A sneaking suspicion

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:

1. whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
2. whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
3. whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
4. 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.

Comments

[SnoopySleuth]

I have always maintained that Zanny the Nanny is Casey's alter ego. I suppose they chit chat back and forth. I would love to know what they talk about. Maybe Zanny speaks in Spanish. Casey is locked up 23 hrs at a time and a young woman, her age, must get stir crazy. Being in protective custody can be a very lonely time but the jail must keep her alive and well so the courts can decide if she should be killed. It is not a pretty picture. She will have more outings at the hearings and once the trial starts, she will have more attention that she ever dreamed of.

[conniefl]

Yeah, Snoopy, and after it's all over all that attention goes away and she gets introduced to the population at large. Nothing to look forward to.

[SnoopySleuth]

conniefl~~you made a good observation about Yuri Melich going to the Anthony's front door rather than thru the garage. On the videos they used the door when they entered or made an exit. Yuri would not necessarily have smelled the car which was in the garage. Maybe the garage door was closed by the time Yuri arrive which was around 3-4 am.

[Feathers]

Snoopy, Connie, that would explain why it took them so long to confiscate the car, wouldn't it?

[Laurali]

Hi Dave~ I have not had time to catch up so I do not know if this has already been discussed. When Casey went to court on July 17,2008 a notice of her Rights was filed. She was aware of them and asked for an attorney. It is at the OC my clerk.

I am sure the defense wants all her statements thrown out along with she works at Universal, ZFG, and a few other good ones but we don't always get what we want. Casey is a liar, if you take away all her lies than what do you have left? Caylee, deceased and tossed like garbage and a mom who said nothing and did not help at all. IMO that makes her look just as guilty. Why would she not talk and assist? A jury will wonder.

Good morning, Laura - As far as I know, the court asked her if she knew her rights. That's AFTER she was arrested and she became a defendant. There's a difference between what the court asks you and what the police are supposed to tell you, meaning the Miranda warning. Personally, I think the police had her number early on, and I'd hate to see it unravel because of a technicality, but the law is the law. Poor Judge Perry. I'd hate to be in his position right now.>/b>

[Cindy]

Interesting viewpoints all around! i guess I have more of a question than comment. When EXACTLY does law enforcement need to read Miranda Rights? I always thought it was when an arrest came from all evidence pointing to a suspect and no one else. Now when in that process is an arrest imminent? I have NO experience regarding police matters other than watching show depicting real crime situations and talk shows regarding this, but I always hear talk about law enforcement should never make an arrest unless they believe the charges will be enough to convince a Judge or jury. As crazy as Casey's story sounded at the time (BTW STILL DOES), lets just suppose, they did find a ZFG that could have been considered maybe being the one (no alibi, in general vicinity etc.), When in the process does the evidence weigh more on the side of the suspect. I will always remember Susan Smith. Law Enforcement clearly knew early on that her story wasn't adding up. If I remember correctly, she had not been arrested at the time she broke down and finally told the truth. At that point, she had had several police interviews, clearly she was the last person with whom her children was with, her story fell apart very early but I never heard anything about her statement being thrown out by law enforcement.
If the Universal interview does get thrown out (i am voting no) she said nothing in it that she didn't say earlier to her brother and in her written statement so I believe there will be no damage done to the State's case.

Good morning, Cindy - I have to go out now to take care of a business deal, but I will be back later, Hopefully, someone will come in and help you out with your question. Please feel right at home here. Thanks, Dave

[nan11]

Dave: Believe me when I say I have spent countless hours of my life thinking about this case. I hope I have spent most of those hours praying for Caylee; but, that might not be true.

If I may be so bold as to suggest a look at the Amanda Knox case--now there was a young woman who was 'brutally' interrogated by law enforcement. I am not offering an opinion as to Amanda's guilt or innocence, just to that fact.

I have reviewed both interviews and both transcripts. I have googled (and received from others) links explaining the 'Miranda Warning'. I have done everything but stand on my head and try reading them backwards, but I still come to the same conclusion. Respectible law enforcement officers, respecting the rights of Casey Marie Anthony, is what I see.

Her attorneys point out such factors as three large (and armed) males in a tiny room with Miss Anthony. Yes, these three large and armed males took her there so that she could show them her office--and, also, so that they could locate Jeffrey Michael Hopkins and Juliette Lewis. The two people whom, according to Miss Anthony, were aware of Caylee's kidnapping.

Now, attorney's Mason and Baez might have a point about that much testosterone being in a tiny room with a tiny woman. I might give them that. I am a woman of similar height, albiet a little wider, than Miss Anthony. Size alone can intimidate. However, it's at this point that I begin to disagree that her rights were violated.

