Was Casey read her rights?
Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 3:54PM In open court two weeks ago, Cheney Mason bluntly said that Casey Anthony was not read her Miranda warning until October 14, when she was indicted on a first-degree murder charge by an Orange County grand jury. He said it on two separate occasions that day. Interestingly, no one from the State Attorney’s Office questioned his statements. No one objected. As a matter of fact, none of the law enforcement officials, including Cpl. Yuri Melich, Sgt. John Allen, and Cpl. Eric Edwards, testified that Mason was wrong. Why?
Today, I present Casey’s version. I realize her words cannot be trusted and nothing should be taken seriously, but why would she say something about being read her rights if it did not take place?
In a court of law, what is testified to is what stands. No one said a word negating October 14.
Many thanks to nan11 for the remarkable find, and to SnoopySleuth for bringing it to my attention. To watch and listen to the entire 10 minute video with her brother Lee, please CLICK HERE. It’s right around 5 minutes, 30 seconds in.
Casey To Lee: I Was Read My Rights - Casey Anthony Extended Coverage News Story - WESH Orlando
Dave Knechel | in Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Cheney Mason, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Eric Edwards, Linda Drane Burdick, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts, Sgt. John Allen, State Attorney's Office, Yuri Melich, marinadedave | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (48)
Casey was also read her Miranda rights when she was rearrested and taken in for the check/fraud. That was August 29/08 and is documented on the arrest warrant that her rights were read.
I am beginning to think that they got confused and said her rights were not read prior to the Universal interview.
Thanks for posting this, Dave. Also, thanks to nan11 and Snoopy for finding this. There has to be a good reason why the prosecution didn't object to this in court when Mason brought it up. What that reason is, we may never know. You can definitely hear her saying it on this video, and the way and with the tone that she is saying it, makes me believe her.
My pleasure, Mary Jo. It was a good story and I knew it would take off.
That Miranda warning is specific to the fraud charges. If a person gets a DUI one night and is read his/her rights, then if she's arrested on the same charge a week later, that person would have to be Mirandized again. There is not one Miranda warning that encompasses all later charges. It only covers what you are charged with specific to that crime.
Perhaps the argument for the state wasn't so much about Casey being mirandized but that she was not even arrested or held against her will in the first place so no need to be mirandized . That may be the reason they didn't bring up evidence such as this taped jail visit.
That is true, Sherry, but she was placed under arrest after the visit to Universal. That was prior to the jail recordings. The testimony in court should stand, and this video should have no bearing on the judge's decision. What's important about it is that it makes both sides look wrong.
So does this mean that she was mirandized on the child endangerment charges? I guess I am confused since the detectives stated on the stand that they did not mirandize her and now we hear that she "believed" she was mirandized and was not going to have bond.
Yes, WhistlersMother, it's all very confusing, but in the end, this was not argued in front of the judge, so it's as if it never existed. At least, that's what I'm fairly certain of.
OMG! I remember that now! and Yuri also said, in the bond hearing, that he Mirandized Casey. However, the reason they didn't bring this up is a result of the defense argument that Casey should have been given her Miranda warning prior to the Universal interview. She was also miranized at her first arrest after bonding out of jail... Mason was clearly wrong....
Something's screwy on this one, Andrea. He did, he didn't. As far as I'm concerned, LE knew when they picked her up to go to Universal, they were already aware of her lies. They knew she didn't work there, but should she have been Mirandized first? I don't think so.
Dave,
i think i may have asked this before and possibly recently...???? At the time of her incarceration in October she is put in jail for child endangerment. In August is was for check fraud, right?
Anyone???
If my timeline is correct then the miranda issue is a non-issue, well IMO. When she is first put in holding she is being held on fraud charges, at the same time LE is investigating the dissapearance of Caylee so, IMO, between July and October LE is trying to piece together the whereabouts of a 2year old or am i confusing the issue???...was neglect of a child also with the fraud charges? Do i need to re-read??
would anyone object to starting a drinking problem...;-)
In October 2008, her charges were upgraded to capital murder from the original child neglect charge in July. Oct. 14 was when the grand jury convened. She was read her rights then. We can all forget about the August fraud arrest. It relates only to that incident, so that Miranda has no bearing on any other arrest. If Casey wasn't read her rights on July 15, then the evidence from that arrest until October 14 could be thrown out. That would only mean the jail recordings with her family. We will soon find out, though, as tomorrow is the big day.
