Part 2: George & Cindy's "Charity" Website Suspended

As I continue writing my next post about Trayvon Martin’s tragic death and George Zimmerman’s present situation, I thought it would be interesting to let you know what’s been happening in the world of George and Cindy. After all, it wasn’t all THAT long ago when the Anthony family owned the daily headlines…

On March 17, I reported that their Caylee’s Fund charity had been suspended. Well, lo and behold, it’s back up and running. However, that’s not my reason for this post. It seems that Dr. Phil’s six-figure donation (whatever the amount) has not been paid, or it’s been safely tucked away somewhere, out of the public’s view. In any event, it looks like their fundraising endeavors have been a bust. Take a look and see for yourself:

You can also do your own search HERE by typing “caylee” inside the box to the right of “Business Name:” (sans “quotation” marks)

Remember, the new charity has nothing to do with missing children. It focuses on grandparents’ rights, or lack thereof, in the state of Florida. As such, I reserve comment on what I think about it, but it is a legitimate organization.

George & Cindy's "Charity" Website Suspended

Someone alerted me to a good-sized development in Caylee’s Fund that should have us all relieved and, possibly, perplexed. It’s been suspended! Why? I don’t know, but I’m sure it has nothing to do with a lack of funding. Purportedly, Dr. Phil paid the non-profit $500,000 to have George and Cindy Anthony appear on his show, but he only acknowledged it was a six-figure amount. Rumors have swirled for months that Casey was paid a whopping $120,000 from the fund, but I cannot show proof of any kind. 

I have said on several occasions that the possibility is real that George and Cindy Anthony made a pact with the devil in order to get their daughter out of jail. By that, I don’t mean literally. It’s a euphimism, unless you think Casey is, in fact, the devil. Just prior to the start of the trial, Cindy and Mark Lippman met privately with Casey’s attorney, Jose Baez. Lippman is George and Cindy’s lawyer. George was not invited to the meeting and this said volumes to me. It meant that Cindy and Lippman were in on the defense strategy to do a character assassination of George — one that began during Baez’s opening statement at trial — or it meant that George was conspicuously absent from the meeting to make it look like he had nothing to do with the made-up story. 

At one of the final hearings before the trial began, I was in the courtroom when Baez asked George on the stand if he would do anything for his daughter. Most of you should remember it, too. George’s reaction? Yes, absolutely, he would do anything, and he was quite vocal about it. When asked if he would lie for Casey, his answer was a resounding YES! 

This signalled (to me) that what most of us had sensed all along was true. The Anthonys were, and remain, natural born liars. With the information gathered from the mouth of George Anthony, he spoke the truth, under oath, that he was willing to do anything to rescue his grandchild’s alleged murderer. Did this include his willingness to be the fall guy? All he had to do was take the bashing because, in the end, no one in the public would believe he ever sexually molested anyone in his family, let alone do any harm to Caylee. Simply put, just deny everything on the stand, which he did, but in the end, it confounded the jury and the plan worked. George came across looking like a liar and a loser — and that’s all the jury had to see to create a semblance of doubt. George looked guilty of something.

Want more? Cindy stated under oath that she made chloroform searches at home on two separate dates, while her bosses at Gentiva Health, Deborah Polisano and John Camperlengo, testified that she couldn’t have because she was at work and logged into her work computer. They also had time cards to prove she was there. Despite their testimony, the defense still managed to muddle the evidence and Casey is free because of it. Job well done, George! Take a bow, Cindy!

There have been other rumors swirling about. A recent one was that Cindy was spotted in a community where Casey had been seen, but once again, I have no proof. The problem I have with this sort of rumor is that no one has produced a photograph of the grieving grandmother, especially when smartphones with cameras are everywhere today. To be succinct, George and Cindy have been conspicuously absent lately. There are no Kodak moments. I say, if the present mimics the past, it could mean that George and Cindy are up to no good. Somewhere.

The person who told me about the website also wondered about the house on Hopespring Drive; that it looks vacant, but of all the visits I’ve made in that neck of the woods, it’s looked empty for a long time, even when I’ve known they were home. Just to be sure, I’ll probably take a ride down there to check it out one of these days, but in the meantime, can anyone explain why the charity site has been suspended? What was it, a misappropriation of funds? Caught red-handed?

Disclaimer: Of course, all of this is pure conjecture on my part. }}}wink wink{{{

ADDENDUM 10:00 PM:

Look here and see that this one has disappeared, too:

CAYLEEMARIEANTHONYFOUNDATION

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Zenaida's Trial Against Casey Postponed

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Patience is a virtue, and we certainly did learn that from all of the postponements in Casey Anthony’s criminal trial. This time, with regard to the Zenaida Gonzalez (Plaintiff) v. Casey Anthony (Defendant) civil trial, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lisa T. Munyon chose to postpone it until January 2, 2013. This trial had been postponed in the past for several reasons, all stemming from motions filed by the defense, but this time, both sides agreed that one more postponement was necessary. Why?

Let’s start with the basics, beginning with what’s been going on since the start of the new year. On February 29, the defense made a request to continue the trial date by filing a motion to Abate Trial Deadlines. A continuance means to postpone a date set by the court. Last week, on March 6, the judge heard the motion and the plaintiff’s objection to the continuance. Zenaida and her team of lawyers were ready to go to trial. After hearing from both sides, Judge Munyon chose to deny the defense motion that day. Jury selection was scheduled to start on April 10, 2012, with the trial slated to begin the following week in the same courtroom as the criminal trial. That would be Courtroom 23.

All honky dory, right? No, because on March 9, Zenaida’s attorneys filed a Notice of Conflict stating that they were scheduled to be in a Duval County courtroom trying other civil matters beginning on April 9. Their reasoning was solid. The Duval court scheduled that trial date before Munyon set this trial date in September of 2011. Munyon chose to go with what court had precedence. Since Duval set the date first, Orange/Osceola would have to wait. (See: Florida Rules 2.550(a)(6) - The case in which the trial date has been first set generally should take precedence.)

There’s more to it than just that, though. Judge Munyon could have ignored the request had the costs of rescheduling been too much of a burden on Florida taxpayers. After consulting with court representatives and the sheriff’s office, the grand total for a continuance would come to a mere $157.00, and that includes additional summonses to prospective jurors, printing, sorting, and mailing fees. Lest you think that’s all there is, guess again. Judge Munyon wasn’t able to secure Courtroom 23 for the week of April 10, and what that translates into is that the cost to the sheriff’s office for additional security would exceed the costs expended for the summonses. That’s because there are three other courtrooms on that floor, meaning the potential for a lot of people milling around. Okay, fine, but why so long of a postponement? It’s because Courtroom 23, the only courtroom on that floor, is in use. January 2, 2013 is the earliest time it will be available for two consecutive weeks.

So, what we have ahead of us are deadline adjustments originally set on September 1, 2011. We’re talking about 8+ months in the future now. The judge did set a two-week deadline from the date of her order (March 13) to file any notices of conflict for the new trial date. There is a hearing scheduled for March 23. The judge ordered that it remain on the docket and limited the proceeding to motions for summary judgment and all matters related to discovery, such as Gonzalez’s request for Anthony’s residential address. A motion for summary judgment, in this case, means the motion the defense filed to have the case against Anthony thrown out.

As far as I’m concerned, we should be used to it. After three years, plus this mess, we should know by now not to hold our breath. If you think this will ever end, guess again. This time it was the plaintiff’s request that did the trick.

Jose Baez: Free as a Bird

Yesterday, The Florida Bar cleared Jose Baez of the two complaints filed against him after finding no probable cause. He will face no disciplinary action whatsoever. The decisions were sent to Mr. Timothy Patrick Chinaris and Mr. John A. Weiss, both co-counsel for the respondent.

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2011-30,708 (19A)

NOTICE OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND LETTER OF ADVICE

In the matter of last year’s sanction and $583 fine by Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. for his willful violation of an order by the court to share discovery documents with the prosecution, the Florida Bar’s grievance committee “believes the failure to fully comply with the discovery orders was unintentional and realizes that Mr. Baez has expressed remorse for his conduct and also had to pay fines to the court due to previously imposed sanctions. The committee accepts the explanation that the complexity and volume of the case caused unintentional lapses.”

Please note the acknowledgement of the complexity and volume of the Anthony case.

At the same time, the committee did not let Baez get away without any form of reprimand. It added that, “Nevertheless, every attorney has an obligation to ensure that each and every court order receives full compliance. Mr. Baez is strongly advised that he should be cognizant of the need to completely comply with all orders of the court in the future.”

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2012-30,171 (19A)

In a letter from The Florida Bar addressed to Jose Baez’s legal representatives, “the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee ‘A’ unanimously found no probable cause for disciplinary proceedings in the above-referenced case. The vote was 7 to 0. The committee is comprised of both lawyers and nonlawyers.”

This complaint was filed over his neglect to correct the mistake over Casey’s probation period being served while incarcerated. Judge Stan Strickland alerted the court after the trial ended that his order was specific about Anthony’s probation being served after her release, if ever. Due to a court mistake, the order was not made clear, but in the end, Strickland and Perry asserted that attorneys are bound by their profession and obligated to clarify and rectify any and all errors. Baez claimed he overlooked it and it was not done intentionally.

In it’s response to this complaint, the grievance committee stated that it had “thoroughly reviewed all the court records and documents and conducted several interviews. The grievance committee is cognizant of the fact that the case involved a complex fact situation and many months had passed since the probation order at issue. Your client indicated to the grievance committee that his representations to the court were not made to mislead the court but were made based upon his understanding of the context of the question. The grievance committee has concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the conduct violated the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar in this matter. Therefore this case is now closed.

“For the reasons set forth herein, our file on this matter has been closed. Pursuant to the Bar’s records retention schedule, the computer record and file will be disposed of one year from the date of closing.”

Well, there you have it. No more Casey, no more complaints. Whatever your opinion in the matter, the case is closed and Jose Baez is free to fly south or anywhere else he chooses. Time to move on.

To view the documents, please click on the images to enlarge. The bottom links are the PDF files.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2011-30,708 (19A)

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2012-30,171 (19A)

Odds & Ends and Odd Endings

JOSE BAEZ

By now, most of you are already aware that Jose Baez is no longer affiliated with the client who turned his name into household fame. Cheney Mason made that clear a month or so ago when he stated that Baez severed all ties with her right after sentencing. It’s now official:

By clicking on the above image, you can inspect it at a much larger scale. Very revealing are the lines drawn through his name, his affiliation with the client and his work number, that signify his departure. Scan all the way down to the bottom left and you’ll also find that a Notice of Withdrawal [of] Attorney of Record was filed on 2/21/2012. 

