A Review of the Submitted Hearsay
I wanted to take a second look at the statements submitted by the defense that they want excluded as hearsay. I’m going to put my personal thoughts about these out here just to open discussion on the matter and with hopes that our legal friends will drop by and respond with more knowledge than I have on the possibility of these statements being excluded. I’ll be using abbreviations for names, so just refer to the defense’s submitted list if you get confused as to who is being referenced. I want to be clear, that these are just my personal opinions on these. I don’t claim to know the answer. But I think doing it this way could lead to some really good discussion if our lawyer-friends get involved.
******************
GA to SB – We’ll probably get divorced over this. – I don’t think this matters one way or the other. Will probably get excluded.
GA to SB – The daughter is telling us crap a bunch of lies. She won’t let us see our granddaughter. He was still talking about his daughter telling lies. We thought the car was in Jacksonville. – The possiblity all of these will be admitted for a couple of reasons. GA and CA both are going to have their credibility brought into question during the trial. At this point it’s kind of hard tell if that won’t happen by both defense and prosecution – depending on how they swing during testimony. SB’s recollection of GA’s statements to him could be used to support GA and CA’s account of what they claim KC was telling them. In other words, their words don’t necessarily hold enough veracity to be taken alone. SB stands as an outside person who can support that on July 15th they were saying these very things. Another things is if GA or CA CHANGE their stories, SB can be brought in to state – that’s not the story they were claiming on July 15th. So while the defense is trying to say this is hearsay because GA is stating what KC was telling him, it becomes supporting information as to the story GA himself was telling on July 15th, and can be used to either support GA’s statements in court, or show that he has changed his story – depending on what GA testifies to.
TB to people – I remember people telling me there was an issue between Ricardo and Casey because she brought Tony – of no value, excluded.
RM to TB – Now you believe on June 9th-10th is the last time Ricardo saw [Caylee] – they are asking TB this. hearsay. excluded and they can ask RM himself.
ME to TB – Parts of 5 hour conversation between Melissa and Casey – they are asking TB this. hearsay. Melissa ENGLAND (which the defense seems to have not figured out her last name yet) can be asked about this.
GA to BB – Someone broke into the Anthony’s shed and stole some gas – BB will be able to make this statement to verify the events that occurred during that time.
SB to NL – When he opened the door flies came out and there was a bag of trash which he threw away in the dumpster. – hearsay. This is NL telling what SB told her. SB can testify on this himself.
MK to people – According to everybody that was the last time she was seen by any of her boyfriend’s friends (referring to Caylee) – hearsay.
TL to CC – Her dad was cheating on her mom. – hearsay. IF this statement by KC to TL is admitted at all (in order to show the lies being told during that critical period), then TL can testify to it himself.
RM to JG – Ricardo telling Jesse about lies he had caught Casey in. – hearsay. If this subject is brought up (which all of this may be excluded), RM can testify himself.
AD to JG – Annie telling Jesse about Casey doing things (like getting the Bella – NOT BUENA – Vita tattoo) – hearsay. If AD’s statements are admitted, AD can testify to what she knows.
Parents of JG to JG – Jesse says he knows what his parents gut feeling is – excluded. Not even relevant.
CA to JG – Cindy tells Jesse about Casey (“Do you want to be with someone with no high school education…I have to support Caylee”
– this is an interesting one. It wasn’t stated during the time critical to Caylee’s disappearance. But it is also interesting that the defense has moved to exclude this. Apparently CA’s derogatory remarks about her daughter will not be presented in any mitigation during the sentencing phase???
LA to JG – Cindy fights with Casey and chokes her. – hearsay. LA and CA will be asked about this.
GA to JG – George says they need to get help for Casey. – hearsay. GA can be asked about this.
LP to JG – Jesse says Padilla says Anthony family knew Caylee was deceased early on. – hearsay (actually double dammit hearsay). I think the whole thing will be excluded.
YM to LT – Melich called someone on the phone, which Leonard Turtora assumed was Zenaida Gonzalez. – I’m not sure it will be excluded if the phone call was made in the presence of LT, but it will be challenged as LT not actually knowing who was on the phone. YM can be asked about the phone call.
