The Dominic Effect

About Dominic Casey’s recent disclosure regarding Jose Baez and Casey Anthony, this is a post I wrote on September 1, 2009. The ending is a bit snarky and, if you were following the flow of my articles at the time, you probably would have understood that there was no disrespect intended toward Brad Conway. People were targeting him, too, along with everyone else. Eventually, that included me. By the way, I did have several phone conversations with Baez and a couple of in-person discussions with Dominic Casey. I am researching other articles I wrote for more information. To my best recollection, and it’s in this article, the PI was not working for Baez at the time of the search. More like Cindy.

BAEZ BEATS BAR

Cheney Mason Jars the Truth, By George!

It’s hard to believe that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first-degree murder three years ago, but she was. My coverage of the case began in November of 2008 and continued in earnest until the verdict. That’s when it ended. Many people wanted me to resume writing about her — the lawsuits and bankruptcy — but my job was finished. Those news stories were of little relevancy to me, so I never wrote about her again. Until now. Something (or someone) has piqued my interest. Most assuredly, it must be of major importance to stir me from my restful, peaceful, crime-free, post-Zimmerman Rip Van Winklish sleep, right? Yes, and it’s Cheney Mason. Just as the Casey Anthony saga began with a flurry of horrible lies, the nest of iniquity continues.

Certainly, I have reasons to seek vengeance on those who took down the presiding judge at my expense, but I’m not a begrudging type, and the years have softened my stance to some extent. Jose Baez apologized years ago. It was nothing personal against me, he said, but he didn’t feel Casey could get a fair trial, especially in light of the check fraud pleas. That’s a different story and I understand more about the incident after years of study and reflection; however, I firmly believe the idea was the brainchild of a vindictive Cheney Mason. Mason had it in for Judge Stan Strickland and you are just going to have to trust me on it with no further explanation at this time. Asking the judge to recuse himself from this case is not the reason why I decided to pick up my pen. It’s to set the record straight over what I consider to be a persistent and perpetuating lie perpetrated by Mason — that poor, little Casey is innocent of any and all wrongdoing, and that the media and prosecution are guilty of everything. 

In his book, Presumed Guilty | Casey Anthony: The Inside Story, Baez wrote:

Casey and I had discussed her sexual abuse, and I felt it was only a matter of time before she would tell me the truth about what happened to Caylee.

This was immediately followed by:

The day I had a major breakthrough with Casey came in the early months of 2009 […]

He continues to explain what Casey told him about the drowning and her father’s involvement:

“Don’t worry. I won’t tell anyone. I’m taking care of it. Don’t say a word of this to anyone, especially your mother,” and he walked away.

Believe what you want. My point is that for over two years, until the onset of the trial in downtown Orlando, her defense team maintained an oblivious facade about the cause of Caylee’s death, and the public and many facets of the media were eschewing whatever Baez, et al, spit out. If she was so innocent, why not come forward much sooner than the trial? To be Nancy Grace-like, it would have been a BOMBSHELL and it would have sent the prosecution reeling into a downward, spiraling tizzy… momentarily, at least, until it had a chance to regroup. Instead, the young woman sat in jail from October 14, 2008 to July 17, 2011.

(I think it’s important to remind you, before I go on, that Baez was not death penalty qualified, so Mason was hired, pro-bono, in March of 2010, a year before Casey opened her mouth about the death of her daughter, as cited above. Mason had collaborated with Baez prior to officially joining the defense, too, so he was aware of his new client’s alibi and the accusation of sexual abuse. Unfortunately for George Anthony, he was going to be the defense scapegoat and he didn’t have a clue. If I was a minor target, George was huge.)

§

Presently, I know precisely what Mason is spewing. It’s called marketing propaganda and he’s doing it to promote his new book, Justice in America: How the Media and Prosecutors Stack the Deck Against the Accused due out soon. I think it’s important and fair to first note that Mason does come with credentials. He’s a highly regarded veteran of criminal defense trials, as CNN’s Jean Casarez just pointed out in her interview with him, What life is like for Casey Anthony, updated July 4:

A former president of the Florida Association of Criminal Lawyers, Mason, who just that year had been selected by Florida Monthly magazine as one of Florida’s top lawyers, was disgusted with the local media coverage about the relatively inexperienced Baez.

That’s great. What a hero. Definitely, Baez was treated with contempt by the public and press, but it came with the territory of representing the most reviled woman in America and Baez knew that. What he needed was help forming a strong and capable defense, not a pompous ass press secretary/superhero. For now, though, let’s continue with the version Casarez wrote and elicited from Mason:

Shortly before jury selection was to begin, Mason got word that Anthony’s handwritten letters describing sexual abuse at the hands of her father were going to be made public under Florida’s open records law.