There hasn’t been much said about it until now, but it’s most likely what I assumed since it was first reported. First of all, Casey Anthony is an ingrate. She only thinks of herself, which is something most of us will agree on. I can’t say for sure, but my guess is that it was one of those “I quit!” moments, followed by a typical response from an ingrate, “You can’t quit! You’re fired!”

While I am not offering any sympathy or line of defense for Baez, I do look at it from a rational point of view. After the trial, logic dictated that he didn’t need her any longer. He won the case and garnered one heck of a lot of publicity. He’s set because of it, no matter what anyone may think of him. He’s not the first criminal defense attorney to clasp a client from the clutches of the executioner’s claws, nor will he be the last. Think of Johnnie Cochran and OJ, but the world didn’t go wild when he was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree slaughter, and Cochran’s legal practice and notoriety gained significantly in the wake of that trial.

Here’s one little detail I’ll bet you’re not familiar with. Baez was the lead attorney on another murder case while the Anthony story was taking center stage. Contrary to what some may think, attorneys do work on multiple cases at a time. Speaking of time, please take time to watch the video below. It will open a number of eyes because, clearly, this client was not guilty, contrary to what the prosecution thought.

Back to the famous fall out. What Bob Kealing reported on Tuesday, in a nutshell, was that Casey was quite upset that her attorney didn’t land her a big dollar TV interview; something her parents were able to do for their charity, and trust me, I use that term loosely. In any event, so what? The man spent the last three years of his life eating, breathing, and… well, never mind, all things Casey. He was attacked from the left and from the right; from the front and from the back, but lest you think I’m being too kind, I am not. He knew what a strain it would be, but he also knew what the end reward could be and, in the end, he gambled correctly. The best possible thing for him to do was to stop affiliating with her. In a thunderous flash, she became toxic. Now, I’d venture a guess that he’d disagree with me publicly on what I just wrote, but that’s the way I see it. Like it or not, because of the outcome of the Anthony trial, he’ll have speaking gigs and new clients for years to come. That is, as long as he keeps his license to practice law, and I expect him to do just that, whatever the outcome of the Bar complaints filed against him. In other words, I don’t think they are significant enough to disbar him if he loses.

JEFF ASHTON

There’s a little bit of a situation unfurling with former prosecutor, now candidate Jeff Ashton, over his decision to represent his son in a Seminole County DUI trial. Clearly, there are two brains of thought. It’s understandable that any attorney would come to their child’s defense. I’ll give him that and add that no matter what, we can look at his worth as a caring parent and not argue the point. At the same time, he is running for the office of Ninth District (Orange/Osceola) State Attorney. If elected, he would be responsible for prosecuting people in the same boat, so was it a wise thing to do? In a later press conference, he said he had a problem with voters who couldn’t understand what he did as a father. Like I said, he’s loyal, but I read a lot of comments on Hal Boedeker’s Orlando Sentinel television blog and many of them were firmly against his decision. Some of them added that he’s just another typical lawyer and no hero after all. Do I agree with that assessment? No, but I will say that, in my opinion, he could have saved himself a lot of votes had he cashed in some of his courthouse chips and asked another attorney to handle his son’s affairs. Now, word comes that he’s defending his daughter, according to Seminole County court records. She was charged with driving without a license and for failing to show proof of insurance. 

While I refuse to blame Ashton for the Casey Anthony loss, at least not to a large extent because it was a team effort, he failed to win his son’s case. If he loses his daughter’s, too, his odds of winning the Democratic primary for state attorney will begin to deteriorate, but not enough to harm him beyond hope. However, it’s a tough road ahead any way he looks at it. Lawson Lamar has a huge political machine in Tallahassee and throughout the state, and lots of powerful friends, not to mention a much larger campaign chest. There’s also the old idiom, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Obviously, he doesn’t see it that way. 

That leads me to Linda Drane Burdick, but first, a little more information. When asked if she would support Jeff in the election, she said that she couldn’t do that in a Democratic primary because she a registered Republican. However, a month or so later, she donated $100 to Lamar’s reelection campaign. Incidentally, two other candidates are in the race. Ryan Williams, also a Democrat and former assistant state attorney, entered the race in September of 2011. And recently joining the fray is Orlando criminal defense attorney Joerg Jaeger, a Republican hellbent on defeating Ashton. He told Orlando Sentinel Senior Reporter Anthony Colarossi that, “I don’t think Jeff is fit to be state attorney.” And he’s made that point exceedingly clear.

JUDGE LINDA DRANE BURDICK?

Back to Miss Linda. In case you haven’t heard, the lead prosecutor in the Anthony trial threw her hat in the ring, along with 22 other applicants, to fill the bench left void when 9th Circuit Judge James Turner was removed for violating several judicial principles, including hugging and kissing a court clerk. This was also reported by Anthony Colarossi in the Feb. 13 issue of the Orlando Sentinel. If I could vote for her, I would! 

LAST WORDS

There have been many changes since the end of the Anthony fiasco. Judge Strickland retired at in December of last year and I don’t blame him. He had an outstanding career on the bench and it goes without saying that we wish him all the best. He is right where he wants to be at this stage in life and all is well in the world.

I also want to wish Jeff Ashton continued success in his career, including the upcoming election, but like Drane Burdick, I won’t be voting for him, either, but not for the same reason. You see, I live in the 18th District, and that’s Seminole County. If you want to learn more about him or contribute to his campaign, read HERE.

Thank you, and hopefully, I won’t have more to say about ‘you know who’ until the date of her civil trial filed by Zenaida Gonzalez - the real one, with no Fernandez in her name.

Predicting A Coward's Way Out

There seems to be a recurring theme when it comes to murder, especially when children are involved. In cases of filicide, when a parent unceremoniously ends the life of their own child — or children, questions are raised about why no one saw it coming. Certainly, we heard it over and over during the course of three years, from July 15, 2008 through the trial and sentencing of Casey Marie Anthony. Why didn’t George and Cindy see what kind of monster their daughter was? Why didn’t they stop her? Today, many in the public still blame them for Caylee’s death.

Then, there’s Alyssa Bustamante, who was sentenced to life in prison this week for brutally murdering her 9-year-old neighbor, Elizabeth Olten. Bustamante was only 15 at the time and her only motive was the thrill of watching someone die by her own hands; to see for herself the eyes of a young and vibrant life fade into a vacuous void. Bustamante not only saw death, she felt it. Night after night, she will wake up from recurring dreams caused by the hellish storm she created; ones that will drown her soul in flash floods of blood gushing from every corner of her mind. Why didn’t anyone see this coming? Surely, someone else is to blame, too, for being so naive.

It seems to be a daily ritual anymore; a rite of passage or something. Horror stories of missing and murdered children pop up in the news and each time we promise ourselves we’ve had enough, but is that really true? Hardly. We are very sensitive creatures, for sure, but sometimes we thrive on the pains of others. Not in a bad sense, mind you, but think about it. We hate accidents, yet whenever we approach one on the highway, we slow down to gawk. Oh my, we think to ourselves, I hope and pray they’re alright. And then we go home to watch it on the news.

What happened to Susan Powell and her sons was a travesty waiting to happen, but did anyone see it coming? Should it have been predicted years ago?

Michel de Nostredame was born 509 years ago. We know him by his Latin name, Nostradamus. The first edition of his most famous book The Prophecies was published in 1555, eleven years before his death, which he never did predict. Today, he has a strong and loyal following that credits him with predicting many worldwide events. Whether true or not remains a source of great consternation, but one thing is plain and simple. Every one of his quatrains is so tenuous, at best, they are rendered useless. In other words, and to be quite blunt about it, every single one of his “predictions” aren’t interpreted until after the fact. Hitler? Oh yes, ol’ Nostrie predicted him over 400-years-ago, but no one knew it until long after the head Nazi was dead. Osama bin Laden and the World Trade Center? Yup, that too.

So what’s my point? Even Nostradamus didn’t truly consider himself a seer; a prophet, and no one has yet to predict something before it happens. Not Nostradamus, nor anyone else for that matter. No one can predict the future any more than someone could ever predict a murder, not counting serial killers. Sure, there are predictions based on similar instances and scientific fact. Rick Rescorla predicted the attacks on the WTC, but he based it on evidence of past atrocities, such as the 1993 bombing. That it remained an easy target was as plain as the nose on his face.

In the case of Josh Powell, what do we know? So far, a rush of information has been gushing and, once again, we have a major problem discerning truth from fiction. But now, after the fact, I “predict” a heavy dose of psychiatric and psychological discussion and diagnoses, but I base it on prior evidence — cause and effect, or causality, in which an action or event produces a certain response. Because of this, then that, only it’s always based on ’after the fact,’ and sometimes the ‘that’ becomes a blame game. I also “predict” this will go on for years.

Josh Powell most likely murdered his wife in 2009. I say this because of what we already know about the night Susan Cox Powell disappeared. Josh took his young sons camping in the middle of a harsh winter night — unfit for most people, and certainly small children. Who gets up in the middle of the night, yanks his kids out of bed and says, “let’s go camping?” Conveniently, he forgot where he camped, too, but the most important part was that Susan was never seen again. 

Authorities in Utah, where the Powell family lived at the time that Susan went missing, have investigated her disappearance as a murder case for at least the past six months now, but without a body, it’s a tough nut to crack. Publicly, they held out hope that she would be found alive, but did they believe it? Seriously? No. Josh moved his sons less than a month later from West Valley City, Utah, to Puyallup, Washington, south of Seattle. That made the case harder to work on because he wasn’t around to cooperate.

Does any other evidence exist? Aside from the late December night camping trip being so absurd, there was a damp spot found on the floor of their home. What was it? No one is saying.

On Monday, following the explosion that took the young boys’ lives, their grandfather, Charles Cox, spoke to the media. When the boys first arrived, they were emotionally distant, but recently they had opened up. He hoped that one day they would be able to remember what happened the night of the camping trip. The boys never did, but Cox then told the story of what Braden had said almost two years ago. Braden was the younger brother. During the summer after Susan went missing, he drew a picture of a van while at a day care center. Three people were in it. The four women in charge asked him what the drawing was.

“That’s us going camping,” he responded.

Who is in the car, one of them asked.

“That’s Daddy, that’s Charlie, that’s me.” Then, he added, “Well, Mommy’s in the trunk.”

If Mommy was in the trunk, why was she there?

He didn’t know, but then he said, “We stopped somewhere and Mommy and Daddy got out and Mommy didn’t come back.”

While this is certainly important, it means virtually nothing to law enforcement. Is the statement of a 3-year-old something that would hold up in court?

