Orlando Magazine

 

I have been following Casey Anthony’s every move for the past 2½ years, but I am no stalker. You can’t stalk someone who lives in jail and makes an occasional visit to the courthouse, where I go to see her in person. We have never spoken, though our eyes have met and I believe she knows who I am. Casey is a big part of my life, but probably not for much longer. 

My immersion into the Anthony saga is not normal, I know. You’re probably sick of hearing about Casey Anthony, who is to go on trial this month, but her name is always on my mind. I’m 58 years old and take care of my elderly parents and two cats, working from home as a freelance Web designer. I would go stir crazy if not for outside interests that stimulate my mind and get me out of the house. I have a laptop and loads of free time. I love to write. I have a blog, marinadedave.com.

It was never my intention to become a crime blogger. Casey just happened to come along at the right time for me, when I was immersed in blogging about a passion of mine that, frankly, makes my fascination with the Anthony case seem normal.

You don’t get the moniker “Marinade Dave” for writing about a murder mystery; you get a nickname like that honestly. I used to make a marinade I sold in local markets, and in 2004 I started blogging about marinades and marinating tips. About 5,000 marinade lovers visited my site every month.

But there is only so far you can go with a blog on marinades, and I had reached my limit with it just as the story of the “Tot Mom” erupted into a national media frenzy in July 2008. That’s how CNN talk show host Nancy Grace referred to Casey during the early days of the mystery surrounding the disappearance of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. In October 2008, Casey was indicted for first-degree murder while the search for Caylee continued.

The leap from blogging about marinades to blogging about the Anthony case does seem like a giant one, but it actually began as a small step. I just didn’t know at the time that I had put both feet in quicksand.

In November, while working as a videographer, I found myself in the vicinity of Jay Blanchard Park in east Orange County where a search operation was under way. I decided to stop by, and there I met an affable Leonard Padilla, the bounty hunter who had posted bail for Casey after she was first arrested on child-neglect charges, and members of a dive team searching the Econlockhatchee River.

I asked questions, took notes and shot video and a few photos, then went home to my computer. “The Search for Caylee takes a nose dive” was my first blog on the case, complete with visuals.

The blogosphere is not normal, either, and therefore, it is the perfect place for a guy like me. Through search engine optimization, key words and the power of Google, virtual unknowns like me can be read by thousands of people. My blog gives me some sense of legitimacy as a journalist, despite not working for a recognized media outlet. I’m on my own, but thanks to the Internet my voice is heard.

My first Anthony story brought me new traffic, exciting exchanges on my site’s forums and fresh inspiration. The next thing I knew, I was hip-deep in the quicksand.

On several occasions I drove to the home of Casey’s parents and to the nearby wooded area where the remains of Casey’s daughter were found in December 2008. At both places I shot videos and photos for my site. I attended the memorial for Caylee Marie at First Baptist Church of Orlando in February 2009, delivering hundreds of messages of condolences my readers asked me to pass along to the slain toddler’s grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony.

Since the beginning of the ordeal I have felt sorry for George and Cindy. They have lost a beautiful grandchild and have had to deal with the torment of not only knowing that she was murdered but that their daughter is on trial for that heinous crime and she could be executed for it.

Altogether I’ve written more than 200 posts on the Anthony case, covering everything from my thoughts on possible motivation that could have led Casey to kill her child (“Caylee’s Murder: Premeditated and pretty stupid, too”) to the irony I found in comments from some professed “good Christians” who wanted vigilante justice (“Casey Anthony must die!”) to the intricacies of various legal maneuvers in the trial (I have amassed a small library of law books).

Somewhere along the way my blog, which now attracts about 100,000 visitors a month, got the attention of the judge who originally oversaw the Anthony trial. I would have never known this had he not complimented my work, and I’m sure he wishes he now had kept that comment to himself.

While researching the media’s coverage of the Anthony murder case, Judge Stan Strickland read some blogs, including mine. He apparently thought mine was fairminded, and he told me so in his courtroom after a hearing—the first of about 30 I have attended in the case—in October 2009. That remark and a personal phone call to me while I was ill led Anthony’s attorneys to seek his removal from the trial, claiming Strickland was biased against their client.

Instead of fighting the claim, Strickland stepped down in April 2010 to avoid giving the defense ammo for an appeal. While the recusal was good for marinadedave.com, bringing to it thousands of new visitors, it also torqued the lunatic fringe that follows the Anthony case.

I have a small group of haters watching my site, but what a loud and rowdy crowd it is. They are of the mindset that Casey and her whole family should be taken out and shot, with their bodies left to the vultures. And if you don’t agree, or you believe in due process, or you keep them from posting their Jerry Springer-esque tirades on your forums, like I do, well, they get nasty.

The vitriol my haters have directed at me is of the cheap-shot variety: I have AIDS, I’m gay, I hate gays, I’m into child porn, my teeth are rotten and I smell bad. If only their harassment ended at name-calling. My home address has been posted on various Anthony related comment fields on the Internet, an oblique suggestion to do me harm, I believe. Posts on other blogs about the Anthony case make it quite clear that I’m being watched when I attend courthouse hearings. Last year an animal control officer stopped by my house, saying an anonymous e-mail had accused me of hoarding pets. (My cats would never stand for it.) My personal e-mail accounts and blog have been hacked.

Normal people would not do such things, but the blogosphere is kind of like the wild, wild West, only worse. There are no rules or codes of conduct. Hiding behind screen names and avatars, blog readers are emboldened by their anonymity to sling virtual mud in the comment forums.

But there’s no better place to throw something out there to see if it’ll stick. Between myself, my contributors and people on other blogs and forums, we have come up with some interesting theories in the Anthony case. For example, back in 2008 the last two houses on Hopespring Drive, where George and Cindy live, were occupied by a woman whose first name is Zenaida and a man whose last name is Gonzales. Put those two names together and you get the phantom nanny (with a “z” at the end of the last name) Casey accused of running off with Caylee. The backyard property lines that separate the two homes point directly to the spot where Caylee’s remains were found. If you type 8905 Suburban Drive in Google Maps, it takes you to the same spot, though there isn’t a house at that location. It’s all woods along that street.

Why 8905 as a street address? August 9, 2005, or 8-9-05, is Caylee’s birth date.

I don’t buy into such theories that suggest the plot to kill Caylee involved such intricate planning as expropriating neighbors’ names and using a birth date as some sort of code.

Still, it’s the bizarre that makes this case so engrossing to my readers and me.

But it will end, sometime in the next month or two probably, and when it does, I will have to move on. I imagine many of my readers will, too. I don’t see myself going back to writing about marinades, though.

That wouldn’t be normal for me anymore.

When a mother kills

I originally published this in April 2009. I think, as Casey awaits the start of her trial, less than a month away, it is worth another look, especially with psychologists Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and Dr. William Weitz figuring so prominently in the picture. Please remember that Casey has not been tried in a court of law. Therefore, she has not been convicted of murder.

I resourced a number of clinical studies that can be referenced through the link at the bottom of this post. Did I plagiarize? No, but I borrowed heavily because I am not a psychiatrist, nor am I a psychologist. I have interpolated and interpreted those documents and condensed them into one - in my own words. Hopefully, this will render a more palatable post that’s easier to read and mentally ingest. You can digest it in the privacy of your home or workplace, and you can egest it in the comments section.

Murder is considered to be an unthinkable crime by most societies on earth, but when parents kill their own children, it rattles and shakes the foundation of humanity. It is the lowest of lows, the worst form of all crimes imaginable. Casey Anthony will go on trial for first-degree murder in the death of her not quite 3 year old daughter, Caylee. If found guilty of the crime, she faces her own sentence of death. This is not intended to place guilt or innocence on her. It is a study in filicide, the murder of one’s own children.

Because of a lack of understanding, most of us are immensely shocked by the pure nature of filicide. Although considered uncommon, it is one of the leading causes of child deaths in civilized societies throughout the developed world. In a 1995 poll taken of 25 countries, it indicated that the homicide rate for children under 1 year old was greater than the rate for adults.  Large-scale studies have shown that younger children are most at risk, especially those under 6 months old. After that age, the risk lowers steadily, but increases again in adulthood.

In order to make sense of this crime, large scale population studies of filicidal offenders have been performed and remarkably, rates of infanticide (child murder in the first year of life) parallel suicide rates. Based on their studies, the existence of several groups and classifications have been determined for filicide, and each classification has distinct characteristics and factors that drive parents to kill. Because of these reviews and publications, we will explore the different types, paying particular attention to maternal filicide, which is defined as a child murdered by the mother. My goal is not to elicit sympathy for Casey; it is to offer explanations for why she might have done it. Remember, until a jury decides, she is innocent in the eyes of the law, the only thing that matters. Please bear in mind that in some developing countries, the preference for male children may lead to selective killings. Think China. Religious, cultural and legal differences across borders will vary some of the research findings in some studies. Also, one country’s decision to send someone to prison may be different than another country’s choice to send someone to a psychiatric hospital. Because actions vary greatly, all I ask is that you maintain an open mind. Although specifically dealing with maternal filicide, this article is not just about one person.

Classification Systems

Motive

In 1969, psychiatrist P.J. Resnick looked into 131 case reports from world literature on child murders by both mother and father from the years 1751 - 1967 and wrote his article based on the apparent motives for the acts.The five categories he came up with in this system are “altruistic” filicide (64 cases, 48.9%), “acutely psychotic” filicide (28 cases, 21.4%), “unwanted child” filicide (18 cases, 13.7%), “accidental” filicide (16 cases, 12.2%), and “spouse revenge” filicide (5 cases, 3.8%). Resnick described cases of altruistic filicide as murders committed out of love. The mother believes it is in the child’s best interest. A suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world or she feels she is saving the child from a fate worse than death. In acutely psychotic filicide, the parent kills the child under the influence of severe mental illness or a psychotic episode. Here, a delirious mother or psychotic mother kills without any comprehensible motive. It may be merely following a command hallucination to kill.

In accidental or fatal maltreatment filicide, death is not the expected outcome. It results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome. Unwanted child filicide occurs when mothers, for reasons such as illegitimacy or uncertain paternity, kill their child through acts of aggression or neglect. It could also result from a mother thinking of her child as a hindrance. Spouse revenge filicide happens when the mother kills to emotionally harm the child’s father.

Resnick’s review on world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide found most of these mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, which is a “loss of contact with reality,” prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts.

Impulse to Kill

Although useful, one of the problems with classifying the motives of filicidal parents is that the motive is almost entirely procured by police and forensic psychologists, mostly at a time when the offender is likely to be very vulnerable and highly defensive. The individual is concerned with criminal charges. Some doctors feel a classification based on the origin of impulse to kill is more objective than simply basing it on motive, which may be more subjective, over-determined or defensive. The impulsive system is not widely recognized because it lowers a mother to a primitive level and looks at sophisticated motives such as revenge or altruism as inappropriate.

Because most modern classification systems focus on the characteristics of the female parent, a six-year study was done of 89 women remanded to a prison under the particular charges of murder or attempted murder of their children. In this study, six categories unfolded:battering mothers, mentally ill mothers, neonaticides, retaliating women, unwanted children, and mercy killing. These categories are similar to Resnick’s, with the exception of the exclusion of the “acutely psychotic” classification and the addition of “mercy killing” which is basically nothing more than euthanasia for a sick and suffering child. In the studies, three most common identifiable groups emerged: neonaticides, battering mothers and mentally ill mothers.

Classification Subgroups

Neonaticide

Resnick coined the term neonaticide to describe the killing of a child less than 24 hours old. This group is the most clearly defined and it is the one that mostly differs from the other groups. It is the largest group. Neonaticide is almost exclusively carried out by women. The mothers are younger, rarely married, poorly educated, have a low level of psychiatric disorders and psychosocial stressors, no history of criminal behavior and do not attempt suicide after the murders. They generally do not seek out abortions. They conceal and do not acknowledge their pregnancies and are sometimes motivated by a feeling of shame and guilt because of the fear of child-rearing out of wedlock. So why don’t these women just get abortions? There are major differences between the women who get abortions and those who commit neonaticide, with passivity being the most important separating factor. Most women who commit neonaticide have made no plans for the birth and care of the child and their decisions are primarily based on denial and disassociation.

Accidental Filicide/Battering Mothers

This is the second largest group. Though not as clearly defined as neonaticide, some similarities can be seen. Unintentional deaths result from child abuse. There is no clear impulse to kill, but there is a sudden impulsive act characterized by a loss of temper. In case studies of large groups of filicidal mothers, these mothers suffered the greatest amount of social and family stress, marital stress, and housing and financial problems.

Mentally Ill Filicides

Though the least common, mentally ill filicides are the most complex. The intensity of the suffering perceived in the mother’s delusional state is so great that the murder seems rational to them. Most of these women are older, in their late 20s - early 30s, are generally married, are not under a lot of stress, and their children were older. Because of this, killing a child older than one year indicates a much more profound disruption in emotional or mental status than does the killing of a newborn.

