE UNDER THE SPELL OF THE EVENT, the length of delay is insignificant. Many factors are considered by Courts, including spontaneity, the declarant’s age, the declarant’s level of trauma, whether the statement is presented in the form of a narrative, etc)

(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.–

(a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.

2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.

(b) However, this subsection does not make admissible:

1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will.

2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

**This exception is generally referred to as the “State of Mind” exception, and also include the declarant’s intention to do something in the future. Examples: “I love her.” “My stomach aches.” There is no requirement that the statement be corroborated, just that they must overtly describe or allude to a mental, emotional, or physical condition that THEN exists. Indirect assertions are not within the exception, and may not be offered for the truth. However, these “hearsay” declarations may be admissible as circumstantial evidence of the state of mind or condition. Additionally, they may be offered to show the effect on the listener, rather than the truth of the assertions. Likewise, factual assertions contained within an otherwise admissible statement of present condition are not admissible. So– “My stomach aches because of the food you served” is only partially admissible. “My stomach aches” is a statement of physical condition. “Because of the food you served” is not a statement of physical condition and remains inadmissible to prove that you served food, that I ate it, or that it caused my pain. Also, the statement must be material and relevant (for whatever purpose).

This exception also covers statements showing present intent to take future actions. Such statements of current intent are admissible for the inference that the intended act was performed.

Statements of past events are inadmissible under this exception. For example, “I believe that Casey killed Caylee”, when offered to prove that Casey killed Caylee, falls outside of this exception.

Remember, the statement must still be RELEVANT.

***State of Mind MAY PROVE MOTIVE.

Much more, but on we go.

(4) STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.–Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. (This exception does not cover statements made to a doctor, for instance, if the PURPOSE of the statement was NOT MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT, etc.)

*no comment, not relevant here so far as we know

(5) RECORDED RECOLLECTION.–A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. A party may read into evidence a memorandum or record when it is admitted, but no such memorandum or record is admissible as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

(6) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY.–

(a) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

(b) Evidence in the form of an opinion or diagnosis is inadmissible under paragraph (a) unless such opinion or diagnosis would be admissible under ss. 90.701-90.705 if the person whose opinion is recorded were to testify to the opinion directly.

(c) A party intending to offer evidence under paragraph (a) by means of a certification or declaration shall serve reasonable written notice of that intention upon every other party and shall make the evidence available for inspection sufficiently in advance of its offer in evidence to provide to any other party a fair opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. If the evidence is maintained in a foreign country, the party intending to offer the evidence must provide written notice of that intention at the arraignment or as soon after the arraignment as is practicable or, in a civil case, 60 days before the trial. A motion opposing the admissibility of such evidence must be made by the opposing party and determined by the court before trial. A party’s failure to file such a motion before trial constitutes a waiver of objection to the evidence, but the court for good cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.

(7) ABSENCE OF ENTRY IN RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY.–Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda, reports, records, or data compilations, in any form, of a regularly conducted activity to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness.

(8) PUBLIC RECORDS AND REPORTS.–Records, reports, statements reduced to writing, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth the activities of the office or agency, or matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a duty to report, excluding in criminal cases matters observed by a police officer or other law enforcement personnel, unless the sources of information or other circumstances show their lack of trustworthiness. The criminal case exclusion shall not apply to an affidavit otherwise admissible under s. 316.1934 or s. 327.354.

(9) RECORDS OF VITAL STATISTICS.–Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if a report was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to make admissible any other marriage of any party to any cause of action except for the purpose of impeachment as set forth in s. 90.610.

(10) ABSENCE OF PUBLIC RECORD OR ENTRY.–Evidence, in the form of a certification in accord with s. 90.902, or in the form of testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose a record, report, statement, or data compilation or entry, when offered to prove the absence of the record, report, statement, or data compilation or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation would regularly have been made and preserved by a public office and agency.

(11) RECORDS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.–Statements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths, parentage, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal or family history contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) MARRIAGE, BAPTISMAL, AND SIMILAR CERTIFICATES.–Statements of facts contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, when such statement was certified by a member of the clergy, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and when such certificate purports to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.

(13) FAMILY RECORDS.–Statements of fact concerning personal or family history in family Bibles, charts, engravings in rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.

(14) RECORDS OF DOCUMENTS AFFECTING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.–The record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the contents of the original recorded or filed document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute authorized the recording or filing of the document in the office.

(15) STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS AFFECTING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.–A statement contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, if the matter stated was relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) STATEMENTS IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.–Statements in a document in existence 20 years or more, the authenticity of which is established.

(17) MARKET REPORTS, COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS.–Market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information and method of preparation were such as to justify their admission.

(18) ***ADMISSIONS***.–A statement that is offered against a party and is:

(a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;

(b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;

(c) A statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;

(d) A statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or

(e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.

***This basically mimics the Federal Rule, except that in the Federal Rules, admissions of party opponents are defined as “non hearsay”, whereas the Florida Rules define admissions as an EXCEPTION to the hearsay rule. This distinction is without practical purpose.

***VIRTUALLY ANY ASSERTION BY A PARTY (Casey is a party in the criminal case and in the civil case) CONSTITUTES AN ADMISSION WHEN OFFERED BY THE OTHER PARTY. A PARTY CANNOT OFFER ITS OWN STATEMENT AS A PARTY ADMISSION.

***ADMISSIONS ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE NONOPINION RULE, THE REQUIREMENT OF FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SPECULATION OR CONCLUSIONS, THE FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, OR THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXPERTISE. (This is a large part of why criminal defense attorneys do not want their clients speaking to ANYONE ELSE about the case.) ADMISSIONS NEED NOT MITIGATE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE DECLARANT, EITHER WHEN MADE OR AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, ARE ADMISSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DECLARANT.

***ADMISSIONS, OF COURSE, MUST BE RELEVANT AND NOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE OR A PRIVILEGE.

***AN ADMISSION MAY EITHER BE WRITTEN, ORAL OR NONVERBAL.

***A DEFENDANT’S “CONFESSION” IS AN ADMISSION. (Moreover, at least under PA law, ALL of a defendant’s extrajudicial statements are admissions, even where they contain no acknowledgment of guilt.) (Videotape of the defendant’s interrogation was admissible as an admission, however statements of police interrogators accusing the defendant of lying constituted improper and unfairly prejudicial opinion and must be redacted. See Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 1999 PA Super. 100).