He believed it was only right that Anthony’s parents, George and Cindy, were warned. He called them to his office late on a Friday afternoon.

“We had them one at a time come into my personal office and made the announcement: ‘Monday’s going to be a bad day for you George. I felt man to man I would tell you in advance.”“

Mason said George Anthony’s reaction was “basically none.” “He looked at me … I turned sideways a little bit, he clapped his hands down on his thighs — let out a big sigh but didn’t say anything,” Mason said.

“He never admitted doing anything,” Mason said. “All we had were the letters and (separately) the statements Casey had made to the psychiatrist.”

According to Mason, he then called Cindy in to inform her.

Next it was Cindy Anthony’s turn. “We called Mom in, Cindy, and told her and she immediately welled up with emotion, cried, was very upset,” Mason said.

This is not what I recall from my experience with the case. Please note that Mason said George and Cindy Anthony went to his personal office after he got word, yet in his book, Baez wrote something contrary to Mason’s revelation.

Two psychiatrists evaluated Casey for the defense, Drs. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz. Danziger was initially appointed by the court in 2008 following her arrest. For the defense, he met with her four times in November and December of 2010. Weitz conducted two interviews in February and March of 2011. According to Baez:

After the prosecution took the depositions of the two psychiatrists, both sides agreed they should be sealed because they contained medical information as it related to Casey’s mental health, and there were issues of sexual abuse by George and Lee, which was protected under state law. Perry immediately sealed them, saying that he wanted to review them before deciding whether they should remain sealed.

Baez continued:

A couple of days later, Cindy called me to say she and George had an appointment the next day at the state attorney general’s office to discuss the depositions of the shrinks.

I lost it. I smelled the skullduggery of Ashton and immediately contacted Perry, telling him that the state was planning to meet with the Anthonys to discuss the information that he had sealed. 

Perry had a clear response: “Sealed means sealed.” Despite this clear message from the judge, the prosecution went ahead and had its meeting anyway. That was the arrogance of Ashton, whose attitude was, “I can do anything I want because I can get away with it.”

And get away with it he did.

In fact, according to Baez, the prosecution didn’t show the Anthonys the depositions, it showed them the notes they took during the depositions:

[…] The benefit to the prosecution by making sure the Anthonys found out what was in the shrinks’ depositions, of course, was that when the Anthonys found out that Casey was revealing George’s sexual abuse, they would turn on Casey, no longer support her, and became [sic] state-friendly witnesses.

I thought Cheney was going to have a heart attack. […]

This is proof that Mason did not individually call George and Cindy into his office to “warn” them. Instead, Baez warned Mason about what the Anthonys learned from prosecutors. But wait! There’s more…

Before Presumed Guilty was released, then assistant state attorney Jeff Ashton published his book, Imperfect Justice | Prosecuting Casey Anthony. He had something to say about this matter, too, and it offers a third view, far removed from Cheney Mason’s.  Beginning on page 215:

Even though the witnesses had been withdrawn [Danziger and Weitz], Linda [Drane Burdick], Frank [George] and I wondered how much of this George and Cindy knew. Just because the defense had dropped the witnesses didn’t mean they were abandoning the argument completely. There was still a chance that George could be dragged into this.

One evening around the time that all this was happening, Mark Lippman, the attorney who by then was representing George and Cindy, filed a strange press release. It said something to the effect that George Anthony had nothing to do with the disappearance of Caylee.

Ashton contacted Lippman, assuming that Baez had spilled the beans:

Mark told me that a few days earlier, Baez had asked for a meeting with just Cindy. When she arrived at his office, Baez, Dorothy Sims, and Ann Finnell via the phone were waiting for her with important news. Baez proceeded to tell Cindy that Casey had authorized him to say that Caylee had died at the house and that her death had been an accident. Baez also told Cindy that the state was investigating George’s involvement with Caylee’s death. Baez claimed that the authorities had information from a witness who said that George’s phone records held valuable clues.

I was speechless. Poor Mark only knew the tip of the iceberg. It was the cruelest thing I have ever seen an attorney do. […] To tell this grieving woman…

To say that Ashton was outraged would be an understatement. This is what pushed him to tell the Anthonys the whole story — to warn them.

I told Mark we weren’t investigating George, although sadly, there was more bad news. But I had to get back to him about it. Linda and I discussed the best way to handle the therapists’ reports and we decided to invite Mark, Cindy, and George to our office. I gave Mark a call.

“Are they saying that George disposed of the body?” He responded by telling Lippman it was worse than that. 

When Baez found out that Cindy was coming to our office to see what the doctors had said, he immediately shot off an e-mail to Judge Perry, essentially accusing us of violating Perry’s order.

