A sneaking suspicion
Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 12:39AM Since I didn’t have the opportunity to attend last Friday’s hearing, I just want to touch base on a couple of things regarding that day.
I am glad Kathi Belich won. Freedom of the press in this country is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If Kathi or any other journalist investigates a story, only defamation and the infringement of copyright laws should be subject to restrictions.
When Jose Baez and Jeff Ashton shook hands and the contempt motion flew out the window, I’d bet my bottom dollar that Judge Perry had told both sides that if they didn’t come to an agreement on their own, neither side would like the way he would handle it. That’s enough motivation right there. Not only does a judge dislike dealing with motions of this nature, he’s not in the courtroom to babysit. Crack the whip, git ‘er done. He did.
§
On Monday, I attended a hearing designed to give the defense and prosecution one final shot at summarizing the two motions discussed last Wednesday and Thursday regarding statements Casey gave law enforcement back in mid-July of 2008, and the statements she gave her parents and brother while she was sitting in jail. Were they unwitting agents of the state? If the judge agrees with the defense, it will be a damaging, but far from fatal blow, to the State of Florida. If the judge sides with the State, it will be business as usual - on with the show!
One of the things we must keep in mind is that if evidence is tossed, there’s still plenty more the State will use against her. For instance, Casey’s car is not in her name. The owner gave permission to have it examined. That’s a nice chunk of evidence. Caylee’s remains changed the playing field, too. When she was charged with first-degree murder on 14 October 2008, there was no death penalty. That came the following April, and of utmost importance was that her little bones and what surrounded them gave plenty of credibility to the old saying, “she’s speaking from the grave.”
While sitting in the courtroom, I must say Cheney Mason impressed me. His voice was stronger than it usually is. During one of the detective’s testimony last week, he asked if he was familiar with the term unarrested. The detective responded positively. Yesterday, Mason exclaimed that there is no such thing as being unarrested. He went on to scrutinize the tactics of the deputies and detectives from the first hours they spent with Casey to the final moments they pressed the Anthony family into service to visit her in jail. Agents of the State? Please.
When Casey was driven to Universal, he asserted that the detectives were already aware that she wasn’t employed there. They had set the meeting up with the chief of security, where a small room was awaiting her forquestioning. The door was closed, he said, and the intimidating tactics began. Voices were raised. Was she free to go, he wondered. No, of course not. She was at their mercy. No car and no one telling her she had a right to leave. The only way it could have been a voluntary interrogation would have been if she drove herself to meet them there.
He said it would have been impossible for trained law enforcement personnel to not treat her as some sort of suspect once they took a whiff of her car that first night. Where the defense had been weak in citing case law, Mason let loose here with the case of Ross v. State of Florida and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling upon appeal:
After carefully reviewing the issues raised on appeal, we reverse the convictions and sentences of death because of the police conduct in interrogating Ross on January 9, 2004. Specifically, the police, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), obtained inculpatory admissions, and when the warnings were finally administered midstream, minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation—all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.
In Ross’s case, the court wrote that investigators mishandled his interrogation days after his parents were beaten to death with a baseball bat more than seven years ago. On 7 January 2004, Ross, then 21, called 911 to report that someone had murdered his parents. No weapon was ever found. The Supreme Court ruling described a pressure-packed investigation two days later in which a detective questioned Ross for hours without reading him his Miranda rights. The high court ruling states the detective deliberately delayed reading Ross his rights in an effort to obtain a confession, while assuring him that he was not under arrest, amounting to an involuntary confession. Specifically, law enforcement, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the Miranda warning. According to the ruling, when Miranda warnings were administered “midstream,” detectives…
… minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation — all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.
There is another case in Florida that is a real puzzler. In Ramirez v. State, 1999 WL 506949, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed Nathan Ramirez’s conviction and death sentence for his role in the execution-style murder of Mildred Boroski, a 71-year-old widow. He and another man broke into her home, killed her dog, tied her to a bed and raped her. Then, they forced her into a car, dead dog and all, and drove her to a remote field where Ramirez shot her twice in the head.
Investigators with the police department discovered some of the woman’s possessions in Ramirez’s custody and asked him to go to the station for a taped interview. He agreed. The investigators began the interview without a Miranda warning because they thought he was only a witness rather than a murder suspect. Within a few minutes, he began to sing like a canary and one of the investigators stopped the interview to suggest he be Mirandized. The colleague immediately read Ramirez his rights which the (now) suspect acknowledged and waived. He proceeded to detail what transpired that day.
Sadly, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Ramirez’s conviction and sentence despite how careful and diligent the investigators were. Why? Four of the justices claimed that his Miranda warning was given in a manner that unconstitutionally minimized and downplayed the importance of his rights. They exploited his pre-Miranda admission about being in the house.
That’s bad enough, but back to the matter at hand. The most startling revelation made by Mason was his assertion that the first time Casey was Mirandized was not until 14 October 2008, when she was indicted on first-degree murder and other charges. I beg to differ with him. According to Casey’s ICJIS (fraud) Arrest Affidavit, she was read her Miranda warning by OCSO Detective Johan Anderson on 29 August 2008 at 2135 hours, or 9:35 pm:
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 without incident.
Whether she was read her rights prior to this date is not readily available, but the above log refers to the fraud charges only. In any event, technically, she was read her Miranda Rights prior to 14 October. Was she advised of her rights before this exchange occurred on 16 July 2008?¹
“What happened to Caylee,” an investigator asks on the tape.
“I don’t know,” Casey Anthony said.
“Sure you do,” and investigator said.
“I don’t know,” Anthony said.
“Listen, something happened to Caylee,” an investigator said. “We’re not going to discuss where the last time you saw her (was). I’m guessing something bad happened to her some time ago and you haven’t seen her, so that part is true — is you haven’t seen her because she’s somewhere else right now.”
“She’s with someone else right now,” Anthony said.
“She’s either in a Dumpster right now, she’s buried somewhere, she’s out there somewhere and her rotten body is starting to decompose because what you’re telling us…,” an investigator said. “Here’s the problem. The longer this goes, the worse it’s going to be for everyone. Right now, everything you’ve told us — we’ve locked you into a lie. Every single thing that you’ve told us has been a lie.”
If she wasn’t read her rights before being interrogated, this could be a real problem because, clearly, she was the only suspect that law enforcement had as evidenced by their line of questioning. They were already on to her tricks.
On the other hand…
When Linda Drane Burdick approached the podium, she calmly stated that at no time was Casey in custody - there was no custodial interrogation. When at Universal Studios, Cpl. Yuri Melich wrote in his arrest affidavit, interestingly dated July 15:
At this time, we found a small conference room in which to talk to the defendant. This conversation was also recorded. Prior to beginning this interview, we stressed that the door was unlocked and were in the room for privacy only. She understood and agreed to speak with us on tape.