YM to LT – Turtora says Melich called Cindy regarding Casey. – Again, if the phone call was made in LT’s presence, it may not be excluded but challenged as LT not really knowing who YM was talking to. YM can be asked about the phone call.
People to RP – I heard some people talk about concrete slabs poured into the backyard at the time. – hearsay. They can ask GA and CA about the slab being poured.
CA to RP – Cindy told me that Casey has been stealing money. – most likely excluded, and doesn’t bring much value to the murder trial.
AH to TL – Amy telling Tony about what happened with the checkbook and what Casey did. – hearsay. They can ask AH about the checkbook.
CA and TL – Cindy telling Tony that Casey is going to take all his money and leave him “high and dry”. – probably excluded, and doesn’t bring much value to the murder trial.
CA to BS – Cindy tells Britney about finding the car. – Again, CA’s credibility is going to be brought into question and certain statements made to BS about finding the car may need to be brought out.
CA to BS – Cindy tells Britney Casey steals. – probably excluded, and not much value to the murder trial.
LA to BS – Lee tells Britney Casey gave him a false number. – this is the same as SB’s statements about what GA said, or BS’s statements about what CA said about the car. LA’s credibility will be brought into question, his story could possibly change, and BS’s statement may be important.
JD to DCo – I was talking to Jonathan last night and he said that she pulled out of the group for a month and half – hearsay, they can ask JD about this.
People to DCo – as much lying as she’s doing whos to say if any of its true – excluded, prejudicial, speculative, opinion, etc.
People to DCo – a fraudulent check she was writing – excluded. He doesn’t have first hand information about this matter.
YM to JWh – He says that he asked Corporal Melich if the area had already been searched and Corporal Melich said yes it had. – LOL – I’m betting Yuri can be asked about this.
JG to RM – Statements between Jesse and Ricardo. – LOL – makes no sense. This really depends on the content of the statements.
CA to AH – Statements from Cindy saying that Casey is a liar (no nanny) – EXPECT THIS TO BE IN THE TRIAL.
CA to AH – Statements from Cindy saying Casey bled her dry, ruined her credit. – Again, this can go toward impeachment of CA’s credibility, etc.
CA to AH – Cindy says Casey admitted to stealing checks. – probably excluded.
People to AD – Lying, stealing, she’s obviously not the person I thought she was, turns out I don’t know her at…” – okay, this one is confusing. If AD is making her own statement about lying and stealing and realizing Casey was not who she thought she was, then this could be admitted. If it is OTHER PEOPLE making these statements to AD, then it will be excluded.
CA to SP – Cindy always said that Casey had an excuse for Cindy not being able to talk to Caylee – admitted. - Crucial evidence in what Casey was telling people during the critical time.
CA to SP – She (Cindy) ended up staying home because she said Casey told her she was coming the next day. – might be admitted if Cindy changes her story.
RK to KCrutcher – He says Roy Kronk told him “she told me she was close, she was really close” but did not tell him who SHE was. – if the defense goes down the “Roy Kronk did it path”, this could be admitted.
JG to AR – He told me that she tried to tell him he was the father because I guess she got with him you know when she was pregnant or right after…” – excluded, hearsay, and irrelevant.
JG to AR – “But I guess she tried to tell him that he was the father of the baby or at least that’s what he said but he was just as out of it as she is” – excluded, hearsay, and irrelevant.
Someone else to DB – All statements. – many of them excluded not just because they are hearsay, but because they aren’t relevant…BUT the following: “Cindy complained to her about Casey not watching Caylee.” and “Cindy told her about having to get the car and how it was a mess.” and “Cindy told her she thought someone had been swimming in the pool.” and “Cindy told her someone was in the yard again.” – Could be admitted. I am amazed that the defense has two statements listed with Debbie Bennett in which Cindy is referencing Zanni, and they want those excluded. One of those statements is “Cindy mentioned Zaney (sic) a lot.” I guess they are ditching the existence of Zanny and Casey’s story of a kidnapping Zanny, and going with Kronk at this point.
Just about all the statements attached to Richard Cain – I don’t see how they can get these excluded.