§

Josh had a tumultuous relationship with his father, Steven. He moved into his father’s house when he left Utah, and they lived together until September of last year, when Steven was arrested and charged with 14 counts of voyeurism and 1 count of child pornography. Prosecutors said that, for at least ten years, he secretly spied on and shot videos of women, including his daughter-in-law, Susan, and two young neighbors as they bathed and used the toilet. Bail was set at $200,000, something he was not flush with, and he remains in jail, but Josh adamantly denied having any knowledge of the pornography. Unfortunately for him, because it was kept in the home they shared, he lost full custody of his sons that month to Charles and Judy Cox, the boys’ maternal grandparents — but there was more to the story than just Steven the Sicko.

Ironically, Josh moved his family to Utah to escape daddy dearest, yet in a September 2011 interview, Steven Powell claimed that he was in love with Susan, and that his son was fine with it. As a matter of fact, she was in love with him, too.

In truth, Susan couldn’t stand the guy. She despised him, she thought he was a creep and she told her friends he was weird and disgusting. It was her idea to move out of state.

Last Wednesday. February 1, Josh was back in court. He had left his father’s place and moved into a house down the street. Surely, this would mean he’d get his sons back, but remember, there’s more to this story. Before we go into those details, let’s take a quick look at what state law is regarding children and families. States bend over backwards to maintain the family core. According to the Washington state Family Law Handbook:

Generally, the government does not interfere in family matters, but there are laws that allow the government to step in to protect a child from harm within the family. Sometimes this will result in  a legal action called a “dependency.” A dependency proceeding is usually, but not always, started by the state after an investigation by a Child Protective Services social worker. The goals of such legal actions are safety of children and reunification and preservation of families.

States seldom like to get involved, and in the case of Josh Powell, the state never intended to completely sever the relationship he had with his sons. Initially, the questions over Steven’s pornography and the safety of the children were the issues. Should the state case workers have insisted that Josh meet his sons on neutral ground? Yes, and initially they did.

When Josh went back to court Wednesday to argue over custody, the issue his in-laws had so adamantly fought over, he made a declaration that he was the best and safest person to raise his two sons, saying he had proven himself to be “a fit and loving father.” In documents filed with the court, he wrote that it was unfair for his sons to be removed from his care based on what his own father had done. During supervised visits, two times a week for three hours each, he demonstrated his love of the boys and his competence as a caregiver. When Child Protective Services completed their investigation on November 30, 2011, he was cleared of any negligent treatment and he should, therefore, be reunited with the boys. “No child wants to be taken from their parents and it is not reasonable to continue this process.”

The case worker in charge was a woman from a company contracted by the state to supervise visitations. Sherry Hill is a spokeswoman for the Children’s Administration at the Department of Social and Health Services in Washington. She said that state authorities work very closely with the courts to determine whether supervised visits should be allowed and held at either a parent’s home or a neutral site. In Josh’s case, the move away from his father’s house demonstrated that the safety of his children was of utmost importance, and there was no need to keep them from the new home. Everything looked good.

“If there had been any indication of suicidal thoughts, or anything that we would have thought there was an intent to harm the children, we would have taken immediate action,” Hill said. “If we had thought that, we would have done what we could. I don’t think there’s anything else we could have done.”

Remember, generally, the government hates to interfere in family matters, and with his compliance, Josh fully expected to regain custody of his children that Wednesday. He wasn’t. Why?

There was one peculiar issue over his own morality, so the judge ordered him to undergo a psycho-sexual testing and evaluation. What’s that, you may ask? Let’s just say it’s not something I would enjoy, but I will never be in a situation where it could possibly arise. If you are interested, you can read here. Or, from the Rosenberg & Associates website, a more palatable explanation:

A psycho-sexual assessment is an evaluation that focuses on an individuals sexual development, sexual history, paraphilic interests, sexual adjustment, risk level, and victimology. It also includes a full social history, familial history, employment/school history, case formulation, and specific treatment recommendations. The evaluation greatly assists attorneys and courts (prior to sentencing for adults), foster care and social service agencies that work with sexually reactive children or children who have been sexually abused, and others.

Paraphilia is a biomedical term that describes sexual arousal to objects, situations or individuals not generally associated with typical standards of stimulation. Need I say more?

Why the judge ordered this test is quite simple, very important and legally valid. It was based on something brought to the court’s attention: the results of the psychological evaluation Josh had last October. Keep in mind that Charlie and Judy Cox were given custody a month earlier. Upon completion of the evaluation, “the psychologist received information from police in West Valley City, Utah, about undisclosed materials found on his computer during a search in 2009. That material prompted the psychologist to recommend a psycho-sexual evaluation before Powell be given custody or expanded visitation rights.” (See: Could More Have Been Done To Save Charlie And Braden Powell? )

[Since the writing of this post, news surfaced that Josh was also ordered to take a polygraph test, and it meant he would have had to answer questions regarding the disappearance of his wife, including the matter of her death. Did he kill her?]

§

Up until the day of the explosive fire, there seemed to be no cause for alarm. Although frustrated and depressed over his latest round in the courtroom, Josh seemed to be of sound mind — sound enough that no one in the courtroom had qualms about Charlie and Braden visiting their father at his home instead of a neutral location. The visits were, after all, supervised. He could not be alone with his sons.

Later, Charles Cox said he didn’t really think there was anything more the court could have done legally to protect the boys, but he wasn’t quite comfortable with only one supervisor. “We suspected that if [Josh] had the boys in his control, with him, and he felt the police were closing in, he was capable [of doing them harm.]” He didn’t think the lone female supervisor could have stopped him, and he was right.

Earlier that day, the boys told their family that they did not want to go to their father’s house because they wanted to stay and play with their cousins instead. They needed to go see their father, they were told. They would have plenty of time to play with them again.

When the boys arrived at the house, they ran up to the front door, ahead of the social worker. By the time she got to the entrance, Powell had let his sons in but pushed her out, locking the door behind him.

“He pushed her out. He blocked her out,” Pierce County sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer stated. “The whole thing was planned.”

Minutes before, Powell sent an e-mail to his attorney, Jeff Bassett. It was three words. “I’m sorry, goodbye.”

The rest we know. Two days after his court hearing, Josh Powell set in motion his final plan. The children’s toys were donated. He took $7,000 out of his bank account to settle his bills. No one saw it coming. No one at the bank, no one at Goodwill, and no one in his own family. Last August, he told ABC news that he would always protect his boys. “The people who know me know that I’m a good dad,” Powell told Good Morning America. “I work hard. I put my sons first. I was a good husband. I took care of my family.”

He took care of his family, alright.

There will be lots of investigations, from the top on down in Washington state. Despite Josh Powell’s death, Utah police will press on until they find the truth about Susan. Justice has come for Josh. He will never be reunited with the boys he so loved and fought for. Hell has no place for children.

§

To randomly place blame on this person or that agency is wrong. No one got up that morning and asked themselves if this was the day Charlie and Braden would die at their father’s hands. No one expected it in court last week. Except Josh. When agency after agency, including the court and judge, finish blaming each other, we may find out why things fell so out of place; somehow lost in the system. But remember one thing; while we complain about too much government interference, all it takes is something like this to do a complete about face. Then, there isn’t enough. Why is that?

Nostradamus never predicted this tragedy. He never predicted the end of the world, either. Nor did the Mayans and their calendar. As for murder, predicting it is as, well, predictable as pulling petals from a dandelion. I kill you, I kill you not. You decide what is real and what is an illusion, but in the end, I predict we will all be wrong, and that’s my predilection. You can’t guess a coward’s way out.

This Psycho-Babble Takes the Case

‘ABLOWING’ HIS OWN HORN

There are good shrinks and there are bad shrinks. We look at Drs. Danziger and Weitz as being good ones, right? Dr. Keith Ablow, however… well, let’s just say I have a problem with his analysis of Ms. Anthony; certainly no mother-of-the-year back in 2008. Read the entire article Ablow wrote for FOX NEWS. Then, if it suits your fancy, come back (here) and offer up your own opinion. Say whatever you want because I really need to know if I lost my senses…

What Casey Anthony’s psychiatry records tell us — Did Casey really kill Casey?

Personally, I think the world is full of psychotic nuts… er… or maybe I should say nutty psychiatrists. I don’t know, I’m still stunned right now. I think I am, therefore, I am, I think. Or am I?

Leafy Things... with a Dash of Dirt

I’m sure you know there’s more than one explanation for the word leaf.  The Dictionary.com website describes it as “one of the expanded, usually green organs borne by the stem of a plant” and “any similar or corresponding lateral outgrowth of a stem.” It’s safe to say that leaves grow on trees. It’s also true that a leaf could be a two-sided page in a book.

Speaking of trees, I really wanted to write about a tree today, but the book on that is closed at the moment. This was no ordinary tree, mind you, because it was older than Moses and quite majestic. Until several issues are resolved, the tree story will have to wait. In the meantime, I will tell you about a leaf or two in a couple of books.

The winner of the autographed copy of Jeff Ashton’s book, Imperfect Justice, has been notified. While keeping this person’s identity as close to the vest as possible, I will tell you it was Charlee, who lives in Texas. Like I promised, I put all entries in a hat, although I really used a big kitchen bowl instead, and my mother picked the e-mail address while it dangled above her head, sight unseen. Interestingly, today is Charlee’s birthday, so it couldn’t have happened on a better day. Congratulations Charlee, and Happy Birthday!

I think most of you are aware by now that I was mentioned in Ashton’s book. Not only did he reference me as Dave Knechel and Marinade Dave, he even managed to spell my last name correctly. Trust me, Knechel is not an easy one. Of course, I personally thanked him for the acknowledgement and for getting it right.

The second one was brought to my attention by someone you know from my blog and elsewhere around the Internet, Karen C. She told me about a book, From Crime Scene to Courtroom, written by famed forensic pathologist/lawyer Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, and noted true-crime journalist Dawna Kauffmann. Subtitled Examining The Mysteries Behind Famous Cases, this book examines the mysteries behind Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, Drew Peterson, Brian Jones, and more, as the cover asserts.

When Karen told me about this book, of course, I had to order one. While it showed me in a positive light, it managed to get my name wrong. Oh, Knechel was right, but I’m not David L. Knechel, as the book states on page 68 and in the index. I’m David B. Knechel and I have no idea where the “L” came from. Okay, it’s a small mistake, but I did call the publisher this morning to request a correction in subsequent printings. I made it a point to say I was not complaining. As I am well aware, all editors hate mistakes.

In the book, I am described as “an Orlando-based writer, graphic artist, and barbecue aficionado, whose website is called MarinadeDave.com.” Granted, a marinade does not a barbecue sauce make, but back when I was manufacturing and selling it, several of my friends purposely asked me, “Hey Dave, how’s your barbecue sauce doing?” knowing full-well it was not a barbecue sauce.