Hi *Dave and *Snoopy
Maybe the prosecution is going to paint Casey the liar that she is, and they don't want to be accused of picking out when to really believe her or not.
I wonder if Judge Perry will catch that?
Unfortunately, Diana, it's my understanding that the judge will base his order on the testimony given during the hearings, not this. To be frank, this video does nothing to help the defense or the state. What it shows is that the defense was wrong about the date and the state didn't do it's homework. I could go into more detail, but it's complicated. It has to do with refiling denied motions without prejudice. If the defense tries to refile the Miranda motion (only if it's denied) then the state can use this video to prove she admitted that she was given her rights. Advantage: state.
Dave, can you be arrested for the same charge twice? Is this classed as double jeopardy?
She was taken in and held on July 16th for Child Neglect, Lying to Police and Obstructing LE in their investigation. That is three separate charges. Should she have been read her Miranda rights on each charge, individually? I doubt that very much. (Which Judge supplied the arrest warrant for these charges??)
Casey went before Judge Jordan on July 17th and the judge ordered the 33 day mental evaluation and she was held without bond. After the 33 days, it was specified formal charges could be laid and, at which time, Casey could apply for bond. This is where I get totally confused... Baez came aboard on the 17th as well.
Just for the record, here is the arrest affadavit for the check/fraud for those who may not have viewed it....
It clearly states that she was read her Miranda rights for the fraud charges on Aug. 29, 2008.
Casey Anthony's Fraud Arrest Affivadit
See bottom of page 15:
08/29/08:
1735 hours: I met with Judge Marc Lubet at the Orange County Courthouse and obtained an arrest warrant.
2135 hours: I responded to 4937 Hopespring Drive and made contact with defendant Anthony. She was placed under arrest and transported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. I read defendant Anthony her Miranda Rights and she advised that she did not want to speak to me without her lawyer. I terminated my interview and she was transported to BRC with incident.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Glenn gets pulled over for driving erratically. He fails a sobriety test and is placed under arrest. At that time, he is Mirandized. Then, the officer asks for permission to search his vehicle. Glenn grants it. Upon said search, a bag of marijuana and a loaded gun are found. Those are separate charges that are placed on top of the DUI, but they fall under the same arrest. Therefore, only once would the Miranda warning have to be read. Many charges can be added to the original, like if he tried to strangle the officer or made a mess in the back seat of the car. One arrest - multiple charges. One Miranda warning.
B-Man~~July 16th....child endangement, lying to LE, Obstucting LE in an investigation..on jail video but in Casey words.
Aug 29/08...check/fraud- she was mirandized...it is on arrest affadavit
Oct 14/08....Murder One-she was mirandized...it is on tape
I think there are a couple more charges in there....I know one was dropped when the Murder One came down from the grand jury. Hope this helps
Wow.........There is actual proof on video and paper. Why didn't Linda or Jeff pounce on that?
I think that once the state played their hand, i.e., they insisted Casey wasn't a suspect and, therefore, didn't need to be Mirandized, they had to stick with that story. The fact remains, she was arrested on July 16 and Melich testified that he didn't read her her rights. It's a mess, and this video complicates it for us, but not for the judge. He'll stay with the court testimony.
Dave: Me again. Sorry about this. I just double checked and realized that this is the WRONG phone call. It is from the next day. I will leave it in case anyone wants to listen to it; but it is NOT the one you are looking for.
Dave: I just read your post and noticed where you were looking for the raw video. Would WFTV have the raw video? I have links from their site. I will attach them below just incase they help.