LG to MCa – Lauren Gibbs called Sports Authority and they told Lauren that they never heard of Casey. – excluded. Lauren can testify about this.
CA to MCa – Cindy felt like Casey wasn’t being motherly. – most likely excluded as it deals with Cindy just voicing her feelings.
CA to MCa – Cindy and Casey fought about Casey going out. – this might be admitted.
Unidentified people to MCa – She heard about Casey liking multiple guys. – excluded.
AH to MCa – Casey stole from AH. – excluded.
CA to CCr – Cindy said Casey worked at Universal. – may be admitted, depends on timeframe of statements.
DB to CCr – Argument on Father’s day at Anthony home. – excluded.
People to CCr – He head about Cindy getting the car. – excluded.
CA to CCr – Cindy told him Casey wasn’t really talking to her or that she would make excuses and say Caylee was sleeping when Cindy would call. – admitted. Again, in case Cindy changes her story.
CA to CCr – Cindy told him Casey said Caylee was in Tampa and with Zenaida. – admitted if needed – if Cindy changes her story.
CA to CCr – Cindy said Casey was with Jeff. – admitted if needed.
CA to CCr – Cindy said Casey told her about Jeff. – not sure, depends on exact statement.
CA to CCr – Cindy discussed all the times she was supposed to meet Jeff and didn’t (and the excuses given). – may be admitted since Jeff is one of the people Casey claimed knew about the kidnapping, knew Zanny, etc.
CA to CCr – Cindy discussed the letter that said the car had been found. – I don’t see the importance.
CA to CCr – Cindy said it smelled like a dead body in the car. – admitted, because I think Cindy is going to do the whole “I didn’t mean what I said in the 911 call” maneuver.
CA to CCr – Cindy said car seat was still in the car; clothes and toys too – admitted if needed.
CA to CCr – Cindy said Caylee’s favorite doll was still in the car. – admitted if needed.
CA to CCr – Cindy said she didn’t know Casey was pregnant. Cindy said Jesse was the father first. Cindy told him that Casey and George were always at each other. – probably excluded, not much relevance.
RK to EC – All statements. – I don’t see anyway they can get this excluded – especially if they try the “pin it on Kronk” defense.
People to ID – He heard Casey smoked p ot and popped pills. – excluded.
AD to ID – Not true that Casey did Xanax. – excluded, AD can testify to this.
MP to ID – Caylee is missing. – admitted, but then what does it matter?
LA to ID – spread the word that Caylee is missing – same as above.
BSn to ID – Casey told Brandon…blah blah blah – excluded and irrelevant.
AD to SD – All statements – excluded.
People to SD – All statements – excluded.
LA to SD – Lee told him it was probably cops calling… – excluded and who cares???
LA to RG – Lee said Brandon Snow… – excluded and irrelevant.
BSn’s parents to RG – Brandon Snow’s parents said Casey and Brandon only dated for two weeks. – excluded and irrelevant.
LP to RG – Both statements. – excluded.
JG to RG – Richard relays a conversation with Jesse regarding why Casey asked him for a gas can. – excluded, they can ask Jesse.
Let’s cut to the chase – all of RG’s statements listed – excluded.
RK to CGibson – Roy and David had discussed… – excluded. If the defense pushes the need for these conversations to be revealed RK and David can testify.
Statements made to DC – most of them will probably be excluded with the exception of: JH and DC “discusses the convo between him and Hoover about coming back to the…” – if this pertains to the wood search and the defense plays the “body wasn’t there card”, any and all discussions between JH and DC will be admitted. Along with statements made to DC by Ginny Lucas, and vice versa…basically anything involved with DC’s searches in that area would come into play.
Police Department Officials to Tammy Uncer – She talks SOLELY about the incident of bringing Casey to watch TV… – I think it will be excluded.
JG to AR – Jesse said that Casey told him that he (Jesse) was the father… – excluded.
KD to AR – Both statements – excluded.
All statements listed as various people making statements to NLe – excluded.
CA to MM – Cindy threatening to take custody of Caylee. – admitted.