At no point in the arrest affidavit was it written that Casey was read her Miranda Rights. If there was ever a time for a sinking feeling, it may have come in the courtroom on Monday if she was not read her rights. There’s something else. Cpl. Yuri Melich made this notation in his affidavit:
I first met with the defendant inside her residence and spoke with her alone and away from other family members. Before asking for a recorded statement, I reviewed her original four page written sworn statement and asked if this was her version of what happened. She said it was. I told her that the incident was very suspicious and her version suspect.
Later that day, several of Casey’s friends and boyfriends called OCSO to report what they knew. It was a shock to everyone that darling Caylee was missing. Melich continues:
Once at our central operations center, and after I started receiving the above phone calls reference the defendant and her child, the defendant was given one more opportunity to change her story. She did not. She was then placed under arrest for child neglect, and providing false information to us regarding this investigation.
The official charges were:
- Neglect of a child 827.03 (3)(C)
- False Official Statements 837.06
- Obstruct Criminal Investigation 837.055
However…
At no time did Casey express an interest in remaining silent. Initially, as Linda Drane Burdick was quick to assert, Casey was not a suspect in the disappearance of her child when she was briefly cuffed and held in the back seat “cage” of Dep. Acevedo’s patrol car. She was never suppressed inside her house, nor was she ever held without her permission. Of course, common sense tells you when an officer of the law carries on a conversation and/or asks you to do something, you’d better comply, so there are gray areas defense teams are trained to exploit. Rightfully, Burdick contended that law enforcement merely treated Casey as a possible witness to some sort of kidnapping and there was no reason to Mirandize her.
I think before we continue, it’s important to clarify the written statement made by Casey. It came before she was handcuffed and placed in the police car.
Here comes the judge…
While Mason was arguing his case, Judge Perry broke in and asked him if he was familiar with Parks v. State (1994). Mason said no, and the judge advised him to read it. Now, if you want my opinion, when a judge suggests something to read, you’re darned-tootin’ I’m going to read it! The mere fact that a judge mentions case law is ominously significant, so here is where I think the judge will go with his decision regarding Miranda…
In the case of Darryl Parks v. State, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, the appellant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. He asserted four issues on appeal:
- whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
- whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
- whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
- whether prosecutorial statements in closing arguments amounted to a comment on appellant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.
The appeals court affirmed as to all issues. However, their affirmance of issues one and two did warrant discussion. The following is quoted directly from the ruling. I will highlight key points:
On January 16, 1991, an individual wearing a mask entered a business in Broward County, began waiving a gun, and demanded money. The gunman was joined shortly thereafter by a second individual. During the course of the robbery, the owner of the business was fatally shot.
Five days after the shooting, appellant was arrested on an unrelated robbery charge. He was brought to the Broward County Sheriff’s Department homicide office for questioning concerning the murder. He was handcuffed and shackled. However, doubts arose concerning whether there was sufficient probable cause for appellant’s arrest. It was decided that appellant would be released. Appellant was advised he was free to go, the handcuffs and shackles were removed, and he was offered a ride home. Thereafter, but prior to leaving, appellant was asked whether he would remain and talk about the shooting. Appellant said he would talk to the officers about it. After appellant was informed of his Miranda rights, he was questioned by detectives. During this questioning, appellant made incriminating statements concerning his involvement in the murder and robberies. Appellant said he was present and he only intended to rob the place. However, he admitted using a substandard quality gun and “it just went off.”
The evidence shows appellant freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police. Even if the police lacked probable cause for the arrest on the unrelated charge, the fact appellant was released from custody and voluntarily remained to answer questions breaks the causal link between the arrest and his making of the incriminating statements to police. Appellant’s agreement to discuss the crime when he was free to decline and go home was an act of free will sufficient to purge any possible taint from the arrest. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress appellant’s incriminating statements.
Parks asserted that the trial court improperly allowed a prior statement by his accomplice into evidence to help build the case against him. The day after he was arrested for the murder, Terrance Batten was brought to the police station for questioning. After being informed of his Miranda Rights. He then gave a tape recorded statement to police which implicated himself and Parks in the murder. About 22 months later, Batten received a plea deal from the state.
At trial, Batten testified about the shooting and robberies. He said appellant shot the victim. On direct examination, Batten acknowledged he gave a statement to police shortly after the shooting. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Batten was extensively questioned about his plea deal with the state. The details of the deal were spelled out for the jury. Batten was also questioned about the circumstances surrounding his prior statement made to police. Batten acknowledged the detectives told him that they did not want him, but wanted appellant. Batten also acknowledged he was told if he did not cooperate, he would be charged with murder and sentenced to the electric chair. He admitted he was thinking if he gave a statement to the detectives he could go home, but if he did not give them a statement he was going to be held on the murder charge.
Defense counsel also questioned Batten about specific contents of his prior statement. Batten was asked about his comments concerning who he was with prior to the robbery. Defense counsel noted that Batten said in his statement to police he was cooperating because the victim was shot. Also, Batten acknowledged there is no mention of a mask in his prior statement.
During the testimony of one of the detectives who questioned Batten, the tape-recorded statement was admitted into evidence over defense objection. Defense counsel had argued the prior consistent statement itself was made after Batten had an improper motive. Therefore, it was inadmissible.
Here’s the clincher, though:
We agree with appellant that the prior consistent statement should not have been admitted into evidence. Generally, prior consistent statements are not admissible to corroborate a witness’ testimony. Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1986). An exception to the rule provides that such statements are admissible to rebut charges of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication against the witness. Id. at 910; see also § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, the prior consistent statement must be made “prior to the existence of a fact said to indicate bias, interest, corruption, or other motive to falsify.” Dawson v. State, 585 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We hold, however, that the erroneous admission of Batten’s tape recorded statement was harmless. The jury was aware of the existence of the prior statement. A reasonable jury could presume the prior statement was consistent with Batten’s in-court testimony. Further, defense counsel delved into some of the specifics of the statement, referring to actual comments made by Batten to police. Thus, portions of the statement were highlighted for the jury, by defense counsel, prior to the admission of the statement in its entirety.
These factors, in combination with appellant’s incriminating statements and testimony linking appellant to an item stolen in the robbery, convince us of the harmless nature of the trial court’s error. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions on all counts.
AFFIRMED.