***A guilty plea is an admission to all the facts in the indictment.

***There are such things as ADMISSIONS BY SILENCE. An individual may demonstrate belief in the truth of a statement by silence, that is, by a failure to respond when it would be NATURAL to do so. Caution: there are times when silence is not a tacit admission, however, I would personally argue that Casey’s silence on certain matters (thinking of Tracy mentioning the way the media reported on the hair with death band) constitute admissions (Casey said something like, “well, it isn’t my hair”, but was silent as to it being Caylee’s. I believe a mother of a baby girl who was “missing”/”kidnapped”(worse) would naturally comment on this, although haven’t entirely thought this one through- just talking off the top here).

And don’t forget- silence by an accused when confronted by LE seldom is regarded as a tacit admission. Otherwise, an accused would be compelled–against the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination–to explain her silence at trial.

Once Miranda warnings are given, the defendant’s failure to speak may no longer possibly be considered an admission, nor may she be impeached by her silence. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976).

(19) REPUTATION CONCERNING PERSONAL OR FAMILY HISTORY.–Evidence of reputation:

(a) Among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage;

(b) Among a person’s associates; or

(c) In the community,

concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

(20) REPUTATION CONCERNING BOUNDARIES OR GENERAL HISTORY.–Evidence of reputation:

(a) In a community, arising before the controversy about the boundaries of, or customs affecting lands in, the community.

(b) About events of general history which are important to the community, state, or nation where located.

(21) REPUTATION AS TO CHARACTER.–Evidence of reputation of a person’s character among associates or in the community.

(22) FORMER TESTIMONY.–Former testimony given by the declarant which testimony was given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, or a person with a similar interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination; provided, however, the court finds that the testimony is not inadmissible pursuant to s. 90.402 or s. 90.403.

(23) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF CHILD VICTIM.–

(a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by a child victim with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 11 or less describing any act of child abuse or neglect, any act of sexual abuse against a child, the offense of child abuse, the offense of aggravated child abuse, or any offense involving an unlawful sexual act, contact, intrusion, or penetration performed in the presence of, with, by, or on the declarant child, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:

1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the child, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the child to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the child victim, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and

2. The child either:

a. Testifies; or

b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the child’s participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).

(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the child’s statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement.

(c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.

(24) HEARSAY EXCEPTION; STATEMENT OF ELDERLY PERSON OR DISABLED ADULT.–

(a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the statement is reported indicates a lack of trustworthiness, an out-of-court statement made by an elderly person or disabled adult, as defined in s. 825.101, describing any act of abuse or neglect, any act of exploitation, the offense of battery or aggravated battery or assault or aggravated assault or sexual battery, or any other violent act on the declarant elderly person or disabled adult, not otherwise admissible, is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding if:

1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the elderly person or disabled adult, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the victim to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the elderly person or disabled adult, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and

2. The elderly person or disabled adult either:

a. Testifies; or

b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantial likelihood of severe emotional, mental, or physical harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).

(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before the trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. The notice shall include a written statement of the content of the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s statement, the time at which the statement was made, the circumstances surrounding the statement which indicate its reliability, and such other particulars as necessary to provide full disclosure of the statement.

(c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.

90.804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.–

(1) DEFINITION OF UNAVAILABILITY.–”Unavailability as a witness” means that the declarant:

(a) Is exempted by a ruling of a court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement;

(b) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so;

(c) Has suffered a lack of memory of the subject matter of his or her statement so as to destroy the declarant’s effectiveness as a witness during the trial;

(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or

(e) Is absent from the hearing, and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means.

However, a declarant is not unavailable as a witness if such exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability to be present, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the party who is the proponent of his or her statement in preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

(2) HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS.–The following are not excluded under s. 90.802, provided that the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(a) Former testimony.–Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

(b) Statement under belief of impending death.–In a civil or criminal trial, a statement made by a declarant while reasonably believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the physical cause or instrumentalities of what the declarant believed to be impending death or the circumstances surrounding impending death.

(c) Statement against interest.–A statement which, at the time of its making, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest or tended to subject the declarant to liability or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, so that a person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement.

(d) Statement of personal or family history.–A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, parentage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, including relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, even though the declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated.

(e) Statement by deceased or ill declarant similar to one previously admitted.–In an action or proceeding brought against the personal representative, heir at law, assignee, legatee, devisee, or survivor of a deceased person, or against a trustee of a trust created by a deceased person, or against the assignee, committee, or guardian of a mentally incompetent person, when a declarant is unavailable as provided in paragraph (1)(d), a written or oral statement made regarding the same subject matter as another statement made by the declarant that has previously been offered by an adverse party and admitted in evidence.

90.805 Hearsay within hearsay.–Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded under s. 90.802, provided each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in s. 90.803 or s. 90.804.

*****
It is up to the lawyers on either side of this case to come up with good arguments as to WHY any particular out-of-court statement should be admitted or not, (not me or anyone else here), and it is up to the JUDGE to make the call.

People need to understand that this is not BLACK AND WHITE all the time. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence may appear to be inconsistent from trial to trial, but it is often the particular facts of the case, coupled with the skill of the attorneys in the court room, that will make the difference. Of course, it could also be the judge’s understanding of the rules, and while, absent a manifest abuse of discretion, the judge’s ruling will not be overturned on appeal, there are certainly appellate decisions reversing trial court rulings on the admission of evidence, including hearsay evidence.

*****
I know people generally prefer my opinion on the evidence –and some humor to boot–and not these dry lecture type posts, but I felt that this would be of assistance with not only this case, but some very useful GENERAL knowledge on the topic. I left most of the Florida Rules without commentary, which is sure to provoke some questions, but please try to read the rules and understand them. I have no intention of hijacking this forum and turning it into a law school course on EVIDENCE.