CASEY VISITATIONS: Lee Anthony Visits On July 25 - Part 1 of 3
This is jail visitation video of Casey's brother Lee visiting on July 25
CASEY VISITATIONS: Lee Anthony Visits On July 25 - Part 2 of 3
This is jail visitation video of Casey's brother Lee visiting on July 25
CASEY VISITATIONS: Lee Anthony Visits On July 25 - Part 3 of 3
This is jail visitation video of Casey's brother Lee visiting on July 25
PS I kind of agree with Sherry, though. :-)
Thank you very much, nan11. Bob contacted me later and said he had the raw video of that visit. I was looking for a cleaner version, for my blog because I would have had to go over to WESH if I wanted the original on a CD. This one worked fine and because of you and Snoopy, it turned into a very good story.
Dear Dave, Still here and reading. Thank you for your articles. Your friend, Martha
And to my dear Martha, I am very happy you are here and continue to read. There will always be a comfortable chair for you. Thank you. Your friend, Dave. And that's very nice of you, as always.
By the way, everyone, and I'll be back to comment later, this video was the lead-in story on WESH at 6:00pm by Bob Kealing. This one goes to nan11 and Snoopy.
Oh my goodness, WESH has picked up this story, Dave! I was waiting for them to give credit to Nan, Dave and Snoopy.... That was a bit sneaky on their part... give credit where it's due!
To be honest, I would never expect him to name his source, Andrea. Not that it's a big secret or anything, but it was a good lead and he's the one that it should have gone to. I certainly didn't want any credit.
Dave: She does make that statement in Part 2 of the links in my comment of 5:47. Go to about 4:05 minutes in. Sorry for confusion. (And I'm not certain that this what you would call raw video.)
That's OK, nan11. The main thing is that she was as clear as a bell when she mentioned being read her rights. The audio is what made the story.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Snoopy and Nan11, you guys are my heros. I knew with three seasoned law officers there was no way she was not read her rights. I remember when Cheney Mason said that, the camera showed Melich and he had a puzzeled look on his face. Now I know why, Mason did not know what he was talking about. Huge hugs to both of you. Thank you Dave for your blog and letting me be a part of it. I can now stop Checking for Judge Perry's decision.
Hi Margaret - The judge will not even take this video into consideration. It was not entered into evidence and both sides testified that she was never told her rights. Whatever the judge decides, I'm sure it won't be based on this video.
I'm glad you are a part of this blog. That's a very good thing.
I watched the WESH report and sources close to Anthony said she had to have made it up. It is rather interesting that Melich denied ever having read Ms. Anthony her rights when she said he did. It could be that Casey made it up just to get in the dig about the detectives wanting to pin "it" on her.
It's all well and good that Casey was read her rights but it was after the Universal interview. The defense was concerned about the rights being read prior to the Universal interview.
To be honest, this story should have no bearing on the judge's decision, but you gotta admit, it made a great story.
Here is the link to WESH and Bob Kealing. I want you to listen closely to Yuri Melich when he was asked the question if he Mirandized Casey. I am positive he is referring to never ever mirandizing her when they went to Universal not at the police station.
Bob Kealing/WESh - Casey and the Video
I think the confusion came down to one word....
Baez asked, "In fact, you've never read Casey her rights?"
Yuri answers, "no."
Could it be that Yuri heard...
Baez asked, "in fact, you never read Casey her rights? ( meaning prior to and during Universal interview)
Hmm... Could be...
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Snoopy Sleuth, Nan11 and Dave.
I really feel relieved to hear Casey say that she was read her rights. I realize that Casey probably never tells the truth when a lie would do as well, but shouldn't Judge Perry accept a recording of what she said back at the time in question rather than the word of Cheney Mason who wasn't present to hear what was or was not said at the time? At least Casey was aware enough of her rights so no one could take advantage of her ignorance of them.