About 10-22% of adult women suffer from postpartum depression within the first year after the baby’s birth. The “postpartum onset specifier” includes fluctuations in mood and a preoccupation with infant well-being that can range from over-concern to delusional, and the presence of delusional thoughts significantly increases the risk to the child. Infanticide is most often associated with postpartum psychotic episodes that are characterized by inner hallucinations that command the mother to kill or that the child is possessed. Severe cases seem to occur in from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 births and the risk increases in women who have experienced prior episodes. Once a woman has postpartum depression, the risk with each subsequent delivery increases 30-50%.

In studies, the majority of mothers had displayed psychiatric symptoms prior to filicide and just under half had previously received in-patient psychiatric treatment. While mentally ill filicidal mothers generally have psychiatric histories, they don’t, as a rule, have any history of child abuse and they usually describe having experienced a clear intention to kill. In all studies, drug and alcohol impairment were rarely seen as a consequence, but that’s not to say that substance abuse did not ever factor in.

Methods of Killing

Methods used by mothers to kill their children differ greatly from most homicides and this is where vast differences in gender occur. In contrast to domestic homicides of adults, women do not use knives or guns to murder their victims. Maternal filicide is usually committed using “hands on” methods that entail close and interactive contact between mother and child; methods such as shaking, beating, suffocationor drowning, and some indirect methods such as arson or drowning while the child is asleep or sedated. In cases of paternal filicide, fathers are more likely to use methods like striking, squeezing, or stabbing, and they are more apt to use weapons. Suffocation, strangulation and drowning are the most common causes of neonaticides.

Interestingly, drowning was high on the list of methods to kill. So was suffocation. In my fictional account of what may have happened to Caylee, I took drowning into account long before I researched this article. Of course, we are all aware of the (inferred) suffocating duct tape found secured to Caylee’s mouth. (Remember, the jury will decide who put it there.)

General Population Studies of Maternal Filicide

If we study the general population of filicidal mothers, we find that they were often poor, socially isolated, full-time caregivers, who were victims of domestic violence or they had other relationship problems and socioeconomic disadvantages. Certainly, Casey had problems with her parents and she had no money of her own. What’s puzzling in her case is that she had no history of abusing her child and by all accounts, seemed to be a devoted mother. Friends and family concur.

Persistent crying or other child factors were sometimes the cause for filicides. Some mothers had previously abused the child, while others were mentally ill and devoted to their child. Neglectful or abusive mothers were sometimes substance abusers and many of them had elements of psychosis, depression, or suicidality, the taking of one’s own life.

Psychiatric Samples of Maternal Filicide

In psychiatric studies, filicidal mothers had frequently experienced psychosis, depression, suicidality, and prior mental health care. Their mean age was in the late 20s range. Some were diagnosed with personality disorders and some had low intelligence. Significant life stresses were often noted. In a recent study of mothers found not guilty by reason of insanity in two U.S. states, it was found that the mothers were often depressed and frequently experienced auditory hallucinations, some of a command type. Over 1/3 of the homicides occurred during pregnancy or the postpartum year. Almost all of the mothers had altruistic or acutely psychotic motives. In New Zealand, a small study that interviewed mothers after their filicides found that psychotic mothers who had committed filicide often killed suddenly without much planning, whereas depressed mothers had contemplated killing their children for lengths of time prior to their crimes.

Correctional Samples of Maternal Filicide

In prison studies, filicidal mothers were frequently unmarried, unemployed and had limited education and social support. Economic, social, partner relationship problems, primary caregiver status and difficulty caring for the child were frequently mentioned as causes. Let me ask you, does this sound like anyone you’ve read about lately, someone who will may be added to this list?

Conclusion

In closing, let me say that there are other factors involved in maternal filicide and to go deeper than I have here would be boring and somewhat senseless because they are not really related to the Casey Anthony story. Areas of study include more in-depth looks at previous psychiatric symptoms, intrapsychic processes that include delusions, environmental stress and social isolation. I can’t justify taking up any more of your time, but I may offer another post on the legal process and how we may predict it.

In spite of large scale and individual case studies, filicide will always remain one of the world’s most reprehensible offenses. Cases like Casey Caylee continue to shock and awe communities and nations, especially when there are seemingly no salient reasons for the offense. While these studies have revealed several groups, patterns and risk factors, prediction - even by the closest of friends and relatives - is extremely difficult, no matter how much knowledge and organization has been gained. Where you may have a proclivity to blame Casey’s parents for her outcome, please understand that many underlying and complex factors are at play that go completely unnoticed. There is much more to a filicide than casually placing blame on someone else, especially if you have no understanding or training of the psyche of the human mind. If you had any trouble deciphering some of the above psycho-babble, there’s a reason for that. It means I did my job, because as much as you may think you know about Casey’s mind, you don’t. Don’t worry, neither do I.

To view references, please CLICK HERE

Stalemate?

I have been a little under the weather lately, but in all honesty, I had planned on writing about the Frye hearings and how I believe the judge will rule and why. Now, with so much attention focused on the impending 48 Hours Mystery program that’s scheduled to run this Saturday night, I feel compelled to proffer my thoughts on the matter. On the show, a mock trial jury acquits Casey Anthony of first-degree murder.

I recently wrote about a motion filed by Cheney Mason that accused Judge Perry of bias in favor of the state. On Fool’s Mate, I explained how useless the motion was. In my opinion, it was a feeble attempt to intimidate another judge into stepping down and it failed miserably. Belvin Perry, Jr. is going nowhere until this trial is over, but once again, I see the defense testing the judge’s fortitude, determination and resolve.

Yesterday, Orlando attorney Richard Hornsby published a new article on his blog that focuses on one particular aspect of the CBS piece - whether Jose Baez may have inadvertently waived attorney/client privilege because of a jury consultant who aided the defense. At issue is whether he was paid or not, and if so, by whom. Did CBS pick up the tab? Will we ever know? I strongly encourage you to read it because it is the most brilliant essay to date on this very strange and convoluted saga.

Early on, when this case was still in its infancy, Jose Baez successfully argued against a State motion requesting the imposition of a gag (or suppression) order. That was way back in November 2008. Judge Strickland said he would issue one as the trial nears. A few months ago, Judge Perry said he would impose one, too, as the trial draws nigh. With less than a month to go, when does His Honor plan on ordering one? I can’t think of a better time than now.

The law.com Website’s legal dictionary describes a gag order as:

“a judge’s order prohibiting the attorneys and the parties to a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking to the media or the public about the case. The supposed intent is to prevent prejudice due to pre-trial publicity which would influence potential jurors. A gag order has the secondary purpose of preventing the lawyers from trying the case in the press and on television, and thus creating a public mood (which could get ugly) in favor of one party or the other. Based on the ‘freedom of the press’ provision of the First Amendment, the court cannot constitutionally restrict the media from printing or broadcasting information about the case, so the only way is to put a gag on the participants under the court’s control.”

What this means is that the judge is powerless to stop media from running stories about the case, but he can stop everyone directly involved (meaning attorneys) from talking or writing about it. This would include investigators on both sides of the aisle. While CBS or any other media outlet would not be bound by law to kill a story, the legal implications should, nominally, deter editors and news directors from publicizing further stories based on inside sources or whatever means are still available. At the same time, it would have no effect on information garnered prior to the order, like Saturday night’s program.

On May 9, Judge Perry and all counsel affiliated with Case No. 48-2008-CF-015606-O will assemble inside a courthouse outside of Orange County. Its sole mission? To pluck a jury of Casey’s peers, who will then sit in judgment of her the following week, in what many consider the trial of the 21st century; still quite young. The jury will come to Orange County, where it will be sequestered. If this proves to be problematic, the judge will attempt to seat a jury from home, and if all else fails, somewhere else - until the job is done. Right?

Well, there may be some complications that could, quite possibly, quagmire the will of the people of the great state of Florida.

In May of 2009, Jose Baez requested a change of venue. This is a legal term for moving a trial to a different location. In a high-profile case like this, it could be next to impossible to seat a fair and impartial local jury due to the widespread publicity in print and broadcast media. However, a judge has other options. He could deny the motion and remain at home, risking a retrial on a post-conviction appeal, or he could deny the motion and attempt to seat a jury from a demographically similar area. Since the Rodney King case, courts have focused on efforts to ensure that demographics from another community are as similar as possible to the demographics of the community in which the criminal offense allegedly occurred. Although it’s only a jury that will be brought to Orange County in order to save taxpayers millions of dollars, it’s intent is to satisfy all parties without any of the bias stirred by so much local publicity. That’s the goal, anyway, but I see something else… an ulterior motive by the defense.

Granted, the wheels of justice are not always round. In the United States, a defense has every right to utilize any and all means available to exonerate their client as long as they abide by the laws of the land; in this case, state statutes and rules of criminal procedure. During Casey’s trial, her defense won’t have to prove she didn’t murder her daughter, guilt falls squarely on the prosecution. Prove it, in other words. In the meantime, the defense can do what it wants to diffuse the charges brought against her, meaning it could try to taint a jury throughout the state until a gag order is in place. Is it fair? Of course not, but it’s not illegal, and appearing on TV isn’t, either. Is the defense taking advantage of the present situation? You bet, but in all sincerity, is it really all that sinister?

Let’s say the location of a potential jury is demographically similar to Orlando and Orange County. Let’s say this area, because of the similarities, has a daily newspaper like the Orlando Sentinel and the requisite network television affiliates, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, including independents and radio stations. We can pick anywhere in the state, like Miami or Tampa or Jacksonville or Tallahassee. Why not throw Ft. Myers into the mix?

Eenie, meenie, miney moe, pick a jury, friend or foe.

Okay, let’s say Tampa. No, I don’t have a clue, so don’t ask. The population of Hillsborough County is 1,229,226 according to the 2010 census. The population of Orange County is 1,145,956. For the sake of argument, that’s close enough. Tampa has its own newspaper, The Tampa Tribune, and lots of TV and radio stations. I’m not discussing whether it’s too close to Orlando or not because, as you shall soon see, it won’t matter.

One of the most prevalent aspects of today’s world is that we are very much a global community. What just took place in Peoria, Illinois can be read and seen within minutes of the story breaking. We live in a digital world, and news travels as quickly as thunder catches up to lightning. Not only do we have tons of reliable sources available, we have a more powerful tool today - the Internet. I remember when small town newspapers offered communities intimate coverage of what was going on in their respective neighborhoods. Dora Holsopple made pancakes for her grandchildren after church services on Sunday. Mildred Holcombe’s dog bit the paper boy, Teddy Harvey’s son. Roy Kronk found the skeletal remains of a missing toddler. Odds are, you heard about the last one as quickly as I did, whereas, 30 years ago, you may not have heard about it at all. In today’s society, it’s darn near impossible to plug up holes that spill news and gossip from just about anywhere. That leads me directly to Casey’s defense. Remember, Jose Baez & Co. can do whatever it takes to free their client as long as it’s within the confines of law. Playing dirty may be an issue to you or me, but all things are fair in love and war - in this case love being Casey’s innocence, whether she is or isn’t. And while the defense cries foul over leaked information pertaining to their client, they are more guilty of doing it than anyone or anything else. To me, it’s more of a risk because if a jury is eventually seated, which should be the case, the defense cannot base an appeal on what they, themselves, did from the start. To me, it’s a big gamble. So is Saturday night. To understand the full extent of what the program probably entails, we have to wait until then to watch it, but meanwhile, in its description of a mock trial, therightjury.com states:

“A mock trial is a more in depth, formal, and extensive focus group which also tests the effect of opening and closing statements on the jury. In a mock trial, jurors will be exposed to opening statements, closing arguments, crucial witness testimony, and any evidence or demonstrative evidence which is important to the case. During mock trials, however, the attorneys play themselves, with one attorney from the firm playing the opponent and advocating accordingly. Should the attorney wish for his/her client and/or star/expert witness to be examined in front of the jurors, then the actual client and/or star/expert witness must be present.”

In Casey’s mock trial, she wasn’t present, but it seems so hypocritical, doesn’t it? While the defense complains about bad publicity, they go on national media exposés for the entire state to see. I strongly contend that they are doing their utmost best to taint a jury pool throughout the state for one reason only: to ensure that she will never be able to get a fair trial anywhere. God knows, media outlets are just about everywhere in Florida. So are antennas and cable channels. There’s also the Internet and satellite dishes. In my opinion, this defense knows exactly what it is doing. With so much at stake, Judge Perry said he would impose a suppression order before the trial begins. When? I say, the time is ripe. Slam the door shut! It’s getting stale. As much as I hate to see this sort of order coming for the sake of freedom of the press and what we are still allowed to disclose, there’s no better time than at the next hearing. This, on the precise Friday - one year ago - that Cheney Mason fired off a motion to dismiss the trial judge. Oh yes, I remember it well, but let’s not go there. It makes me gag.

Bye Bye Baez? NO! Read the motion

A Michigan inmate has asked Judge Perry to have Jose Baez removed from the case. 

 

CURTIS JACKSON

This morning, April 5, the Orange County Courthouse issued this statement regarding the motion filed yesterday with the Clerk of Courts:

Please see attached Motion (Defendant’s Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel) in the State vs. Casey Anthony. It is not filed by Casey Anthony.

It is filed by an inmate in Michigan.

He also wrote a letter to Linda Drane Burdick on June 8, 2010.