CA to MM – Cindy was way pissed, furious pissed. – not sure of the context, may be excluded.
LA to MM – I heard she took her out of TGI Fridays. – excluded.
RK to ARoberts – All statements from RK talking about Caylee’s remains. – may be admitted depending on nature of statements and whether defense tries to blame Kronk for something.
Valhall.
Related posts:
- The Two-edged Sword of Hearsay
- Review: Madhavi Martin’s Work
- Review: Arpad Vass’s Work
- Review: David Glasgow’s Work
- Review: Michael Burnett’s Work
Tags: andrea lyons, casey anthony, caylee anthony, defense, hearsay, jose baez
36 People have left comments on this post
I couldn’t get through the whole list lol…but from glancing through it my thoughts were:
(1) some student or law clerk was asked to find EVERY hearsay statement and did not put any thought at all into whether or not it was important to exclude that information,
(2) most of this motion is just silly because the SA was never going to try to get its evidence in third-hand. OF COURSE they will ask the people with first-hand knowledge to testify.
So I guess the goals were either to give students/clerks practice identifying hearsay, or to try to get an “easy win” for the media to report on.
LOL! Thanks for the honest answer, AZ!
Whew – great job as usual Valhall! Appreciate you actually taking the time to make a list.
I’ve read the explanation for hearsay at least twice and think “okay – got it” and then read information with a gut reaction of “the court NEEDS to hear this!” and out the window goes the hearsay rules. LOL – I’ll get it – but this is a great practice list.
Well, that’s something I was thinking about when reading this motion. Why do they need someone’s word regarding what they were told when they can just question the witness about what they said and/or were told? And, it appears to me that they will not use RK or Zanny as an excuse. I think Casey will take a deal and her team is in no hurry for her to do so. Is there a time limit on that? I know the trial is set for May 2011, but can more motions, jury selection, etc. delay it further? Can she take a deal like an hour before court is to start?
Thanks, Logical. I just want to make sure I’m clear to any future readers (not saying this to you) who may come along that in this particular article all I’m doing is pitching out my own, unqualified opinion as I review these statements. I will never claim to be an expert in legal matters. I’m just hoping that creating an article like this will foster a discussion that can lead to more knowledge on the subject.
Val, wow this was some long ‘read’..
My head was swimming just trying to remember some of the abbreviations you listed.
Naturally we know the vital ones….JG, LP, YM, AH etc. but a few had me stretching it to remember others.
Alot of hearsay will be trashed, but anyone with the first hand knowledge will be asked directly of course.
I appreciate the fact that what you posted here is your own opinion and it also helps us to dig deep to promote more opinions regarding what will be in and what will be out.
Thanks for your incredible hard work in compiling this hearsay information for us.
Good Lord, Val. What a great post. I suspect we’ll be going through these for several days!
and i take it cindy’s 911 call is gonna be a big hellz yeah for addmitance right?
..i also read “the chart” of ( supposed ) heresay statements:
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/0308%20Casey%20Case%20Compiled%20Hearsay%20Statements.pdf
..but i just “glossed over” the ones—–(-i mean, seriously, 24 pages worth ??? ) that i thought were obvious.
..however, this IS something that the defense has filed, so it can’t just be tossed in the trash with the morning paper.
..as AZlawyer said—-that it looks like a student or clerk was asked to look for every single instance of heresay possible–
..this “student” or “clerk” quite often had it wrong on ‘the chart’——-a person’s LIFE is on the line here!—–and ( granted, this isn’t closing statements ) but—–they trust a student to put this together ???
..baez. or lyon , or someone QUALIFIED, should be going over every line of every motion to make SURE it’s right.
..how many times are they going to go to court to have their motions denied/ thrown out ? aren’t they mortified to hear LDB tell al in courtl ( in tv land as well ) “your honour, this motion is flawed——-this motion lacks………”
..yes, andrea lyon said in her lecture—-file motion after motion after motion after motion etc etc——did she forget to mention–but they have to make sense.
..and now that the $$$$’s are running out, maybe the defense will give the students a break—-and start working ON the defense of the case–themselves.
I wonder if the State may try to get some of these types in, anticipating
GA/CA will lie on the stand (I am convinced they will).