*****
Briefly–on the recent document release-

What these interviews continue to paint for us is a very unsettling portrait of this family. Casey’s interest in HERSELF is as patently obvious as it could possibly be. (I pointed this out earlier when I dissected one of her jailhouse video phone calls with Cindy. When Cindy contradicted her about what Caylee liked to eat for breakfast, Casey turns the topic to HERSELF/what SHE likes to eat for breakfast. She is as narcissistic as they come.)

The way this family, particularly Cindy and Lee, tried to play LE is astounding. The fact that Cindy felt it was her place/her right to demand this and that of LE–as if SHE was THEIR BOSS– is astounding in and of itself. They handled her in various ways. They gave her enough rope to hang herself during interviews, but they also, intermittently, put appropriate pressure on her (part of the garbled/hard to discern tape of Cindy speaking with Matt reveals that someone had already mentioned OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE charges with her).

Does it make sense to anyone that George did not want firearms in the house–when they were being threatened– because he invoked that household rule upon Caylee’s birth?? CAYLEE WASN’T THERE.
And why did he then go out and purchase a firearm???

*****
I have another question:

WHY WOULD CASEY NEED TO USE A SHOVEL TO GET THE LADDER OUT OF THE POOL??? WHY, PER TRACY’S INTERVIEW, DID THAT STATEMENT CAUSE SUCH CONCERN TO CINDY AND GEORGE???

WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE SHE WAS BORROWING THAT SHOVEL TO DIG UP A BAMBOO ROOT (WHEN SHE WAS CLEARLY NO LONGER LIVING THERE OR INTENDING TO LIVE THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE, IF EVER AGAIN)??!

THESE PEOPLE ARE UN-BE-F***ING-LIE-VABLE. (yes, i am calling them people who tell LIES).

Later, folks.

http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/09/04/cayleecasey-anthony-case-padilla-interviews-released-today/#comments

Pondering Why

I know she had no legal obligation to hunt them down, but I do think she had a moral responsibility to find out why a baby was not in the only home she had and was not allowed to have contact with the only family she knew.

Just out of concern for what Caylee would be going through not seeing her family, her home her toys, things that create stability for a child.

T2M said:
“But it is clear Cindy will be on the hot seat over the fact that Caylee was gone for over a month before she became concerned, and I say GOOD! She should be on the hot seat over that.”

I disagree that Cindy will be on the hot seat for that. She WAS concerned, and frequently called Casey asking about Caylee and asking to talk to Caylee. Casey was the custodial parent, and had a “right” to leave Cindy’s home with Caylee, for as long as Casey wanted. There are many, many things Cindy will be in the hot seat for, but I don’t think the laywers will spend much time grilling her on this.

Val & JWG,

Something JWG wrote elsewhere a few days ago might make for a fascinating article & (philosophical ;> discussion:

“Because KC is in jail this whole time, does it really matter when the trial begins? She is in what amounts to solitary confinement. Is justice served when Caylee’s killer is behind bars. Or when the killer is dead?”

I know I’ve reflected on this a great deal since reading it. Last line itself would be great headline copy.

KZ

I didn;t think they would grill her over that until I saw the motion from the defense talking about why the 911 call shouldn’t come in.

They may have to grill her during the hearing when they argue that motion, and not so much at trial. Know what i mean?

Also i think Cindy will have no problem with that, I think she wants that call out too.

» KZ said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 01:03:44 }

She will be on the hot seat, if she tries to spin the circumstances of the car (pizza), and/or stating that there were no “red flags” and that her daughter was honest. And yes she didn’t say this in any depo, but she tried to say this kind of stuff in TV interviews.

I don’t think that the state wants to beat Cindy Anthony up. I think they just want her to tell the truth.

From that recorded call, I think she was horrified, personally.

PotatoHead said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 01:03:08 }

I think the main reason people want the conviction is because that would shut the family up about it.

But I have no problem with where things stand right now. I agree with JWG, she’s not having a good time so I’m good with it.

Also I know people have an issue with the ‘private cell” But I think the jail is protecting themselves and the staff by having her there, she would be hurt pretty quick I think, so I understand why they have her there. I doubt that’s much fun for someone who needs to be center of attention.

If any of you have been following Mother Cluckers continuing Saga aptly named

“Cindy In Wonderland” Part 3 is out now.

http://motherclucker.wordpress.com/

It’s good for a laugh that we all need right about now.

T2M, I was responding only to the comment about Cindy being ‘in the hot seat’ (which I read as having a legal implication), not to any moral responsibility on her part.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know there was a chance things may have turned out differently had anyone (anyone!) challenged Casey on her comments about where Caylee was during those 31 days. But…and this is a big but…at what point after Casey last left the house and Caylee was last seen alive did Casey murder her daughter (allegedly )? Was there realistically any time during which Cindy could reasonably be expected to be fearful for Caylee’s life and to act on that fear before Caylee was in fact murdered? Nope.

That’s where my thoughts are in regards to whether or not Cindy could reasonably be expected to have any sort of responsiblity in Caylee’s death. Now the cover-up…that’s another matter.

» PonderingWhy said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 01:03:56 }

I agree with that last post. I think Cindy tried to hunt Casey down, she sent Lee out, etc.

Pondering Why

I understand what your saying,

I don’t think she ever thought her daughter would kill Caylee, not for a minute.

George and Cindy were trying to get Casey to bring Caylee back home between June 16-July 15. Cindy called Casey and text messaged her. She even asked Lee to track her down. George asked about Caylee when Casey gave him the gas cans she stole. George chased a car he believed to be Casey’s on the freeway.

Rob Dick said he believed Casey had told Cindy during one of those phone calls that she would never see Caylee again and that is why Cindy wrote this July 3 message on her Myspace Page:

Thursday, July 03, 2008
my caylee is missing
Current mood: distraught
She came into my life unexpectedly, just as she has left me. This precious little angel from above gave me strength and unconditional love. Now she is gone and I don’t know why. All I am guilty of is loving her and providing her a safe home. Jealousy has taken her away. Jealousy from the one person that should be thankfull for all of the love and support given to her. A mother’s love is deep, however there are limits when one is betrayed by the one she loved and trusted the most. A daughter comes to her mother for support when she is pregnant, the mother says without hesitation it will be ok. And it was. But then the lies and betrayal began. First it seemed harmless, ah, love is blind. A mother will look for the good in her child and give them a chance to change. This mother gave chance after chance for her daughter to change, but instead more lies more betrayal. What does the mother get for giving her daughter all of these chances? A broken heart. The daughter who stole money, lots of money, leaves without warning and does not let her mother now speak to the baby that her mother raised, fed, clothed, sheltered, paid her medical bills, etc. Instead tells her friends that her mother is controlling her life and she needs her space. No money, no future. Where did she go? Who is now watching out for the little angel?