SHOCKING!

Today’s hearing took only 10 minutes. It was almost a love fest between Cheney Mason and prosecutors. Gone were the bitterness and confrontational attitude of the defense attorney toward Judge Perry. Yes, today was a new day. Noticeably absent from the courtroom was Jose Baez. The most shocking part of the morning came from something only a trained eye would notice… the lost look on Casey’s face…

NO PAD! NO PEN!

Fool's Mate

In his court game of chess, Cheney Mason was the first to yell…

CHECK

That was nearly a year ago. Certainly, the recusal of the Honorable Stan Strickland is not so far in the distant past that we would forget what Casey Anthony’s defense team is forever up to. Would they have the audacity to do it again? For the past two-and-a-half years, we have watched them throw everything in their arsenal at the wall of justice in hopes that something sticks. Why not? They have a right to do that, but is Mason now trying to force Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. against the same wall? Are they backing him into a corner with only one way out?

Judge Perry is a smooth operator, so smooth, in fact, that he always comes prepared to hearings with his own powerful set of weapons - case law. He’s well educated in the courthouse games lawyers play and he seems to have some sort of mental telepathy, as if he knows beforehand what tack the defense will take on any given day. It’s almost mystical, because we are left to wonder how he did it. How could he possibly know all that? The man is shrewd. He easily wipes the excess dirt off the wall without missing a beat, and the defense is oftentimes left with mud on their faces. Does this mean he’s biased, as Mason recently charged?

Much to the dismay of common folks like you and me, the court has had to put up with a wide range of oddball motions filed by this defense, so nothing is surprising. One such absurdity was a motion to disqualify the state attorney’s office. Huh? How could an assistant state attorney possibly represent the state if the entire office is disqualified? Case dismissed for lack of state attorneys! Of course, there are more like this one, but that’s not important.

On April 16, 2010, Cheney Mason filed his shot heard ‘round the judicial world demanding that the trial judge step down. In DEFENDANT, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, he wrote, “The Defendant, Casey Marie Anthony, reasonably fears that she will not receive a fair trial because of the conduct and apparent prejudice and bias of the judge…” The motion cited several reasons. Most were centered around me, my blog, and three articles I wrote a full year before. The exchange between the judge and myself was precisely six months later.

In his ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Judge Strickland made several points, two of which were:

• [The defense] seems to have only recently lost confidence in the Court’s ability to be fair and impartial; and
• [The defense] has now been accused of bias and wrongdoing, potentially each denial of a defense motion will generate renewed allegations of bias.

We all know the outcome of Mason’s first chess game at the Orange County Courthouse soon after joining Casey’s team. In any event, my point is not to rehash the past. It’s to look into recent defense moves and what the future may hold.

COMES NOW, Cheney Mason, criminal defense attorney, recently filed a motion for a rehearing, aptly titled, MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.  Judge Perry had earlier ruled on the defense MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. The defense argued that Casey should have been read her Miranda rights when law enforcement personnel were initially summoned to the Anthony home due to 911 calls made by Cindy Anthony. The judge decided Casey was not a suspect at the time and was, therefore, a witness to a possible kidnapping. You don’t Mirandize witnesses. The new motion also included the MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO GEORGE, CINDY, LEE ANTHONY, MAYA DERKOVIC, ROBYN ADAMS, AND SYLVIA HERNANDEZ, defining Casey’s 6th Amendment right to counsel and the improper use of agents of the state. In this case, the judge ruled that George, Cindy and Lee, by their own admission, were desperately seeking Caylee and wanted every bit of help they could muster, especially from law enforcement. Obviously, Casey was doing a lousy job of running her own investigation into the disappearance.

Although I feel that the crux of this defense motion for a rehearing lays in possible ramifications later on, such as an impetus to file an appeal if the defendant is found guilty, it extends into other areas as well, and that’s where we come right back to the succinct possibility that the defense will file yet another motion to disqualify the trial judge. What? Deja vu all over again? Admit it. It’s a nervous feeling running down your back.

In order to request that the judge step down, a couple of factors are problematic for the defense. In Judge Strickland’s case, he most certainly did not have to go, but he understood that the prevailing issue would remain if he denied the defense their request, as he so stated in his order. Every subsequent motion the defense lost could be grounds for an appeal. What caught us off guard now is the fear that Mason may be up to his old tricks. While certainly an option, it’s not easy. Here’s the statement Mason made in his motion that rattled nerves:

c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.

Shades of dismissal! Well, no, not really. Under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.

If this is the route Mason is considering taking, he should be mindful of the fact that a statute related to judicial disqualification exists. He should surely remember F.S. §38.10 from last year:

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith. However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.

In a nutshell, it explains something about a judge if he/she is prejudiced. Does Judge Perry fit the mold? Is he in favor of the adverse party as Mason claims in so many words? Well, it doesn’t really matter. After Judge Strickland willfully stepped down, and he could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Perry cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Mason claims. The only way it would work is if Perry admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission is just recorded in the court minutes and the trial proceeds on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different now.

One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as Mason is claiming in his rebuttal motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein)

What effectively worked in the Strickland recusal was his personal relationship with me. Although the defense clearly distorted the facts, it did proffer a basis for the motion. In Perry’s situation, it’s purely judicial in nature. And laughable.

§

Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake. Rule 2.160 has something else to offer to save Mason from a mea culpa moment if he chooses to stay on top of his game. Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!

When Judge Strickland disqualified himself due to alleged bias, and I use that term loosely, his successor, Judge Perry, cannot be disqualified on a successive motion by Casey’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Perry is allowed to toss out any new dismissal motion. By golly, he was even brazen enough to tell the defense that, “No other motions for rehearing shall be considered,”¹ after the defense filed its MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.

What nerve.  It looks like the Teflon judge has Mason backed into a corner. King takes pawn.

CHECK

See also: The Florida Bar Journal, Judicial Disqualification: What Every Practioner (and Judge) Should Know, Douglas J. Glaid, October, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 9

MISS ME YET?

 

Short interview with Dr. G: Chief Medical Examiner

Orlando Magazine published a brief interview with Dr. Jan Garavaglia by the editor-in-chief, Mike Boslet. I think it’s definitely worth a read. She will be a crucial expert witness for the State in the upcoming Casey Marie Anthony trial.

The Story of a… Medical Examiner

You can set up an account over there to comment, or you can return to this post and comment here. Your choice!

Was Casey read her rights?

In open court two weeks ago, Cheney Mason bluntly said that Casey Anthony was not read her Miranda warning until October 14, when she was indicted on a first-degree murder charge by an Orange County grand jury. He said it on two separate occasions that day. Interestingly, no one from the State Attorney’s Office questioned his statements. No one objected. As a matter of fact, none of the law enforcement officials, including Cpl. Yuri Melich, Sgt. John Allen, and Cpl. Eric Edwards, testified that Mason was wrong. Why?

Today, I present Casey’s version. I realize her words cannot be trusted and nothing should be taken seriously, but why would she say something about being read her rights if it did not take place?

In a court of law, what is testified to is what stands. No one said a word negating October 14.

Many thanks to nan11 for the remarkable find, and to SnoopySleuth for bringing it to my attention. To watch and listen to the entire 10 minute video with her brother Lee, please CLICK HERE. It’s right around 5 minutes, 30 seconds in.

Casey To Lee: I Was Read My Rights - Casey Anthony Extended Coverage News Story - WESH Orlando

Without Prejudice

Casey Anthony’s defense team has filed a lot of motions; too many to some, but plenty of them have been denied without prejudice by the presiding judge. With prejudice and without are fairly cut and dry. With prejudice means that once a judge rules, that’s the end of it; dead in the water, leave it alone and give it a rest. In other words, it’s a final disposition. Without prejudice means that the present form is not good enough to rule positively on, but the motion can certainly be filed again after tweaking and rewriting it. In other words, similar, but not identical. It leaves a party free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action. That’s not to say the latter outcome would be any different, but it leaves the door open for further explanation and review. A lot of the motions ruled against the defense by Judge Stan Strickland were ordered without prejudice. In my opinion, one of the reasons why Jose & Co. wanted him off the bench was made clear after Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. took over. Many of those motions turned down by Judge Strickland were refiled. They expected the new judge to be more favorable in his rulings. Unfortunately for Casey, Judge Perry didn’t overturn a single one of them, so they did nothing to help her cause.

In light of Judge Strickland’s rulings, I want to discuss something that’s been weighing on my mind - without prejudice, of course. Actually, there are two things, the other one being George and Cindy and where they sit in the courtroom; but first, I come to Judge Strickland’s defense - not that he needs it or anything.

Of late, I have been reading comments on blogs, including my own; personal testimonials that praise Judge Perry for keeping this trial on track; that he is expediting the schedule. Consequently, and because of him, the trial will start on time - his time. That’s simply not true. Not to take away from him or his regimented structuring at all, but the facts in this case are, in fact, facts, and facts don’t lie. Just where has Judge Perry sped up the process as it relates to deadlines and the like?

On March 5, 2010, just over a year ago, Judge Strickland affixed his name to an amended order setting deadlines. It’s titled [the] AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. On February 7 of this year, Judge Perry wrote his ORDER MEMORIALIZING STATUS HEARING. Please make a mental note that these are orders written by both judges.

Judge Strickland wrote: Depositions of law enforcement officers or employees shall be completed by September 30, 2010.

Judge Perry wrote: Depositions of Law Enforcement Persons: Defense anticipates completion of all depositions by the February 18,2011 deadline.

That’s a four-and-one-half month discrepancy, folks, and Judge Strickland stepped down six weeks after his deadline order. Who reset the deadline? Please understand that this, in no manner, disparages Judge Perry. This is a complex death penalty case and tentative deadlines are meant to be broken. Recently, a very prominent attorney told me, “So much misinformation is out there,” and this stretches beyond the mundane aspects of this case.

Another good example of this is Judge Strickland’s original deadline for the depositions of defense expert witnesses. The date he set was February 28, 2011. Judge Perry extended it a bit to March 11, 2011 for the final one - Dr. Werner Spitz.

On a side note, we now know Dr. Spitz will argue that Dr. G’s autopsy results are flawed. We will look more into this aspect at a later date, but meanwhile…

Judge Perry said, by hook or by crook, this trial will commence to start on May 9, 2011. It’s etched in stone, but lest you think that he is speeding up what the defense tries to set back, guess again. While Judge Perry keeps both sides on course, it was Judge Strickland who set the trial date of May 9, 2011. I show you Exhibit A, right on schedule:

I remember when I told readers of my blog that I was going to attend my first hearing. It was back in mid-October, 2009. Everyone told me to sit on the prosecution side. If you sit on the defense side, it means you support the defense. I said, no it doesn’t, this isn’t like a wedding, where friends of the bride and groom sit on their respective sides. Oh yes it does, I was lectured. Well, I’ve always been the independent sort, and I told them I will sit wherever I want. It so happens that upon entering the courtroom, the only seat available was next to George and Cindy on the, you guessed it, defense side. That awarded me the opportunity to say a few words to George when the hearing was over, and I’m glad I did. As a writer, I try to remain neutral, although it’s downright impossible at times.

Nowadays, almost all I ever read, over and over and over again, is that because George, Cindy and Lee sit behind their daughter, it means they have “thrown their granddaughter under the bus.” They are not interested in justice for Caylee. At all. That brings me to one very important thought. It’s actually two separate pieces of the whole, but I think it’s worth pondering. No, I am not setting this in stone; let’s just say it’s a fresh perspective that most people haven’t given much thought to, if any at all. Please keep in mind that keeping an open mind usually means everything is not always hidden behind Door Number One. Answers can come from anywhere, and they usually do.

Suppose the Anthonys are seeking justice for their grandchild, but they just don’t like the fact that the state of Florida wants to kill Casey. Hey, life is okay, but death? No matter what your child has done, and I want you to think hard and heavy about this, would you beg the state to kill your child? No matter what? If you honestly answer no, then you will you understand why they refuse to support the prosecution. THEY WANT TO KILL MY DAUGHTER!!! To be realistic, I doubt that you could execute your own child. I couldn’t, because…

Personally, I am against the death penalty. My beliefs are my own and so are my reasons, but if you ask me why I feel the way I do, I will gladly explain my position. With that in mind, has anyone EVER asked George and Cindy what their positions are on the death penalty? If not, what if they feel the same way I do? Why would they want to support the state by sitting behind them? I wouldn’t if it were my child, but she’s not, and it’s not my call.

Think about how you would feel as poison flows into your child’s veins. Without prejudice, of course.

ON AIR

Simon & Jan Barrett will return to the Internet airwaves today as they bring back their ever popular blogtalkradio show. Today’s subject?

Casey Anthony - Killer Mother?

Please tune in at 4:00 PM EST.

Join Simon, Jan and their panel of guests on air to look at this case and several others. Some are well known, some are not.