What does this tell me? Well, when Mason mentioned October 14 - and he did so twice - and the State did not counter, it sent a message. Two times and the prosecution came back with no response. I think the judge is going to allow Casey’s early statements to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police. I believe that once Casey was asked to go to Universal with the detectives, or earlier, when Cpl. Melich told her of his suspicions, she should have been Mirandized. Therefore, from the wee hours of 16 July 2008 until she was finally read her rights, whatever she said could be tossed. What, you say? There’s no real need to worry. Consider this: After Casey lawyered up, what did she say? Nothing, really. Honestly, most of the really incriminating evidence came after Caylee was found in the woods, but other things like the “smells like a dead body in the damn car” evidence cannot be suppressed, nor can all of the statements made by her friends and lovers, especially Anthony Lazzaro. Linda Drane Burdick did a convincing job of keeping Casey a victim before the truth began to seep through her lies. At what point did the line cross from victim to suspect? That’s the key. Personally, I think custodial interrogation began when she told Orange County Sheriff’s Sgt. Reginald Hosey that her mother had blown the whole thing out of proportion. Huh? Your child is missing for a month and your mother is overreacting? On the stand last week, Hosey said the actions of his officers were guided by George and Cindy’s concerns over Casey’s very erratic behavior and the missing toddler. That would have done it for me. And that God-awful smell.
Dave Knechel | tagged Johan Anderson, Miranda v. Arizona, Parks v. State, Ramirez v. State, Ross v. State of Florida | in Anthony Lazzaro, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Cheney Mason, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Jeff Ashton, Jose Baez, Kathi Belich, Linda Drane Burdick, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts, OCSO, Orange County Sheriff’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 (77)
Hi Dave,
I really enjoyed your brilliant and well researched article on "a sneaking suspicion."
I hope that the judge allows a good part of what Casey said into evidence. I am more convinced by your arguments about what should be allowed than by anyone else's.
I looked at part of the video on the court hearings and I wondered if Casey is living in an alternate reality. When you see her in person in the court room do you get the impression that she has even a clue as to the seriousness of her situation? I can't believe that she knowingly and deliberately killed Caylee or that anyone could do such a thing, but I can believe that Caylee died accidentally as a result of Casey's abysmally poor judgement and parenting techniques. I do believe that Casey deserves to be in jail for a long time, but I just don't believe that the death penalty has a place in a civilized society.
I really appreciate the trouble you take to keep us all informed as to what is happening in this riveting law case. Thanks.
Amber
When Mason described Casey with the 4 big men in a small room, I laughed outloud. Casey loves men more than she did her daughter. I bet she flirted with them and thought they would believe her because she was so pretty. IMO
Casey has caused so much pain to so many people; it is a shame to see her act like one of the lawyers at the defense table. When will she realize her life is on the line?
Casey thought her mother would be angry with her but would cover for her. She never dreamed she would have to talk to LE and face the music for what she did.
Thanks for the fine job you do, Dave. Take care.
Personally, I think the Universal interview will be tossed. Not that I agree with it but case law is clear and at that point they knew the defendant was guilty of some things, such as obstruction of justice and lying to LE. At that point there was still hope that this spoiled young woman had indeed hidden her child away from her overbearing mother who was just plain crazy and trying to gain custody of her child (as she told LE Officer Hosey). I'm sure Officer Hosey reported to Detective Mellich that the defendant had poo-pooed the missing child story saying she knew where her child was and it probably did seem like it would end up being a domestic disturbance. Once all of the lies came to light it was a whole new ball game. She should have been arrested.
Everything before then, I think will stand. Cindy accused the defendant of theft and provided receipts to prove her accusations. She was handcuffed and then released when the deputy was told, forget the theft we've got to investigate the whereabouts of a 2 year old child who may or may not be endangered.
I don't think it will make or break the case if they lose the Universal Studios interview.
Good morning, Amber! Thank you very much. It took some research, that's for sure.
I don't really know how the judge will rule, but I'll bet you the State is looking for proof of Miranda warnings.As for Casey, I've always felt she's living in some kind of alternate world.
You know, I really appreciate your comments, too.
Amber: I also thought, at first, that this might have been an accident that spiraled out of control. However, when the evidence began to surface that she was on the computer looking up neck breaking, shovel, missing children, lost phone numbers, and then the DUCT TAPE over Caylees mandible; I changed my mind. Casey was clearly planning this.
IMO, I think the argument that Cindy and Casey had the night of June 15th, pushed Casey into action; probably sooner than she had planned. I still wonder if she was also thinking about killing Cindy and George. I know, more than likely not. But she was telling Amy that she was going to get the house. With Casey, we'll never know.
I've never met anyone like Casey. (God help me, I hope I never do.) The lies flow out of her like they were the truth even if they don't make sense. It baffles me. I really hope some of the Universal statements come in. It is so obvious she is lying. When Melich asks Casey, "what happened to Caylee, what happened to Caylee?" Caseys' answer was, "I don't know." Huh? I thought she was kidnapped? Why didn't she answer Melich with the statement, "she was kidnapped"?
There's something wrong with Casey. There has been something wrong with Casey for quite some time. I'm not a die hard death penalty advocate. I'm on the fence with Casey's case. I want to listen to the trial first before I get the needle out. With the case where Dr. Petit's wife and two children were brutally murdered for NO reason; I hope those two scumbags experience a slow and painful death.
I'm not worried about this ruling. There is soooo much evidence without using the Universal interview. But, I can't wait to hear the judges ruling. Don't ya'll just love Judge Perry? (Dave, we also liked Judge Strickland, but if he had to be replaced I think Judge Perry was a good choice.) As you once stated (to the defense), be careful what you wish for.
GM Dave, I knew you would do your homework on Parks vs. State..Thank you for clarifying that for us. I agree that after the visit to Universal everyone's thoughts changed..Before that it was a missing child and a domestic dispute...They probably thought she was simply hiding her child from her overbearing parents. Exactly what most people would think..After all, Cindy had threated to take Caylee away from her more than once..She was begging them to arrest her daughter. However, think back. Cindy testified that Casey went and rested for a while..George later testified that he went in and "woke" her up to tell her the detectives were on their way to take her to Universal..Do I see a chance for escape there? Of course..I snuck out the bedroom window when I was young. She also could have just called one of her many friends to come get her..But then they would have had to be told that her child was missing too.
The defense did do a better job this time but it almost made me throw up when they referred to Casey as a baby...The baby here is poor little Caylee...Lest we forget.
Thanks for all your hard work and digging out the answers for us Dave..We do depend on you.
Hi, Nanna Frances - I think you're right. Casey had always manipulated people and she never had a problem with men until those big, husky, tough guys came along to interrogate her. My, my. Poor thang.
I would think by trial time, Casey will have etiquette lessons. She's got to attach herself to the jury, not alienate them. Is it even possible? I don't know.
Thank you for enjoying my blog. It's definitely appreciated. You take care, too.
Hi Terrytsk - You may be right. There's a lot on Judge Perry's plate to sort through right now and I don't envy him one bit.