It only took me a few times of quickly correcting them: “It’s a marinade, not a barbecue sauce!!!” that I finally grasped their only intent — to upset me.

I remembered from years ago how one of my closest friends got exceptionally angry when we asked him how his condo was doing.

“It’s not a condo, *&^*#%^&*()*!! It’s a townhouse!!!” Trust me, I got over the barbecue/marinade joke very early on, and when they still tried, I answered them calmly and ignored what they called it.

On page 75 of the book, I am mentioned again. “The press corps was out in full force for the Anthony trial. Attending some, if not all, of the proceedings were national figures like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Jean Casarez, Beth Karas, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, Ashleigh Banfield, and Diane Dimond of thedailybeast.com, as well as local print, television, and radio journalists — among them blogger ‘Marinade Dave’ Knechel, who covered the case for Orlando magazine.”

Trust me, I am highly flattered. Yes, of course, I became part of this case, and there’s no denying it. Fortunately, none of the real and true investigators and authors have implicated me in any way, shape or form of scheming to take down Judge Strickland. That was only the fodder of simple-minded people, including a blogger who shall remain nameless for now.

In any event, I did lay out my plans with a book editor today. I was told it was a good concept as long as it also contains facts about the actual case, along with the sordid details. I know if I do, names will be exposed, including two people who claimed to be in the courtroom daily during the trial when they were not there. One “reported” on a blog and the other is mentioned in the above list. Sorry, I guess you’ll just have to wait.

Look, Listen & Learn

Watch this video, which has been released on the CaseyAnthonyisinnocent.com Website. Judge for yourself and feel free to express your thoughts here, in comments.

To me, it looks like she’s sitting in an office somewhere. Also, she says this is the first of many videos, but trust me, I won’t be posting them unless you express otherwise.

Quiet Observations, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

“There is no reason for a 2-year-old child to decompose in a field in a plastic bag with duct tape over its face.”

“I don’t understand people who think Elvis is still alive. I don’t understand people who think we never landed on the moon. I don’t get those people. So I don’t get these people [the jury] either.”

— Dr. Jan Garavaglia, on Sunday night’s program on TLC, The Learning Channel

Yes, I watched it, and yes, it was exceptionally well done, but did I learn anything new? Not much, really. It served to reiterate and fortify the state of Florida’s substantive and well grounded claims made against the mother of Caylee Marie Anthony, charged with her murder and found not guilty by a jury of her peers. I think, mostly, it allowed Dr. G to get some things off her chest. In the end, Caylee’s death was a homicide, regardless of the end result, and it tore at the very fabric of the Orange-Osceola chief medical examiner. This is a case that will forever haunt everyone involved, especially law enforcement, investigators on all levels, and prosecutors, who spent countless hours going to bat for Caylee. Yes, us, too.

God knows we’ve had countless what ifs to ponder; things that never made it into the courtroom and ones that did that didn’t pan out, like the phone call between Erica Gonzalez and the defendant on July 15, 2008, when Casey (I broke my own rule) was on her way to pick up Amy Huizenga at the airport. Gonzalez claimed she heard Caylee being scolded by her mother during that call, but that was impossible because, in his opening statement, Jose Baez said that Caylee was dead on June 16, 2008, a full month earlier.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Why wasn’t that phone call used to it’s fullest advantage at trial? Yes, Gonzalez was questioned on the stand by Assistant State Attorney Frank George, but she couldn’t remember the details at the time. OK, fine, but at that point, she should have been shown the document above to help remind her of what she told law enforcement. She wasn’t. Anyway, that was a key piece of evidence in my opinion, that went nowhere. As a matter of fact, it worked to the defense’s advantage. Why? Surely, a “grieving” mother would have no reason to make up a silly lie about scolding her dead child, right? What would be the point? Why talk to an imaginary person, something she did very well? The state should have expanded on it. (Watch Erica Gonzalez’s testimony here)

Sadly, there are no more points to make because it’s way too late for that. Case closed. I just needed to get that off my chest.

Of course, it’s never too late to remind everyone that, although the case may be closed, the memories are permanently etched in the minds of all of us who lived through it, and history will look as kindly on Casey Anthony as it has on Lizzie Borden, scorned to this day, yet dating all the way back to the 1890s. You know, the nursery rhyme about the 40 whacks she gave her mother that’s still recited. And like the one for Lizzie, I wrote one for you know who over a year ago - 6 months before the trial began, when no one knew the outcome would be similar to Lizzie’s…

THE BALLAD OF CASEY

For the rest of her life

Her name will be mud

For taking the life

Of her own flesh and blood.

For what lies ahead

Is a brewing storm.

Her Caylee long dead

Was fed chloroform.

I did change a few words from my original, but I hope it lasts a hundred years or more. Oh no, not because of me. I don’t care if anyone remembers who wrote it, I just want people to remember Caylee. Whether her mother murdered her or not, she was solely responsible for her death.

Moving on, we come to one of the prosecutors from the Anthony trial, Jeff Ashton, now retired. Today, he’s a best selling author and there are some misconceptions about him making the rounds on the Internet. I’m going to do my best to give you the truth. For sure, Ashton must have been working on his book during the trial, right? Perhaps, before it began, you think? I mean, how else could anyone explain how it was written and published in what seemed like record time? It was roughly 5 months after the trial ended that Imperfect Justice was on bookshelves across America. What gives? According to Suzanne Fox of VeroNews.com, the book wasn’t crafted until after the trial ended, and according to Ashton, not before he took his wife and children on a much needed vacation.

“When we started, I had no frame of reference,” Ashton said. “I figured the timeframe was short, but I didn’t really understand how short until the lawyer who vetted the book for HarperCollins told me that we’d done in three months what usually takes eighteen.”

“I couldn’t have taken on the book project if I was still working,” he added. “Even if the State Attorney would have authorized me to do it, there wouldn’t have been time.”

Of course, having Lisa Pulitzer, a seasoned professional crime writer on hand, helped tremendously. So did a very serious-minded editor, something I learned about while writing for Mike Boslet, Editor-in-Chief of Orlando magazine, during the trial. Get the job done.

That leads me to Ashton’s latest announcement that he’s going to challenge his former boss, Lawson Lamar, for the office of Orange-Osceola State Attorney. Alas, I would strongly consider voting for him except for one thing. I live in Seminole County, home of the 18th District Court. He’s in the 9th, and I can’t vote there. However, I can still offer my thoughts regarding his background and qualifications.

The Super Bowl comes once a year. Half of us don’t remember who won last year when the new one comes around. But after the big event, we look at the losing team as a bunch of, well, losers, not taking into account that they came in second in a field of 32 teams. Out of those teams, Number 2 stands out like a sore thumb. Why? In real life, Number 2 is not a pathetic loser. Yes, the Super Bowl is all about hype leading up to the main event and the media sucks it up like a sponge. Yes, it’s like any great battle, but so was the Anthony case, in a sense, and that one lasted nearly 3 years. Wow! What a build up and what a let down. The only thing is, we can’t obscure facts by skewing history and the truth.

Jeff Ashton was but one of three assistant state attorneys that took on the mammoth and monumental task of prosecuting Casey Anthony. That’s one third, folks, not one person. He was merely a co-prosecutor. Sure, the State should have won, but it didn’t, and we now have a retired prosecutor with a rather sterling 30 year career who is running for political office. I’m hearing some reverberations from several detractors around the Web. I do find it amazing that some people look upon him as a loser because of one case, but that’s the way we live today - for the here and the now, and everyone has personality conflicts. One thing we need to remember is that, during his 30 year career, he tried “some 70 homicide cases” and won all 12 of his “capital murder trials.” (See: Orlando magazine, Dec., 2011., The Prosecution Can’t Rest)

Ashton was the first prosecutor in the nation to gain the conviction of a rapist as a result of DNA evidence. In 1987, Tommy Lee Andrews was found guilty and sentenced to 22 years in prison. That was just over 24 years ago, when he was a young man around 30-years-old. A Florida appeals court upheld the conviction and the state became the first in the nation to affirm DNA evidence. That’s quite a statement, folks. And he’s not one to back away from anything.

Here’s my opinion — take it or leave it. Jeff Ashton is a fierce competitor. Here is a man who did his best for Caylee Anthony. What do you think he would do in the wake of that loss? Quit? Just write books? Do speaking tours? Sure, he could do that, and he should, but he now chooses to stick around and fight for future Caylees and everyone else in Orange and Osceola counties seeking justice. That shows you he’s dedicated and determined and not a quitter. I dare say he doesn’t know how to quit — not the driven man that I have learned to know and respect. Tomorrow morning at 11:00 am, I will be standing on the courthouse steps when he officially announces his candidacy and I will urge him on. 

(Also see Orlando Sentinel)

Jeff Ashton to run for State Attorney?

The Orlando Sentinel and WESH are reporting that Jeff Ashton is poised to announce his run for state attorney. He will make his announcement on the steps of the Orange County Courthouse on Tuesday morning at 11:00 AM. WESH quoted Ashton and the Sentinel speculated.

Lawson Lamar is the present state attorney for the Ninth Circuit Court. He has enjoyed running unopposed in the past, so this should be interesting. Personally, I think Ashton would be a great choice. At present, he is taking care of his best-selling book responsibilities (Imperfect Justice) and, since the trial ended, working as a consultant for the Maitland, FL law firm of Troum & Wallsh.

Just after 6:00 pm today, this statement was made on his official Facebook page: “Please stay tuned we will be releasing more information on what next and how everyone can help, in the next few days. Till then have a happy new year.

Incidentally, Judge Stan Strickland left the bench today. We all wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

Hot off the press!

Anthony Colarossi is the senior court reporter for the Orlando Sentinel. While attending the court proceedings during the Anthony case, both the hearings and trial, we got to know and respect each other. I guess it’s because we were, pretty much, the only ones who actually published our stories instead of presenting them on-air - not to take away from Steve Helling of People magazine. Of course, Anthony is a well-respected journalist and I was just a blogger until I was hired by Orlando magazine to cover the story. One day during the trial, a CNN producer followed me around and wrote about it on the CNN Website. She told me I went into this as a journalist without portfolio and transformed myself into a journalist with portfolio. That’s not easy to do, she added, and I never forgot those words.

Anthony is someone I not only respect, I genuinely like him as a person. I think we talked every single day, and there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s someone you’d like to call a friend, and say so proudly. He’s a consummate professional and he, too, appreciated my writing on a professional level. I would not consider myself in the same league as him for a couple of reasons. We are different types of writers. Where I could write in-depth articles, newspapers won’t allow it while reporting on day-to-day events. An extreme example of this would be USA Today. Short and sweet. What you read there could be read off a telepromptor by a TV personality. Anthony’s articles go deeper than that, but not as deep as mine. Even so, he’s a better writer overall and there’s no real way to compare us.