Linda said that Judge Perry’s order indicated only that the transcripts would not be made public documents; it never restricted our ability to investigate the story, and there was no way we were going to let Jose’s lies go unchallenged. Baez would later attack us on this point, but the judge agreed with us.

The prosecutors decided to discuss their notes and recollections with the Anthonys since the depositions were, in fact, sealed. Caylee’s grandparents needed to know the truth about what was actually going on, despite the inherent risk of possible witness tampering accusations.

George and Cindy were visibly upset when they arrived at the state attorneys office, Ashton pointed out.

Before the meeting, we’d told Mark that we would speak to him privately and share what we knew with him. Then it would be up to him to decide what to tell the Anthonys. We put George and Cindy in the conference room and took Mark into the office with us.

Lippman heard the entire story…

Mark left and went to the conference room to talk to the Anthonys for what seemed like twenty to thirty minutes. Linda and I were in a nearby conference room when Mark came to find us. Cindy and George had questions, and we accompanied him back to the conference room. Cindy was sitting at the table just looking down. George was next to her, his face bright red. Cindy looked angry. George looked like he had been crying, like someone had just killed Caylee all over again. He was just devastated.

“I just want you to know that none of this is true,” George said to us.

Cindy patted him on the hand and said, “It’s okay, George. Nobody believes this.”

His words would catch in his throat as he assured us one more time, “I just want you to know that everything I told you is the truth and I am not changing any of it.”

I remember Cindy saying something like, “I don’t know what’s wrong with her,” referring to Casey. At least she was finally willing to admit that there was something not right about Casey. How it would affect her testimony at trial, though, was anyone’s guess.

There you have it. The rest is history. But is Cheney Mason rewriting the history books to glorify himself? To give himself most of the credit for saving poor, innocent, child-like Casey? Sometimes, certainly in this case, when someone keeps telling himself the same thing over and over and over again, he begins to believe it. Mason is, after all, one of Florida’s BEST attorneys, as I’m sure he would quickly remind us and his mirror. And if Washington chopped down the cherry tree, he chopped down the giant Ashton tree. And didn’t tell a lie. Yes, man-to-man, he gently pulled George into his office to softly break the news. What a kind and compassionate father figure. Only, I wouldn’t buy a used lemon from the man.

The amazon.com Website promo intro of Mason’s book says, “He shares never before revealed media bias, and enough case secrets to make readers re-examine their conscience and the quick path to judgment and personal conviction of Anthony.”

I am deeply concerned about the honesty of those “case secrets,” especially coming from a man with so much documented bias against the media. Until he needs to use us.

§ 

I think it’s important to mention something more enlightening about the defense psychiatrists, Drs. Danziger and Weitz. They were most likely removed as witnesses out of fear that the judge would have granted the state their own psychiatrist, who would have interviewed their client. That would have been problematic for Casey and the entire defense. It’s also necessary to say that Danziger was highly uncomfortable with being a mouthpiece for these “very, very serious allegations against someone in a situation where there is no other evidence he actually did anything.” (Imperfect Justice, Page 210.)

The Court of July

The Gregorian Calendar has been the most widely accepted date-keeping standard since 1582. It means that, in most parts of the globe, July 4 is just another day of the year. In the United States; however, it’s not. It’s our birthday and we love to celebrate. Yankee Doodle. Feather in the hat. Macaroni salad. It’s a time for festivities of all kinds, including some of the most impressive fireworks displays the world has ever seen. We call it Independence Day because it’s the date signed on one of our nation’s most cherished symbols of liberty, the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire in 1776. This is a holiday to eat apple pie. It’s also a great day to munch on a hot dog while taking in an American staple — a good, old fashioned baseball game. How much more patriotic can we get than that… baseball, hot dogs and apple pie? Well, we can celebrate the US Constitution and our system of justice. That’s a good part of what it’s all about. Many of us saw it in action during the Jodi Arias trial and, before that, Casey Anthony. Now, there’s George Zimmerman. Charged in the February 26, 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, his second-degree murder trial began began June 24.

Speaking of baseball and Casey, and I’m not referring to the 1888 Ernest Thayer poem, Casey at the Bat, July 5, 2011, was the day Ms. Anthony received her declaration of independence from the justice system. Not guilty. While most Americans have been able to enjoy an extended four-day weekend this year, death took no holiday in Seminole County on July 5. Court was in session. Ironically, two years later to the date of her verdict, the State of Florida rested its case against Mr. Zimmerman. While some might call this the 7th inning stretch, although the defense did put two people on the stand, Zimmerman’s mother and maternal uncle, I do not. Sadly, I have heard lots of people in the courthouse and elsewhere refer to trials almost like sporting events. Who won this day and that day. Points made in the courtroom are points on a scoreboard. Most certainly, any time a matter of life and death is brought into an equation, it’s not a game. Young Martin is dead. He will never play another game of baseball. Zimmerman might not, either. Nelson’s courtroom is not a stadium and she is not an umpire calling balls and strikes. We are not eating Cracker Jacks in the gallery. Did I say Cracker?