Click the logo

To read Simon’s blog post, CLICK HERE

Interesting day of discovery

More documents were released today concerning the investigation into the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. Some of the discovery is not very revealing, while other documents are. For instance, several TES volunteers described receiving phone calls from private investigators stating they were “calling from the Orange County Courthouse.” While misleading, they were not illegal. Cpl. Yuri Melich wrote in his incident report that an “investigation was conducted in order to determine if a private investigator working for the Casey Anthony defense violated State Statute by falsely impersonating an officer as per Florida State Statute 843.08.” He added that “there is insufficient evidence to prove anyone violated this statute.” Yes, several people complained the callers had misrepresented themselves, but by merely saying they were calling “from” the Orange County Courthouse failed to constitute probable cause that a crime was committed. I have to agree. I’ve made phone calls from the courthouse and by merely telling the other person I am calling from that location reveals nothing. I could be there for a hearing or something else.

What I did find interesting is that, while a lot of people believe Jerry Lyons is working alone, or that Mort Smith is still somehow involved, two new names surfaced. AHA! We can now add Katie Delaney, Gil Colon and Scott McKenna to the list. What would be intriguing would be if the SAO decided to seek the cell phone records from all of the PIs to see if they really did call from the courthouse as they claimed.

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161837/detail.html)

Julie Ann Davis

Julie Davis was a TES searcher who was a K-9 handler. Her dog was trained to find human cadavers. She searched the Suburban Drive area on September 7, 2008 along with Tammy Dennis, Karen Gheesling and Luther Peeples. Tammy Dennis was also a dog handler. None of the dogs alerted anyone to a body. She was clear in her memory of where she searched, and more signifiacntly, where she didn’t. She said she looked at the end of Suburban, across from the school, with her dogs. So did Tammy. They found nothing unusual. She also said she looked into the wooded are where the body was eventually found, but not with her dogs, that remained in her car at the time. Those particular woods were overgrown with brush and flooded, she told Cpl. Eric Edwards on February 3 of this year.

“Um, I got out of my vehicle, walked along the edge of the, the tree line there. Looking inside that vegetation ah, it was thick, but I could see through the thickness was a lot of water.”

One of her most significant statements she made was that it may have been very difficult to find a body. Many variables would come into play.

“It depends on the body if it was wrapped in bags whether or not that K-9 would be able to detect that.”

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161880/detail.html)

Cpl. Mark David Hawkins

Mark Hawkins was a longtime friend of Casey and her family. She often talked about visiting him in California, where he was stationed as a U.S. Marine. He knew her from their high school days together. After finding (alleged) samples of human decomposition, samples of Caylee’s hair and chloroform in the trunk of Casey’s vehicle, Hawkins came forward and offered to help in the investigation since he had knowledge of the victim and her family. He admitted that his relationship with Casey was only plutonic; that they had never been sexually intimate together. He said that they both agreed that they should just remain strictly friends. He was in the military and constantly being sent to different locations. Casey said she didn’t want a transient life for herself or Caylee.

“In late June/early July 2008, Casey and I were talking regularly, as I was keeping her updated on some medical issues of mine. She was worried about me and stated she wanted to come out to CA to see me, although there were never any solid plans made. A week or so later, Casey called me and was noticeably upset nd frustrated. She said she had something to tell me and couldn’t say it over the phone. She said ‘something happened’ a long time ago, but wouldn’t say what it was. Casey said she told her mother and brother whatever it was and they became angry & frustrated about it. I asked Casey what happened and tried to get her to tell me, she just saind, ‘Hey Mark, it’s just something I want to tell you in person’. I thought maybe there were some issues between her and her father or thought she was possibly upset about something else and she was just sort of dancing around it.”

In my opinion, this could have been the start of her accusation that her brother used to molest her. NCIS, the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigation, sent Supervisory Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs and Probationary Special Agent Ziva David - JUST KIDDING! NCIS sent Hawkins to Orlando where he agreed to be wired up by FBI Special Agent Steve Mackley. He met with Casey at her house on October 9 and 10, where she was under house arrest after Leonard Padilla bonded her out of jail. Casey never did make admissions related to the death of her child, although this was prior to Caylee’s body was found. Casey also told Hawkins her brother, Lee, knew most of the story about what happened to Caylee. She added she would tell him all about it one day. I doubt Lee was in on the murder, though, and he was never a suspect.

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161404/detail.html)

Anne Pham

Anne e-mailed Yuri Melich on February 1 of this year to tell him that on the morning Caylee’s remains were discovered the two of them spoke over the phone as the news broke. Laura never said anything about searching that specific area of Suburban Drive. In fact, it wasn’t until weeks or months later that she started claiming she searched there. Pham continued by saying that other searchers had no idea about Buchanan’s claim. Buchanan thought Roy Kronk was somehow involved in the murder of Caylee.

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161898/detail.html)

Dr. Barry Logan

Dr. Logan is an expert in toxicology and analytical chemistry for NMS Labs. He has been retained by Casey’s defense.He will argue that there is no standard operating procedure for the use of the equipment utilized by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He also states that the database was established with a total of four cadavers buried underground. There’s no demonstration that the findings would apply to human bodies that decomposed under different circumstances, such as in the trunk of a car. As an expert witness, he bases his opinions on several factors, one of which is that Oak Ridge is not a forensic laboratory, nor is it ASCLD-LAB qualified.

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161862/detail.html)

Dr. Timothy Huntington

Dr. Huntington concluded that the species of fly associated with the garbage bag in Casey’s trunk is unremarkable and of no forensic value. Also found in the trash was a single dermestid beetle larva that’s of no significant value. Of course, he acknowledged that the findings were open to revision and reinterpretation, but we are now seeing what some of the defense witnesses will testify to at trial. He continues by claiming that, given the conditions in the trunk, specifically increasded temperatures due to solar radiation, adult flies found in the trunk on July 16, the eggs should have not been laid before July 2. Of course, the two sides will be arguing over the insect evidence at trial. Big time.

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161900/detail.html)

(See: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27161900/detail.html)

 §

In a minor setback for the defense, DNA tests on a laundry bag and shorts that were found with Caylee’s remains came back negative. It may have helped raise reasonable doubt. 

§

Depositions

Several depositions were released yesterday. One that was filed comes from the Orange-Osceola Medical Examiner’s Office, where Dr. Jan Garavaglia works. In her September 28, 2010 deposition, she confirmed that the remains showed no signs of trauma. Nothing led up to the cause or manner of death. When defense attorney Cheney Mason asked her about other possibilities besides murder, such as playing with a plastic bag or drowning, she replied that because nothing was “reported immediately to the hospital or law enforcement to try to rescuscitate this person, or EMS, and this person is still found with duct tape on the face, I would still call that a homicide.”

I know many of us have already heard that revelation, and we may remember what Kiomarie Cruz said, too. Another deposition came from OCSO Deputy Appling Wells from his March 9, 2010 deposition. Kiomarie told him that Casey “didn’t really want the baby” and that she wanted to give it up for adoption. Cindy wouldn’t allow it.

Wells met with Cruz on July 19, 2008. She and Casey were friends from middle school and high school and they used to hang out in the woods across from Hidden Oaks Elementary School. She told wells that they used to go there to do adult things like fornicate and smoke wacky weed. “If Casey was to do something bad,” she told him, “maybe this is where she would put the baby.”

Jose Baez questioned him about Kiomarie’s mental health and Wells said, “I didn’t think that was an issue talking to her.”

Wells said that after Casey was first arrested, she was shocked and most likely “a little pissed off.” 

He discussed meeting with the Anthony’s neighbor, Brian Burner, about the time Casey borrowed his shovel. “She brought it back an hour later,” Wells said. “Nothing stood out as far as being something wrong.”

Later, he had a “police officer to police officer” chat with George looking for evidence that “someone, something had been buried” in the back yard.

Finally, and some in the media may find this a bit unsettling, Wells expressed his annoyance with the media throughout his deposition. He considered them to be obsessed with the story.”They’re just vultures,” he said.

(See: The Orlando Sentinel, March 11, 2011)

A sneaking suspicion

Since I didn’t have the opportunity to attend last Friday’s hearing, I just want to touch base on a couple of things regarding that day.

I am glad Kathi Belich won. Freedom of the press in this country is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If Kathi or any other journalist investigates a story, only defamation and the infringement of copyright laws should be subject to restrictions.

When Jose Baez and Jeff Ashton shook hands and the contempt motion flew out the window, I’d bet my bottom dollar that Judge Perry had told both sides that if they didn’t come to an agreement on their own, neither side would like the way he would handle it. That’s enough motivation right there. Not only does a judge dislike dealing with motions of this nature, he’s not in the courtroom to babysit. Crack the whip, git ‘er done. He did.

§

On Monday, I attended a hearing designed to give the defense and prosecution one final shot at summarizing the two motions discussed last Wednesday and Thursday regarding statements Casey gave law enforcement back in mid-July of 2008, and the statements she gave her parents and brother while she was sitting in jail. Were they unwitting agents of the state? If the judge agrees with the defense, it will be a damaging, but far from fatal blow, to the State of Florida. If the judge sides with the State, it will be business as usual - on with the show!

One of the things we must keep in mind is that if evidence is tossed, there’s still plenty more the State will use against her. For instance, Casey’s car is not in her name. The owner gave permission to have it examined. That’s a nice chunk of evidence. Caylee’s remains changed the playing field, too. When she was charged with first-degree murder on 14 October 2008, there was no death penalty. That came the following April, and of utmost importance was that her little bones and what surrounded them gave plenty of credibility to the old saying, “she’s speaking from the grave.”

While sitting in the courtroom, I must say Cheney Mason impressed me. His voice was stronger than it usually is. During one of the detective’s testimony last week, he asked if he was familiar with the term unarrested. The detective responded positively. Yesterday, Mason exclaimed that there is no such thing as being unarrested. He went on to scrutinize the tactics of the deputies and detectives from the first hours they spent with Casey to the final moments they pressed the Anthony family into service to visit her in jail. Agents of the State? Please.

When Casey was driven to Universal, he asserted that the detectives were already aware that she wasn’t employed there. They had set the meeting up with the chief of security, where a small room was awaiting her forquestioning. The door was closed, he said, and the intimidating tactics began. Voices were raised. Was she free to go, he wondered. No, of course not. She was at their mercy. No car and no one telling her she had a right to leave. The only way it could have been a voluntary interrogation would have been if she drove herself to meet them there.

He said it would have been impossible for trained law enforcement personnel to not treat her as some sort of suspect once they took a whiff of her car that first night. Where the defense had been weak in citing case law, Mason let loose here with the case of Ross v. State of Florida and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling upon appeal:

After carefully reviewing the issues raised on appeal, we reverse the convictions and sentences of death because of the police conduct in interrogating Ross on January 9, 2004. Specifically, the police, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), obtained inculpatory admissions, and when the warnings were finally administered midstream, minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation—all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.

In Ross’s case, the court wrote that investigators mishandled his interrogation days after his parents were beaten to death with a baseball bat more than seven years ago. On 7 January 2004, Ross, then 21, called 911 to report that someone had murdered his parents. No weapon was ever found. The Supreme Court ruling described a pressure-packed investigation two days later in which a detective questioned Ross for hours without reading him his Miranda rights. The high court ruling states the detective deliberately delayed reading Ross his rights in an effort to obtain a confession, while assuring him that he was not under arrest, amounting to an involuntary confession. Specifically, law enforcement, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the Miranda warning. According to the ruling, when Miranda warnings were administered “midstream,” detectives…

… minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation — all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.

There is another case in Florida that is a real puzzler. In Ramirez v. State, 1999 WL 506949, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed Nathan Ramirez’s conviction and death sentence for his role in the execution-style murder of Mildred Boroski, a 71-year-old widow. He and another man broke into her home, killed her dog, tied her to a bed and raped her. Then, they forced her into a car, dead dog and all, and drove her to a remote field where Ramirez shot her twice in the head.

Investigators with the police department discovered some of the woman’s possessions in Ramirez’s custody and asked him to go to the station for a taped interview. He agreed. The investigators began the interview without a Miranda warning because they thought he was only a witness rather than a murder suspect. Within a few minutes, he began to sing like a canary and one of the investigators stopped the interview to suggest he be Mirandized. The colleague immediately read Ramirez his rights which the (now) suspect acknowledged and waived. He proceeded to detail what transpired that day.

Sadly, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Ramirez’s conviction and sentence despite how careful and diligent the investigators were. Why? Four of the justices claimed that his Miranda warning was given in a manner that unconstitutionally minimized and downplayed the importance of his rights. They exploited his pre-Miranda admission about being in the house.

That’s bad enough, but back to the matter at hand. The most startling revelation made by Mason was his assertion that the first time Casey was Mirandized was not until 14 October 2008, when she was indicted on first-degree murder and other charges. I beg to differ with him. According to Casey’s ICJIS (fraud) Arrest Affidavit, she was read her Miranda warning by OCSO Detective Johan Anderson on 29 August 2008 at 2135 hours, or 9:35 pm:

I responded to 4937 Hopespring Drive and made contact with defendant Anthony. She was placed under arrest and transported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. I read defendant Anthony her Miranda Rights and she advised that she did not want to speak to me without her lawyer. I terminated my interview and she was transported to BRC without incident.

Whether she was read her rights prior to this date is not readily available, but the above log refers to the fraud charges only. In any event, technically, she was read her Miranda Rights prior to 14 October. Was she advised of her rights before this exchange occurred on 16 July 2008?¹

“What happened to Caylee,” an investigator asks on the tape.