Hi Sarah - Judge Strickland was, and remains, a class act. Judge Perry was not the one this defense wanted. He is not a liberal judge, but he is very, very fair.
Good morning, GLENDA! The mere fact that the judge mentioned Parks v. State was telling. It's certainly worth pondering.
If Casey snuck out her window, she would have been caught since she had no money to spend. Besides, once her picture went out, she would have been recognized right away.
Thank you for appreciating the work I do. I sure do hope I can follow this case all the way through.
Greetings Dave......Excellent and very informative article. Thank you for the research on" Park vs Florida",it has put some concerns to rest,but when Mr Mason brought up case law "Ross vs Florida",that sent me scrambling to do some research,and I was shocked to see that Blaine's verdict was overturned. His Mother(Kathleen) and I were very good friends, We worked at the Phone Co. many years together and I remember the day Blaine was born.....That is truly a sad story.. It will be interesting to see his case is retried, if it all....I feel that when Judge Perry brought up the Case of Parks,He was kind of testing Mason to see if Mason did all his homework.....Even though the Defense cleaned up a little bit.....Mason's argument fell a little flat compared to the State's. I also feel that Judge Perry will deny the motion on Law enforcement, LE got a little tough(tactic) with Casey at Universal, when it became apparent that she had lied (alot),but held off the Miranda until they had secured more incriminating facts. On the other hand if Perry grants the motion...it will be a small dent that will be roughed over by all the other facts in this case.IMO...Take care and keep up the great work.
Dave, thanks for the explaination. I was hoping somebody would tell me what the heck the judge was referring to! You didn't answer my question on yesterday's thread about whether you believe the judge will make Casey wear her jail clothes if she is late again. What are your thoughts?
Sorry I didn't answer you yesterday, Lexi. I went into the other post this morning to answer some of the comments, but yours must have slipped me by. Sorry.
If Casey is not in the courtroom by the time Judge Perry mandated, the hearing will proceed without her. If they are not there, he will rule against them because they weren't present to argue. Plain and simple. I don't think she will be late again, but to answer your question regarding her attire, yes, she will be wearing jail clothes if there isn't enough time to change. Or else.
Thanks!
Hello, Kathy - So, you are very well informed on the Ross case, then. I have only met one murderer in my life... as far as I know, and that wasn't really "meeting" him in the classic sense. He hung around a bar I used to frequent. Now, he's in jail and I quit drinking. I'd like to know if Ross will be retried, so if you hear anything, please let me know.
I really don't know which way the judge will swing. The fact that he needs 2 weeks to decide makes me think it's a tough decision that warrants tons of research.
Thank you very much for enjoying the article. I shall do my best to keep up the good work. You take care, too.
Dave nice write up ! :) I like to say something about Cindy Anthony if I may withhout being attack. I was in the bathroom at the recess break and Cindy came in. I was washing my hands she ask me how I was doing . I told her I was doing okay, I told her I loved her new hair cut and she looked really nice today. She gave me her warm smile and said thank you. No matter what people may think of her she is a caring grandmother and a really nice woman. She loved Caylee and loves Casey Very Much people need to stop being so hard on her. I am not saying seeing she has not made any mistakes in this case. But who would want too see their only daughter get put to death! I am a mother I would never end this world could Imagine any of my angels even being hurt in any way. What Im saying is we all fell in love with Little Caylee Marie Anrthony, we all want justice for her. There is two sides too every story only what alot people knows is what the News Channels release and the Police and alot of the times is far from the truth!
So in about 2 months and week The Trial will start and Justice will be served for America's Angel Caylee Marie Anthony.
Hi, Joy - No one should pick on you for what you think. This blog is a safe zone.
People sometimes wonder why George and Cindy sit on the defense side and how that will hurt Casey during the trial. To that, I say baloney! You know why? Exactly for the reason you stated. The State is trying to execute their daughter. It's one thing to want justice for their grandchild, but it's another thing to take their daughter's life. They may support justice, but that doesn't mean they have to support the death penalty in this case, and there's no doubt, the State wants Casey dead.
Thanks!
Thanks for the reply Dave, Was the Murderer you are speaking of happen to be James Hataway? Yikes! he is a scary Man...One other Murderer that I have crossed paths with was Oba Chandler(Joan,Michelle & Christie Rogers murdered June 89)....Oba would frequent the Club I used to Moonlight in as a bartender...Another Scary Man sitting on death row rightfully......Judge Perry is a walking Encyclodepia of Law, I think the reason for the length of his decision making was,He said something about being in Tallahassee asking for Money or something to that effect,also He will probably be attending the Services for the Late Judge Conrad. You know Dave,Judge Perry assigned this case to Judge Strickland and when the Defense pulled their little tactic...Judge Perry said ok let's Play...I'm glad he did,but I do miss Strickland,another HONORABLE MAN
Yes, Kathy, that would be "alleged killer" James Hataway. I recall Oba Chandler. I'll have to refresh my memory, though, but later. I've got an appointment this morning until sometime this afternoon.
Yes, Judge Perry does have a keen mind when it comes to law. He's definitely the right judge since Judge Strickland stepped down. The defense didn't know what hit them. Judge Strickland was great in this case. I can't say enough about him.
Excellent Report! Dave - as always very well done! 60 Minutes should hire you! I wonder in what direction the Judge will take. It will be interesting and probably more than most will choose to disagree with whatever decision the Judge makes, as is the norm with this case.
As much press as this case has gotten - what about the woman who ''roasted'' her son. Or the woman who ate pizza after beating her child to death. Or... there are just too many and it seems as though every day brings more horror stories of children beaten, molested, abused and killed.
As I get older, I reflect on what my elderly patients say from time to time.... Armagedeon is coming and soon. What a fearful thing. Or is it to be feared?
Hi Sara Jane - I'm not fearful of Armageddon. If and when it comes, it comes. Besides, it beats dying from the direct impact of a comet.
There are just too many cases to fathom. The fact that news from around the world comes at us in a flash, we have to get used to hearing about crimes we never knew about years ago. The news today is incredible.
Thank you for enjoying my report. I don't know about 60 Minutes, though. 30 Minutes is more like it, although this post did take a few hours to write.
Dave had to go out for awhile, so if you are stuck in moderation he will let you out when he returns.
Thank you, Mary Jo.
Didn't Casey at one time say that she was following a script that someone had given her and forced her to follow after the kidnapping? Didn't she tell someone that she had to say and do certain things to protect her family? If she were in fact following a script, or if the police officers assumed that she was acting under duress, couldn't they have questioned her at Universal to find out if she were indeed a victim being forced to lie under duress and have skipped her Miranda rights since they don't Mirandize victims of crimes? Didn't they have a responsibility to give a mother, and possible crime victim, every benefit of the doubt so that she could lead them to the child? Didn't Cindy have all kinds of "crazy" notions about who Zanaida really was among Casey's friends? Following a script in such a situation is bizarre, but is it any more bizarre than what Casey actually may have done?