I am sure the defense will try to keep out Cindy’s Myspace Page and the prosecution will want it to be admitted. It shows Casey wasn’t the perfect mother and Cindy did worry about her being with her irresponsible neglectful mother.

The other evidence the defense will try to get thrown out and the prosecution will want admitted is Casey’s July 7 Myspace Page where she wrote:

Diary of Days

On the worst of worst days, remember the words spoken
Trust no one, only yourself.
With great power, comes great consequence.
What is given can be taken away.
Everyone Lies.
Everyone Dies.

» Sally Says said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 02:03:00 }

yeah that diary of days makes me sick every time..Casey obviously saw herself as the one with “great power” and the ability to take away (kill) her “gift” ( caylee) to her mother.

She also obviously thinks of herself as some kind of gifted poet…PUKE! (when in reality she has mastered the art of copy paste)

I think the big news will come with the witness/information Judge Strickland has allowed the District Attorney to keep secret for the time being. I think this will blow the lid off of this case. Atleast, I hope so.

As far as Casey’s legal fee’s being paid by the state of Florida, atleast there will be accountability and JB will only be paid what a public defender would get paid, which is good. With the defense wanting all this information not released, clearly, they are running scared and having NOTHING to defend the murderess with so they are trying to get everything the DA has thrown out. But, that does indeed cut both ways, ie: Kronk, Joy Wray & all the other non sense the lying Anthony family has been saying and doing.
I do believe Cindy Anthony after all is said and done, will be charged with obstruction at the very least. She is clearly lying and is part of a horrible cover up. I just can’t wrap my arms around how she could be so hateful to the memory of Caylee? I don’t get it and don’t want to. She is a sick and mean woman and even though I’m so very sorry Caylee was tortured and murdered by Casey, atleast Caylee will never be hurt again by these people. She no longer has the dark circles under her eyes, is no longer being drug around to adult parties and no longer being drugged so she will sleep as not to bother her hineASS. I looked for Caylee twice,dug in the dirt, walked through swampy mud, ran from a snake and burned up in the Florida heat, which is more than her own family EVER did.

I only hope Dominick Casey tells the truth and burns them all out. I still can’t see Casey sitting in a courtroom for months while people are on the stand talking about her. I would really be surprised if this goes to trial if this sealed new evidence is as good as we all hope and pray it is. Casey and Cindy will get there’s in the end when they stand before our ultimate Judge. You cannot torture, murder and then coverup such a horrific crime and get away with it. May the entire group burn in hell. They are more than deserving of it.

This trial will go down in history of JB saying objection, and the Judge saying overruled.
If I were living in Florida I would want all to know that if it were possible and each and everyone was asked if they minded that the state was paying for Casey’s degenerfence my answer would be no, and then I would say if I say yes, can I then face KC,JB,AL,CA,GA, after the guilty verdict, and say THE WHOLE WORLD TOLD YOU SO!

WOW, WOW, WOW great posts everyone.

Maura-I didnt know Val was a publishing company Silver’s article/novel was lengthy but well worth the read as it delved into the step-by-step definitions of hearsay. (my take is Silver does not sleep only writes )

therefore, from what i can gather of Silver’s explanation of hearsay it appears that very little will be ruled inadmissable. I honestly can not forsee anything that has been layed out for “us” to review or watch to fall under this catergory except for O’Town’s Finest…

Okay, I just read all the statements the Defense wants excluded. Now I am really laughing. Do they think all the witnesses are going to get up and then not be allowed to repeat statements they made to each other. The defense is using the “Don’t Say A Word” defense. If they get their way, it will be the quietest and shortest trial in history. Maybe Cindy can click her heels and they will all forget what she said.

Double Dammit Hearsay? uhmmmm, okay…

A good article to read on my first time back to hinky! Looks like some things have changed around here as far as the blog format goes, I will have a lot of reading to do as I take time from my other process of reading hundreds of thousands of pages of documents on Lejeune.

Howdy all and I will make it a point to stop by at least a couple times a week until I get caught up.

I don’t think the Prosecution will want to alienate the jury at trial by being vicious to the child’s grandparents — I’m going to finish this over on Misc. Topics

“All I am guilty of is loving her and providing her a safe home. ”

That part of Cindy’s myspace posting has always made me cringe. It seems like her agenda is to prove to everyone that it’s ALL CASEY’S FAULT and that she is just the poor innocent victim. She had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Casey/Caylee being gone from Hopespring.

Casey USED Caylee to freeload off of Cindy. Cindy USED Caylee to control Casey. Poor Caylee. As much as I do believe that she was loved, she was such a pawn between the two elder CMAs.

As long as lying Casey remains off of the stand, they may be able to play the hearsay card on some of the things that they want to keep out of the jury hearing. That all CHANGES if she takes the stand though. Then almost all of it becomes fair game as prior inconsistent statements and character information for impeachment. They (the state) do not need to bring in any of these statements which were hearsay to others – like Amy or company. The case is so strong that none of that really matters. UNLESS lying Casey comes to bat! Then all bets are off and they will be able to interrogate her about anything that she has said which is inconsistent with what she is now saying. Casey, lying Casey will surely then strike out!!!

8)

HI HO SILVER!!!

LuLu,
That statement by Cindy would give Sigmund Freud pause for concern, I’m sure. Guilty? Why would that word come to mind in such context? The ONLY thing I am guilty of….well, who was pointing fingers? WHY go on the defensive at that point in time? Could that mean that her conscience was working overtime? Is it indicative of being rebuked for past words or deed(s)? Or does she just want to be perceived as a victim = poor Cindy? Or all ofthe above? Hmmm…

Lori said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 02:03:56 } I think the big news will come with the witness/information Judge Strickland has allowed the District Attorney to keep secret for the time being. I think this will blow the lid off of this case. Atleast, I hope so.