Cpl. Melich told her that the door was unlocked. He said on the witness stand that he sat on one 'end' of the 'sofa', while Casey sat on the other. I suggest it didn't have to be this way. He could have really, really gotten in her face that day. I believe he had enough evidence, that legally speaking; the law would have given him this latitude.

I know they raised their voices. I know they struck something with their fist to make their point (but I guess there was not a table in the room?). I suggest to you, is this any worse than any loving and concerned parent would do to their own child when they caught them in a serious lie. I can certainly imagine myself saying that it's time for the lies to stop and to stop right now. The truth needs to be told. Right now. That is all I see them doing.

And lets not forget the pressure that was building in law enforcement because they were wasting time on Casey's lies; when they could have been searching for a 34 month old baby.

Next they take her down to police headquarters and place her in custody because they are afraid she might try to kill herself. Sure, they snap a little picture of her with sparkles in her eyes and a thousand watt smile; but, they have got a job to do. After all.

I just don't see anything else but utter respect being shown for a person suspected of committing a serious crime. And when Baez had Cpl. Melich on the stand, going so far as to bring up torture--Cpl. Melich responds with: "We don't waterboard, sir." I stood right up and cheered for Cpl. Melich.

So, it totally agree that this has come down to case law and will be correctly decided by the Chief Judge Belvin Perry.

I believe you, nan11. So have I, and now I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. After this is over, I'm going to cook eggs at the Waffle House.

Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a look at the Amanda Knox case after this one is over, but I have others in the wings. There's going to be a part three on the Carla Larson story, where one of the prosecutors was Jeff Ashton and the judge was one Belvin Perry, Jr. The Knox case is definitely on my list, though.

Yes, three large and armed men. Don't worry, the judge sees through that, but Mason is just gearing up for the jury. Even then, they are going to know that Casey was not a "child" when Caylee died. His job is to remove any and all testimony that Casey gave from the jury. Simple. That way, there's no acknowledgement that she played games and acted coy. It would also remove charges of lying and obstructing an investigation, so she wouldn't look as tainted to the jury. There's a lot at stake here for the defense. We shall know at the end of next week. Otherwise, it's going to be a very busy day tomorrow, what with the discovery docs and all. Gee, I can't wait.

[joyangels4caylee]

Cindy ,,, the miranda rights should be read when normally recited by a police officer before interrogating the suspect in police custody.

Alot people are wrongly accused And should not talk to the Police without a lawyer! The rule that police when interrogating you after an arrest, are obliged to warn you that anything you say may be used as evidence and to read you your constitutional rights. The right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent until advised by a lawyer.

[nan11]

Dave: This comment is just to test to see if all my comments are going into moderation. The problem could be on my end. After I logged in, my computer didn't load the page right, so I believe I hit the back button--possibly this took me back to a page before I had signed myself in. (If that makes any sense to anyone, lol)

So, this is for test purposes only. However, if you see any 'issues' with my comments, please feel free to let me know. I promise to humbly listen, and obey your advice. :-)

You just keep right on truckin', nan11. I hope you aren't having many problems with Squarespace. If you do, don't hesitate to e-mail me and I will forward it on to the right people.

[SB]

test

[B-Man]

Feather: let me just say I loved your post up-thread!!

I wish I could muster something as intelligent!! Although we can scrutinize the timeframe in which KC transformed from victim to suspect is a tiny window. IMO there was really no transformation she was always the suspect. What LE did was allow her enough rope to hang herself and provide the shovel to dig herself a hole. Judge Perry will consider the fact that CA called primarily because of theft and wound up being a missing persons. First order of business was to address the initial complaint and, at the same time, the missing persons. Obviously the theft claims were substantiated so she will be arrested and given her Miranda Rights but wait, here’s where I think you can consider hypocrisy. If the investigation up to the point in August was virtually completed why didn’t the defense bring this up in August nearly a month after her CA screamed THIEF? There had to be a reason to take her away in handcuffs…while investigators are investigating the disappearance of Caylee there was no “real” reason to take her away. YM said it best in that “she was the mother of a missing child so I had no reason to doubt her, why would she lie?”

If one was to get technical about the Miranda Rights she wasn’t read the rights concerning her daughter’s disappearance till October the August reading would only relate to the theft so you can’t combine although I understand the premise.

The law was designed so that we keep the innocent out of jail. It wasn’t designed to complicate the sh!t out of everything. LE job was complicated by the continuous lies being wretched by KC. LE should be commended on the job they did to bring justice not condemned.

In the end, in what I believe Dave is trying to point out, that the case against KC is a puzzle and the statements she made are just pieces of the puzzle. The state has extra pieces to complete the puzzle. We should all remember that the statements gathered from friends and family cannot be excluded and, just maybe, their statements had no real value a few months ago they do now.