What we have is the Constitution in action. The right to a fair trial. Part of our Declaration of Independence guarantees that we are all equal.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is no doubt that the United States is still a land of golden opportunity. Everyone has a chance to follow the path to success. We see it in action every day, but in some situations, it’s not really equal; not that it has to be, because we do not live under any kind of Utopian rule. We do not live “where nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.”

That statement is attributed to French thinker and novelist, Étienne-Gabriel Morelly. Where am I going here? Proof positive of the American system at work. Look at Jose Baez, speaking of the Casey Anthony case. He walked into a gold mine. What was he before she came along? An ambulance chaser? A DUI lawyer? While I am making no accusations against his background, Casey got his name from two women sitting in a holding cell at the Orange County Jail. The rest, they say, is history. Mark O’Mara, on the other hand, worked very hard throughout his career as an attorney to get to this point. He earned it through many long and arduous hours. Granted, Mark NeJame referred Zimmerman to him after turning him down, but he wouldn’t have done so had he given a thought that O’Mara’s solid credentials were less than stellar. While some of you may wonder why I bring this up at all, let me remind you that you can read about daily trial events in the newspaper. You can see and hear all about it online, on radio and on television. What I am is a pundit; a purveyor of private opinion made public. It’s my own brand of commentary, and here some of it goes…

§

A very powerful conservative blog, strongly favoring Zimmerman, splintered over O’Mara. Some believed his intention, all along, was to sabotage his client. Well, look at him now. He has done a splendid job dissecting many State witnesses, neutralizing some while turning others into Defense allies. This is the “mark” of a great attorney in the making, although I knew all along it was in him. He’s a great orator and thinks fast on his feet. There aren’t too many in the field of law that can pat you on the back while stabbing you in the gut — and — at the same time, keep you smiling. That’s O’Mara. That’s class, no matter what his courtroom adversaries and the public may think. His partner, Don West, on the other hand, is blunt and direct; straightforward to a fault. He is quite effective, too. In my opinion, they complement each other. West goes in for the kill and O’Mara soothes the pain. Or is it the other way around? O’Mara numbs you first. Either way, it’s a talented team.

But has it always been effective? No, it hasn’t. Take the case of Ms. Rachel Jeantel, the State’s reluctant key witness. She was the last person who spoke to Martin before his death, other than Zimmerman. That is a matter of fact that cannot be disputed. The problem lies with her testimony, and what is left in its wake is quite complex. It falls into two vastly different camps; the thems that believe her and the thems that don’t. Granted, she lied under oath on more than one occasion, so why should anyone choose to believe her now?

Witness Rachel Jeantel gives her testimony to the prosecution during George Zimmerman’s trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla. Wednesday, June 26, 2013. (Jacob Langston/Orlando Sentinel)

In order to understand Ms. Jeantel, one must consider her style in the courtroom, not just her substance. Let’s say she will never be a diplomat. Nor will she ever be a United Nations interpreter, although she is multilingual. English is just one language and it’s not her first, obviously. De la Rionda established that she grew up in a Haitian family speaking Creole. From what I’ve learned, she lives in a ghetto section of Miami. She and her friends understand urban-speak. She knows hip hop. She comes from a different world of imperfect grammar and Ebonics, living in a different generation; under separate rules of engagement. Ghetto people of all generations have no respect for the police. If you must ask why they disrespect law enforcement, then you know nothing about inner-city culture. Why then, would anyone, in all seriousness, ask her why she didn’t call 911 after Martin’s phone disconnected? So the police would come banging at her door to interrogate her? We’re not talking about someone with visions of white knights in shining armor, anticipating that “help is on its way.” That is so delusional in her world where whites, let alone knights do nothing for her. Is it any wonder why she was adversarial?

What we got was a frightened 19-year-old girl, 18 at the time, who lied about going to the hospital because she didn’t want to see Trayvon laid out dead in his coffin. She lied under oath because she was questioned in front of the boy’s mother. She didn’t want to hurt or offend her. Was it wrong? Yes, but it shouldn’t have discredited all of her testimony. Admittedly, she also lied about her age, but she said she did so because, as a minor, she knew she could deflect the media from herself to her mother, meaning there could be no direct contact.