…excellent post Lori, i loved all of it!

..my fingers are crossed as well on the above portion!

Casey will never take the stand. She hates being questioned and doesn’t want to talk about Caylee ever.

I can imagine her on the stand.

Baez: Miss Anthony please tell us how much you loved Caylee
Casey: Who?

Baez: Your daughter.
Casey: I don’t want to talk about her. I would rather talk about me. Do you like my new outfit?

Baez: Miss Anthony, did you kill your daughter?
Casey: Are you F…ing kidding me. I don’t know what happened to her.

Ashton: Miss Anthony…
Casey: Mr. Ashton, do you realize my whole life has been taken away from me? Sob sob.

Maura, looks like the letter to Judge of this week, is from a citizen of Florida to encourage the judge to refuse the indigency status for costs for Casey. WESH reported this today on video report and in the article.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22801648/detail.html

Hey Val..

Are you going to “splain” the discovery or do we have to wait until that MORON BRAD CONWAY holds another “press conference” enlightening us with his astute observations ( while repeating ad-nauseum that “discovery is not really evidence”..)..

And yes, I do think Brad Conway is a moron!..hee hee ivoire

Casey being declared indigent doesn’t bother me due to the accountability of funds and all BUT what does bother me is HOW THIS CAME ABOUT and the PRECEDENCE this will set across the country.

Casey had NO MONEY when she hired Baez. NONE!!!

Imagine if criminals across the country decided to get FREE HIGH PROFILE DEFENSE COUNSEL based on the precedence (example) set in this case. Imagine how easily this all occurred. Let’s see I can commit a crime in this country, hire alot of high profile defense attorneys and as soon as I have NOT ONE PENNY TO MY NAME I can then request to be declared indigent, keep those attorneys and make the state pay the bills. Can you imagine how many robbers, drug dealers, murderers, PEDOPHILES, etc. will do this now??????

I can hear the word spreading throughout the jails from here.
Hey did you hear about that Casey Anthony girl and how she majorily screwed the system WITH NO VASELINE???
NO!
You didn’t. Oh, this chick hired all these high priced private defense attorneys, and then FILED FOR INDIGENCY LATER saying hey I can’t pay for this defense team anymore, can you pay all their fees for me?? And you know what, THE JUDGE WAS FORCED TO RULE IN HER FAVOR, RULE HER INDIGENT.
Well, so what she just has to get a public defender like the rest of our broke azzes, right?
OH, that is the GENIUS PART, she gets to KEEP HER PRIVATE DEFENSE TEAM and the STATE HAS TO PAY FOR THEM, EXPERT WITNESSES AND ALL.
You gotta be shitttin me??
Nope, it was on ALL the news stations.
Well, I’ll be. I guess I should have hired myself a private defense attorney, NEXT TIME I GOT TO JAIL, I am gonna find me some sucker ambulance chaser, hire them, and then do the same thing she did.
What a great system we have? We have so many more rights than the victims of our crimes have, doesn’t seem very fair, does it?
Nope but who cares, works for me!!!

I will never be convinced that the 911 calls were not an “excited utterance”, and I’m positive that the judge will allow all the 911 calls.
In their wildest dreams, I’m sure the A’s had never entertained the thought that Caylee was dead at their daughter’s hands.
This will must likely be an unpopular opinion, but I can’t see Cindy questioning the relevance of any question put to her in a “real” courtroom. I’d LOVE for her do that, though.
Quite hilarious if Bozo requested all this info. but neglected to request the software necessary to translate it. Whoever sent it to him, must have had a good laugh.

Sorry, Maura, you had two lengthy comments hung up in spam since early this morning. Just got them freed.

*******

WILLIAM! You’re alive! Welcome back. Hope your project is going well. Now that CW has completely brought you up to date (lol), look forward to reading your thoughts.

Didn’t someone on here write that they sent a letter to the judge, or did I read that elsewhere? I know that I saw it in comments on a blog.

Good to see William!

twinzmama4caylee, I’m not well versed in how this all works, but I don’t think Casey getting a high-profile attorney while she is indigent sets any kind of a precedent. JB and AL agreed to work pro bono, if I understand correctly, and because the state of Florida was not/is not paying for them to represent her she is entitled to keep them as her attorneys even if she is technically indigent. The judge pretty much as to rule her indigent, as she factually has no money and no assets. However, JB and AL will not be paid by the state of Florida.

If future defendants can find themselves an attorney who will work pro bono they’re entitled to retain them regardless of their own financial status. But frankly, how likely is that unless the crime they commit has the kind of…ahem…’financial ripeness’ this one has when it comes to cashing in outside the courtroom setting?

William Hill said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 03:03:38 } As long as lying Casey remains off of the stand, they may be able to play the hearsay card on some of the things that they want to keep out of the jury hearing. That all CHANGES if she takes the stand though.

I am glad you are back William, I enjoy reading your comments.

Wow, it’s like some freak gerbil wrote my last reply. Make that ‘keep them as her attorneys’ and that last line is meant to say most attorneys aren’t going to pick up a case and try it for free unless they think there will be payment of some kind down the line. Sorry; wasn’t clear at all!

FYI..hearing on indigent status

http://www.wesh.com/news/22801648/detail.html

Memory is bad. Trying to work out in my mind… When Cindy made the 9-1-1 call saying the car smelled of decomp, where was Casey? I am having one heck of time trying to figure out why Cindy began the clean up of car KNOWING there had been a dead person in that car. She had to have known what had happened when she began her cleaning project. She probably knew when they went to pick up the car. Another question. WHY was the car released when the tow company staff realized there had probably been a body in the car. I would think the tow yard people would have said. Sorry, we gotta gall LE before we can let you remove the car.