But I wanted to point one thing that, I’m pretty sure those who watched notice and have even commented on, which is/was KC demeanor at the hearing…pick a day :-). As many of you also pointed out she seemed to be un-caring for those who appeared on her behalf. It seemed as though she expected them to be there for no reason other than for her. Often times, if the camera would allow it, every time Caylee’s name was brought up there was no regard for her. No emotion. She seemed empathetic to her daughter in which she is charged for her death. Cold. Of course I am looking at this in the comforts of my armchair but if I was being accused of something I DIDN’T DO you can bet you sweet ass I’d be saying something to someone and not just writing. I’d be noticeably tearing up and showing emotion. I think I would go as far as a couple outbursts so that everyone knew how much I objected to what was being said, hell if I’m behind bars what do I have to lose right??

You're right, B-Man. It's just a part of the puzzle, and what the defense is doing is to keep her indifferent, uncaring and snide attitude away from the jurors.

[SnoopySleuth]

Nan11, this site still has technical issues but they are not consistent so sometime it a challenge to try and get a comment to show or get logged in properly. My pages do not load properly either and everything seems to go over to the left side leaving a blank page where the posts should be.

[Weezie]

Yes Snoopy I noticed that too. I kept thinking I wasn't on the page till i scrolled down to see everything on the left side of the page DUH.

How could Melich not know about the smell of the car? Don't the police hear the 911 tapes as they drive to the location they are called to? Atleast they would be in touch with them or visa versa. That was a most telling statement that wouldn't be held back by 911 to the cops. After all, it took only overnight for Melich to set up the meeting at Universal, likely knowing that and a lot more about Casey. I still feel that the LAW will side in favour of the Defence on this motion. It's too radical, and would deserve great weight in an Appeals court. The subject was never warned of her rights, but told many times they knew she was lying about the whereabouts of her daughter. They used bullish tactics and could argue that all they wanted was to find Caylee and that's true. BUT they also knew she was the only suspect in the case. They even ruled out Zani the Nanny, her job at Universal, they knew about the smell in the car. SUSPECT #1 WAS BEING QUESTIONED WITHOUT HER MIRANDA. I hate it but the law is favoured in the offender's side.

[Mary Jo]

Baez is asking for more money for investigative hours.

Casey Indigency Anniversary: Taxpayers' Bill Records Show More Than $80K Spent On Anthony Defense

[cares4u]

Nan11 I agree with you about joy w. We have been so hard on her with this case of Caylee Anthony. I went to the court house and said hi, to her. She was a very sweet young woman. Anyone who risk their lives to search in the Florida Swamps is a hero in my book. Thank-you all of Texas Eqqusearch volunters for searching for our sweet Caylee. Joy if you come back here you have very pretty blue eyes and such a sweetheart.

Thank you dave for being Joy W friend and keeping us inform on the case.

I try to be nice to everyone, cares4u, and I shall do my best to keep everyone informed for as long as I can. Thank you.

[martha]

Dear Dave, I am at a new job. Still trying to read when I have a chance as I dont have a computer at home. Just wanted you to know that I am still out there and reading every day on your site.

Hope you and family are well. Your friend always

Hello, Martha My Dear, I hope all is well with you. Congratulations on the new job! Thank you for letting me where you are and that you still like to visit and read. Believe me, the welcome mat is always here for you, and I mean it.

My family is well, thank you, and I hope yours is, too. You are a wonderful person and friend.

[Feathers]

Mary Jo, for Pete's sake! One would think for all of the time and money already expended, as well as all of the information he's obtained from the State's investigation, Baez would be done investigating, huh?

[Mary Jo]

Feathers, you would think that they would have investigated everything by now, but with this defense you never know what they are doing.

[Feathers]

B-Man, me thinks you give me far more credit than it is that I deserve, kind Sir! I so look forward to all of your comments for all I learn from them, such as the last that has caused me to scrutinize and to ponder my way back to July 2008! You've sent me off searching for a couple of things, now, like the original arrest affidavit and her SIGNED understanding her Miranda Rights. I'm having trouble pulling it up on DocStoc, and surely my memory may fail me miserably, but I seem to recall that she was officially arrested for such as child endangerment, neglect, et. al. Does that sound familiar to you at all?

[Feathers]

B-man, all, here's the link to the 7/16/2008 arrest affidavit, and a whole lot of other information. It's down a couple of pages and identifies the charges as neglect of a child, false official statements and obstruct criminal investigation.

http://orlandosentinel.image2.trb.com/orlnews/media/acrobat/2008-08/41844520.pdf

Nan, Laurali, you two have more information on this than I do, or can find at the moment. Would have a link to the statement made by Casey following her official arrest on the 16th? I'll keep looking perchance you don't.