“I don’t know,” Casey Anthony said.

“Sure you do,” and investigator said.

“I don’t know,” Anthony said.

“Listen, something happened to Caylee,” an investigator said. “We’re not going to discuss where the last time you saw her (was). I’m guessing something bad happened to her some time ago and you haven’t seen her, so that part is true — is you haven’t seen her because she’s somewhere else right now.”

“She’s with someone else right now,” Anthony said.

“She’s either in a Dumpster right now, she’s buried somewhere, she’s out there somewhere and her rotten body is starting to decompose because what you’re telling us…,” an investigator said. “Here’s the problem. The longer this goes, the worse it’s going to be for everyone. Right now, everything you’ve told us — we’ve locked you into a lie. Every single thing that you’ve told us has been a lie.”

If she wasn’t read her rights before being interrogated, this could be a real problem because, clearly, she was the only suspect that law enforcement had as evidenced by their line of questioning. They were already on to her tricks.

On the other hand…

When Linda Drane Burdick approached the podium, she calmly stated that at no time was Casey in custody - there was no custodial interrogation. When at Universal Studios, Cpl. Yuri Melich wrote in his arrest affidavit, interestingly dated July 15:

At this time, we found a small conference room in which to talk to the defendant. This conversation was also recorded. Prior to beginning this interview, we stressed that the door was unlocked and were in the room for privacy only. She understood and agreed to speak with us on tape.

At no point in the arrest affidavit was it written that Casey was read her Miranda Rights. If there was ever a time for a sinking feeling, it may have come in the courtroom on Monday if she was not read her rights. There’s something else. Cpl. Yuri Melich made this notation in his affidavit:

I first met with the defendant inside her residence and spoke with her alone and away from other family members. Before asking for a recorded statement, I reviewed her original four page written sworn statement and asked if this was her version of what happened. She said it was. I told her that the incident was very suspicious and her version suspect.

Later that day, several of Casey’s friends and boyfriends called OCSO to report what they knew. It was a shock to everyone that darling Caylee was missing. Melich continues:

Once at our central operations center, and after I started receiving the above phone calls reference the defendant and her child, the defendant was given one more opportunity to change her story. She did not. She was then placed under arrest for child neglect, and providing false information to us regarding this investigation.

The official charges were:

• Neglect of a child 827.03 (3)(C)
• False Official Statements 837.06
• Obstruct Criminal Investigation 837.055

However…

At no time did Casey express an interest in remaining silent. Initially, as Linda Drane Burdick was quick to assert, Casey was not a suspect in the disappearance of her child when she was briefly cuffed and held in the back seat “cage” of Dep. Acevedo’s patrol car. She was never suppressed inside her house, nor was she ever held without her permission. Of course, common sense tells you when an officer of the law carries on a conversation and/or asks you to do something, you’d better comply, so there are gray areas defense teams are trained to exploit. Rightfully, Burdick contended that law enforcement merely treated Casey as a possible witness to some sort of kidnapping and there was no reason to Mirandize her.

I think before we continue, it’s important to clarify the written statement made by Casey. It came before she was handcuffed and placed in the police car.

Here comes the judge…

While Mason was arguing his case, Judge Perry broke in and asked him if he was familiar with Parks v. State (1994). Mason said no, and the judge advised him to read it. Now, if you want my opinion, when a judge suggests something to read, you’re darned-tootin’ I’m going to read it! The mere fact that a judge mentions case law is ominously significant, so here is where I think the judge will go with his decision regarding Miranda…

In the case of Darryl Parks v. State, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, the appellant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. He asserted four issues on appeal:

1. whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
2. whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
3. whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
4. whether prosecutorial statements in closing arguments amounted to a comment on appellant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.

The appeals court affirmed as to all issues. However, their affirmance of issues one and two did warrant discussion. The following is quoted directly from the ruling. I will highlight key points:

On January 16, 1991, an individual wearing a mask entered a business in Broward County, began waiving a gun, and demanded money. The gunman was joined shortly thereafter by a second individual. During the course of the robbery, the owner of the business was fatally shot.

Five days after the shooting, appellant was arrested on an unrelated robbery charge. He was brought to the Broward County Sheriff’s Department homicide office for questioning concerning the murder. He was handcuffed and shackled. However, doubts arose concerning whether there was sufficient probable cause for appellant’s arrest. It was decided that appellant would be released. Appellant was advised he was free to go, the handcuffs and shackles were removed, and he was offered a ride home. Thereafter, but prior to leaving, appellant was asked whether he would remain and talk about the shooting. Appellant said he would talk to the officers about it. After appellant was informed of his Miranda rights, he was questioned by detectives. During this questioning, appellant made incriminating statements concerning his involvement in the murder and robberies. Appellant said he was present and he only intended to rob the place. However, he admitted using a substandard quality gun and “it just went off.”

The evidence shows appellant freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police. Even if the police lacked probable cause for the arrest on the unrelated charge, the fact appellant was released from custody and voluntarily remained to answer questions breaks the causal link between the arrest and his making of the incriminating statements to police. Appellant’s agreement to discuss the crime when he was free to decline and go home was an act of free will sufficient to purge any possible taint from the arrest. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress appellant’s incriminating statements.

Parks asserted that the trial court improperly allowed a prior statement by his accomplice into evidence to help build the case against him. The day after he was arrested for the murder, Terrance Batten was brought to the police station for questioning. After being informed of his Miranda Rights. He then gave a tape recorded statement to police which implicated himself and Parks in the murder. About 22 months later, Batten received a plea deal from the state.

At trial, Batten testified about the shooting and robberies. He said appellant shot the victim. On direct examination, Batten acknowledged he gave a statement to police shortly after the shooting. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Batten was extensively questioned about his plea deal with the state. The details of the deal were spelled out for the jury. Batten was also questioned about the circumstances surrounding his prior statement made to police. Batten acknowledged the detectives told him that they did not want him, but wanted appellant. Batten also acknowledged he was told if he did not cooperate, he would be charged with murder and sentenced to the electric chair. He admitted he was thinking if he gave a statement to the detectives he could go home, but if he did not give them a statement he was going to be held on the murder charge.

Defense counsel also questioned Batten about specific contents of his prior statement. Batten was asked about his comments concerning who he was with prior to the robbery. Defense counsel noted that Batten said in his statement to police he was cooperating because the victim was shot. Also, Batten acknowledged there is no mention of a mask in his prior statement.

During the testimony of one of the detectives who questioned Batten, the tape-recorded statement was admitted into evidence over defense objection. Defense counsel had argued the prior consistent statement itself was made after Batten had an improper motive. Therefore, it was inadmissible.

Here’s the clincher, though:

We agree with appellant that the prior consistent statement should not have been admitted into evidence. Generally, prior consistent statements are not admissible to corroborate a witness’ testimony. Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1986). An exception to the rule provides that such statements are admissible to rebut charges of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication against the witness. Id. at 910; see also § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, the prior consistent statement must be made “prior to the existence of a fact said to indicate bias, interest, corruption, or other motive to falsify.” Dawson v. State, 585 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

We hold, however, that the erroneous admission of Batten’s tape recorded statement was harmless. The jury was aware of the existence of the prior statement. A reasonable jury could presume the prior statement was consistent with Batten’s in-court testimony. Further, defense counsel delved into some of the specifics of the statement, referring to actual comments made by Batten to police. Thus, portions of the statement were highlighted for the jury, by defense counsel, prior to the admission of the statement in its entirety.

These factors, in combination with appellant’s incriminating statements and testimony linking appellant to an item stolen in the robbery, convince us of the harmless nature of the trial court’s error. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions on all counts.

AFFIRMED.

What does this tell me? Well, when Mason mentioned October 14 - and he did so twice - and the State did not counter, it sent a message. Two times and the prosecution came back with no response. I think the judge is going to allow Casey’s early statements to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police. I believe that once Casey was asked to go to Universal with the detectives, or earlier, when Cpl. Melich told her of his suspicions, she should have been Mirandized. Therefore, from the wee hours of 16 July 2008 until she was finally read her rights, whatever she said could be tossed. What, you say? There’s no real need to worry. Consider this: After Casey lawyered up, what did she say? Nothing, really. Honestly, most of the really incriminating evidence came after Caylee was found in the woods, but other things like the “smells like a dead body in the damn car” evidence cannot be suppressed, nor can all of the statements made by her friends and lovers, especially Anthony Lazzaro. Linda Drane Burdick did a convincing job of keeping Casey a victim before the truth began to seep through her lies. At what point did the line cross from victim to suspect? That’s the key. Personally, I think custodial interrogation began when she told Orange County Sheriff’s Sgt. Reginald Hosey that her mother had blown the whole thing out of proportion. Huh? Your child is missing for a month and your mother is overreacting? On the stand last week, Hosey said the actions of his officers were guided by George and Cindy’s concerns over Casey’s very erratic behavior and the missing toddler. That would have done it for me. And that God-awful smell.

Either Way

While attending court on Wednesday, I noticed a big difference in how Casey’s defense presented itself as opposed to past hearings. It was a dramatic improvement. It was also the first time I saw Dorothy Clay Sims, the Ocala attorney who specializes in aggressive cross-examinations of medical experts. She joined Casey’s team in September of last year. We will be hearing much more from her as we approach the trial, I’m sure.

On Thursday, Judge Perry opened the hearing by admonishing the gallery. He reminded everyone he does not want to see any smirking or hear any snickering. This includes moans, sighs and any sort of reaction that deviates from quietly sitting still and behaving ourselves. One thing I admire about him is the manner in which he handles issues on the surface. He seems to be rather uncomfortable with singling any person or group out. I would imagine if and when it ever reaches that point, the person(s) on the receiving end won’t be happy.

Thus began the day filled with testimony from detectives, deputies, jailers and the two Anthony men. When I arrived on the 19th floor, I expected to see a good number of OCSO’s finest, and I did. The first one I noticed was Sgt. John Allen, the lead investigator of this case. We had warm greetings and a firm handshake as we crossed paths. If you recall, Sgt. Allen interviewed me in December 2009 and I’ve spoken with him several times by phone since then; the last call was made in November 2010 concerning an idiotic conspiracy being promulgated on another blog.

I have an awful lot of respect for Sgt. Allen for several reasons. He made me feel very comfortable during our initial meeting. He was professional and courteous. He knew how to ask the right questions and he allowed time to talk about other things of interest, some personal, but mostly about the case. For instance, when Casey was initially arrested and all leads pointed to finding a victim, he and over 100 law enforcement personnel continued to search around the country for a living Caylee. You could clearly sense his dedication, focus and concern. No one ever gave up hope until after her remains were found. What I walked away with that December day was a good understanding of the man and the challenges he faces every day. I recall how OCSO and other personnel were castigated by family members for not doing more to find Caylee, but I knew they were. All they wanted was the truth.

I also had an opportunity to speak briefly to Cmdr. Matt Irwin and Cpl. Yuri Melich. During a more lengthy break, I had a good conversation with another detective, Cpl. Eric Edwards. Great guys, all. Of course, nothing about the case was discussed. Actually, the police had to wait outside the courtroom for two days waiting to be called. It’s my understanding that during the entire time, they were in limbo. In other words, no working on any present investigations. Everything was on hold. It seems like so much wasted time, but such is the case when charges are filed and trials ensue. It comes with the territory.

Agents of the State?

Just like I wrote in my previous post, I do not intend to relate a play-by-play account of what transpired in the courtroom. I will proffer my thoughts on the overall scheme of events and what the defense was after. The day before, it was the Miranda warning. On Thursday, it was Agents of the State.

First off, I think the M.O. of a cop is pretty simple. Cops do what cops do. They investigate. They uphold the law. They do a lot more than that, but let’s just stick with investigating and upholding the law for now, especially when the defense questioned both job descriptions. I understand what Jose & Co. were engaging in and while Wednesday may offer them hope, I’m not all that sure about Thursday. Taking a look at one of the angles Jose pressed was how he took it personally when the detectives allegedly told George his daughter could have found a much better attorney. OK, fine. So what? As soon as Casey lawyered up, she wasn’t going to open up to authorities any longer. That’s a given. Who she hired meant nothing because any attorney worth his/her weight in salt would have severed direct communications with law enforcement personnel, so who it was and how good or bad the person was wouldn’t have mattered. Cops and criminal defense attorneys are like oil and vinegar. Anything the law wants to find out from that point on just ain’t gonna transpire.

Because police act the way they do, they usually try any trick in the book to find answers. That’s what private investigators do, too. Short of anything illegal, that’s the name of the game. If you ever watch COPS, you’ll know that any and all people involved in suspicious activity are questioned separately. More information is collected that way. In this case, detectives knew that George was once in law enforcement and, naturally, he would be a better fit when it came to collecting additional information. He understood the lingo. As for Lee… well, Lee is a different breed of animal, but I feel that law enforcement sensed his desire to pursue the field of investigative work. Whether he’s a cop wannabe or not, he created his own agenda. He sure played into their hands. Remember, Dominic Casey told him to work on becoming a PI. There were two willing family members with George and Lee. Where it gets tricky is when the OCSO detectives offered to pick up George and drive him to the county jail to see his daughter, knowing that Baez was out-of-town. That in itself is not a big deal, but it is sneaky. Still, it’s nothing illegal. Where it becomes an issue, in my opinion, is when the detectives told Jose under oath that driving George to the jail was not an official trip. It was only to help him find the truth.