Where she had me at hello was when she told the Court that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker.” Who would possibly make something like that up to hurt the person she cared so deeply about? Immediately, one would think of anti-racism, like antimatter. Pot? Call the kettle black. Profiler profiling profiler. West jumped on it upon cross-examination.

“Do people that you live around and with call white people creepy ass crackers?”

“Not creepy,” replied Jeantel, “but cracker, yeah.”

“You’re saying that in the culture that you live in — in your community — people there call white people crackers?”

“Yes, Sir.”

This was, in my opinion, an attempt to transfer the racial profiling onus from Zimmerman to Martin. Did it work? The answer is two-fold. No and no. The term Florida cracker came from the cowboys that cracked their whips to herd cattle because they didn’t use lassos. That’s one version. There’s another theory for its usage. Slave foremen in the antebellum South may have used bullwhips to discipline slaves. Hence, they cracked the whip and became known as crackers.

Without going into fine detail over what Jeantel said on the stand, I believe that the longer West crossed her, the more credible she became. He overdid it. Call it overkill. My father put it best when he later told me, “He made the sale, and then he bought it back.”

Incidentally, my father is quite conservative, but doesn’t support either side. What’s your opinion of Jeantel? 

§

Now, we’re left with several problems. One is that the State has rested. Did it prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? At this point, I would have to say no, but I do feel that the general consensus among media types is that Zimmerman is guilty of something. The man is, by no means, innocent of everything. The State did cast him in a very negative light, but will it be enough to convict? In my mind, he was a creep the night of February 26.

However…

Looking at (1) FLJI 74 MURDER - SECOND DEGREE

3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

While some may conclude that Zimmerman was depraved when he followed Martin, it’s not as simple as that.

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and

3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

This was the major contention on Friday after the State rested. This was what O’Mara fought vehemently for in his JOA, a Judgement Of Acquittal, argument. What Zimmerman did had nothing to do with ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. The judge disagreed and said the State had presented enough evidence for the trial to continue. The jury will return on Monday morning. The State will now cross-examine and we will see how they do.

Some people have wondered during court breaks whether this case would have made it to the courtroom had it not been for Civil Rights leaders. Is that true? I don’t know, but were the original powers that be too quick to jump the gun (no pun intended) and take one person’s perspective as the truth; the shooter, of all people? We cannot simply overlook the accounts of all witnesses, and that should have been enough for an arrest then, not 45 days later. Ultimately, it’s all the victim’s family wanted out of this — a day in court. For that reason alone, I do not believe there will be riots at the courthouse if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

In my closing argument today, I will say that the State did not prove its case. With the possibility of a jury in doubt and the Defense lurking about, waiting to pounce, a conviction on second-degree murder is a long shot. This defense team is very strong and smart. I mean the entire team. In my opinion, it is O’Mara’s trial to lose, and I doubt he will, although I will not predict whether the six-member panel will contemplate a felony manslaughter conviction. There’s no doubt in my mind, something went horribly wrong that night. Just remember, this is not a game, the judge is no one’s teammate, and neither is the jury; not even among themselves, yet the verdict must be unanimous. No timeouts for them. There is no score card.

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 2

In its SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS from the INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, concerning Casey Anthony’s four misdemeanor convictions of lying to law enforcement officers, her defense wrote:

There’s three points on appeal. First, the lower court [9th Circuit] erred in denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress her statements to Detective Melich. The record establishes that the Appellant was placed under arrest, never Mirandized, and subsequently interrogated. Either the statements occurred at the Appellant’s residence or Universal Studios. At both locations, the Appellant was in custody. At her residence, the Appellant was unhandcuffed and questioned to purposely avoid informing her of her Miranda Rights. At Universal Studios, the Appellant was in custody, placed in a small room for questioning by three members of law enforcement, confronted with evidence against her for an extended period of time, and never informed of her rights under Miranda. In either scenario, the Appellant’s statements were involuntary [emphasis mine] and, therefore, the lower court erred in denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress.

This article will focus on one aspect of the three points on appeal; whether Casey was read her Miranda warning and whether it was necessary while being questioned by law enforcement prior to her arrest. This will be a lengthy article, and most of the legal information comes from a post I wrote and published on March 9, 2011, A Sneaking Suspicion. Ultimately, I feel the appellate court will rule 2-1 against Casey. I base my decision on several things; all legal in nature. Please pay particular attention to the final part of this post, where the charges are listed. Remember, Casey was not charged with murder until October. Also, there’s an interesting video to watch. It’s short and, in it, she tells her brother that she WAS Mirandized, although the State did not argue that in court on Tuesday.

§

Keep in mind that this was written almost two years ago:

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 for questioning. 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 [made in July of 2008] to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police.