In today’s edition of the paper, in print and online, he published a very compelling article (and more in-depth) about the Anthony trial and how much the case consumed us in 2011. It’s spread out over two pages and it’s an excellent read…

Casey Anthony case consumed Orlando, nation in 2011

Snakes and Rats and Spiders, Oh My!

Dr. Eddie DelValle is a humble man. He is the CEO and president of TBC Productions, which focuses on natural healing. He also runs With Love Ministries, a traveling Christian community service organization. Late Saturday afternoon, he was cleaning up the grounds on Suburban Drive, where Caylee Anthony’s remains were found on December 11, 2008. He does this at the request of the Chickasaw Oaks neighborhood, where George and Cindy reside, and for Bring Kids Home, the public charity that aspires to build a memorial on the Suburban site. While you may not recognize Eddie, he organized the Peace Walk for Caylee just hours after her mother was released from jail on July 17 of this year. He also put together the Suburban Drive balloon release, which I did attend, on August 5, Caylee’s 6th birthday. When Michelle Parker went missing, he was in charge of the candlelight vigil held for her on November 20. She disappeared 3-days earlier, on the 17th.

Since I began writing about the Caylee Anthony case, way back in 2008, I have been as pragmatic as possible. I can’t tell you how many times I said that a memorial for her on the site where she was found was not only impractical, it was downright dangerous. I still believe that, but after seeing what Bring Kids Home wants to do, I have softened a bit. While I still believe a memorial would be better served elsewhere, I do admire the plans put forth by the charity. However, one of my main arguments remains the same - that Caylee did not die there, and a memorial would only serve to remind us that she was tossed out like a bag of trash. Literally.

Speaking of Trash

While the Bring Kids Home plan still remains a dream, reality brings me back to the same message I preached when countless people wanted it to be a permanent shrine. There’s a school at the east end of Suburban Drive. Children walk by it during the school year. Granted, the sidewalk is across the street, but leaving countless stuffed animals is very enticing to children. They act as magnets. The ground drops down several feet, and it’s sometimes flooded. In the world we live in today, you could say it’s not user friendly.

I was there Saturday afternoon, watching Eddie clean up. All of the stuffed animals, save one, were tossed into garbage bags. He takes them home and slowly has them, piece-by-piece, hauled away with his household trash. There’s just too much to take at one time. I told him I had a problem with the type of memorial that’s there now because it invites rats, snakes, and other types of vermin that could harm school-age children and unsuspecting visitors who just stop by to pay their respects. Eddie’s wife was sitting in the van, but she told me she had seen a huge spider earlier. Eddie made a good-sized fist and said it was all of that, if not bigger. We all agreed that it’s not the kind of environment conducive for a memorial. Not in its present form, anyway. The new memorial plan is to elevate the land and keep it clean. I’ve seen architectural renderings and they look magnificent, but now, it’s just a repository for filthy stuffed animals and one more very important thing… MOLD. Yes, bags and bags of moldy stuffed animals are thrown away each time Eddie makes the rounds. Mold and mildew is not good for the lungs. It is unhealthy and his message was clear - if you want to bring something in honor of Caylee, bring flowers. Almost every stuffed animal is thrown away, so your money is going to waste. Some of the animals were large, too, probably costing $50 or more, only to be hauled away to spend the their remaining days in a landfill. What a nice reminder.

Why not donate the money spent to a good charity instead? Why not donate money to Bring kids Home if you want the location to be a permanent marker for Caylee? Like I said, only one was good enough to save. Eddie told me that the good ones go to homeless or domestic violence shelters. Why don’t visitors do just that? Stop by and pay your respects; then give. Help others instead of the vermin. I noticed that some of those stuffed animals were ripped into, and stuffing was coming out. What a perfect for rats to collect bedding! Better yet, Eddie said, what a great place to make a bed. How inviting.

Let the pictures tell the story…

CLICK ANY IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Eddie said he watched a hawk follow me as I drove up, and as I was walking around taking pictures, he tried to point it out to me. He seemed somewhat amazed because the hawk kept it’s eyes on me. “He keeps watching you,” he said. I was rather unfazed, but it was an interesting part of my visit to Suburban Drive. I told him it was the same lightpole OCSO used for measuring where Caylee’s skull rested. It was a fixed point. I distinctly remember those coordinates. 89’ east of the lightpole, 19’8” due south. It’s the 6th photo down in this series - the one with the light brown teddy bear at its base. When I took the pictures of the hawk, his (or her) stare shifted away from me, but he knew I was there. It’s almost as if he proudly posed for my camera. In the bottom image, he seems to be keeping a watchful eye over that sad and lonely place in the woods.

Cautious Observations

I drove down to Carter Glen Condominiums and Townhomes late Saturday afternoon to poke around Dale Smith II’s neighborhood. When I put his address into my iPad 2 TeleNav GPS Plus app, it only directed me to the entrance of the development. While I had no problem gaining entry, I had no idea where to find his building, so I drove around. Fortunately, I did know the number and it didn’t take long to single it out.

Of utmost importance to me is to remind everyone that, while Smith is OPD’s only suspect in the disappearance of his ex-fiancée, Michelle Parker, he is innocent until (or if) a jury finds him guilty of a crime. Also, I cannot forget George and Cindy Anthony in one sense because, like Smith, they declined to take a polygraph test, and it really caused great consternation and suspicion. A lot of people decided right then and there that they were somehow involved in the murder of their granddaughter and of helping to dispose of the body, none of which turned out to be true. To this day, some still believe it. When people begin to argue with me, and they can be quite adamant and boisterous, I tell them to call law enforcement and the State Attorney’s Office to fight. Tell them they got it all wrong. Include Jeff Ashton please, because he exonerated them, too, in his book, Imperfect Justice. In Smith’s case, I’m not going to proclaim him innocent of anything, but since he is the only suspect, I want to look into whether he could be capable of being involved in Michelle Parker’s disappearance. Wherever it leads, my job at this point is not to be opinionated to any extreme; it is to present the facts for your consideration.

First, here are two overhead views of Carter Glen, Phase 2, where Smith resides. In the close-up shot, you can clearly make out his white van sitting in the driveway.

CLICK ANY IMAGE TO ENLARGE

It wasn’t until I was ready to leave that I noticed a camera mounted near the entrance gate. I did not see one for exiting the complex. If the Orlando Police Department has a copy of the video showing Michelle pulling into the drive and putting in a code, or if she used an electronic gate opener, that would help to establish when she actually arrived.

While shooting the above pictures, I spoke with a man who had been walking nearby. I asked him if he was familiar with the case and he said he was, but not all that much. I was curious about the buildings. It was my understanding that the complex was made up of condos and townhouses. Were there any apartments? No, he replied. The two ends, on either side, are town homes with 2 levels. They have a single car garage. The middle two are condos and they share a two car garage. When I asked him what he thought happened to Michelle, he didn’t really have a clue.

Moments earlier, when I was in front of Dale’s building, there wasn’t much activity, but some children were playing in the driveway of the next building, to the left of his. I wasn’t about to confront them. Driving around, I did observe other people milling about, but for a Saturday afternoon, it was rather quiet. I was trying to see if it would be easy to commit the sort of crime Dale is suspected of, and to be able to escape unnoticed. On the surface, no, it couldn’t be done, but there were other factors at play. For one thing, he lives in a townhome and he has a two car garage, not a single. Secondly, the neighbor directly next to him has a security camera mounted on the small balcony that overlooks the driveway and street. Surely, Dale must have been aware of that camera on the afternoon Michelle dropped off her twins.

The next image is a still taken from the video shot by the neighbor’s security camera. You can see Michelle’s Hummer as it arrives at 3:18 PM on November 17, the time she was last seen by anyone other than Dale. The photo below that depicts the back of her Hummer with the GLOW decals in place. I took that photo where the vehicle was found abandoned, the next day. The last still shows a Hummer driving in the direction of the exit. It also shows the neighbor’s car in his/her respective driveway. The car has a spoiler that helps identify it. There are a few other observations I’ve made…

There is no GLOW decal or any other decal on the exiting Hummer. This is the only inconsistency reported by media, and it directly implicates Dale. However, I observed two more things that may help Dale. Or maybe not. Please understand, my only job is to find facts, and nothing more.

In the first still, the van is not parked on the street. Where was it? In the driveway? In the second still, the van is parked along the street. Why? Where did Michelle park when she arrived? Why was the van moved at all?

You can speculate all you want about it. You can assume that the Hummer was moved into the garage and the door was shut behind it in order to strip it of anything that directly links it to Michelle, but does anyone really know for sure?

Take a close look at the Hummer as it drives away. Do you notice anything other than the missing decals? How about the spare tire cover, as seen in the photo of fliers attached to the tree as a reference. This Hummer has no cover. Why? Was it removed, too, along with the decals? Or was it an altogether different vehicle?

Clearly, OPD has information we are not privy to. How many people living in Carter Glen own a black Hummer? Or are there visitors? How many black Hummers drove into the complex that day? If it’s not Michelle’s, it had to come from one of the buildings abutting the woods on the west side of the development because there’s no other reason why it would be driven past Dale’s, who lives on a corner lot. Assuming it is Michelle’s, 4:40 PM is a far cry from the time Dale gave police - that he and Michelle both left ten minutes after she arrived, around 3:30. It also negates his statement that he was at his parent’s house at 4:30. From the still, we can’t read the license plate. Most security cameras are not that good. Could law enforcement technicians use software to enhance the tag? All I know is that Dale could not drive the Hummer out of the complex alone. In order to dump it on the other side of town, over 12 miles away someone had to pick him up. Or someone else did it. He had no idea his home would be raided, so why wouldn’t he have driven it off the premises after darkness fell, knowing full well that his neighbor had a security camera that would capture it during the day?

When I left, and since I was down in the area of Suburban Drive, I took a ride over there, and I’m glad I did. That should be my next post. Meanwhile, let’s not jump to any conclusions. Not yet, anyway. Refusing to take a polygraph test is not an admission of guilt. Ask the state of Florida about George and Cindy’s involvement in Caylee’s death. As far as any other evidence that surfaces regarding this case, most definitely, have at it.

It was 3 Years Ago Today...

From the Court House...

I attended the hearing yesterday — the one pertaining to the release of the video deposition of a tricked out defendant in camouflage that the Morgan & Morgan law firm took on October 8. She continuously invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, so, in essence, no reliable information came out of the deposition. Morgan & Morgan represents Zenaida Gonzalez in the civil suit against the mother of Caylee Anthony, accused of her murder and acquitted on July 5 of all charges except lying to law enforcement. She has been in hiding since her release from the Orange County Jail on July 17, and for good reason. She is one of the most hated persons in the world.