Has anything been said recently about Casey's "follow the script" allegation.
The problem with Casey's script is that LE shot it full of holes right away, Amber. She never thought things through because she never had to in the past. She never learned. Her parents and friends let her get away with everything and she was never caught off guard like this.
Dave: I'm going to quote you here: “I think the judge is going to allow Casey’s early statements to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police.” So, lots more drama to come?
Actually, I think this stratgey would be rather brillant, and 'fair'.
Another interesting point that you bring up is 'when' did LE's interest in Miss Anthony cross the line between victim and suspect. This one concerns me quite a bit, really; because LE are professionals trained to investigate, to track down, to search, to assist, and to be suspicious.
There are some times when their job description requires them to do other than 'make nice'. Personally, I think they handled this whole thing with kid gloves. I don't believe Miss Anthony's rights were violated in any way, nor was she ever intimadated or frightened. I think she quite enjoyed the company and attention of LE.
Caylee was gone and it was time to move on.
Now, the Judge will rule. The sooner the better.
I loved your post, btw. You put a lot of hard work into it, and it certainly showed. (But then you always do.)
Thank you very much, nan11. Yup, this one took some work.
I don't think LE treated Casey with kid gloves. Initially, they didn't know what was up, but when the detectives got there, they saw right through her. Think about it, her mother calls 911 and the next day she's locked up. In court on Monday, I could see the pent up frustration on those detectives' eyes. They feel they have her dead to rights. Yes, Casey seemed to relish in the company and attention of LE, but I'll tell you, they were ready to strangle her by July 16. They knew what they had.
joyangels4caylee: Your comment was moving really. I can feel your compassion for Cindy. During the course of this investigation, you have really put yourself out there for the Anthony's.
In my opinion, you certainly deserved a smile, and a thank you in return.
I hope you are careful not to let your compassionate nature read more into it, though. Because, I'm not so sure the A's support justice. However, that is just my opinion. :-)
Hi, Dave, and thanks for another really, really good article!
Between your latest articles and the last two hearings, we're all scrambling to become more familiar with Miranda. Certainly Judge Perry, who does his own research we are told, will be pouring over hundreds of appellate court cases regarding Miranda, and reaching a decision will be no easy task.
The folllowing link is to an article titled:
MIRANDA LAW:
A GUIDE TO THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
I find it interesting that contained within the article is some of the verbiage Cheny Mason and LDB used in presenting their arguments such as "the totality of circumstances".
Of particular interest to me are these two paragraphs from the article, and I'd really like your understanding of them as they may apply to Casey, if you don't mind and have the time. :-).
1. DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE (Michigan v. Tucker 1974) Applies if suspect has not been Mirandized and asserts an alibi defense in response to police questioning. If police check out the alibi, and it, or the witness leads from it, lead to incriminating information against the suspect, it can be used against them. The reliability of any witness's testimony is not affected by Miranda violations.
2. PURGED TAINT (Wong Sun v. U.S. 1963) A confession obtained following an unlawful arrest is admissible if the "taint" caused by the police illegality is somehow "purged". Usually applies in cases involving multiple questioning at different points in time; e.g., marathon interrogations with breaks, or (more commonly) the suspect coming back in voluntarily to continue answering questions after being released. [The suspect's voluntariness to talk after a break in time "purges" the taint of previous police illegality]. (the brackets are for emphasis)
Though it can't be said that Casey was unlawfully arrested, and she certainly made no confession, the fact still remains that she was questioned in various places (her home, enroute to the apartments, to Universal, etc.) all of which seem to indicate she was not under actual arrest at any point in time beyond those few minutes she spent in handcuffs. After the handcuffs were removed she continued to VOLUNTARILY cooperate with police, going so far as to guide them through to her alleged office at Universal where she again volunteered, however false, information.
Call me lame but I am having difficulty believing that JP will throw anything out but what statements she made while actually detained, as when she was in handcuffs and in the back of the patrol car.
As always, forgive me my ignorance, and ramblings, and above all else, have a terrific day!
Hi, Feathers - I'll have to do some research before I can give you a thorough answer, but I will give you something to ponder. Miss Friendly & Bubbly was very friendly and bubbly that night and the next morning. I wonder how friendly and bubbly she would have been had she been Mirandized.
I'm very glad you enjoyed my article, and there's nothing to forgive you for. You are far from ignorant and you don't ramble. Your request for my opinion on 1 & 2 is an excellent thought. The fact that the state and defense referenced MIRANDA LAW: A GUIDE TO THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION shows that you've done your homework. Give me some time and I'll get back to you. Thanks. Great ideas!
Dave, great post! Thank you so much for delving so deeply into this. I was having a hard time hearing some of the things that Mason was saying while watching it on TV and online. I have to say that I was not all that impressed with Mason. To me he comes across as being arrogant and almost like he is trying to tell the judge what he should do. I don't like when he tries to add his little jokes in. I especially didn't like when he was trying to cast Casey off as a child. She is far from a child. She was an adult who was making her own decisions. I imagine that LDB had a good reason for not touching on Mason's statement about Casey not being read her Miranda warnings until October 14, 2008. She is quick to catch everything else. I also think that JP asked Mason about the Parks case for a specific reason. I think JP will let her earlier statements in before she was handcuffed. I am hoping he will let the statements she made after that in, but I am not going to be surprised if he doesn't. There is plenty of other evidence the State can use if he doesn't let the statements from Casey come in. I have no doubt that he will deny the defense motion about the Anthony's working as agents of the state. Thanks again for all your time and work with giving us this detailed post. Thanks also for being in the court room and being our eyes and ears for us. Your posts always make me feel like I was right there with you in the court room. It is much appreciated!
Hi, Mary Jo - I guess we'll find out next week what the decision is. Trust me, JP isn't going to be swept up in Mason's rhetoric. Everyone knows Casey wasn't a child, especially the judge. Children don't get death. You know, what I wrote is just an idea of what could happen, although it could go any way at all. I just like to write and proffer my thoughts. Thank you so very much for appreciating my work. I hope it pays off one day. Perhaps I could get a job writing church bulletins or something.
If the defense knew that Casey wasn't read her Miranda rights until October 14, 2008, why haven't they tried to use that to get her out of jail? Why would you leave your client sitting in jail for over 2 years knowing she wasn't read her rights? If that was me, I would be so upset with my defense team and would probably fire them on the spot.