§

Back to the present…

If you’ve ever watched COPS, you’ve seen officers detain and handcuff people not under arrest, and they make their point clear about doing so for everyone’s safety; the detainee’s and the officer’s.

Ultimately, Judge Perry did side with the State on both motions filed by the defense. In his decision, Perry wrote that the test of law primarily focused upon the perceptions of the suspect, not the intent of the police. In this regard, Casey was quite aware of what was going on around her, yet she continued to blab, acknowledging that she didn’t need to do that. George Zimmerman spoke freely, too, and this may work against him if he loses his battle in court and goes for an appeal.

Next, I will explain double jeopardy and I promise it won’t be as long. 

No Way, Jose, By George!

I shot a video with Frank Taaffe soon after the hearing ended Tuesday. I know, I know - he is a controversial character who draws admiration from some and disdain from others, but he had something interesting to say, so please hear him out. It pertains to Jose Baez; no stranger to controversy himself.

I do want to say something about the hearing, though. Aside from matters dealing with discovery, voice identification, witness testimony and depositions, the most important thing to come out of it was the judge’s order pertaining to two defense motions in particular. One was the MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, a 74-page whopper that ultimately went nowhere, and the other was the MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER SETTING BAIL, that also failed to budge the judge. After hearing arguments from both sides, she promptly denied the motions without further explanation.

Did it surprise me? Yes and no. I expected a denial, but I didn’t think the decision would come so quickly. However, the bottom line is that George Zimmerman lied about his second passport and he lied about the money he had in the bank when he talked to his wife in code while in jail, and when he sat silent in the courtroom as she lied in open court. While Mark O’Mara, his defense attorney, respectfully told the court that his client has complied with all court orders, I thought about what Zimmerman was supposed to do other than follow the letter of the law. That’s what any person under court order is supposed to do; it goes with the territory, so what makes him special?

O’Mara argued that evidence now surfacing completely exonerates his client of any crime. OK, fine, but save it for another day — the day George Zimmerman stands trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. This was a day to prove his reliability; that you could trust George no matter where he is. Like he’s paid his dues. Well, he hasn’t paid his dues and he deserves nothing more than anyone else under the same conditions. He should not be pampered.

Also, O’Mara tried his best to rewrite history and turn Zimmerman into the real victim; a victim of racism. Baloney. If that’s the case, then the best place for him to be would be within the confines of beautiful Seminole County, 345 square miles of frolicking fun; safely tucked away, instead of roaming the countryside and risk being caught by all those delusional mobs of black monsters out to get him. Thank God they don’t exist in Seminole County.

§

Since the hearing, news has surfaced that (then) Sanford police detective Chris Serino made many revisions to the police report before he submitted it to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger’s office. Serino was the lead detective on the case and in his initial report, he recommended that Zimmerman be charged with second-degree murder. After several revisions he settled on manslaughter. All of this was done within a five-hour period.

In the end, the general consensus of the Sanford Police Department was to write a recommendation — any recommendation — and pass the buck up to the State Attorney’s Office. Pressure on the police department from national civil rights groups was mounting, and they wanted it out of their hands.

But will this revelation hurt the prosecution and help the defense? In my opinion, it shows a department in disarray. Several Sanford police officers have already come out in favor of Zimmerman, so in this sense, it may help the defense, but the big problem facing them is that the State doesn’t need Sanford. They’ve got much larger support in the FDLE, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Their guns are much bigger than Sanford’s, and that’s the agency that did the brunt of the investigation that led to the charge against Zimmerman. Bernie de la Rionda will be relying on FDLE, and it might be necessary to debunk the Sanford Police Department for running a slipshod organization that couldn’t make up their minds on anything. Heck, their police chief was fired over the mess, but in my opinion, he was more of a fall guy. So much for that. I don’t expect this new story to have much of an impact either way.

Here is the interesting video interview with Frank Taaffe. Also, he invited me up to the Retreat, which I accepted, and gave me the 50 cent tour; well worth the price. That will be unfolded in my next post.

 Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Anatomy of a Filicide

Tony Pipitone from WKMG just reported that a search for “foolproof suffication” was performed on the Anthony family computer on June 16, 2008, the day Caylee Anthony died. Jose Baez claims that George did it, but Pipitone says that, according to the timeline, it couldn’t have been him. He was already at work. At the time, Casey’s cell phone was pinging in the immediate area of the house. 

Baez wrote about this in his book. He waited for the information to be admitted during the trial, but the procecution never produced it. While it’s true the defense was part of the dicovery process, this was evidence each side had the opportunity to examine. It was not something Baez had to share since the State could have readily concluded the same thing. Unfortunately, OCSO missed it. Had it been introduced, the prosecution would have argued that the death could not have been an accidental drowning and it may have impacted the jury. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done. Double jeopardy, you know. To most of us, this just adds to what we’ve believed for a long time — that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter and she’s still the most hated woman in America, if not the entire world.