Hold on for a second… Uh… Hmm. Not an official trip. It most certainly was an official trip for four reasons:

1. It was a county vehicle filled with gas paid for by the county.
2. It was tape recorded without George’s knowledge.
3. George was accompanied by two detectives and one FBI agent.
4. Everything law enforcement does related to an investigation is most certainly part of the investigation.

Astutely, Jose asked why they would tape record the trip if it was not part of an investigation. He asked if any of them had ever done the same thing for any other person. Was it done out of the goodness of their hearts? He also put one of his former attorneys on the stand. Gabriel Adam may have had a problem with attorney/client privilege, but he was quick to point out the strange goings-on at the jail that day. Why was he not allowed to see Casey until much later? Because the detectives were in the building, setting up an appointment with dear old dad.¹ In the end, she did not see her father that day, she listened to her attorney’s advice, but I still find something to be a little bit problematic. Why say it wasn’t part of any investigation when, in fact, it was? That’s what cops do, after all. Is it enough to win the motion for the defense? No, not in my opinion and I’ll tell you why. While little lies may come into play during the trial, at issue now is whether the Anthony family was surreptitiously swallowed up by law enforcement to, unwittingly, do dirty deeds at their behest. Did they become Agents of the State?

No.

As desperate as law enforcement was to find the answers, so were the Anthonys. On the stand, all members of the family said they would have done anything to bring Caylee home. This was long before she was found. As a matter of fact, here is a direct quote from George:

“I would have sold my soul to the devil to get my grandchild back.”

They were in complete agony, yes, but as far as I’m concerned, if the Anthonys were Agents of the State, those detectives were just as much Agents for the Anthonys. Yuri Melich and John Allen were the only security blankets the family had at the time, if not all of them, then certainly George. What those detectives did was what they do every day. Sgt. Allen summed it up nicely:

“We were doing this at their request but certainly anything that if we had got of evidentiary value we would have used it and turned it over to the prosecutors.”

Another potential issue is the letter Casey wrote to then Sheriff Kevin Beary. Did the detectives coerce George into convincing her to do it without Jose Baez’s knowledge? Even so, should it matter? No one twisted her arm, and the police had no direct contact. That’s why this “agent” thing is such a big deal to the defense. If they can link the police directly to Casey, it could, potentially, mess with attorney/client privilege. Sgt. Allen told Lee on numerous occasions that “she has an attorney, we can’t talk to her but you can.”

Will the defense win this one? I’m inclined to think not. Everything up to that point was done voluntarily, all players were adults, and they shared one common goal - to bring Caylee home. The Anthonys were willing to do whatever it took and, in the end, the bottom line is simple. The police work for us. Right?

§

One of the nice things about being able to sit in the courtroom is that there is so much more to see than what’s viewed on television. The added depth and dimension are huge advantages. Jose posed a hypothetical question to George. He wanted to know, if he was subpoenaed to testify in court next week, knowing that if he chooses not to attend, it would save his daughter’s life, what would he do? Linda Drane Burdick vehemently objected. The judge overruled and wanted to know George’s answer. He told the prosecutor it could be discussed in a sidebar after he answered the question. Jose asked him again. George replied that he would stay away from court and risk it all, including any form of punishment, if it meant it would save Casey’s life. He broke down on the stand and cried all the way out the door after he was excused.

Ultimately, the judge overruled the prosecutor again after the sidebar, but what you couldn’t see or sense on TV was the emotional state of the gallery at that precise moment in time. The cameras couldn’t show you the welling tears of some of the spectators. It was then that we really felt the agony inside of that man. It was real. For whatever you think of him, this is something we can never deny.

If the defense succeeds in acquitting Casey, one thing is certain. It will never be the same. As cruel and distant as she has become toward her family, who she ignores, she will most assuredly never, ever go back to Hopespring Drive and what she left behind. No, George, she may win, but you will never be able to go back. Either way, for you, Cindy and Lee, it will be a lose/lose situation. Caylee already lost.

I want to say hello and thank you to my courtroom friends on Wednesday and Thursday. I had planned on attending Friday, too, but I had other obligations that almost slipped my mind. Hello to Diana in Asheville! I wish we would have had more time to talk. To Gloria and Jim, I enjoyed our “lunch” together and I look forward to hearing from you soon. And to Melinda and Pam, I really, really enjoyed your company.

¹When Gabriel Adam was through testifying, including the cross-examination, Judge Perry took the unprecedented step of continuing to probe him about his visit with his client. This may not bode well for the State. Something got his attention.

Arresting Development?

 

There are two basic Miranda warnings. One is quite minimal and the other is more verbose:

• You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

• You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

The general rule is that the first one is just an announcement of your rights, whether under arrest or not, and the second one is primarily to cover the bases a detainee might encounter while in police custody.

We have rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but do we know each one of them by heart? Way back in 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman. When brought in for questioning, he confessed. He was never told that he had rights at all. He was never told he didn’t have to speak to the police or that he could have had an attorney present. At trial, his counsel attempted to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that Miranda’s statements to law enforcement could not be used as evidence since he had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, officers of the law have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The above statements have the same key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. When you have been read your rights, you have been Mirandized.

Of great importance is the difference between being arrested and being questioned. When law enforcement asks you anything - anything at all, you have the right to remain silent. Period. Of course, this doesn’t include answering basic questions such as your name, address and other relevant information regarding your identity. Also, bear in mind that if you are not a suspect, the police do not need to Mirandize you.

At issue with Casey, and of great importance to her defense, is the precise moment when she shifted from being a person of interest (which could mean just about anything) to becoming a full-blown suspect involved in a crime. To be certain, prior to her being questioned, she was already suspected of stealing. That quickly changed when law enforcement learned of Caylee’s disappearance and possible kidnapping. What is so relevant at this point is the time investigators turned around and looked at her as a suspect. There are no clear-cut definitions; it is a gray area, but no doubt, police are trained to be suspicious of their own mothers, so after Casey told her first lie, the gloves came off and she became a prime target of investigation. What her defense did today was to paint her as a sitting duck, and there may be some weight to it. Were Orange County’s finest required to read Casey her rights before firing away, if just as a precaution? That’s what we are about to find out.

When Deputy Ryan Eberlin told defense attorneys on the stand today that he initially handcuffed Casey on July 15, 2008 and put her in the back of a patrol car - the “cage”, should he have read her her rights, right then and there? Remember, that would not have signified that she was under arrest. At that moment, the crux of the investigation was over a missing toddler, right? Yes, but Cindy had just showed him receipts that virtually indicted Casey of fraudulent use of her credit cards. She said she wanted to press charges against her daughter. It was at this moment the cuffs went on. Time to be Mirandized. She was a suspect in a crime.

This could be big. I have tried to maintain a decent semblance of neutrality throughout this trying case, although I will admit I falter at times, but I have got to admit that this could be problematic for the State. To be blunt, Jose Baez and Cheney Mason were very good in the courtroom today and I have to call it like I saw it. Give them their day in the sun, but don’t get in an uproar over my revelation, not quite yet, anyway. We don’t know how the judge will rule. There’s still much more testimony to come, but if he rules in favor of the defense, it means initial questions will be tossed. However, keep one important factor in the back of your mind…

Ernesto Miranda. Oh yes, his conviction was thrown out, alright, but he didn’t walk away a free man. Law enforcement still had tons of other evidence that was completely independent of the confession. When he was tried the second time, he was convicted again, and after his release, he was killed in a barroom fight.

Just remember, the State of Florida is still sitting on lots of other evidence against Casey.

§

There is much more I could address, but it was a long day. One little morsel of interest, I’m sure… Diana Tennis is no longer representing Dominic Casey. He is out of the woods, so to speak, and Ms. Tennis is free to say and write whatever she wants about the case.

Also, the State submitted two photographs into evidence. The defense objected, but Judge Perry overruled. The first one shows a happy Casey taken at OCSO Operations Center. The second one is walking out into the lobby to exit the building. Could the first one infer that she’s a mother not too worried about her toddler?

 

I’m going to bed. It’s going to be a long day tomorrow, I’m sure.

What a difference a sentence makes

In January of 2009, U.S. District Judge John Antoon II accepted Robyn Ann Adams’ plea agreement and sentenced her to 10 years in prison. Her husband, Clay, was sentenced to 17. He had been an Altamonte Springs police officer. He pleaded guilty in October of 2008 to multiple weapons charges and one count, along with his wife, of conspiring to grow more than 2,000 lbs. of marijuana.

Yesterday, Robyn was booked back into the Orange County Jail in order to testify at the hearings this week. I seriously doubt she and Casey will see one another until they look into each others eyes in the courtroom.

Booked Monday, February 28th, 2011 - Return Per Court Order from State Facility

From the division of 'a Selasphorus rufus spoke to me'

I know there’s quite a buzz making the rounds on the Internet pertaining to Tony Pipitone’s exclusive story last night on WKMG, the CBS affiliate in Orlando. I must say, it was a great report, but of course, there’s always that element of hype that goes with virtually every story from every media outlet no matter what news is on the verge of breaking. Certainly, Tony deserves accolades for what he dug up and put together. It is true, no other TV station had the story. I’ve always recognized him as an excellent investigative reporter, and one of the reasons why he can shine like that is because he’s not a beat reporter; he’s not a man (or woman) on the street who puts together daily bits and bytes. This allows him more time to piece together a well choreographed production.

I know a lot of people are questioning whether it was the prosecution or the defense that met with him all clandestine-like to give up the goods on Dr. Jan Garavaglia’s deposition. Well, I’m not going to explain the story that aired last night. If you don’t know it by now, please go to Click Orlando, read it, and mosey on back. There’s also a video link to last night’s 11 o’clock broadcast. As Cheney Mason said at one point of the deposition while addressing the medical examiner, “this is not my first rodeo.” It wasn’t Dr. G’s, either. Nor was it Mr. Pipitone’s.

I went to the courthouse this morning and afterward, I asked some of Orlando’s finest journalists how he managed to get that information. Did someone spill the beans? No, most likely not. He had time to go to the Clerk of Courts office and peruse all sorts of documents, including “previously unreleased depositions of Garavaglia and others,” as their site explains. No back alley meetings wearing trench coats. No 007 guitar riffs playing in the background. It was there waiting to be found.

On another note, congratulations are in order for Kathi Belich for inking a long term contract with WFTV. Speaking of which, WFTV offered an on-air correction. It also appears on the Website. On a February 2 newscast, Kathi reported that some person had filed a grievance with the Florida Bar against Jose Baez for misrepresenting his facts to the court, and in particular, Judge Belvin Perry Jr. In fact, the complaint dealt with “ethics violations,” a spokesperson for the Bar stated. The person also confirmed that the defense attorney had been informed of the complaint, but refused to say who filed it.

Several of us wondered if Jose Baez threatened to take legal action against WFTV and, specifically, Kathi Belich, if a retraction wasn’t forthcoming. The thought had certainly crossed my mind because I am aware of what this defense can do, and it’s common knowledge that Kathi is the biggest thorn in the defense team’s side. They would love to send her out in the Atlantic in a canoe, sans paddle. To be honest, it’s not every day that a major media outlet retracts anything, so this came as a surprise.

Next Wednesday will be the start of a two-day status hearing. Casey Anthony must attend because several motions will also be heard, including:

• Motion to Suppress Statements (Jail Interviews)
• Motion in Limine to Supress Jail Video Footage
• Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence to Canine Searches & Alerts
• Notice to Suppress Statements of LEO
• State’s Motion to Strike Defense Supplemental Witness List
• Rule to Show Cause
• Frye: Motion to Strike Defense Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Plant or Root growth) and Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Chloroform)

Late this afternoon, the judge announced that the State’s Motion to Show Cause will be argued next week. That’s the big one the prosecution wants to hold Jose accountable for - contempt! Also, Judge Perry approved two more defense motions - one for out-of-state video conferencing costs and the other for $4,500 for a mental health expert for the penalty phase if Casey is convicted. The cost of video conferencing will run about $140 per hour, but Perry believes it’s still a good deal since the cost of travel and accommodations for the defense experts would be much higher.

Well, there you have it. A little more to add to the ongoing Chronicles of Casey. One more thing… the title is just the Latin name for a particular breed of small bird - a rufus hummingbird. In other words, from the department of ‘a little bird told me.’

The Strange Tale of the Missing Deadlines

…OR, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

Last month, Jose Baez was sanctioned and fined $583.73 for not complying with a court order. The Court had granted the State’s request for additional defense discovery on December 3, 2010 nunc pro tunc (retroactive to) November 29, 2010. The order specified what information the defense was to provide regarding expert witnesses they planned to have testify during the trial. What the defense gave the State fell far short of the order and the prosecution filed the motion for sanctions. Ultimately, Judge Perry wrote, “The Court finds that defense counsel Jose Baez has committed a willful violation of the Order to provide additional discovery…¹”

COMES NOW, a new motion was filed by the State requesting the judge to hold Jose in contempt of court for missing yet another deadline. Titled the MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, it accuses him of failing to comply with paragraph five of the Court’s February 7 order:

Frye Hearings: The motions addressing Frye issues pertaining to scientific evidence shall be held on March 23, 24, and 25, 2011. The court will provide a schedule to counsel as to the order in which each motion will be heard. By February 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m., defense counsel shall submit to the Court and State in writing, the specific issues that will be objected to in accordance with Frye, including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions.