Thank you so much Dave for being our eyes and ears in court room, but also for being our researcher and editor. You do a remarkable job of it. I look at you in court room and you always seem so busy with writing so its amazing that nothing seems to get by you. You always make such good observations. I thought that Melich had taken Casey back to the command center and that is when he received phone calls from Jesse, Amy and several others. It was after this that she was given a chance to change her story and when she did not, that is when she was arrested. The phone calls prompted the arrest at that time. IMO. They did not force her to go to Universal, she went willingly. Mason said two officers went ahead of her and two followed, as if she was caged in. The reports say that SHE led the officers in and down the hall. I think everything should come in because she led the charade all the way. I think the officers gave her every chance to tell the truth, before they actually arrested her.
Oh Margaret, you're so sweet. Thank you. You see me in court? With paper and pen? The guard told me I couldn't drool, but I could doodle. Actually, the Smithsonian approached me and asked if it could have my notebooks after this is over, so I had to start writing.
Melich wrote in his arrest affidavit that he said he was suspicious while in her bedroom. He said it was suspect. That's two times he mentioned he didn't necessarily believe her. Could that be problematic? Yes, but I don't know what the judge will say to it. Yes, everyone gave her a chance to tell the truth, but how many people charged with murder do that? She should have been given her rights if only as a precaution.
Hi Dave, As I have said and others also, the Universal testimony will get tossed. The moment that prearranged door closed Miranda should have been given. LE did not know Caylee was dead or that Casey had anything to do with it but LE did know Casey had been lying and felt Casey was guilty of something. I dont think it will matter what LE felt she was guilty of only that Casey was no longer a victim but a suspect.
I'm afraid I must agree with you, cali patti. It might turn out to be evidence prior to that meeting, too. I think the judge had to give himself almost 2 weeks to decide because of the complexities of this motion. I don't envy him one bit.
On October 14th when Casey was charged with Murder One. It is my understanding the the DP plus LWOP were automatically on the table because the charges were Murder One. The DP was taken off the table on Dec 5/08 and then put back on April/09. The death penalty had to have been on the table if they took it off.
When I listed to the interview at Universal Studio, Casey was informed that the door was closed for privacy reasons but they stressed, it was unlocked. She was NOT in handcuffs which would have been considered a restraint. She was NOT told that she was free to leave at any time ( no where on the audio tape of the interview was this specified)
Casey was not classed as a suspect when she was taken to Universal.. LE took her to Universal as they were inclined to believe she MAY be suspect and the trip to Universal was to prove one way or another if she may have some involvement in the disappearance of her child. The smell in the Pontiac would only play an insignificent role while these trips to Sawgrass and Unversal were taking place because the priority was to locate a missing child and this was first and foremost. Time is of the essense when a child is missing and could be in harms way if a kidnapper was holding her.
The interview by LE did become heated but I feel it was done in such a way to get answers from a mother who lied, showed little emotion for her missing child and even apologized to LE for not telling the whole truth. After the trip to Universal, it was evident that Casey was considered a suspect and as a result was taken to the police station and arrested. Even tho we cannot find a written statement where Casey was read her Miranda Rights at the police station, it is routine when placing someone under arrest. From reading the statements, it seemed obvious that she was told her rights in some fashion. They appointed an attorney for her and she/he was available until 17 hrs after her arrest, Baez came upon the scene.
Casey was held without bond and the judge ordered a 33 day mental evaluation on her. After that time, the prosecution could lay more formal charges (not sure exactly what was meant by more formal charges) and Casey had the right to apply for bond after that.
Cheney Mason was very deceptive in his words that Casey was given her first Miranda rights on Oct 14th when the grand jury came down with their decision that she be charged with Murder One. We did find that Casey was read her rights on Aug 29/08 when arrested for the check/fraud. I think that we will find out that she was read her rights back on July 16th.
I am not even worried about the 5 minutes of Casey being cuffed and I am very optomistic that we will be pleased with Judge Perry's decisions.
Dave, you are beginning to be our 'man wonder'. Lots of great, indepth research went into this post . You never cease to amaze us and for that I am grateful. Thank you so very much.
Thank you, Snoopy. This one did take some work. I just hope it doesn't come down to an interpretation issue. When Melich questioned Casey in her bedroom, he basically called her a suspect. The cops knew right away that something weird was going on in that house and it all pointed to Casey, including the death smell in her car. How the judge interprets law is the issue. I still maintain that she should have been told her Miranda Rights, if just to be prudent. Then, this mess wouldn't have happened. Casey being cuffed doesn't bother me, either.
Thankyou for this article Dave,,,And also for digging up the info on the case law J Perry mentioned..I am unsure wich way J Perry will rule.However my gut tells me he will err on the side. of caution an the Universal interveiw will be excluded..I would bet my bottom dollar though that the Anthonys as agents of the State has about as much chance as a snowball in hell of sucseeding.............
Hi, ecossie possie - It's always a pleasure to see you. You mean when hell freezes over, don't you? Oh, wait. That was the Eagles.
Ecossie, I am banking on the Univeral interview staying. If the judge decides against it, it is really no big deal as there is plenty of Casey's fabrication that precedes when the Miranda Rights should have been read.
As re the Anthonys being agents of the state- hogwash!!
In "ROSS VS. STATE OF FLORIDA" the following was decided on appeal....".would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." This is where they are going to get Casey and take her down, any "reasonable person knew they could get up and walk out at any time, the door was unlocked and she wasn't handcuffed. whether they had a car to drive them or not, there are phones everywhere. The other thing that is going to get her is her phone call to her home to try and get Tony's number where she stated, "I WAS ARRESTED ON A F#$%^&G WHIM" it wasn't until then that she felt she was in custody, this statement says a lot to me, up until then she was still playing cat and mouse with the detectives she didn't feel like she was in custody at all, as a matter of fact Casey had been getting away with lies all her life, she was just riding out the storm and thought it would pass, she was shocked when they got back to the police station and the cops "arrested her on a bleeping whim"!
That's an interesting observation, Pammy. I think there's something in law, though, that protects suspects at some point. In other words, if the cops are being very sweet to you in order to gain information, you let your guard down and tell them more than you might under stressful interrogation. The situation being, that you Mirandize someone and still act sweet. That way, there shouldn't be any court issue over this. Had this been so cut and dry, Judge Perry would have ruled by now. Of course, this is more my opinion than anything else.
I swear once they get into case law my eyes cross! It's a necessary, important and even vital to a case at times, but it's so very DULL. Anyway, having said that I have noticed Judge Perry asking Cheney Mason before if he had read such and such case. I was impressed with Mason's courtroom experience and the way he can cite case law off the top of his head. BUT, it's like my travels around the United States with my military husband. I was divorced over 20 years ago, those states and cities have changed since then as people keep reminding me.. most importantly so has case law and at times it looks like Mason hasn't kept up with it since the one he likes to cite happened. He's been reminded twice that I can remember that something happened in the 90's to reverse that or another case with better reasons for citation happened. It just seems to me Mason should take the time or have his aids take the time to read more recent case law in some areas.