This is a story I wrote and published on March 27, 2009, over three years before the trial. Take from it what you will. Originally, I put a disclaimer at the bottom, calling it a work of fiction. Today, I’m not so sure…

CAUTION! CONTAINS LANGUAGE NOT SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES

It’s a perfect day for a murder

Dear Diary,

Last night I had a terrible fight with my mother. I hate her guts. It’s the worst fight we’ve ever had. Sometimes, I can’t decide who I hate the most, her or Dad, but I am so pissed off, I wish she was dead. Him too. Why, oh why, does she think I am a bad person when it is her? She sucks. I want her out of my life. I need to get away from this house and these people forever.

If Tony would only take me away. He must. He’s got to help me. Why do I feel my life is such a mess? If only I didn’t have the brat. She is nothing more than a pain in my ass. Today, I will start my life all over again. With Tony. Or Ricardo. Or… OK, Jesse. If not Jesse… and SHE will never be with us, whoever I’m with. Jesse? If only you didn’t love her so much, we might still be together. Maybe not.

Mom? You think you can take her away from me, but I will never let you. She would make you so happy because she could be the daughter you’ve always wanted. It was never me. You never loved me. What do you think I should do with her? It’s too late. You can’t have her and I don’t want her. I’ve made my mind up and today is it. That little shit will never, ever ruin my life again. She is dead. Screw you all and you will never find out about her. You think I’m crazy, do you? I’ll show you what crazy is all about. You got it. I’ll get even with you. You won’t ever be able to spoil her again.

Dad? Eff you, you weak son of a bitch. You are such a pussy. You let Mom run all over you. I’ve had enough of you and you think you were such a hotshot cop. Oh yeah? You are nothing and you will never figure out what I did with her because I am way smarter than you. You can rot in Hell. Besides, you always loved Lee more than me. You both did.

Lee? Just go on living in your simple little world. God, if you only knew how much I’ve used you over the years, you’d realize just how stupid you are. So’s your girlfriend. Too bad you’re not here to say good bye.

Brat? Today is the day. You will never see me again. Better yet, I will never see you again. Even better still, your grandmother is going to really, really suffer and in the end, I will laugh at you all. Sleep late. I don’t want you seeing Ci Ci before she goes to work. That’s why our door is shut. OK, here, take Mommy’s nanny Zani pill.

I’ve been planning this day for a long time. It didn’t have to be today, but after last night, this is it. It had to come sometime, because I was going nuts. Today, I feel liberated. My mind is made up. What? You wonder why Mommy is in such a good mood? Quick, go see Grandpa Jo Jo before we go. I need to get ready.

OK, Baby, let’s get going. I’ll see you later, Dad. I’ve got some errands to run. C’mon, let’s go. Say good bye to Jo Jo. Tell him you love him. Yes, we’ll see you later. Wave to him as we drive away. Go ahead, Sweetheart.

12:40 pm

She didn’t really need to go anywhere early that afternoon. She just wanted to get out of that house, away from the pain of the night before, so she drove around, chatting endlessly on her cell phone with her boyfriend, Tony, her ex-boyfriend Jesse, and her then-best friend, Amy, never paying any attention to her daughter. She headed down Chickasaw Trail to Lee Vista Boulevard, where she killed some time, about a half hour, at the shopping plaza; then she took off up Narcoossee to Goldenrod. From there, she headed north to Curry Ford and turned into the Winn Dixie shopping center just to kill more time until her father left and the coast was clear. OK, let’s go home for a minute. Mommy forgot something. It was easy to tell her toddler that they needed to go back home. Besides, the little girl always felt safe and secure in that house. Maybe, she messed her pants and Mom forgot the pull-up diapers and the pack of Nice’n Toddler wipes and that angered her. Oh, Come on. You’re too old for this. Whatever, this was the day she had been planning for a long time. She was starting to feel happy again, something she hadn’t been since before the day her daughter was born. She started the car and drove east on Curry Ford until she turned south on Chickasaw to return to the neighborhood where she grew up.

3:00 pm

When they got back to the house, they went into the bathroom where she cleaned the little girl and dried her off . Then, she led her into the bedroom. Mommy will be right back.  She went out to the garage to get the duct tape and a couple of trash bags. Then, she walked back in, took the bags into the bedroom and began peeling a swath of tape off the roll. Here, Mommy wants to play a little game. Come on, you little brat. She started to stick the tape around her head, from the left side of her face and far into her hair.