Re: throwing out Cindy’s :excited utterance” –

I know we’ve done this to death already, and very cannily too, I might add. My thoughts are that it WAS an excited utterance and in the call, Cindy connects “nanny kidnapping” with “smell of dead body in Casey’s car” as she speaks to LE. Hmmmm. That would lead me to believe that Cindy didn’t believe Casey’s story from the get go! Otherwise, why connect “nanny kidnapping” and “smell of death in Casey’s car” in that frantic phone call? Am I making sense? I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous, even when you’re frantically worried, to believe all 3 things at the same time and give all 3 items the same…weight, so to speak. The 3 things being: smell of dead body in Casey’s car, Caylee kidnapped by nanny, and Casey’s truthfulness in explaining Caylee’s being missing.

Here’s a paltry attempt of mine at making a reading comprehension type of test question:
You’ve heard Cindy Anthony’s 911 call and you’ve read statements regarding Casey’s explanation for being unable to produce her daughter Caylee (saying Caylee was kidnapped by the nanny). You’ve read Cindy’s statements regarding what she had heard from Casey, over the 30+ days prior to the 911call, regarding Casey’s and Caylee’s whereabouts.

Which sentence below best describes Cindy Anthony’s reasons for making that 911 call:
1. My daughter’s car smells like a dead body.
2. My grandchild has been kidnapped by her nanny and I need LE to find Caylee.
3. I don’t believe my daughter’s story and I need LE to find Caylee.

I put it out there that answer 3 is the real reason, followed closely by answer 1. I believe that in that last 911 call Cindy was parroting the nanny story, but not really believing it. She was purposefully not throwing Casey under the bus. But what she really knew, in that call, was that Casey had been lying to her for 30+ days and that the car smelled like a dead body.

So, to sum up — even though I agree you can hear the true frantic and awful emotion in Cindy’s voice regarding the dead body smell in the car and her granddaughter being missing, I have come to believe that even from hour one she didn’t believe Casey’s story and was covering up — not throwing Casey under the bus. This whole post may sound like splitting hairs, but it just really struck me hard that CINDY KNEW FROM THE FIRST MINUTE

Cindy said something like my daughter FINALLY admitted to me the babysitter took her.

Also Lee stating once Cindy found out. She hit her fist on the bed and said, What have you done? Something like that.

» Steffiee said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 07:03:24 }

I must say I agree with you.

Eureka!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DkR1xNAA3Q&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_GtS6xMlY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suuGZ4q_hsc&feature=related

Re: LEE ANTHONY 30+ minute audio “press conference” with reporters trying to “splain” his sister — days after her first arrest!? ….

I just found these Lee Anthony audio interviews from early on and I bet most of you ( including even MAURA ) have not heard them…

Please note Lee’s use of “big boy words” as he attempts to “interpret” CASEY-SPEAK while reporters rapid-fire-him with questions about his “missing niece”!…

Lee Anthony really is a FREAK ,even way back then, rambling on with his evasive- double-talk-GIGGLY-nonsense-MORON-SPEAK–30+ MINUTES–ENJOY!!

ivoire

Re: throwing out Cindy’s “excited utterance” –

I know we’ve done this to death already, and very cannily too, I might add. My thoughts are that it WAS an excited utterance and at the risk of sound obvious, in the call, Cindy connects “nanny kidnapping” with “smell of dead body in Casey’s car” as she speaks to LE. Hmmmm. That would lead me to believe that Cindy didn’t believe Casey’s story from the get go! Otherwise, why connect “nanny kidnapping” and “smell of death in Casey’s car” in that frantic phone call? Am I making sense? I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous, even when you’re frantically worried, to believe all 3 things at the same time and give all 3 items the same…weight, so to speak. The 3 things being: smell of dead body in Casey’s car, Caylee was kidnapped by nanny, and Casey’s truthfulness in explaining Caylee’s being missing.

Here’s a paltry attempt of mine at making a reading comprehension type of test question:
You’ve heard Cindy Anthony’s July 16th 911 call and you’ve read Casey’s statements regarding her daughter, Caylee, having been kidnapped by the nanny as reason for being unable to produce Caylee on July 16th. You’ve read Cindy’s statements regarding what she had heard from Casey, over the 30+ days prior to the 911call, as Casey gave her information regarding Casey’s and Caylee’s whereabouts, that the later nanny kidnapping information, told to Cindy immediately prior to the 911 call, contradicts.

Which sentence below best describes Cindy Anthony’s reasons for making that 911 call:
1. My daughter’s car smells like a dead body.
2. My grandchild has been kidnapped by her nanny and I need LE to find Caylee.
3. I don’t believe my daughter’s story and I need LE to find Caylee.

I put it out there that answer 3 is the real reason, followed closely by answer 1. I believe that in that last 911 call Cindy was using the nanny story, but not believing it. She was purposefully not throwing Casey under the bus. What she really knew, in that call, was that Casey had been lying to her for 30+ days and that the car smelled like a dead body. [I would also like to say that I believe she knew there was no real nanny because any numbers or addresses Casey had given to her, I have no doubt she tried to use and already found out they were useless.]

So, to sum up — even though I agree you can hear the true frantic and awful emotion in Cindy’s voice regarding the dead body smell in the car and her granddaughter being missing, I have come to believe that even from minute ONE she didn’t believe Casey’s story and was covering up — by not throwing Casey under the bus. This whole post of mine may sound like splitting hairs or stating the obvious, but it just really struck me hard that I believe CINDY KNEW FROM THE FIRST MINUTE of hearing Casey’s story that it was bunk. And EVERYTHING she’s done has been to control the situation and cover for Casey. It’s just really struck home.

You could say — well, why did she call LE at all? Better to take the car to the woods and burn it. Because I think EVEN CINDY couldn’t/wouldn’t conceal the fact of the smell of death in the car. And as she pressed Casey and Casey came out with “I haven’t seen Caylee in 31 days – the nanny kidnapped her” EVEN CINDY knew this was too serious a combination of criminality (smell of death and story of kidnapping) to keep from LE. Yes, even Cindy. BUT – being Cindy, from that first phone call where she doesn’t come forth with the whole truth about Casey’s stories over the last 31 days (instead she says ‘my daughter was missing and I just found my daughter and I can’t find my granddaughter’ — purposeful misdirection of perception IMO) she’s trying to cover up. From the instant, she’s covering. I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

Sorry so long.

Ivoire said:

Lee Anthony really is a FREAK ,even way back then, rambling on with his evasive- double-talk-GIGGLY-nonsense-MORON-SPEAK–30+ MINUTES–ENJOY!!