————
GA to JG – George says they need to get help for Casey. – hearsay. GA can be asked about this.
————
I would imagine the State will try to establish that Casey was in trouble/troubled
before June 08.
Val, you may not be an expert. (SAYS YOU) But you sure do make a whole lot of sense to me. I think I am getting burned out on this case. Tooooooo many twist and turns for me to even want to keep up anymore. I get discouraged a lot of times. I just want Justice for Caylee. I have never seen anything like this case in all my life. I hope to never see another one ha.
Thank you for all you do. And believe me I know it isn’t easy. You make it seem that way. You are brilliant in all that you do. And not just you, but all that come here with their input.
A fascinating read. Really appreciate your opinion on these things, Val, and curious to hear what others have to say about it.
One thing that strikes me (though AZlawyer probably hit the nail on the head regarding a student having done this), is that it reads like someone trying to cover their backside and just machine-gun firing every possible comment that ‘should’ have been requested to be excluded. Taking into consideration the Anthony family’s habit of blaming others, I do wonder if they’ll scream (or, more accurately, convince Casey to scream) ‘ineffective counsel’ when the Guilty verdict is rendered.
Is there any milage in the idea that JB has gone into a**-covering mode and is focused on eliminating as many possibilities to say he didn’t give his all in defending her as he can?
Melissa England- Boston – Friend of Troy Brown’s from VA. Visited Troy 7/2/08 – 7/5/08. Melissa spent the day – 7/3/08 with Casey and she never mentioned Caylee. Melissa is on the Prosecution Witness List.
AZlawyer said: { Mar 11, 2010 – 07:03:49 }
[Unread Comment]
I couldn’t get through the whole list lol…but from glancing through it my thoughts were:
(1) some student or law clerk was asked to find EVERY hearsay statement and did not put any thought at all into whether or not it was important to exclude that information,
(2) most of this motion is just silly because the SA was never going to try to get its evidence in third-hand. OF COURSE they will ask the people with first-hand knowledge to testify.
So I guess the goals were either to give students/clerks practice identifying hearsay, or to try to get an “easy win” for the media to report on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was puzzling over #1, myself. Some of those on the list are so obviously hearsay that I wondered why someone went to the trouble to even put them on the list…and I say this as a person who really has a very elemental understanding of hearsay in the first place and was not helped much in my understanding of hearsay by the nice legal explanations of such matters that were provided on this blog. Now, AZlawyer, et al, come along and make statements in such a way that I can understand better. Now I really do believe my own statement elsewhere that this is just JB throwing a badly tangled ball of string at the judge as if to state,
“Here! Ponder on this. I did my homework.”
(Even in NON-legal terms, it IS simply a motion made by the defense, as expected. The ball is in their court, so to speak.)
It is a simple gesture to fill a gap and full fill a duty and is without thought or examination of each item on the list. I wonder if JB, himself, even read through the whole list…to serve his own purpose here, he truly did not need to even do that. There is no hint at all that AL has even glanced at it and I bet she is disappointed now that the list of items is not longer. (Is that ALL you came up with?? Go back and try again…I told you there were at least 150 on any potential list in any potential trial.)
#2, above by AZlawyer…Yes, maybe I’m a lay person, but I’m not so dumb, after all. As I was reading through the list, and before I read the comment AZlawyer made, I was wondering how ridiculous it is to pretend that the state’s attorneys would try to use some of the items on the list. If the defense can spot so many hearsay comments it is asinine to “make believe” that the state would not. Realizing, of course, that the defense knows this…it’s obvious that it’s an intentional and huge waste of the court’s time. If this is an example of what the defense’s efforts are, that the taxpayers will have to pay for now that Casey is broke, then I say it is good that all expenses will have to be approved by the court before those expenses are met! I don’t know how much the state would be expected to pay for this elementary law, 101 “homework assignment,” which is all that it is.
Val, I give you an A+ for tackling this ball of string. You are a determined and very intelligent woman and went through that list one by one and I thank you for making it easier to understand and examine more clearly. You are incredible to go to this effort and all this trouble but, when you did, you made it all so much easier to understand. I hope Casey’s jury has people just as analytical as you on board.