John Morgan argued that the defendant has no special rights that should prevent the video from being released under Florida’s liberal open government in the sunshine law. For the defense, Andrew Chmelir argued that there was absolutely no reason for releasing the information, and that if it were to become public, it would open his client up to greater scrutiny and hinder her right to a fair trial. Circuit Judge Lisa T. Munyon is presiding over the civil case and, after listening to both sides, she said she has 10-days to decide and will issue an order within that time frame.

Initially, I was against the lawsuit for a number of reasons. One was that Zenaida is only one of a dozen or so people in the immediate area who share the same name as the fictitious nanny named back in July of 2008 as Caylee’s kidnapper. The Zenaida represented by Morgan is the only one suing for defamation. She cites that her good name was ruined and she has been unable to work ever since. Personally, I think it is time for her to move on with her life, but at the same time, I am in agreement with the plaintiff to a certain extent. John Morgan told her from the start that there would most likely be no money forthcoming if she wins the suit because the defendant would not make money off the death of her daughter. Of course, that was prior to the verdict, when most people, including Morgan, felt she would be spending the rest of her life behind bars or sentenced to death. Since her acquittal, she has yet to capitalize on her story, and rightfully so. Public outrage is so strong, for any media outlet to touch it would surely be toxic. Besides, as Judge Stan Strickland once said, the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers. You can’t believe a word she says. Why would any entity pay for lies?

Today, I do think that Zenaida Gonzalez deserves to have her good name back, but is it necessary to win the lawsuit in order to achieve it? I don’t know, but it wouldn’t hurt. For sure, Ms. Anthony should have been more forthright about this particular Zenaida, so in that regard, especially since Jose Baez admitted in his opening statement that Caylee was dead all along, his client could have readily dispatched this particular Zenaida and no harm would have been done.

Which way am I leaning about the release of the deposition video? Although I do not think it will hurt Ms. Anthony, I’m not sure why it should be. For one thing, I disagree with her defense’s argument that it would impede her right to a fair trial, where the case would be litigated in a courtroom, not in front of the media and under public scrutiny. After all, she can’t receive any more damage than she’s already brought upon herself, right? But on the other hand, I’m not sure one of Morgan’s arguments is all that valid. Does a law firm’s video deposition fall under the same rule of discovery as the state? In my humble opinion, I don’t think so, so how will the judge rule? I don’t have a clue, but it will be very interesting to find out. How many of us really want to see her? Be honest.

§

Why did I decide to attend the hearing? Oh, I guess it was for old time’s sake. I expected to run into some of the same people I mingled with throughout the hearings and, of course, the trial. I felt it would be very good to let everyone know about my health, too, and I was right. There were days during the trial when I looked like death warmed over. One of the deputies told me, “And then you had to run home and write about the day, only to return in the morning.” He was right, and I told him it was more than just that. I had a very disciplined and demanding editor who yelled more than Great Caesar’s ghost! at some of the things I wrote. I will admit that the experience taught me a lot about writing, thanks to him.

It was a very good day to mingle and reminisce. It was also good to re-acquaint myself with John Morgan from years ago, and he was curious about me, meaning he certainly knew who I was. To be honest, he is a very friendly and approachable sort, and extremely polite. When his son, Matt, saw us talking, he made it a point to introduce himself, too. There was no huge ego. Obviously, his mother and father brought him up right, and no doubt, he’s got a tremendous future ahead and I wish him all the best.

Finally, allow me to put one rumor to bed. According to an extremely reliable source, who shall remain nameless, Judge Strickland is relinquishing his bench for exactly the reason he stated. After 16 years, he wants out. He wants to help his wife with her business. This has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of investigation into how he handled the issue with the “blogger” named Marinade Dave or his statements made after the trial on Nancy Grace. Yes, WFTV hinted that there may just be an investigation, but my source was quick to point out that Channel 9 is the first and biggest one to sensationalize the news. Anything for ratings.

Rest assured, there is no investigation and Judge Strickland had every right to say anything he wanted after the trial ended. Besides, he already knew by then that he was going to retire. The decision was something he gave much thought to. This is a judge who so richly deserves a huge round of applause from all of us. I am honored to know him.

I will be away from my computer for several hours today. If you get caught in moderation, I will let you out when I can - later today.

The convenience of karma and the cancer disconnect

I want to thank everyone for their concern over my health. I came out a victor in Round 1. The bone marrow biopsy showed no cancer in my blood or marrow. Previously, I had been diagnosed with chronic anemia and thrombocytopenia, which is low platelets. Yesterday, a new diagnosis was added to the list… monoclonal gammapathy. That’s abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow. I will have to learn to live with it. There is a risk, albeit low, that it may develop into cancer one day, but I’ll take that with a smile. Friday, I get the lung biopsy. I was supposed to have it this morning (10/4), but no one told me to stop taking baby aspirin.

There is little understanding about what caused the blood conditions to manifest. They just strike people. At least I can stop worrying about it, although I will have to be checked every 3 months to keep tabs on whether it does turn into cancer, but if so, it could be years down the road.

I really wanted to go to the hearing on Wednesday afternoon — the one concerning the motion WKMG-TV filed that asked the court to release a video recording of Mizzanthony’s shocked and distressed jail house reaction to news that her daughter’s remains were found very near to where she lived. You see, back in 2009, Judge Stan Strickland agreed with the defense that the video would have been too prejudicial to show a jury because it could have negatively affected her right to a fair trial. Consequently, he sealed it. That was then, and now that the trial is over, what harm would it do to release it? After all, the defense openly admitted she knew all along that her child was dead.

WKMG’s attorney, Jack Kirschenbaum, stood toe-to-toe with Jose Baez in court, both arguing in front of Chief Judge Belvin Perry. While Kirschenbaum cited Florida’s open government in the sunshine laws, Baez stuck with his concerns over medical privacy. Perry is expected to render a decision by week’s end, and my educated guess is that he will side with the media. Why? Because administering the defendant a sedative in a waiting room with a TV does not constitute doctor/client privilege. Besides, the issue over the defendant receiving a fair trial is no longer a factor.

One of the reasons I wanted to attend the hearing was to see some of the people I interacted with during the course of the case — countless reporters, deputies, attorneys, and the bevy of courthouse employees and everyday people I got to meet. You know, for old-time’s sake. I had an 11:30 appointment to see my gastroenterologist and I figured I’d have plenty of time to make it to the courthouse by 3:00. Alas, I didn’t leave the doctor’s office until then. The doctor explained, apologetically, that it wasn’t from overbooking as much as it was from the federal government’s new law mandating that all medical offices must be computerized or face stringent penalties. I understand how the learning curve would be difficult for medical personnel of a given age, plus the fact that the software is quite complex and not mastered in a day. In any event, the only outcome of my day was learning that I will have both an endoscopy and a colonoscopy on October 18. Whoopee! Fortunately, I will be sedated.

Since I’m addressing doctors, sedatives, journalists and the court system, I’m going to haphazardly segue into one word that kept creeping up during the course of the whole Anthony ordeal — karma. But before I get into it, I want to apologize for not being all that attentive on my blog of late. For sure, I wanted a lengthy break after the crux of the Anthony mess came tumbling down in July, but it’s pushing October and I feel I owe you a legitimate explanation. I’ll get to that shortly.

Dictionary.com defines karma as “an action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation.” It goes on to mention fate and destiny as descriptors. Unfortunately for some of my readers, I have a real problem with karma. To be quite frank, I just don’t believe in it and I’ll tell you why. Take the case of Mizzanthony. All through the legal process, countless numbers of people were adamant about her karma coming back to “bite her in her azz”, only it didn’t happen that way. Otherwise, she would have been found guilty and sentenced to life or death for murdering her daughter, Caylee Marie. Speaking of Caylee, what did she do to warrant such horrendous karma that she had to die at such a young and innocent age? If karma killed Lee Harvey Oswald, what karma killed JFK?

While karma was a constant theme during the Anthony case, it was only used matter of factly, as a matter of convenience. In other words, when karma failed to get the defendant while incarcerated and tried in open court, it morphed into something else — that karma will get her while she’s out of jail and free. Just move the karma around to suit one’s fancy. Some people actually believe they have power over people by inflicting karma. Take a look at the slugs that attacked me and my friends unmercifully during the past two years. Karma was going to get us because they had ordained it so. In that regard, karma is pitted against karma; the good karma being us and the bad karma being them, although they would stupidly beg to differ. May the best karma win! Caylee’s mother may live to be 90, but karma will catch up to her then? Come on, we all know better than that. Eventually, she will have to meet her maker, and that’s what counts.

Regardless, karma goes against the will of God, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. I don’t think the Bible puts much faith in reincarnation, for example, and I think it’s safe to say that most of my blog’s readers fall under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian credo and, therefore, karma is a direct conflict with the principles of both books of the Bible, although Job 4:8 (KJV) does state, “Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same,” but I’m not about to get all preachy on you. In this particular regard, a simple explanation can be found with one of our contemporaries, Orenthal James Simpson.

While O.J. was acquitted of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in 1995, he sits in Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada until, at least, 2017; sentenced to 33-years for kidnapping and armed robbery in 2008. His first possibility of parole comes in 2017, but don’t count on it. Was it karma that finally caught up with him? Hardly. You see, if you hang around bad people and do bad things, your odds of getting caught multiply tremendously. That’s precisely what happened to OJ, plain and simple. He was responsible for his own undoing because he chose to hang around a bad crowd. He did it to himself, with no help from fate, destiny, karma, kismet, or whatever else you want to call it. He chose his own path.

That leads this article to yours truly and how karma did not come beckoning at my front door. Conveniently, the devil’s rejects who attacked me incessantly during the past two years will rejoice after reading this, but I don’t care. While they are sure I am Satan incarnate, sane people know otherwise. You know me as a caring individual. You know my sensitive side. Understanding human behavior is not in a troll’s vocabulary. For them to compare me to Hitler and Stalin¹, two of the worst people to ever walk the earth, is pure insanity. How anyone could make a comparison like that is beyond the realm of accepted behavior. Well, enough of them and their trashy troll talk.

Everyone who has followed me for the past three years knows that I’ve had a number of health issues, none karma related. Recently, I was able to get some complex blood work done. One of those tests showed an abnormality in my blood protein, specifically, elevated M protein. For years now, my platelets have been quite low, along with RBC, hemoglobin and hematocrit counts. I was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia and chronic anemia years ago. Trust me when I tell you I am not seeking sympathy of any kind, nor am I looking for any sort of hand-out.