I got curious and just listened to that taped conversation at Universal with Casey. It starts out with her lying to the police but it ends with her giving out even more "information" on Zenaida, so at that point she wasn't the main suspect, her statements were just that "suspicous" because of the lies. In the beginning he says" sittin in a little conference room and door isn't locked we're just sittin here for a little privacy.", and at the end of the tape or near it he says "we're not trying to be big scary guys, we're just trying to get more information to go off of". No miranda but also it seemed to me they were still looking for this Zenaida person.
Whether they allow it in or not, they will have the statements of her friends to prove the same point. She wasn't out looking for her daughter, she was partying and living at her boyfriends, stealing from her best friend. Like you said, if they don't allow it in there's bunches more out there.
Actually, Connie, the Ross v. State case Mason cited was from 2010, at least the revision was, but the crime itself was in 2004, so it's not that old, but I know what you mean and Richard Hornsby did a great write up on Mason's being stuck in the past.
As for LE cornering Casey in that little room at Universal, in my opinion, they already knew there was no Zenaida. They were egging her on, not that there's anything wrong with that. The only problem is, should she have been told her rights as a precaution? Was she really a suspect when they said she wasn't? If some of this is thrown out, there's still lots more. If several of the charges could be tossed, big whoop. She's not going to be released from the big one, the one carrying the DP or LWOP. I don't think she can escape that one.
This case law can get so confusing but if we read into the Defense's argument that she was questioned without being read her rights, the questions are this:
At what point do you read someone their rights? Does giving someone their rights automatically imply they are under arrest and that is the next step? Must they be told they are under arrest before the rights are given?
I think LE was doing their job. Trying to find answers out first. Which they did. It was after the Universal interview that the dectectives could firmly conclude that Casey was a suspect. I don't think anything that she said or did up to that point mandated that she was a suspect. Do you read them their rights the minute they become a suspect in one of LE's eyes?
No doubt LE was doing there job, and they are very good cops, but any good defense is going to file something like this. I'm sure Melich, Allen and the others have seen it all before. This case has been worked on for a long time. The last thing they want is to see it fade away because of a technicality. That's not going to happen.
The problematic statement is any reasonable person...After nearly three years of observeing Casey I think we can all agree she is the furthest thing in Gods creation from being a reasonable person...In fact ,,,I M O she is quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic..Sentaceing her to death should not be an option as she is mad bad an sad.................
You got that right, ecossie. When God created her, the only sandwiches available were baloney.
Hi Snoopy that is exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it so much better. Thanks. I cannot find where Melich Mirandized her, but he is too professional to make that blunder.I am going to keep looking.
ecossie possie, I have to laugh as I had just typed out my comment regarding "a reasonable person". (erased).
Also, I think Cheney more than likely knew of the Parks v State. To me, Judge Perry is just saying to Cheney, no, we're not doing this. After all, Cheney was just using cases he felt would benefit Casey....he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Nice way of Judge Perry letting Cheney know that Cheney will not mislead by Court cases....JP aint doin that dance !!
Just saw this and wanted to share it.
Casey Anthony Updates
Mark your calendar... we've been told to expect the release of more evidence on Friday.
Oh boy. Can't wait.
Magret...... Det Mellich admitted under oath whilst being questioned that he never Mirandised Casey..This just means that he never did personaly although some one else in L E must have at some point. I can almost garantee what her responce would be though after being read her rights an whether she understood her right to council an remain silent ect .Her responce wouldve been ABSOLUTLEY...
Hello, my first time posting but have enjoyed the commentary very much. I'm a non-native, non-criminal lawyer but have been following the case since the remains were discovered. When the disappearance and the mother's explanation were first in the media, I completely dismissed any thought of her innocence. Her audacity, in light of no clear cut mental illness has made this fascinating for me. Psych degree before my law degree.
I don't have anyone around that will even pay attention. When I begin the story, ever single individual has guffawed after the toddler was gone for a month without being reported missing by anyone and the mother claims to have left her with a babysitter. That's as far as the conversation gets. No list of the lies, nothing about the car, or any other detail large or small.
However, Patti O, you are quite correct to raise the question as to the relevance of whether she was a suspect. Not relevant at all. I have checked your case law and it simply doesn't matter - easy to see why. You must be arrested.
Nevertheless, if there is some reason the Judge holds for the defence it means nothing. Melich, Allan and Wells will all be happy to explain all about Universal and will hardly be crossed on whether Casey was under arrest at that point even if her statement is thrown out.
The only motion worth the while but still a loser.
Sorry for the length.
Hi, EH, and welcome to our blog. Your opinions are very important here, so don't ever be afraid to say something. This is a great conversation we're having and I know I want to hear whatever you have to say. Thank you.
Oh... and don't worry about length.
Dave, all, I don't know if the following links have been posted to the interviews conducted on 7/16/2008 of Casey at her home and Universal. Though the questioning by the detectives is somewhat terse and accusatory at times, Casey is repeatedly asked what it is she wants as well as the point is made that she is there voluntarily.
http://www.wftv.com/video/17458685/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/video/17461496/index.html
I hope the links work.
TTYL
Thank you for the links, Feathers!
Ecossie Posse
I just got back from some errands and saw your comment about Casey being the furthest thing in God's creation from a reasonable person. I agree with you. I really hope that she is not given the death penalty. I think the death penalty is wrong in most situations from a moral point of view but it is even more wrong when a person lacks the mental capacity or stability to have the necessary intent to commit a serious crime.
I enjoy reading all of the comments on this site. People are so reasonable in general in their comments on this site. Dave sets a good tone and sees to it that reason prevails. I also really like the depth of the analysis and the thorough research that Dave puts into each article and each response to comments. I think that he does a much better job with this case than most of the famous talk show or crime show discussion hosts.
Amber
Dave; Bless you for doing all this work on the Casey Anthony case, and your determination to bring us the latest news and pretiral hearings.