Everything I’ve said here is JMO.
» Mimi said: { Mar 12, 2010 – 07:03:35 } and AZlawyer said: { Mar 11, 2010 – 07:03:49 }
Maybe Casey herself is preparing some of these docs and then the office types them up. It would cut down on expenses.
(half-joking)
I can’t help wondering about Simon Birch’s statements concerning the things that George said to him. If Cindy believed that KC was in Jacksonville on July 3rd, then why did she send Lee to search for KC? Lee states that he knew KC was in Orlando and I’m sure he relayed that to Cindy. However, George tells Simon, “WE thought she was in Jacksonville.” Maybe Cindy and Lee didn’t clue George in, but this statement made 2 weeks after Cindy knew better certainly goes toward Cindy’s credibility in and of itself.
LOL! I can’t seem to get my thoughts straight on this and I’m not really sure what my point is, but this statement being made in light of the events 12 days prior is so confusing to me. Cindy’s actions show that she didn’t believe KC was in J’ville, however, she apparently led George to believe she was. Why?
Val, great as usual. I do have a question. You think they are trying to get anything “Zanny” related out……….but can that really happen? I mean, somebody is bound to testify to the Zanny story and by the defense ignoring it, it doesn’t go away.
Won’t the Judge just come back and say he will rule on most of the “requested hearsay” items when they come up during the trial. Isn’t that what most objections are in a trial that during a testimony, someone starts to give info they received from another person and gets the “I object, hearsay” objection from the other side. The defense is wasting time working on items they know the prosecution will get in through direct testimony instead of hearsay testimony. i think Andrea Lyon probably got her law class students to do this for extra credit. Most of it just a waste of time IMO!
The whole idea of this motion in my humble opinion is not about the numerous hearsay statements, but more towards trying to get the 911 tape thrown out, that statement is the most critical one in the entire motion. It would have been nice if someone had proofed the document, Casey was not arrested for murder on July 16th as stated in the Motion. Just sloppy legal work from high priced attorneys who have delegated their jobs to students.
My impression of the list when I first saw it was the majority of it was pointless knowing that the PRO’s would and will go directly to the source of the information to get it firsthand. The PRO’s aren’t going to try to get in a bunch of hearsay testimony anyway when they already have all the people with important and relevant firsthand knowledge on their witness list. IMO, the Anthony’s will be treated as hostile witnesses and their testimony will be impeached on the stand so different rules will apply to what can be brought in against them. The best part about that is so much of their lies and contridictions are on video, audio and in statements in their own words so in essence the Anthony’s have impeached their own testimony before trial has even started. I think the PRO’s and the Judge have been extremely careful and cautious in everything they have done to make sure that they get a verdict that won’t be overturned on appeal on some technicality. The thought of the PRO’s going into to trial all willy nilly with only a bunch of hearsay to back them up is laughable at best. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney but I do think I have more common sense then the defense.
I could be crazy but I believe the SAO knows the hearsay rules like the back of their hands and wouldn’t use hearsay statements in the first place. So to me the garbage motions are a huge waste of time for everyone involved but that is how A. Lyon rolls.
Yes. Some of these statements are so clearly IRRELEVANT that one would not bother to waste time addressing them in a PRE-TRIAL MOTION…
UNLESS one had ZERO RESOURCES to spend on other more pressing matters, and one had to think of SOMETHING to do on behalf of her client, who is facing DEATH, –and instead of waiting for more money to roll in– and instead of waiting for the normal DEADLINE to file a few separate motions in limine to preclude a more reasonable list of statements (as in much closer to trial, and only after the close of ALL discovery in the case), I suppose one could say that AL did the only thing she COULD do.
This didn’t cost AL much more than her own time (for which she is not taking compensation).
OK.
It also took up some space on her hard drive, a few sheets of paper, and a simple filing fee.