I have been seeing a specialist in the field of hematology and oncology. You know, a blood disorder and cancer doctor. I have had x-rays taken of every bone in my body in search of lesions. I have had CT scans and PET scans. I also had an MRI. Why my veins haven’t collapsed by now is beyond me. On Monday, my hematology/oncology doctor performed a bone marrow biopsy on my right hip. Believe me, in my case, it wasn’t nearly as painful as it sounds. While those tests were being performed, something new crept up; something totally unrelated to the problem with my blood. Something that put everything else on hold.

My long-time readers will remember when I was laid up with pneumonia back in December of 2008. It was confined to my right lung, and it’s not at all unusual to recur at any time in the future. Here’s where the karma comes in, or should I say, lack of karma? Some of the recent tests showed “an infiltrate is present within the left upper lobe and the right major fissure thickening.”

What this means is that there is an astute possibility that I have a cancerous tumor in my left lung, as in lung cancer. That’s something no one wants to hear. My doctor said it was large, and the PET result stated it had an “uptake value of 2.7.” The injection I got before the scan contained a radioactive substance and glucose. Cancer cells absorb the material 10-times more than healthy cells, so they light up like Christmas trees. 2.7 is not full-blown cancer like 5.0, but it’s enough to make any doctor sit up and take notice. It’s also the reason why all other health concerns are now on hold. The “major fissure thickening” is the area between lobes, near a vertebra. While that one shows no sign of cancer at this time, it may down the road. Next week, I will be put under a derivative of morphine and Valium, and my left lung will be biopsied. No matter what it is, and I’m fairly certain I know, the growth will most likely be removed after it’s evaluated.

This is just the start of many pokes and probes and possible operations. Trust me when I say it has weighed heavily on my mind, as my close friends and family will attest. Here and now, I am going to explain the matter of karma. I never did anything morally wrong enough for some silly karma to come and get me, despite being bitten in the azz by a biopsy needle. No, this problem has nothing to do with karma. The only thing that matters is the fact that I smoked cigarettes and cigars for nearly 40-years. It was my choice to smoke and no one else’s, and it’s what caused it. (I did quit four years ago.)

When giving my mother the news, I told her the most important part — the only reason why it was found early was because of tests taken for another type of cancer. Had I not had those tests at this time, odds are it wouldn’t have been diagnosed until it was too late. I have no real symptoms and that’s the problem. By the time real symptoms creep up on you, this type of cancer, which is extremely aggressive, has grown arms and legs and spread like wildfire. That’s the main reason why lung cancer has such a high mortality rate.

While I will insist it’s not karma, I will say I do believe in divine intervention, although I’m no authority on it. I think, in my case, it’s what made sure the right tests were performed at the right time — that caught it early enough. At least, that’s what I’m praying. So, if you wonder why I haven’t written much lately, truth be told, I’ll readily admit I’ve rested on my laurels, I can be a great procrastinator, and I have a lazy streak at times. But one thing is certain — there’s a lot on my mind right now that limits my creativity and I shouldn’t be that way. I need to find new stories to write about, but until I do, please bear with me. While I do not believe in karma, I do believe in the power of prayer, and that’s precisely what I am asking you to do. Please keep me in your prayers. That’s all I ask.

And if you smoke, please quit now.

Sunday Afternoon Murder Club - Death Penalty

The gang will be back on Sunday at 4pm eastern. The gang being Simon and Jan Barrett, Crime Writer and author Denny Griffin, veteran trial attorney Mannie Barling, journalist Dave Knechel, and Bail Bonds expert William Cobra Staubs.

Join us at 4pm Eastern and join in the chat, the link to listen in live here.

Judge Perry's Order Sounds "Appealing"

In the beginning of September, 2008, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office said that lab tests confirmed that a decomposing body had been in the trunk of George and Cindy Anthony’s 1998 Pontiac Sunfire. “[FBI] laboratory evidence, along with additional evidence that has not been made public, leads investigators to the belief there is a strong probability that Caylee is deceased.”

Sgt. John Allen added that, “The information we’ve gotten back from the lab [was] that she was in the trunk of that car and that she is dead is certainly something we take seriously.”

By September 21, detectives noted that there were still lab tests pending, plus evidence not yet made public. According to OCSO, no homicide-related charges would be filed until they could determine if the child died and her body ended up in the trunk. As a matter of fact, throughout the month of September, it was looking very clear that Caylee was deceased and the odor of death in the trunk of the Pontiac and a combination of forensic evidence would be enough for an Orange County grand jury to indict her mother on First-Degree (Capital) Murder and other charges on October 14, including Aggravated Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, and four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer. 

Certainly, there was plenty of evidence by then to gain convictions as far as the public was concerned, but on July 5 of this year, a jury found the defendant not guilty of the first three felony charges and guilty of the remaining four misdemeanor charges of lying to law enforcement. The public was shocked and outraged. The State Attorney’s Office had put an awful lot of work into this case that took nearly three years to come to an abrupt end. Law enforcement kept plugging away even as the trial unfolded. Everyone on the state’s side wanted nothing more than justice, but during this period, costs spiraled higher and higher it wasn’t until recently that a matter of cost came before the court. Someone’s got to pay for all this labor intensive work, right?

On September 2, 2011, the state filed an “Amended Motion to Tax Special Costs of Investigation and Prosecution and to Reserve Jurisdiction” pursuant to Florida Statute 938.27. The original motion, “State of Florida’s Motion to Tax Special Costs of Investigation and Prosecution and to Reserve Jurisdiction” was filed on July 6, a day after the defendant was acquitted of the felony charges.

The amount the state was requesting was to the tune of $517,000, broken into separate agencies, including the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (FDLE), the Orange County Sheriff’s Office (OCSO), and last but not least, the State Attorney’s Office.

The state wanted the defendant to pay for the investigation from its inception, on July 15, 2008, when she told authorities her first lie, to December 19, 2008, the date when skeletal remains found a week earlier were positively identified to be those of Caylee Marie Anthony.

On paper, the state’s proposition sounded about right, but it wasn’t, according to the law. There’s no doubt the amount of hours it took to come this far were phenomenal. Who kept lying and lying and lying to police until her attorney put a clamp on her mouth? The fact remains that this whole affair could have ended a long time ago had it not been for her. She would have saved the state, not to mention taxpayers, tons of money had she just told the… [sorry, that word is not in her vocabulary].

I know my opinion on this is not going to be popular, but it follows how Judge Perry ruled today. Allow me to place myself in a situation that may shed a little light on the decision…

Suppose I’m visiting old friends in New Jersey during a specific time period. I rode up with a buddy. During that time someone (allegedly) stole my car and robbed a convenience store in my neighborhood. The perp is bald like me, so when the cops show the store owner my picture, he says, “That’s him!”

My car is impounded and examined, and the only set of prints on it are mine. Meanwhile, I come home to a 24-hour stake-out, and I’m promptly thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested. Here’s the deal - my friend is deposed but the cops don’t believe him. The state indicts me. Meanwhile, my friends in NJ are reluctant to testify on my behalf. Unfortunately, some of the evidence makes me look bad because the police find out I had been dating the owner’s daughter and we had a rocky relationship until it finally ended. It turns out the father never liked me to begin with.

Eventually, the case goes to trial, some of my out-of-state friends are subpoenaed, and the jury finds me not guilty. Should I be required to pay for the entire investigation? How about any of it? After all, ultimately, I did nothing wrong. 

There’s the dilemma. Who foots the bill? In my case, it’s fairly cut-and-dry. I was, in no way, involved and the law is on my side. No one should pay money for an ill-fated investigation. How many people a year are charged by overzealous prosecutors? That’s not my point, though.

In this particular defendant’s case, she lead authorities to dead end after dead end. She lied through her teeth and impeded a legitimate investigation. The entire nation prayed that little Caylee would be found alive, while her devious mother laughed behind everyone’s back. She should be forced to pay, right? Well, yes and no.

The investigation into the missing toddler began on July 15, 2008, when Cindy Anthony made her desperate 911 calls. Yes, initially, it was a missing child case, but somewhere along the line, it switched from that to a murder investigation. Caylee was dead. That’s where the impounded Sunfire became so crucial. Sometime in September of 2008, the gears switched from missing to dead.

On September 2, 2011, the judge heard testimony from both sides. The state wanted the charges to encompass a five month period, from July 15 - December 19, 2008. The defense argued that their client was found not guilty of murder, including the other felony charges. How could the court force her to pay for something she was found not guilty of? The defense asked for the final tally to represent July 15 to September 30, a two-and-a-half-month period, because, after that date, investigators were no longer seeking a missing child - they were looking for a deceased one.

The judge agreed. Just like in my case, why should a person be forced to pay for an investigation when the verdict is in the defendant’s favor? If that were the case, police and prosecutors would be charging people left and right for crimes they never committed in order to fill state coffers. As much as Jose Baez’s client is unpopular, the law is the law and Judge Perry had to rule the way he did.

Section 938.27, Florida Statute (2011) provides, in part:

In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted [my emphasis] persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, [etc.] For purposes of this section, “convicted” means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, [etc.]

The court shall impose the costs of prosecution and investigation notwithstanding the defendant’s ability to pay. The court shal require the defendant to pay the costs within a specified period or in specified installments.

In his ruling, Judge Perry acknowledged that “there are costs that may be taxed against Defendant because they were reasonably necessary to prove the charges in Counts 4 through 7, for which she was convicted.” Therein lies the crux of the argument. For which she was convicted. You cannot charge any amount of money on not guilty verdicts according to the law, no matter how one may personally feel. The judge had no choice because he had to follow the letter of the law.

While the judge acknowledged that there are no Florida cases dealing with apportioning the costs after a criminal trial when a defendant has been convicted of some charges but acquitted of others, there is some guidance in federal case law “which provides that costs associated exclusively with the prosecution of counts which are discharged cannot be assessed against the defendant.”

“When a statute is clear, courts will not look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative intent.” City of Miami Beach v. Galbut, 626 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 1993), and Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984).

“A statute’s plain and ordinary meaning must control, unless this leads to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent.” State v. Burris, 875 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2004).

“Cost provisions are a creature of statute and must be carefully construed.” Wolf v. County of Volusia, 703 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 1997).

Based on case law, Judge Perry decided that the costs incurred by investigators would be from July 15, 2008 through September 29, 2008. That was the period, he decided, all costs incurred were “reasonably related to the investigative work provided as a result of Defendant providing false information as to the location of her [then missing] daughter, Caylee Anthony, and making other mistrepresentations to law enforcement.”