I can see justification for the police not holding her as a suspect in the Caylee disappearance until after it was clear that she lied in the interview with LE at Universal. Up until that time, there could have been some reasonable explanation of why Universal didn't think she was an employee. She could have given them a false name of an older person with a college degree to get a job that she as a high school drop out couldn't qualify for. That may have been a bad or illegal thing to do, but she wouldn't have been the first person to get a job using a false name and references. She might have lost the job once Universal knew the truth, but at least the police would have a chance to get the stolen cell phone that Unversal had allegedly given her. If the police thought she had gotten a job through fraud, that is quite a different thing from suspecting that she had harmed her child and they could wait to Mirandize her on the job fraud charges until after Universal pressed charges.
I really hope that the video tape keeps Casey's testimony in evidence. I think it should be in evidence from a common sense perspective, but common sense doesn't prevail in our justice system.
Amber, this tape and the others of Casey's visits from relatives is precisely what the defense wants kept out. That's what the Miranda motion was all about, plus other evidence. The judge is going to sift through the testimony and evidence presented then and only then, not now. It's just a great story, but I really don't think it has any relevance.
As for a phony ID at Universal, no one knew who she was, fake name or not. She wasn't recognized then or today. No one came forward and said, yes, I know her!
Thank you!
I see what you mean, Snoopy, and I am hoping that's the case, that Yuri was referring to the time before the Universal interview.
BTW, good going, nan11 and Snoops! Ya did good uncovering this taped "confession". But you should have been credited on Kealing's report, ahem!
I must point out that ALL the credit really goes to Nan11. I was just a messenger who passed it along Davey's gravy chain.. Wait until Padilla gets a load of this....
I probably can speak for Nan11 when I say, the only thanks we want is Justice for Caylee.
Wow so Snoopy is part of a Daisy Chain! LOL. Good job to all involved in another lie uncovered. They just keep lying, maybe they have spent a little to much time with their client. She is rubbing off on them.
Casey says Melich said flat out that he was going to hold you as long as they can and no bond.. this would not be up to Melich but up to the court or am I missing something?
Snoop: I would have never listened to that if you hadn't posted it. Please, help me out here. You certainly deserve some credit. :-)
Janet~~ when you take someone in to LE headquarters for questioning, you cannot hold them for more than 24 hours. If you cannot find enough evidence to charge them, they must be released. They had enough evidence to hold Casey before the 24 hrs elapsed. Yuri Melich showed the judge enough evidence to request that Casey not be allowed bond. LE also asked , based on their interviews etc that Casey be given a menal evaluation. Judge Jordan complied with LE's requests.
Nan11, can I have your autograph??
Dave~~ the Miranda rights has nothing to do with having the jail visitation videos thrown out. The motion re the Anthonys being Agents for the State concerns the jail videos.
This plays right into the Miranda motion, Snoopy. That's why the motions were argued together.
Dave, after reading all your responses, I would like to have the video back and sell it on e-bay since it is not going to do anyone any good.
I hope Stan S reads this and phones Belvin.
I think everyone is missing the point of what Yuri was saying and what was being alleged. No one has said that Casey was NEVER read her rights, they were read to her when she was arrested. What the defense is saying is that she should have been read her rights when she was put in handcuffs for a few minutes (at Cindy's request) for stealing money from her (Cindy was trying to keep Casey from running away). They further say that at the very least they should have read her rights to her before the interview at Universal, saying she would have assumed she was being arrested (only Baez and Mason believe that, no matter how much they get loud and jump up and down). They want to throw out all of her statements that included all the lies --- that is the whole point. Again, read her rights when arrested? YES!!! When she was willingly giving them info about her "missing" daughter? NO!!!!
AHHHH, BiancaS, but the fact remains when Mason stated that Casey was never given her Miranda rights until October 14, the state never contested it, and he said it twice. That's the information the judge took to his chambers. Of course it's important to the defense because, you're right, they want all of that evidence thrown out. I don't think it's going to haqppen.
Snoopy and Dave you are both right about the miranda warning regarding Casey's statements being a different issue than the jail videos(Government agents) which Mason argued under the Massiah rule within the same motion. He did argue them at the same time but it is quite possible to be ruled seperately because while related, they are distinctly different rules.