Then again–
She didn’t put too much into it, so… I have to subtract points there.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
As I said earlier, I am not going to comment on each specific statement the defense seeks to have the court PRECLUDE (not “suppress”<–different type of evidence is the subject of motions to suppress), because there is far too much confusion here about the meanings of important legal matters, such as:
RELEVANCE
HEARSAY
CHARACTER
Though I have attempted to provide clear definitions and examples in the past, I see how confusing so many still find it.
It's "FRUSH-SHTRATING!"
I don’t know if this will “help” or not; but I was just recently caught up in a civil court case and when it came to hearsay, we (everyone involved; both prosecution and defense) were instructed that we were not allowed to say, “So-and-So said or told me this…”. We had to say, “It is/was my UNDERSTANDING that *fill in the blank*”.
It almost seemed silly that even though hearsay was not allowed in testimony, alot of hearsay could be brought into evidence if it was just worded correctly.
Keep in mind my case was civil and not criminal and I don’t have the first clue of the rules of criminal trials with the DP on the table. Though, it is MY UNDERSTANDING (ha!) that these are the basic rules of court.
Just a thought from Just A Mom
Thank you Val!
Something hit me last night, if all hearsay is in fact thrown out, shouldn’t anything to do with Zani (zanny…the nanny et al) be thrown out as well? As far as CA making statements that the baby was with Zani, KC was with Zani etc.
We know that KC is the only one anywhere that claims to know Zani…while it is quite clear this person lived only in the imagination of KC……so shouldn’t anything related to Zani be thrown out as hearsay under the imaginary friend catagory?
Let me clarify….I know that “Zani” cannot be considered hearsay…but, if CA gets on the stand and claims that KC told her that Zani said……..ANYTHING (mother, sister, relatives, location, etc) that should be considered hearsay. Which would basically eliminate all of these other players in the SODI theory. ?????????????????
SODDI oops
Silver,
If this is annoying, just ignore. I pulled my comment from another thread. I wondered if Annie’s statement would also not come in because it was hearsay. It would appear that she is the only one that Casey mentioned any danger to. I’m sure Maura will correct me, if I left out any other corroborating statements:
» WSH said: { Mar 12, 2010 – 11:03:51 }
[Unread Comment]
» 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?
If Cindy only TOLD the 911 dispatcher that the car “smelled like a dead body” in order to get the cops to the house faster…then how come, when they got there…the car actually DID smell like a dead body???
Whoopsie!!!! 8O
Don’t forget Donna. The statement was made in the present tense “IT SMELLS LIKE”.
Not past tense “it smelled like”. That is significant.
QUESTION: What is the cost of filing each of these motions? NOTHING gets filed without a fee. Wonder if the motion filing fees is what ate up the 200K!
Ohh, pass me a dang violin!
For God’s sake, if you have money to hire a real estate lawyer to try and stop your foreclosure — then you have money to catch up the mortgage! Attornies, don’t come cheap!
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22820117/detail.html
I believe, generally speaking, the rules for the admission of “hearsay” statements are more lenient in civil cases vs. criminal cases. The ZFG lawsuit should be highly entertaining. Perhaps, if nothing else, Cindy will get a lesson on the legal definition of relevance.
» Orlandan opps said: { Mar 12, 2010 – 01:03:49 }
OHMYGOD are they serious? Why didn’t they pay in the first place? Save their home, like for free? They want to live there for nothing? I don’t get it.
Val, you did a bang up job on this.
I call your attention, however, that in your CA to CCr reference to Jeffrey Hopkins, where you stated the statement might be accepted, the only Jeffrey Hopkins that is a real person is the Jeffrey Hopkins who was a schoolmate of Casey’s. Casey previously distinguised the real Jeffrey Hopkins (former schoolmate) from another Jeffrey Hopkins (former Universal co-worker who moved to Tallahassee or other large Florida city) with the later Jeffrey Hopkins being the one she called for help in finding Caylee. Thus far, there is no evidence that this Jeff is a living, breathing person.
Woman Claims She Had Affair With George Anthony
http://www.wftv.com/news/22825765/detail.html
I wonder if this is the secret that the state wanted to keep a secret???
Is this ever going to end?
th statements about the fight that night and casey stealing from cindy will not be excluded andare relevant that is what the fight was about and the fight set in motion caylee’s murder