:-)

[nan11]

Feathers: Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet; but, I'm not sure which one you are looking for? After she was officially arrested on the 16th of July, I don't believe she made any 'statements'? Her handwritten one; and the one at home during the early morning hours of July 16th; and the one at Universal during the after noon of 16th are all I can think of right now.

There was one she made after the Grand Jury indictment on Oct. 14th; but this is the one the State has agreed not to use.

So, if you haven't found it yet; and I've listed it here, just give another shout.

;-)

[martha]

Dear Dave,

I am still here reading everyday!!! Your friend, Martha

hope you and family are well

We are all well now, Martha. Thank you for your kind thoughts. I should have a new post up today with info from the latest document release, so stay tuned...

[nymima]

Hi Dave - Really good info in this latest post. I believe the prosecution will still come out the winner in whatever THJP decides. I feel the detectives involved were very professional in their duties at the time and did not cross boundaries as the defense would want the public to believe.

On that note, I have an observation in regards to G & C Anthony. I think we can all agree that they are broken and stressed beyond the capacity of what any human can endure and not be compromised by it - healthwise. Three years and no relief does much damage. Having a sociopath in the family does indeed destroy lives. I know - because there is one in my family who comes and goes and reeks havoc along the way. With Casey now in jail, she still reeks havoc even though the Anthonys don't have to deal with her coming and going from their home stealing money, credit cards, and lying to their faces everyday. Making up e-mails from a fake job so she can get Cindy to babysit. Such manipulation and energy spent in herding her family members into a circle of chaos and depletion of the human spirit. Now she accomplishes this by reporting that her brother and father molested her, not acknowledging them in court, showing outward hostility towards them when she does see them in the courtroom etc. What is difficult to understand is why they choose to remain in her circle of destruction. Maybe Lee took his first step out of that circle when he got on the stand the other day and admitted that he 'played' his sister in order to get information. But G & C remain voluntarily in the circle to be taken down again and again and yet they continue to put money in her account, they show up in court to stand by her and they will perjure themselves on the stand if it means helping Casey out and getting her a lesser sentence.

Our family's sociopath recently made an appearance again and 'tried' to cause havoc with the most vulnerable members of the family. The only way to diffuse it is to take control away from the abuser and send them running with their tail between their legs. That and the threat of the police is the only language they understand. There are enough of us in the family who stand together in a united front to keep the sociopath away for now. I don't see where the Anthony's ever did that. Cindy tried it in the beginning when she made the 911 calls and then she regretted the 'force' she used and went into cover-up mode. No wonder Casey has no respect for them.

It is difficult to stand against a person who was once a member of the family in a good way before the personality defect took control, but our sociopath is no longer that child. She is a force to be reckoned with now with no moral compass, no love and no respect for anyone in the family. She is out to break us down and get what she wants and go her merry way until she needs something from us again. The roller coaster ride is horrific and a real energy burner, but emotions cannot come into play. She is dealt with the same way an outsider would be dealt with if they were trying to harm a family member.

The Anthony's are not sick and tired of being sick and tired yet. After a life-time of havoc, they stand by ready for more. And they will blame themselves if she is found guilty. Caylee is only a fleeting memory. The sociopath in the Anthony household gets the undivided attention and energy. I do wonder if there will be enough energy left in CA to make it to trial?

Thank you for sharing your experiences with a sociopath, nymima. Your comment is incredible and so honest. It's got to be tough, but at least you and your family knew when to say no - enough is enough. Sometime in July, we should know Casey's fate. If she's convicted, the public nightmare will be over, but sadly, for George and Cindy it will never end.

[Karen C.]

Wow- Great post and great comments. God bless you, Nymima! I have a cousin who's dealing with what sounds to be a similar situation, at a remove from me, thank heavens. You can meet, fall for, and marry someone you really have no clue til you're actually living together what the real deal is.

It occurs to me that all these hearings are very helpful to the defense, figuring out what's workable and what's not- you might as well file endless motions so you can "play" it out and get feedback. Like a script meeting. Can we expect to see many more of these regardless of merit? I've plum lost track! And aren't there more depos to be released or do we have them all now?

[Weezie]

I have a question regarding the arrest affidavit from above link : Will those documents have an amendment to the the date of June 9th as the day Caylee went missing. It better have all those dates changed and initialed because wouldn't that cause a lot of havoc if she was found guilty and those documents had the wrong date on it? Just wondering????

[B-Man]

Sorry Feathers, i stand corrected!! :-) I was unclear how it was being argued so it's my bad for not doing the research prior to posting...:-)

[margaret]

Hi everyone.Melich carried Casey backto office after Universal. He received several calls from Caseys friends. He gave Casey one more chance to change story, She said no, He put her under arrest and told her tht he was reccomending no bond.Just like she told LEE Baez was on board next day so she had to have been mirandized/