Here is some info regarding these rules I c+p'd from a blog I did on another murder case I'm following:
Most US citizens know that law enforcement must give a Miranda warning before subjecting someone to any interrogation when being arrested ( taken into custody and are not free to leave, a situation the court ruled was inherently coercive ). The purpose of the warning is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present at anytime during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. A person must clearly waive their fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and the right to an attorney before any evidence gathered in the interrogation will be considered admissible in court.
Just as Miranda gives us Fifth Amendment protection after an arrest, according to the Massiah Doctrine, after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings (by indictment or by information, preliminary hearing or arraignment), the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to rely on counsel as the “medium” between himself and the government. Thus, once adversary proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and deliberately elicit statements from the defendant himself.. Massiah is based on the right to counsel. It's application turns not on the conditions surrounding police questioning, but on whether, at the time the government attempts to elicit incriminating statements from an individual, the criminal proceedings against that individual have reached the point at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
The difference between Massiah and Miranda is underscored by the “jail plant” situation, the case where a secret government agent is placed in the same cell with a person and instructed to induce him to implicate himself in the crime for which he has been incarcerated. Miranda does not apply, for the inherent coercion generated by custodial police interrogation is not present when a prisoner speaks freely to a person he believes to be a fellow inmate. Coercion is determined from the perspective of the suspect. Therefore, unless a person realizes he is dealing with a government agent, the government's efforts to elicit damaging admissions from him do not constitute “police interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda.
However, the Massiah doctrine would prohibit the government from using such tactics if adversary proceedings had already been initiated against the person. But the secret government agent was not completely passive in that case; he stimulated conversations about the crime charged. The Court, however, has permitted the government to place a completely “passive listener” in a person's cell and use the statements acquired by such an agent even though adversary proceedings have commenced against the person.
In order for a court to determine that a Massiah violation has occurred two conditions must exist:
1) There must have been an indictment, preliminary hearing or arraignment already held when the violation occurred..
2) The informant has to be acting as a government agent, he had to have acted under the direction of the government and there is a preexisting arrangement between the informant and the police.
The line between “active” and “passive” agents—between eliciting incriminating statements and merely listening—is an exceedingly difficult one to draw.
The Supreme Court held that when an inmate working for the government actively prompts an accused to make incriminating statements, this involves active interrogation and is a violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S. Ct. 2183, 65 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1980]). However, when a government agent passively listens to the accused's incriminating statements, there is no violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364 [1986]). In Kuhlmann, the Court held that, to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment, "the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks."
Both of these issues are muddied because of the fact (I believe) everyone except Casey was acting in good faith to find a missing child. I have faith in Judge Perry to make a fair decision. I don't think the Massiah violation will pass muster because of the Anthony's own desire to find Caylee when trying to get info from Casey, not incriminate her. The Universal interview....IDK?
Great article and kudos to my buds Nan and Snoop for bringing this to Dave's (and Bob's) attention.
Hi Dave,
You have some good resources - Nan11 and Snoopy. Great videos of L&C. Not sure what to make of the Miranda rights with Casey. Between Melich's testiimony and the video - kind of confusing. We will have to wait for the Judge to decide. Watching the viideos, it is so obvious how Casey is avoiding questions by Lee. Yes, the media and public will see them, but if she had any reliable info, she would give it to find Caylee. So deceptive! Dave, do you know when the next hearing is up? The trial is coming soon . . . Let's see how Casey holds up with that - the fake monster tears will come out. Always great reporting, Dave. Thanks.
Have you all seen this? The defense filed more than 3000 pages of witness interviews to include their interview with Roy Kronk, on Thursday. I'm looking for a link to the docs now.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-casey-anthony-trial-depositions-20110318,0,7308808.story
Katfish, it's always great to see you! Between you, Dave, Snoopy and Nan we are quite well informed, and I am grateful to you all!
I listened to the final arguments on March 7th and Cheny Mason is talking about being Mirandized
and he mentions the 15th and the 16th and then being put into the backseat of the car "in a cage" and handcuffed. Sometime during the time Cheney Mason is talking he is asked by Judge Perry if the handcuffs were taken off of her before the trip to the apartments and Mason could not remember. I am wondering if this will be a part where Judge Perry will base his decision on in ruling for or against the motion?