What happened? While there’s no doubt in my mind the defense has been rather flippant about orders and deadlines, why would Jose & Co. ignore this one and plead bewilderment as he did in his e-mail to the judge’s judicial assistant? After all, the order is very clear, isn’t it?

As I mentioned in my last article pertaining to Frye and chloroform evidence, I wrote that I would discuss the scientific and legal aspects of the motion the defense filed and a subsequent rebuttal motion filed by the prosecution, the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FYRE [sic] (CHLOROFORM). This new motion filed by the State takes precedent at the moment, but in essence, there were two separate Frye motions filed by defense. The second one pertains to plant and root growth evidence, and that includes another rebuttal by the State, the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (PLANT OR ROOT GROWTH). To keep confusion to a minimum, this post will strictly address the contempt motion and the what, the whys and the hows. How and why did the defense let another deadline slip by? My God, what were they thinking?

A LITTLE BACKGROUND

To say that Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton is hot-headed and impatient is sometimes an understatement. He’s also a stickler for detail. Trust me, I’ve had plenty of opportunities to observe him in the courtroom. However, my intent is not to denigrate him in the least, because, at the same time, it’s his convictions and close attention to detail that make him so good at what he does; and every defense attorney who’s ever crossed his path should be well aware of the fact, especially the likes of Cheney Mason, with many years of criminal defense experience under his belt. Ashton is just not going to let things slip by. He’s sharper than a knife. Besides, it’s the job of the prosecution to slam dunk any defense whenever it can in order to achieve justice for the people; especially in this case because of the here and now, the age and innocence of the victim, and the nature of the crime. They don’t charge people unless they think there’s enough evidence to convict. Of course, all crimes are worth fighting and this one is no different, but a prosecutor’s objective is quite clear; JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE. A courtroom is a battleground, and it’s up to both sides to keep the opposition on its toes. So far, the State has done an excellent job. The Defense? Well, that’s another story.

By now, most of us would acknowledge that Jose Baez came to this case quite green and wet behind the ears. Cheney Mason, on the other hand, had been around. His Website states that he began his private practice in 1971 after admission to the Florida Bar. That’s 40 years ago. He’s been in Orlando all this time, so he should recognize most of the quirks and traits of district court judges and assistant state prosecutors. He’s no novice in the courtroom, in other words, but from what I have seen and heard thus far from several powerful attorneys and my own careful observations, he is more of a legend in his own mind than he is for real. That’s not to say he hasn’t had his moments, but as much of a leader as he is supposed to be, I haven’t seen it factor in quite yet. To make clear his role in this case, and Jose should understand this because of his naval background, Mason is the seasoned admiral and Baez is at the helm. Just because an admiral boards a ship doesn’t mean he takes control of the vessel, in this case the SS Casey. Baez is the commander until he’s relieved of duty, and that’s not going to happen.

I think it’s safe to say that, from the onset, the defense has had a rough go of things and it goes way deeper than many of the superfluous motions that have been filed and other errors in judgment. Let’s face it, whoever took the mantle was going to be the target of attacks from a hungry public hell-bent on justice. It’s the nature of the beast, and we all know the natives were restless from day 1 and still are. There will be no let-up until Casey is convicted. That’s a given, so no matter what the defense team does, they’re forever wrong. Since Jose is always the fall guy, I’m going to look into the contempt motion through as neutral a stance as I possibly can and let you decide.

CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT!

Both of the defense motions requesting Frye hearings were filed on December 30, 2010 - seven weeks before the contempt motion. To be succinct, they have been firmly in the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court since that date. Now, if I filed motions, I reckon it should be a safe bet that unless I make changes, those motions might stand. Stet is the Latin word for it. If I am given an opportunity to make changes and I don’t, why would I ever have to refile the same, meaning identical, motions? In his query to the court after the deadline passed and Ashton called him on the carpet, Baez wrote:

Jill:

Can you please ask the Judge the following:

We are a bit confused.  Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye. When I read the order from the status hearing. I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion that it should be in writing, that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing.  I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused if not more.  Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions.  If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet.  If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter.  Otherwise I think the logical choice would be to wait until the State files their response, so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard.

Sincerely,

Jose Baez

For sure, this is a major failure to communicate, but if we extrapolate, meaning to infer from what we know to be true, there’s an obvious snafu - we are left with a badly confused, ridiculously muddled, situation. BOINK!

Once again, the defense should realize by now that the prosecution is going to jump at the chance of a legal mistake. We have seen it time and time again, and in his contempt motion, Ashton strongly reiterated what the judge said in his order; “… including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions.” That’s as clear as day.

Here is where the defense failed to grasp the wording and follow the judge’s edict. Do I understand what went wrong? Of course I do. The bottom line was that the defense interpreted paragraph five as meaning, if there are no changes in the first motions we filed, why file them again? Why not wait until the State files its rebuttal motions and then refile them? Clearly, the defense noted its intent in the original motions, including ISSUES UNDER FRYE and LEGAL ARGUMENTS. To send the same thing over again would be redundant. I concur. However, and that’s a big however, that doesn’t mean the defense is blameless and should be let off the hook. At the same time, should the judge hold the defense in contempt of court? There are a lot of things involved here. The prosecutor is quick on the draw. The defense must know this. The judge is getting sick of the mistakes, too.

Judge Perry made it quite clear in his order, but I believe it could have been written more concisely, given the propensity of this defense to become addled and not follow directions to the letter of the law. When I read and reread the paragraph time and time again, I could see where the defense misinterpreted it, but the following are my words:

If we are going to make any changes to the original motions, then we must rewrite the entire motions and not just attach addenda to the first ones as separate documents. We should wait until the State files its rebuttals, too, then rewrite the entire thing.

Unfortunately, that’s not at all what the judge asked for, and what it tells me, once again, is that the defense is not following up; it’s not paying attention to detail and here’s why - Had I not completely understood what the judge wrote, and I can see where it could be a problem, I would contact his assistant right away for clarification. That’s the first and right thing to do. Hey, Judge, do you mean to file them again even if we have no changes? I mean, after all, we aren’t going to make any changes until we hear from the State.

The only thing is, the State DID file rebuttal motions on February 15 and I said so in my very own paragraph number five. They are the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FYRE (CHLOROFORM) and the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (PLANT OR ROOT GROWTH). That gave the defense two days to reply or to call the SAO or the judicial assistant for direction. Was that enough time? The judge will decide, and he will have to weigh this new MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE because, in my opinion, it could go either way. Judge Perry must be getting tired of the Mickey Mouse antics of the defense, but he also knows the team is up to its ears in complications, and when the more experienced attorney is more confused than the lesser, well, what more needs to be said?

From the FRYE pan into the FYRE? Part I

Next month, two motions filed by the defense will be heard by Judge Perry. Because they are very important Frye issues, and of extreme importance to the defense, this post will focus on the motion about chloroform evidence. It will be in two parts.

PART I - The Frye Pan

Casey’s defense recently filed two Frye motions. The date reflects when they were filed with the Clerk of Courts. Both are stamped 12/30/2010.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FRYE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE (CHLOROFORM)

and

MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence)

The state filed motions to strike, but today, I will just focus on the issue over chloroform. The other motions (defense and state) will come later, because in this particular one, there is much to discern, including a few errors. I will get to them, but first of all, what, exactly, is a Frye motion/hearing? Frye motions are generally held in limine, which means they are made before a trial starts. The judge then decides whether certain evidence may or may not be introduced to the jury. The Frye standard is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence in legal proceedings. This standard comes from the case Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923) District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1923. Frye v. U.S. was a groundbreaking case that argued the admissibility of polygraph tests as evidence in a trial. Today, it’s designed to prevent both sides from unfairly exploiting expert testimony. Its intent is to assure that expert evidence is reliable.

In its motion, the defense cites Florida Statutes 90.401, 90.402 and 90.403, Amendments 5 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. Let’s take a look:

• 90.401 Definition of relevant evidence. — Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.
• 90.402  Admissibility of relevant evidence. — All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.
• 90.403  Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion. — Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.
• Amendment V — No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
• Amendment XIV — All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
• Article 1, Section 9 — Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

The first two Florida Statutes, I would imagine, were cited by the defense for the purpose of propping up the third, which questions the admissibility of evidence that may prejudice or confuse the jury. In the case of this motion, it’s chloroform evidence found in the trunk of Casey’s car the defense is questioning, specifically carpet and air samples.

After the preliminary introduction of the motion, the defense moved on to FACTS about the case:

FACTS

1. Miss Anthony is charged with First Degree Murder. The State of Florida has announced it’s [sic] intent to seek the ultimate penalty of death.
2. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted tests on carpet samples and air samples taken from a vehicle (Pontiac Sunfire) driven by Miss Anthony at or near the time of the disappearance of her daughter Caylee Anthony.
3. Dr. Arvad Vass reported in his preliminary and final reports that there were unusually high levels of chloroform found on the carpet samples taken from the Pontiac Sunfire.
4. Dr. Vass additionally states that the levels of chloroform are much higher than normally found in decompositional events.
5. This information prompted investigators to search the Anthony family computer for searches of chloroform, which yielded positive results for “chloroform” and “how to make chloroform.” The hysteria begins.

Before I delve too deeply into the motion, remember the defense cited the above as FACTS, not assumptions or speculations made by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Where it completely strayed from the truth is the final statement of fact, “The hysteria begins.” From there, it turned into a giant smoke screen. The defense went into, well, a defense mode, which is what is expected.

FACTS PART II: UNCOVERING THE FRAUD

In FACTS PART II: UNCOVERING THE FRAUD, law enforcement was accused of intentionally leaking information to the local and national media prior to “any official reports through the natural course of discovery.” I will acknowledge learning of the death smell from the news sometime in August of 2008, so there may be some merit to this particular aspect of the complaint. However, this information would have been released anyway, so it was not, by any means, an attempt to “either satisfy their own vanity or poison any potential jury pool” as the defense stated. Today, it’s two-and-a-half years later, and a fair jury will be seated in May come hell or high water.

What puzzles me at this point of the motion is how the defense contradicts itself. In FACTS PART II, they wrote that they traveled to Tennessee and took depositions from Dr. Arpad Vass and Dr. Marcus Wise. Both testified that the tests on the carpet sample were “qualitative” and not “quantitative.” One way to simplify this is to say it’s the motion in the ocean, not the size of the ship; but at the same time, no one is going to sail around the world in a canoe. That’s not to say flat out that the SS Casey is sinking, but it’s definitely listing. The smokesreen in this example comes from the statements that, “It should be noted that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory also took carpet samples from two Pontiac Sunfires… [and] one of the sample cars they tested ALSO had chloroform in the sample,” and “Dr. Vass, who is the author of the ORNL report is NOT a forensic chemist.” In my opinion, one not need be a forensic chemist to analyze chemical breakdowns. Dr. Vass could readily make analytical conclusions from tests of all kinds, and my guess would be that plenty of them have nothing to do with crime. Industrial spies, for example, have been tackling the secret recipe of KFC chicken and McDonald’s Special Sauce for years and years. That’s not forensics, but it takes real life chemists to break into the “Da Vinci Codes” of restaurant chain trade secrets. Who knows, maybe Dr. Vass could find out what’s really in Taco Bell’s beef. Now, that’s something that matters. Of course, it’s a civil matter, not criminal.

In the motion, the defense noted that the FBI Chemistry Unit in Quantico, Virginia, had tested four samples of the carpet and two of the four were “consistent with chloroform.” Dr. Michael Richenbach, Ph.D, told the defense during his deposition that “consistent with” means that the presumptive test results were positive, but the conclusive tests were not. Aside from all of the scientific mumbo jumbo, of which I will spare you the boredom, the point being made by the defense is, in a nutshell, that the results from ORNL and the FBI were different. Therefore, the results should be tossed out. In my opinion, the most consistent point to be made about this case to date has been the consistency of the two presiding judges, and ultimately, Judge Perry will leave it up to both sides to argue and let the jury take it from there. Laws around the country not only protect cross examinations, they encourage them, and this case is no different. The defense will have ample opportunity to shred the state’s evidence to pieces.

Here’s another interesting smokescreen, but I do not think the State, nor the judge, will fall for it. The motion makes it clear that “the other items tested by the FBI for chloroform (baby doll, steering wheel cover, and child car seat) all yielded negative results.” True, but the cab of Casey’s vehicle was separated from the trunk by a back seat. How much seepage should there have been? Police officers have been trained for years to detect the odor of marijuana in a car, and I’m talking about fresh, not smoked. It does have a pungent odor unlike anything else. While standing by the driver’s door, window down, would the officer smell it if it was tucked away in the trunk? No, probably not, but the nervousness of the occupants would be a sure sign that something’s not right. How much chloroform would it take to be overwhelming? I mean, it’s not even close to the smell of decomposition. Talk about pungent odors.