***

Har har har — lol that was so well-funny-said! Can we make a new acronym? WFS!! I guess the F could do it’s usually double-duty…

SORRY MY LONG-ASS POST POSTED THAT FIRST TIME INCOMPLETE AND UNREVISED — I DIDN’T KNOW I DID THAT…

Have ya’ll noticed the confusion in the 911 dispatcher’s voice as she tries to question Cindy to figure out what the hell the call is even about?? Makes me feel better to realize that I am not the only one who has trouble figuring her out at times.

Has anybody seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=totalwastecase#p/u/3/MDoNjSX3lU8

FRG,
Good video demonstrating the extent of Cindy’s denial. (Remember the frustration at that time of wondering how anyone could be so deeply into denial?) It’s so clear now that it was not emotional denial but rather, denial of all evidence showing that Caylee was dead and Casey was lying. Cindy has a back stroke denial statement to make for every last thing that comes up. It really does remind me of the whack-a-mole game with Cindy at the business end of the mallet.

thanks for the video FRG..

..what i’ve noticed time and time again in these media clips, is that cindy doesn’t answer the question that was asked—-she just goes off and gives her own answer , and the interviewer doesn’t call her on it!

..one example from your clip:

..( nancy grace has just told cindy that the public perceives kc to be a LIAR), and follows with:

nancy grace:” didn’t kc tell people all along that caylee was at the amusement park? with you? that caylee was at all these various places , and NONE of that was true ???”

cindy: “she told the sherrif’s office all along that she was kidnapped by zenaida, and ummm, you know, and that’s what she’s maintained.she told me, you know, umm some things during the month of june ’cause she was trying to look for her and get her back herself and when that didn’t work , that’s when, you know, she,she was, you know, came clean with the other.”

———her answer has nothing to do with kc lying to everyone about where caylee had been , it doesn’t even have anything to do with what kc had been telling “people”—-cindy just skips “those 31 days”—–and talks in circles.

..john morgan should fill in for nancy grace:

ms.anthony—–AS YOU LIKE IT—–YES OR NO ??!!

Sanny, Cindy and George helped out a lot in the weaving lies department. and, I think the judge is going to deny a lot of these frivolous and meaningless motions that the defense have thrown together. filing motions is all that the defense has done this whole time. and I guess that alone is what broke the bank.

HI Elljay, Nancy Grace just dance around what the real Cindy is, and I don’t know why she and JVM just walk on cotton when it comes to the Anthony’s. they are no better than anyone else to be the subject of her smart mouth. with everybody else, she talks S**T, but when it comes to the Anthony’s she is the perfect girl scout.

Again: Wow! Great Article!
I have now officially added this site to my lurking list. The word that keeps coming to mind is cogent. Clear, concise and always a strong argument; I love it!

Thanks for such a great blog!

..i’m still not comprehending what they have the nerve to “gloss over” in their motion:

..”unlike a 911 call, where the caller is at risk of injury, cindy’s calls were made under calm circumstances.”
“she informed the 911 operator that she wanted her daughter arrested for stealing money, and a car that had already been returned”.
“she also, brought up the fact that caylee, “referred to as a 3 year old” had been missing for a month, and that kc was not telling anyone where her daughter was”.
“this call was not made when the child was first missing, but 31 days later, meaning it was not new information”.

………..breaking this down—–and yes, when they talk about cindy’s “calls” , they are talking about all of them ( actually, the motion says cindy made 2, we know she made 3).

…their–point #1. “calls made under calm circumstances.”

( oh ok, i guess they’re referring to when cindy whispered “and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car “. )

..their–point #2. ” the car had already been returned”.

( ahh..driven home from 2 weeks in impound/returned, ‘tomato/tomatoe’…

..their–point #3. “BROUGHT up the fact that caylee, referred to as a 3 year old, was missing”.

( brought up ? like, casually brought up? cindy: from 911 call: We’re talking about a 3 year old little girl!!!!! My daughter finally admitted that the babysitter STOLE her!!! I need to FIND her!)
( she said in a whisper, as in point #1 ?)

..their–point #4. the call was made 31 days AFTER caylee was missing—-therefore old news to cindy.

( the fact that kc wasn’t bringing caylee around—-while spinning stories every day—cindy knew she had not SEEN caylee in 31 days–but assumed she was with kc……for cindy to think caylee was “missing”?? she knew she was missing from HER house, but not “missing” off the face of the earth.)

..thankfully, if i understand all the posts that i read today correctly,(!) all of this heresay that the defense wants OUT! will get IN! anyway, through direct testimony.

Actually, I am dead and just logging in as a ghost… 8O

Hopefully, Casey will insist on taking the stand and the jury will then see some real fireworks! There is no way that she will be able to maintain her cool on the stand once the cross starts and the screws start to be tightened by one of the SAs on her many idiot moves in this crime and her abundant lies! They only have to couch some questions which pit Cindy reality against Casey reality and BANG!!! Explosion time….

As for the comment up stream on the state having to pay for her legal defense team, it is true, but it will not start a revolution in criminal thinking. First, criminals do not learn well from experiences of others mostly. Second, very few cases will get the kind of pretrial publicity that this one received so there would be no real draw from notoriety for attorneys to flock to the case over. Casey’s case is somewhat unique in this regard. Without the big draw of newsworthy drama, the big legal guns will not take most of these cases because they get paid VERY poorly in comparison to what they make from paying customers…. 8)

Another shinning example of the special treatment given to the “Baby Killer”, Can’t wait for the “Dancing Stricklands” to perform on Late Night

» ellejay said: { Mar 10, 2010 – 11:03:52 }

“ms.anthony—–AS YOU LIKE IT—–YES OR NO ??!!”

my favorite comment to date!

Don’t know if this has been said yet….catching up on the comments…However, George Anthony talked about the decomp smell in a sworn statement to law enforcement. That is not hearsay.

Argentina Rose,

Nancy Grace probably tiptoes around the Anthonys so that she doesn’t get sued again if either of them follows through on their previous thoughts of suicide. I’m serious….thinking back to her troubles over the Trenton Duckett case.