Will My Case Be Dismissed if the Police Do Not Read Me My Miranda Rights?
No. The police must advise a suspect of his Miranda rights only before beginning a custodial interrogation. Routine questions to establish identity such as name, address, and social security number will not require a Miranda warning. Statements made before arrest and voluntary statements made after being arrested do not violate the Miranda rights as long as the police do not deliberately extract those statements.
In a July 25 jail visit with her brother, Lee, Casey Anthony said she did not trust law enforcement officials.
"Do you want to talk to law enforcement?" Lee Anthony said.
"Yes and no," Casey Anthony replied. "I know that I'm their 'person of interest,' so things that I've told them before, they looked at me like I'm feeding them a bunch of (expletive).
Cops cuff folks all the time for their own safety, and other reasons, and then just un-cuff them as they see fit. Better safe than sorry, with a drunk say, even if the person is not or is not likely to be under arrest later. Also it does make an impression upon someone who's never been in trouble before, even if only for a few minutes....
Dave,
You ask the question "Why would Casey say she was read her rights if they had not read them to her."
She said that for the same reason she says everything else. Casey is a liar so nothing she says is the truth...remember Casey and the truth are strangers.
....mmmm....Dave??? What is the difference between interogation, investigating, and questioning...??
I'm not trying to be a smart ass in any way but as Katfish point out about the Miranda Missiah rulings and how they differ and taking into Slick Willy's definition of...s..e..x could those 3 have a suttle difference?? Something that would excuse LE for not actually not mirandizing KC as, IMO, LE was trying to ascertain the whereabouts of Caylee since she was not the prime reason LE was call to the Anthony residence??
Good Afternoon, I see everyone is still struggling with issue of suspects and Miranda rights. Think of all the cases you have read about where a 'person of interest' is brought back to the police station for interview after interview. They either agree, refuse or 'lawyer up', which is tantamount to a refusal.
Miranda rights only come into play once you are in custody. If you are not free to leave then you should be read your rights.
The issue is not whether the police thought Casey was a suspect but whether they had her in custody at Universal. Arguably she did not feel free to leave.
Notice at the beginning of all the witness interviews the detective always makes a big point of questioning whether the witness feels free to leave, came voluntarily, the door is closed for privacy not to confine the person being interviewed etc. etc.
Hope this helps. Hard cases make bad law but we will see whether Justice Perry sees the Universal conference room interview as one which took place in a 'custodial' situation. The issue will turn on that, not whether the police believed Casey. They did not.
Judge Rules On Casey's Initial Statements
Perry Says All Of Casey's Statements OK For Trial
This is according to Wesh!!
Janet, I just read the same thing!!! Am I reading this correctly??? WOW, WOW, WOW!!! That is all I can think to say!
I have to say something and then I think I will lay low for awhile for my own good. ok, here goes................I was just on Facebook, Casey Anthony updates page. I was trying to find any and all information on Judge Perry's ruling. I started to read the readers comments. I am now sooo sick to my stomach. I am physically ill. I read all comments and there ARE alot!!! I had to sit back and ask myself why I was sooo interested. The Judge did his job and ruled. I wasn't sure if I was shocked, glad, scared that there would be room for an appeal now, etc., etc..The comments made by everyday persons such as myself were what made me ill and rethink what I am doing .
Let me back track too. I was awaiting the decision earlier, and I was reading comments here at Dave's page. Feathers, you have touched my heart in so many ways after reading about your life changing decision you had to make. I too have had to make and will have to make so many decisions when it comes to my child who also faced many medical obstacles and will face his next battle soon. I intend on thinking positive and know that I love him dearly.
Now back to the facebook page, Who yells out "Happy Birthday Casey" Hope you fry? Who celebrates any of this! All in the name of justice? Who does this? What she has done indeed is a heinous thing. What she has done to her family, again, heinous. But to celebrate and chant death? What is wrong with everyone? Are there really that many people out there that feel this way? Like I said, all in the name of justice? I don't think so. No one wins here. NO ONE!