End of story. We may not like it, but that’s the law and that’s why the judge ruled the way he did. The breakdown of what he granted looks like this:

• FDLE - $61,505.12
• MBI - $10,283.90
• OCSO - $25,837.96 (the Court found that several of the reports were not adequately broken down, and in order to reimburse OCSO for additional work, they must file a revised expense report with the Court by 4:00 PM on September 19. At that point, the order will be amended accordingly.)
• With regard to the costs incurred by the Office of the State Attorney, in accordance with Florida Statute 938.287(8), the State Attorney is entitled to a total amount of $50 for each of the misdemeanor convictions. Grand total? 200 buckeroos. Personally, I think it’s an insult,

All in all, the defendant will have to cough up $97,676.98, not a pittance by any means, but not close to the amount the state requested. How is she going to pay? Oh, I think her attorneys will find the tally quite “appealing”, if you get my drift. Speaking of drift, would we know how to contact Mr. Baez about this? I hear Aruba ta bunita this time of year.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

On December 3, 2009, I met with Sgt. John Allen at the sheriff’s office on West Colonial Drive. This was in reference to a matter regarding something someone said to me and photographs I was shown that may have been relevant to the investigation. He called me the day before. After I gave him my testimony and filled out a report, we sat around for a few minutes and discussed different aspects of the case. At no time did he reveal anything that would be harmful had I written about it, but I told him I wouldn’t. We spoke on the phone 2-4 times after that, and at one point, he said it was okay for me to write whatever we had discussed. I had a green light, and one thing came to mind. He was emphatic about it, too. Up until the remains were found and identified, over 100 law enforcement personnel never gave up hope of finding Caylee alive. All around the country, investigators continued to follow up on leads. That’s how dedicated they were, and that tells me there’s a gray area the judge should have known about. Whether it can be substantiated, I don’t know, but it is worth considering, in my opinion.

Examining the Examiner

Recently, a news story surfaced that claimed Caylee Anthony’s mother had “inked a multi-media deal, 6 figure cash advance.” Several local media outlets in Orlando, and perhaps elsewhere in the country, credited the Los Angeles Examiner with the shocking revelation. There’s a serious flaw with that claim because there is no such publication as the Los Angeles Examiner. The Los Angeles Examiner was founded in 1903 by William Randolph Hearst. In 1962, it merged with the Los Angeles Herald-Express and became the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. On November 2, 1989, it published its last edition. While that paper folded, the San Francisco Examiner, also once owned by Hearst, is still in business, and at one time, the two papers complemented each other.

Today, a new breed of “newspapers” have entered the fray of Internet-based media outlets. While these new kids on the block print no paper editions, they are still loosely considered newspapers to some extent. One of them is Examiner.com, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any real newspaper, in print and online form, with Examiner in its name. The Washington Examiner and the San Francisco Examiner are two examples of print and online versions and there is a lot of confusion between Examiner.com and those two legitimate Examiner newspapers. To clarify the difference, let’s clear up any confusion. Examiner.com is a division of the Clarity Media Group, which is wholly owned by The Anschutz Company. Clarity Media Group is the parent company of the Washington and San Francisco newspapers. However, neither are affiliated with Examiner.com. The CEO of Examiner.com, Rick Blair, asserted that, “We offer stories about the best bike trips in the city and where to go on the weekend. We’re really not covering news.”¹

A few years ago, I thought about applying for one of the Examiner openings. I don’t recall what position it was specifically, i.e., Orlando Flirting Examiner, Orlando Drinking Games Examiner, Orlando Beauty After 50 Examiner, or whatever. (Actually, those are job offerings as of today.) Yes, whatever it was, Examiner.com seemed to promise more than it could deliver right from the start, and I walked away without applying. Their Website claims that you can:

• Earn extra income writing about what you love.
• Build your portfolio and gain valuable experience.
• Set your own hours
• Work from home

All of this sounds enticing because “IT PAYS TO BE AN EXAMINER!”

Rosetta Thurman is the author of Blogging for Branding.  Her Website claims that no one writes for “The Examiner,” you simply become an Examiner. From the Blogging for Branding Website:

I see a lot of people saying that they “write for the Examiner,” which is incorrect and misleading. Examiner.com itself is clear that (my bold emphasis):

“We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of knowledgeable and passionate contributors in the world. Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be.”

You are called “an Examiner” as a title that identifies you as a writer for the site. It is simply a descriptive noun. Again, you do not write for any of the Examiner newspapers in any way. Yet it’s a misconception that the site obviously profits from.

Now that we are aware of what Examiner.com is all about, let’s take a look at the bottom line. What kind of money can an Examiner make? Examiner.com bases its compensation on page view traffic, subscriptions, session length and advertiser interest, but it does claim that contributing writers should not consider a writing gig as any sort of full-time employment, and it “tries to be very clear and transparent that this isn’t a ‘quit your day job’ opportunity.”

WritersWeekly claims to be the “highest-circulation freelance writing ezine in the world.” Examiners were issued a call by WritersWeekly to share their experiences. After the interviews, an article was published on the site (no author credit) that consolidated the math of the respondents and claimed that the estimated cost per-article looked like this:

Penny $ 2.09 per article
Barbie $ 2.30 per article
Mario $ 0.07 per article
Katrina $ 1.96 per article
Tim $ 0.88 per article
Clark $ 1.60 per article
Franny $ 0.37 per article
Kathryn $ 1.96 per article
Courtney $ 1.88 per article

Average: $1.46 per article

Some had written hundreds of articles (usually 400-600 words each) and these were their averages. One claimed to make 10 cents per hour when all was said and done. WritersWeekly also noted that most of the pay-per-click contracts require continued contributions from writers, so if you stop writing for Examiner.com, you lose your residual income while they keep making money in perpetuity.

While many media outlets claimed that the defunct Los Angeles Examiner published the article about the Anthony book deal, it was not remotely close to the kind of newspaper the mind generally conjures up when mentioned by legitimate media sources. To make things more clear, the Orlando Sentinel  and Orlando magazine have print and online editions, whereas, Examiner.com merely has an online presence. Writers for the Orlando publications are real journalists. Those with Examiner.com cannot make that claim for the most part. That takes us to the article that started this mess. Written by Donna Thomas, the LA Crime Examiner, who is she?

Her Examiner bio says she “is a published author. She is a frequent contributor on different true crime cases. She has interviewed everyone from Ted Bundy to the Unabomber.” All fine and good, right?

Garth Stapley is a journalist with the The Modesto Bee. In a January 7, 2008 article, Stapley wrote that “Scott Peterson strangled his pregnant wife in their kitchen on Christmas Eve 2002, according to a book written by a woman claiming he confessed to her 15 months ago during a prison visit.” (See: Author says Peterson confessed how and why he killed Laci)

Stapley pointed out that Thomas’s book contained a number of inconsistencies with her first, self-published, book and with statements she made to The Modesto Bee in interviews during a 19-month period. According to Stapley:

His appellate lawyers in October issued a terse statement confirming that their client had contact with Thomas, but denying that Peterson made statements attributed to him in publicity for the book.

“It is unclear what the motivation was for Ms. Thomas’ initial contact with Mr. Peterson,” East Bay attorneys Larry Gibbs and Cliff Gardner wrote to The Bee. “We are unsure of her motive in writing the book after Mr. Peterson broke off contact with Ms. Thomas, but it was not the search for truth.”

Thomas’s “I’m sorry I lied to you” book did not cite her first book, “Conduct Unbecoming - However, the Scott Peterson I Know Is Innocent”, either. She told the newspaper that she had passed a polygraph regarding Peterson’s alleged jailhouse confession, but she never produced proof, and she never produced any of the original letters she claimed she had received from Peterson. Here’s an interesting little tidbit, in my opinion, of course. According to Stapley, Thomas pledged “to donate a portion of her proceeds to ‘Haven/Stanuslaus (sic) Women’s Refuge.’ But Belinda Rolicheck, executive director of the Haven Women’s Center of Stanislaus, said recently she has never spoken with Thomas or her publisher.”

I think Stapley pretty much painted a picture of Donna Thomas, who I am not out to impugn at all. Instead, I strongly recommend that you read The Bee article written by Stapley and formulate your own opinion.

In the 1981 movie, “Body Heat”, William Hurt played a gullible third-rate attorney who was taken advantage of by a sinister woman played by Kathleen Turner. IMDB described it this way:

In the midst of a searing Florida heat wave, a woman convinces her lover, a small-town lawyer, to murder her rich husband.

The great Paul Newman starred in a 1982 movie titled, “The Verdict”. His character was a washed-out, drunk, ambulance chasing attorney who gets set-up to fall hard by a huge law firm headed by James Mason. How could a drunk has-been (or never-was) topple the Boston Diocese and the most powerful law firm in the city? (I urge you to watch both films.)

What this leads me to is quite simple and straightforward. Jose Baez and Cheney Mason sure looked inept in the courtroom. By that, I mean the prosecution was clear and concise and they produced compelling evidence that should have convicted Caylee Anthony’s alleged murderer. While many still argue over the outcome of the trial, one thing we did learn was that the defense was shrewd, cunning, and willing to lie in order to exonerate their client. I would assert that there’s a good possibility that Donna Thomas and Examiner.com were set-up by Baez or one of his goons. For the life of me, and this is the very first thing that came to mind, I would never suspect that a real whistle-blower would contact an Examiner to hand over an exclusive story like this one. That sort of “bombshell” belongs to the Riveras and Graces of the world, or any other legitimate and credible journalist. Thomas claims it was sources that told her, not one singular source. That’s suspect to me because she wrote most of the article using the plural, but in the end, she wrote that a source said Anthony doesn’t care if her book is boycotted or not; she has her 6-figure advance and she will be flush with money for a long time to come. The article finished by citing a source - singular - not sources, as saying anyone who thinks that crime doesn’t pay is sadly mistaken. Also, who could possibly live for a long time on a 6-figure salary, particularly after the IRS, her attorneys and handlers, and potential lawsuits are paid off?

With regard to a writer for Examiner.com, any writer, my guess is that an average pay-per-click amount would be somewhere around one cent. If a “How to make meatloaf” article written by an LA Home Recipes Examiner gets about 200 hits, it might make a whopping $2.00 for the hour it took to write. Imagine a story that draws the attention of millions of people worldwide; a powerful exclusive! How many hits would you guess it could garner? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? You know, it would be an easy incentive to make a fast buck, that’s for sure. Lots and lots of bucks, for that matter, but I’m not trying to infer anything seedy about the author. No doubt, the defense is capable of doing anything to keep their client in the limelight by planting a seed and later denying it, because that will keep her star from fading into oblivion, right? I really can’t say, but as far as I’m concerned, any way you look at it, it’s pure sleaze, from top to bottom. Bottom is more like it, and I’m not going to buy into any of it.

If you have any type of problem commenting on this or any other post, please let me know by sending me an e-mail. You can use the “Contact Me” form located at the bottom of the left sidebar.