Long time reader, first time posting here. LOVE reading all of the excellent work and comments on the site. Question for the experts here on the hearsay….

Wouldn’t Cindy’s statement of “Caylee always talked about playing with Zanny’s dog” be considered hearsay?

Nancy Grace was fooled by the Anthony’s in the beginning. She openly defended them as grieving grandparents to others who were calling them out on some of the nonsense they were spewing. Nancy tried to put herself in their shoes without considering they are sociopaths and do not think like normal people.

Nancy didn’t have any trouble attacking Hayleigh Cumming’s mother and she did nothing compared to what the Anthony’s did.

That is when I stopped watching Nancy, and JVM never gets her facts straight. I have pretty much stopped watching HLN at night all together.

Dallasfortruth:

I would say it was hearsay. I believe George stated that “Caylee wasn’t at that conversational level. She didn’t voluntarily talk about things. He said they had to ask her specific things to get them out of her [paraphrased]“, when asked if Caylee ever discussed Zanny for Zack or any of the people she allegedly spent so much time with. That was during one of the interviews but can’t remember if it was LE/FBI or Morgan. So I believe if Cindy wants to push the Zanny issue, other statements can come in to refute her testimony.

I would not be surprised if prosecutors declare her a hostile witness and then seek to impeach everything she said after the 911 calls. You can definately hear her voice cracking and the fear when she talks about Caylee being missing. I don’t think any thing she says about only saying that to get the LE out earlier will fly given the tone and emotion in her voice after Casey admits Caylee is missing. It could very well be that on that call she puts the 31 days, Diary of Days (response to her Caylee is missing post) and the smell of the car together. Listen to the 911 again and you can definately hear her voice crack at one point like she is going to break down and cry.

Nana (and other experts here),

Thanks for the answer. My thinking was:

1.) George & Lee IIRC have stated they hadn’t met Zanny and had never talked to her on the phone. George also stated that when he asked Caylee about Zanny, she didn’t know who Zanny was.

2.) Cindy has stated that she “had” addresses and phone numbers for Zanny and that Caylee talked about playing with Zanny’s dog.

3.) Without Casey actually taking the stand at trial (not happening in my opinion), wouldn’t Cindy’s testimony be the only way that “Zanny” the IMAGINANNY could get introduced as a “theory” through her testimony of the above?

4.) If Caylee’s saying she played with Zanny’s dog is “hearsay”, it cannot be introduced. If Cindy can’t produce proof of phone numbers/addresses how does the Zanny theory get introduced at trial? No one can testify (truthfully) that the IMAGINANNY exists, because the IMAGINANNY doesn’t exist. Cindy will have no phone numbers, addresses, or records of ever contacting IMAGINANNY.

So…where does this leave Casey and the Duhfense except up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle?

What! The Zanny the nanny theory gets introduced by:

The 911 call -”my daughter has finally admitted the babysitter took her”

Casey’s initial statements to the responding officers

Casey’s Written and oral statements to detectives in which she desribes dropping Caylee off at Zanny’s apartment (not)

The MULTIPLE Audio recordings of Casey and detectives where she abosolutely 100% sticks to her Zanny the nanny theory even AFTER being confronted with the truth about her employment, the sawgrass apartment, and all her imaginary friends

Casey’s MULTIPLE texts messages and instant messages where she describes the use of Zanny as her nanny to multiple people.

And I’m sure theres even more..

Zanny the nanny is so coming in and is going to be so easily proven she does not and has never existed. In my opinion the defense is going to say yeah she SAID that because she was just sooooo scared of the Actual kidnapper (whoever it will be by that time)

Mrs. C Hop….Agreed. I apologize if my post read like I didn’t think the Zanny info would get “in” at trial. I was just trying to make the point that anytime any defense witness states that the IMAGINANNY actually exists and is the culprit, the testimony will more than likely be hearsay, or impeached with the facts that she doesn’t, never has, and never will exist nor did she ever babysit Caylee, nor are there any records (phone or otherwise) of her existence or of anyone ever contacting her or having had contact from her.

Which leads us to the defense having to come up with the alternate SODDI plan. I’m thinking the jury won’t be buying into that work of fiction.

» Mrs C Hop said: { Mar 12, 2010 – 11:03:28 }n my opinion the defense is going to say yeah she SAID that because she was just sooooo scared of the Actual kidnapper (whoever it will be by that time)”

Hey Chop

But then that flies against other things that they have thrown out:

Cindy “was calm” when dialing 911, she only said the car “smells” like a dead body because police don’t routinely come out for kidnapped children ( insert sarcasm here). IF she wanted to get them there sooner, or if THERE WAS immediate danger, wouldn’t that have been something Casey would express at that point? Mom, don’t call, our lives are in danger! When the operator asks “why are you calling now, ….?” Casey did not say because I thought that would put myself, my family and/or my daughter in danger.

How can you reconcile all of that later? And how do you bring up that she was scared at all if she doesn’t take the stand, other than in opening and closing statements? There was only one person that Casey told she was being watched and that was Annie. But is Annie’s statement hearsay if Casey doesn’t take the stand?

WSH wrote: “IF she wanted to get them there sooner, or if THERE WAS immediate danger, wouldn’t that have been something Casey would express at that point? Mom, don’t call, our lives are in danger! When the operator asks “why are you calling now, ….?” Casey did not say because I thought that would put myself, my family and/or my daughter in danger.”

Good point WSH. Why didn’t Casey express her fears about someone else out there? Once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, that would have been the time to tell LE, family about the threat. Of course, we all know the Anthony’s hadn’t thought the danger/protection excuse up yet. LOL.

WSH’s post about the danger threat angle above, got me to thinking (and that is dangerous). Has anyone watched the movies that Casey and TL rented on June 16th? I am just curious as to the content. I hard that one was about a kidnapped victim being placed in a trunk. I wondered if the “don’t call police or we will kill them” angle was a part of the movie. It seems that Casey lacked originality when spinning her lies. SHe had to have recent experiences to draw from. Just a thought, not that it really adds anything to trial, but with all the “half-truths” (as Cindy calls them) stacked together, one could get a very clear picture of how Casey spins real events in to make up her web of lies.