I thank the wonderful people of this site. Dave, who writes so wonderfully and is so fair and just. Snoopy, for all of the same reasons. Getting to somehow peak into the thoughts of someones life who has to make life altering decisions like feathers! I have learned so much. But to see people write such things as fry Casey or any other name calling to George and Cindy, making fun of Lee.......UUUGGGHH!!! I tried to remain postitve and watch this justice system work. I have learned and have a new respect for our justice system. I have also learned things about myself simply from reading here. I thank feathers. I also have just came upon a decision I have had to make about my child who is 20 also. Not the first time. It wasn't so tough. After reading here, I knew I helped him make the right decision for himself no matter what the outcome should be. God help me if I ever find myself in a postion like the Anthony family.
In ending my small rant, I would like to say to each and everyone of you, thankyou! There are still good people in this world. Now, I shall step back for awhile and let you all teach me a thing or two about the law. And remember to remain as fair and just as you all have. I want to remain a believer in the human race!!! It's getting hard.
@EH, Thank you for weighing in on the issue of Miranda. It has been a long time since I read the transcripts of the Universal conference room interview to say for certain whether Casey was properly informed of her choice to leave.....IIRC she was but chose to stay around thinking she could still "handle" the situation with the police. Cheney Mason stressed it is her perception that matters, but if she was advised then the defense motion has a problem. I trust Judge Perry to make a fair decision on that issue.
As for the Massiah violation my feeling is he will rule against the defense because the second condition doesn't appear to have been met. There was no preexisting arrangement between the Anthonys and LE just a common interest in finding Caylee.
In order for a court to determine that a Massiah violation has occurred two conditions must exist:
1) There must have been an indictment, preliminary hearing or arraignment already held when the violation occurred..
2) The informant has to be acting as a government agent, he had to have acted under the direction of the government and there is a preexisting arrangement between the informant and the police.
In another case I'm following the PD seems very intent on showing there was a benefit to the snitch from the state making him an agent of the government. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this as it applies to the Anthony case.
@ Feathers, Long time no see•*¨*•.¸¸♥¸¸.•*¨*I'm still around but Mr. Katfish has been quite ill so my time is limited. Glad you are still here ♥
@ Sagemom, You may not know me very well but I have seen you around here for a while so feel comfortable to say.....Don't let the haters ruin your view of humanity....they are very vocal in spreading hate in their anonomity but there are many more caring soles who just want justice.....if it comes down to the DP for Casey it will not be due to their snarky comments but you can be sure they will celebrate it as their personal victory' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=є/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿
↑Prayers↑ ♥ for your and Feather's sons....they are blessed to have such caring mothers.
@Dave, dang I made a comment before this one but after a few phone calls I was logged out before I hit post so I'm floating around out there somewhere. Hope it is still relevant by the time it posts. LOL Hope all is well on your end.
edit....my comment is there now and I see from other comments that the Judge has ruled....off to find his ruling NAN!!!!! Where are you? I know you have a link up your sleeve!
I love coming here the last couple visits I've been told I'm WINNING! I feel like one of Charlie Sheens Goddesses :) just saying
You ARE winning Katfish! Lol Can you believe that Charlie Winning Sheen? He really is quite the warlock isn't he? lol I love it!
I'm not following Charlie on twitter because I don't want to encourage his mania, but funny is funny and he can be funny. WINNING!
katfish~~sometime I hope you can show me how to make those two little eyes that look upward. You put them over in Dave's other post. I missed alot of comments in here and another one of his posts. I generally go to the most recent one or check the side bar for most recent comments. I am sorry you ended up all by yourself.
Snoopy no trick to making those emoticons.....just go to this site and copy and paste them into your posts:
http://hinh.tv/
I think they are a blast and help put expression into a comment.....you can mess with them too to suit your purpose.
I have a few others that I have picked up from friends around the net, anyone feel free to c+p any that I post. ˙☮