I have a question for you. After the door was closed at Universal, did the LE's say on VIDEOTAPE, that she was being recorded? Are we to believe that they told her she was being recorded off tape, but it isn't on the video? If that is the case, then LE knew exactly what they were after, and thought of her right there, as the number 1 suspect. They controlled that videotape, and to me, she I was being recorded like that, at UNIVERSAL, and not at the Station, it was trickery. Don't misunderstand me, I am hoping it will be allowed in, but I think it's pretty grey whether it will. And I agree with you about so much more, like the car smell. If they took the opportunity to investigate the car (because of what Cindy said in the 911 tapes) all of that before the infamous interrogation at UNIVERSAL, they knew that the child was not only missing but dead. This was the car that Casey used, to get around. Momma put the bullseye on Casey right from the get go. The LE knew Casey was lying even at her home. They were really really good at questioning her, but I hate to say it, they were afraid to Miranda her too soon. They wanted to get as much information from her, to start the search of a dead Caylee, not a live one. It was sneeky to video her in a room that they had set up before she even led them through to her supposed workplace. They already knew she never worked there. I think Mason has a case here, atleast on an Appeal basis.
Dave, thanks as always you really put so much work into your articles. I wonder if JP comes here to view your articles? ok, just kidding. lol
Hello Weezie, my friend. I just love it when you drop by.
I think LE did tell Casey the conversation was being recorded because she must have seen a recording device. I don't think it was through Universal, and they must tell you when they are going to do that unless they have a court order. It was not a video, though, it was audio. Yes, LE controlled that conversation, but I don't see anything wrong with that. They did treat her like a suspect, didn't they?,/b>
Since I believe that guilty, guilty, guilty is the only forseeable option, I hope as well that the death penalty is not her sentence.
Objectively, the prisons are warehouses for sociopaths so not really a reason not to execute Casey, but it will turn her into a martyr for a lot of people on principle.
Attention is what she seeks and attention she will get it with a death sentence. Something with no possibility of parole for fifty odd years and she'll be forgotten by the coming winter. Caylee will not.
Somewhere about the time she is as defenceless as Caylee was put her back on the street and wish her luck.
I should add between Casey and the perpertrators of the Petit murders in Connecticut my vehement opposition to imposing execution has been truly shaken.
As a member of the legal community, you very quickly learn how fallible the system is, and if one innocent life may be lost, it is really worth it. I'm left with the argument that state sanctioned murder is still murder and seems illogical. Yes, the Jib Jab cartoon argument but it seems valid to me.
Please know that I mean absolutely no offense to anyone who supports the death penalty. We all have our reasons for being on either side of that issue.
Sorry for going off topic, but these motions, win or lose, aren't going to change the outcome. Even maybe sort of.
Don't worry, EH, I'm against the death penalty, too. If Casey is sentenced to death, she may be forgotten, or she may turn out to be the 21st century's version of Lizzie Borden.
Dave; just remove my last post. I really meant to post this one. The UTUBE tape at Universal, but I don't know how to do it so here is the link, you can do that for your readers, if you feel it appropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_SyH8-6Pho&feature=player_embedded
<Your wish is my command!
Weezie, to me you hit the nail on the head in your statements !
Didn't one of the detectives state this was his first missing person case; that he had been in homicide?
If I am recalling that correctly, you can't tell me he didn't suspect Caylee was not alive and that her mother had something to do with it. After all, Cindy stated the car smelled like there had been a dead body in the car. Plus, detectives have been around enough they can spot a "con" job pretty quickly. imo they had Casey pegged within the first hour.
Hi Newbie!!!
Hi EH welcome Im in the UK an apart from my wife I dont discuss this case with anyone.She doesnt blog but uses her PC for Bingo an Games ..She was also flaberghasted over the 31 days .Amber Its been reported word of mouth on sevral other sites by alleged insiders Freinds of people that work at the jali ectl were Casey is being kept.That she has totaly lost the plot an is costantly talking to hersef an jibbering nonsence...Now this could just be a ploy to garner synpathy an the set up for a diminshed responceablity plea.An thease insiders may be defence trolls..However I M O actions speak louder than words an at no point in this whole tragedy has Casey acted like a ratinal person..I know its iratinal to murder your child but even so her actions there after indicate no consept of reality.Even her constant frantic scribbling at court recently telegraph to me that she is totally out of touch with the reality of her plight...Ailine Wournous was Insane an it didnt prevent her from being executed though M O O....
LE had to gain enough information to lay charges against Casey, get her in jail and off the streets. They did just that and were able to arrest her for child neglect and lying to LE. I commend LE for how they handled the situation. You can haul someone down to the jailhouse but, if you don't have enough evidence to charge them, you have to release them before 24 hours have elapsed.
Casey's constant writing and scribbling in the courtroom is a form of escape from reality. She has trained herself to block out what some of the witnesses, Judge and prosecution are saying. She will pay attention if something is said in her favor. She even tries to crawl up inside the sleeves of her sweater to hide.
Casey has mental issues but she is definitely not insane. I doubt very much if she can feign insanity at this late stage. She probably has boredom setting in at the jail after being the center of attention in the courtroom for 2 long days and then another half day.
Hello to you, Ecossie, if I may use your first name.
True jibberish, at this stage, may effect her ability to stand trial but they will evaluate her in a hospital and will be medicated into competence. And then there will be a trial. Not really easy to pull off and the lawyers would be talking to Justice Perry about it now if that was the ruse.
She simply must be able to instruct counsel and she was last week so I doubt the rumours are true or she just does speak in gibberish.
No doubt she is heavy into her fantasy world as a genius supermodel, who could photograph herself for all those magazine covers, in the downtime in her role as a Supreme Court Justice. I'm sure parts of her internal dialogue spill out and would sound like gibberish to anyone in the real world..
Legal insanity is the down to the ability to understand right from wrong so you need to be gonzo gonzo. Casey's attempts to cover up her crime completely shut down even mentioning it. We forget, as a sociopath or worse, Casey was just an object to get rid of, as we would a sofa or TV that no longer suited our purposes. We may well feel more sentimental about sending the good old sofa to the trash heap than Casey did about her disposal of Caylee. That's not insanity. Cruelty beyond imagining but not insanity.
Hi Snoops ......This talking to herself has allegedly been happening for some months an is not a recent phenonima..That being said I talk to myself at times I talk to my cats an they answer me back .Ive even been known to swear at inanimate objects......
Ecossie~~I guess there's nothing like having a conversation with a flower pot and getting right down to earth. I have a feeling that one of these days you may be hit by a missile. Does your wife have good aim?
Here are your links weezie.
Docstoc CA/police interview
YouTube audio of interview at Universal
WFTV audio 1
WFTV audio 2 (universal)
Now that everyone mentions it, I had a thought about the car smell and Uri Melich. The car was in the garage. Lee mentioned he smelled it because he came into the house that way... but if the police officers came in through the front door as you would expect they wouldn't even see the car unless someone took them over there or out into the garage area. There seemed to be some confusion because of the number of 911 calls. The first officers to respond did it because of the theft reported.. that was before the bad odor call. If one of those officers had Melich called in and they didn't mention it, then he wouldn't even have known about it right off hand. What we heard on the 911 tapes and what they got called on just might be different.