COMPUTER SEARCHES

Law enforcement ascertained that someone inside of the Anthony home searched for chloroform and chloroform recipes three months prior to Caylee’s disappearance. This is why it’s so important for the defense to crush this evidence, along with the air and carpet samples. This is highly incriminating. The defense wrote:

• Any forensic computer examiner including the ones in this case (Sandra Cawn and Kevin Stenger) will testify that you can never determine who ran what searches on a computer, especially when the computer is NOT password protected.

Okay, in and of itself, that may be true, but more about that in a couple of seconds. Incidentally, Cawn and Stenger work for OCSO and I think they know a thing or two about  computer forensics.

• The computer in question was in a “guest bedroom” and all family members not only had access to the computer, but also testified that they used the computer as well as guests who visited their home.
• Law enforcement cannot ascertain whether Miss Anthony was even home at the time the searches [were] run much less on the computer.

Now, had Judge Perry been born in the 19th century, the defense might be able to pull the wool over his eyes, but he wasn’t; nor was he born yesterday. Yes, of course the computer could have been accessed by anyone, but it is inside the Anthony home, and it’s a desktop, not a portable laptop, which could be moved around the house. By utilizing something simple, like a process of elimination, investigators can sift through a myriad of things, including time sheets. March 21, 2008, was a Friday - a work day. What time of day did the searches occur? I’ll bet you OCSO knows. If Cindy, George and Lee were not inside the house, it incriminates Casey, and with no other source, like a friend who has yet to come forward, her ship is really listing.

Here’s something the defense wrote that struck me as peculiar:

• The Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Some reports erroneously called them “body farm” perhaps for more shock appeal) reported unusually high amounts of chloroform in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car.

What I would like to do is take to task the remark about erroneously calling ORNL a Body Farm for more shock appeal. In my opinion, the defense is trying to directly infer that the term Body Farm was something new and never used before. I assure you, that is not the truth. I can tell you I heard about the Body Farm long before I heard about the Anthony case and, as a matter of fact, thanks to my Gainesville friend, nika1, I am in the possession of a book titled, BEYOND THE BODY FARM, written by Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson. So what, you say? Yes, so what. The book was published in 2007, a year before Casey’s defense knew who she was. Jefferson & Bass (as Jefferson Bass) have written four novels about the Body Farm. The first one, Carved in Bone, was released in January 2006. In 2003, Bass & Jefferson released their first scientific book about it, Death’s Acre. To go further back in time, crime writer Patricia Cornwell published The Body Farm in 1994. She drew her inspiration from Dr. Bass and his work. As a matter of fact, he is recognized as the father of the Body Farm, long before Jose Baez was practicing law.

Why did I title this post From the Frye pan into the Fyre, you ask? Even the prosecution misspells…

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FYRE (CHLOROFORM)

In the second part of this article about chloroform evidence admission, I will delve into the scientific and legal aspects:

PART II - The FYRE

This information prompted investigators to search the Anthony family computer [duh?] for searches of chloroform, which yielded positive results for “chloroform” and “how to make chloroform.” The hysteria begins.

The Teflon Judge

During the closing remarks of the final presidential debate between then candidate Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter, the GOP hopeful asked the nation a simple question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” As simple as it was, the query was powerful and poignant enough to resonate deeply within the minds of the American people, who went on to elect Reagan as our 40th president. The rest, they say, is history.

Today, just over 30 years later, I’d like to ask Casey Anthony’s defense team, particularly Jose Baez and Cheney Mason, a very similar question. Are you better off now than you were one year ago? Actually, by the time Casey goes to trial, by that I mean sitting in the courtroom facing a jury, precisely 2 years and 11 months will have passed since Caylee was last seen alive. For the first month, Casey was living la bella vita, although it was probably more la vida loco, until she was stopped dead in her tracks by her own flesh and blood; her mother. From there, it quickly plummeted from a lofty peak to the depth of the deepest ocean. I’m only interested in the past year, though. A lot of serious changes have taken place. One year ago today, Judge Stan Strickland sat firmly on the bench. Did the defense do the right thing by filing the motion for his recusal?

On January 25 of last year, Casey pleaded guilty to 13 third-degree felony fraud charges. She threw herself at the mercy of the court and came out a convicted felon, but ultimately, she was given no more time behind bars. Judge Strickland sentenced her to time served. In my opinion, that showed how fair, just and lenient - yes, lenient - he was. He could have slapped her silly, and the defense might have taken that punishment as a good sign; what to look forward to from this judge down the road. Instead, they threw caution to the wind. As a matter of fact, two days later, I wrote on my The Wisdom of Solomon post:

Judge Strickland gave the defense an opportunity to challenge the charges. We can discuss the lack of brevity or the levity of the arguments, but let’s cut to the chase – it came down to the judge. First, it should be noted that Casey had no prior convictions and she did make full restitution and Baez did bring up “equal justice” for his client. He asked for one year of probation and credit for time served, rather than the five years of incarceration the State sought. In the end, His Honor sentenced the 23-year-old Casey to (jail) time served – 412 days – plus $5,517.75 in investigative costs and $348 for court. The amount may be discussed and negotiated at a later motion hearing because the defense found the investigative charge too high and not justifiable. He also adjudicated Casey guilty on six of the fraud counts and withheld adjudication on seven, plus he tacked on a year of supervised probation, which could be problematic and complex later on, given that she still faces a huge mountain of charges ahead.

I finished the article with:

This was a sign of things to come, and what I saw was a very compassionate man behind the bench.

In his ruling, the judge wrote:

“I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

One year ago, on February 12, I wrote on Why Casey Pleaded Guilty to Fraud:

Personally, I think the defense risked it all and I think it was the right call. Aside from any appeals, which she would lose had she gone a different route, she took her chances with a well-respected judge; one with a very fair track record. The Honorable Stan Strickland is not a hanging judge and odds were, he was going to mete out some fair medicine, certainly after she swallowed all 13 bitter pills.

What went wrong after that? Clearly, everyone knew that Judge Strickland was fair. Some argued too fair. Meanwhile, the defense filed motion after motion and in most cases, the judge denied them, but he based his decisions on case law, something somewhat alien to the defense as we have seen time after time.

It’s a fact no one can deny; that Judge Strickland heard the most motions this defense has filed to date. In the more than 20 months he held court, he judged wisely, and it is because of his focus and direction that this trial has stayed the course. Last January 25, the State submitted its NOTICE OF FILING that included a PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. On March 5, the judge responded with his AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. I strongly recommend that you read Judge Strickland’s order. There, you will see all of the deadlines and a trial date of May 9, 2011. The State originally wanted May 2, but the judge accommodated Andrea Lyon, whose daughter was to graduate college that week. It is of importance to note that Judge Perry is following the schedule set by his predecessor. As a matter of fact, he has allowed deadlines to come and go, and in some instances, has reset them, primarily for the defense. In any event, this trial has been on schedule since the date was first set by Judge Strickland and it’s important to remember that. Today, Andrea Lyon is long gone and Judge Perry could have readily reset the date back to May 2. He didn’t.

Judge Strickland scheduled an indigency hearing for March 18, 2010. It was at that hearing that J. Cheney Mason made his debut. I remember it well because it was almost comical as he made his grand entrance outside the courtroom doors. While awaiting to enter, we all stood there. As he approached with Baez and Lyon, one journalist asked him if he was joining the defense team, to which he responded, “I will be in about five minutes or so once the judge arrives.” The comical part was that I had never seen so many thumbs tap away on cell phones. Tap, tap, tap. Text, text, text. It was the big news of the day up to that point. Of course, we remember the discourse between the judge and Mason:

If you watch the video, you’ll see I said to “Stay Tuned for Round 2!” Of course, the second round was a knockout blow to the judge, but did the defense really win anything? Well, yes. Sort of. The judge did grant Ms. Anthony indigent status, but everything went downhill from there. After a series of motions¹ denied by the judge, this defense showed how disgruntled it was with Strickland by filing the ridiculous motion on April 16 for him to step down. The DEFENDANT, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE (amended version refiled Monday to correct expired notary) was filed at 4:48 pm on a Friday afternoon and it left the judge and myself incredibly shocked in what turned out to be a very bad, and I mean a VERY BAD, weekend to agonize. Of course, the people who matter in this (what I would call) legal fissure were quick to assure me it wasn’t my fault; that it was purely a defense strategy. In any case, the point of this article is not to argue the merits of the defense strategy as it relates to me, it’s all about whether or not this was a move in the right direction for the defendant. I must say that to a person, I was told, “Be careful what you wish for” in reference to the defense, and those words came from professionals in every field that had an element of interest in the case - journalists and attorneys, civil and criminal. It was a bad move.

What came down was simple and I’ve mentioned it before - Cheney Mason decided to throw his weight around the courthouse. By that, I mean he thought he had some big brass chips to trade in to get the judge of his choice; one who would be more inclined to remove the death penalty and be more amenable to his motions. I also know that the entire courthouse was stunned when the defense filed the motion to recuse. Strickland was (and remains to this day) one of the most respected judges on the circuit court. As a matter of fact, he’s highly regarded throughout the state. What Mason did was blow a circuit breaker. In the end, and there are things I’d love to discuss but won’t until the trial is over, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. had no choice but to take on the case. No other judge wanted it and his docket was not as thick. It’s called a backfire.

Today, after the defense changed horses in midstream, is their defendant better off? Let’s see… many of Judge Strickland’s orders were left with the door ajar. In other words, they were ordered without prejudice, which means they could change some of the language and refile the same motions, which is exactly what they did after Perry took over². Did the judge overturn any of Strickland’s decisions? Not a one. Nothing. Zip. Zil. Nada. Do I feel subsequent motions ruled by Perry would have the same outcome today had the defense stayed the course? Yes, absolutely. Strickland did not become a reputable circuit court judge by making many mistakes. As I’ve also stated many times, the defense went from Strickland to stricter.

COMES NOW, the recent defense motions denied by the presiding judge:

• The motion to exclude testimony that Casey had a history of lying and stealing. The judge wrote the State successfully argued that getting caught lying and stealing by her relatives may have provided a motive to rid herself of the financial and social burden of raising a young child. Also, the lies are inextricably intertwined with the evidence of the defendant’s activities between June 16, 2008 to July 15, 2008. “Evidence of a defendant’s collateral acts is not admissible to show bad character or a propensity to commit the crime charged,” wrote the judge in his ruling. “However, the state may be able to introduce evidence of collateral acts – such as lying or stealing – which are inextricably intertwined with the crime charged if necessary to adequately describe the deed, provide an intelligent account of the crime charged, establish the entire context out of which the charged crime arose or adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crime.”
• The motion to prohibit the use of references attributed to her Myspace Diary of Days. The defense argued that her posts weren’t relevant and that they were unfair to use at trial. The State countered by saying the posts were inconsistent with a mother actively looking for her kidnapped daughter. The judge wrote, “It is relevant to show the defendant’s state of mind during the time when Caylee Marie Anthony was missing and ultimately, when it was determined that she had died. The weight of this evidence is a matter for the jury.”
• The motion to exclude testimony from the neighbor, Brian Burner, who Casey borrowed a shovel from him. The judge decided, “There is nothing inherently prejudicial about borrowing a shovel, nor is a shovel ‘gruesome’ evidence that would tend to inflame the passions of the jury.”
• The motion to disallow jurors from learning about the La Bella Vita tattoo Casey got on July 2, 2008, roughly 2 weeks after Caylee’s disappearance. The judge wrote, “There is nothing inherently prejudicial about tattoos, which are increasingly prevalent among the population, nor is this particular tattoo likely to inflame the passions of the jury. Thus, the potentially prejudicial effect of this evidence does not outweigh its potentially probative value. It is relevant to show the defendant’s state of mind during the time when Caylee Marie Anthony was missing and ultimately, when it was determined that she had died.”

I don’t think I need to mention the impatience of Judge Perry with this defense. We have all seen it live, up close and personal. Come hell or high water, there will be no delays. More motions will be filed. The court must address some outstanding ones, too, like the one to exclude any references of the decomposition odor coming from Casey’s car. The motion also makes note of statements made by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory official who described chloroform levels recovered from a piece of  carpet removed from the trunk liner.  There’s also the matter of the stain in the trunk and whether it was organic in nature. The FBI could not make a determination, but Oak Ridge wrote that it showed the presence of “volatile fatty acids consistent with the byproducts of decomposition.” Once again, I’m afraid the judge will rightly allow the jury to hear arguments from both sides.

As I’ve said a hundred times, a good defense will throw everything in its arsenal at the wall in hopes that something sticks. I must say I can’t blame them, but in a sense, Baez & Company remind me of the Democratic party under Ronald Reagan’s reign, at least during his first term. He was given the nickname the Teflon President by the media because nothing seemed to stick. In his administration, it dealt with scandals, but in Judge Perry’s court, it’s all about defense motions. No matter what they file, there isn’t much that sticks. If I were Casey, I’d be nervous right now. Her defense seems to be moving from the frying pan into the fire, and that’s no recipe for success.