Mommy, what are you doing? the little girl wondered, unable to really speak like an adult and too tired too fight. Mommy, Mommy, Murfurlbalbl… The tape was now wrapped around the toddlers head and Mommy tore it off the roll, making sure it was stuck firmly to her mouth. She picked the small child up, who was lightly kicking and breathing through her nostrils, wimpering like crazy, as if begging for her life, but the pill had begun to take its toll.

Stop kicking, you little shit! Tears of fear were rolling off the little girl’s face as she struggled to free herself, but she was no match for her mother, as slight of build as she was. Finally, the Xanax she had given her earlier kicked in and the precious bundle of joy gave up. She set her daughter down and hurried into the bathroom to grab a bottle from under the sink. She poured the homemade chloroform onto a wad of folded up toilet paper, returned and held it against her daughter’s nose, just to make sure. All of the faith and trust this girl had in her mother was as weak as her now shallow breaths. What was so different this time as her mother picked her up, was how much heavier she seemed. I guess she never knew much about dead weight. Well, she was never as bright as she thought she was.

She carried her out into the back yard and walked up to the above ground swimming pool. The body made a light splash as it was dropped in. She held her under water until the bubbles stopped. It didn’t take long. The child-like breaths that once smelled like a field of fresh flowers on a breezy Spring day were forever silenced. The life she brought into this world was now dead by her own hands. To her, it was the most exhilarating, the most liberating feeling in a long, long time - until she tried to lift the child out of the water. Wow! This kid is heavy. She hadn’t thought about how much the water would log her down. She propped her little body against the edge of the pool, pulling her arms out and over the side. That gave her a chance to go get the pool ladder that would act as leverage as she struggled to pull the girl out of the water.

One of the things she’s known for is that she doesn’t like to follow directions. She’s never been good at finishing jobs, either. If her mother hadn’t been around to lecture and complain, her bedroom would have been a mess. When she pressed the ladder against the swimming pool, she never attached it firmly. That’s why the ladder was left next to the pool and it explains why she never closed the gate behind her. She never followed up on anything unless someone like her mother was behind her every step of the way and that angered her so.

3:30 pm

Fortunately for her, the pet dogs were napping when she re-entered the house. Casey always demanded that her parents stay out of her room. They always granted her wish for privacy. She was, after all, an adult woman and she needed her space. She walked into the bedroom, dropped her daughter onto the floor and put her soiled clothes into one of the bags. She dried the body and opened the other bag to put her little girl inside. Then, she pushed her under the bed, grabbed the bag of clothes and walked out of the room, shutting the door firmly behind her. She had to be very careful about making sure the door was properly closed. For one night, her bedroom was to be Caylee’s mausoleum. When she walked out the front door with bag in hand, she took one more brief look inside the house before locking the door. Good bye, she thought. Eff this house. No more fights. No more nagging. I am free, but she knew she had to come back tomorrow. This was enough work for one day.

Lester: No Judge to Rush

I could be wrong, but I do think it’s rather revealing that Judge Lester has taken his good old-time deciding whether or not he’ll step down from the bench. Granted, he’s been on vacation, but Zimmerman’s recusal motion was filed on July 13, well over two weeks ago, and as far as I’m concerned, the accused hasn’t had enough time to get nervous yet. He still thinks he’s the boss. Now, if I were in charge, I’d make him wait the full 30 days that’s allowed under the law before rendering a decision. Really rattle him. Then, I’d drop the bomb — that the judge has decided to remain on the case.

I’m not saying this because I expect Lester to be personally biased against the defendant. No, that’s hardly the reason. I just don’t think it’s right that George should get his way this time, like he’s been used to most of his life. Throw a tantrum. After all, he’s the one who lied to the court by ordering his wife to hide the truth. That means that he’s responsible for his wife facing a perjury charge. Now, he blames the court for it.

Even his attorney, Mark O’Mara, said his client lost his credibility. Soon after Zimmerman’s bond was revoked, he told Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning, “Judge Lester gave us all a very strong signal that he and he alone will run the courtroom and that everyone is going to tell the truth. So I’m certain that not only the Zimmerman family but all other witnesses that come before Judge Lester had better tell the truth and nothing but the truth if they’re going to be treated fairly.”

He readily accepted the judge’s fairness. Treat me right, I’ll treat you right.

According to a USA Today report, O’Mara said, “He [Zimmerman] should have jumped up and said she is lying. He should have done something, and he didn’t.”

I could go on and on with remarks made by Zimmerman’s own defense, but the fact remains, he lied and that’s all there is to it. O’Mara acknowledged that it would take a lot of work to regain the judge’s trust, and he admitted it was a huge mistake. He expected the judge to have a strong opinion. Rightfully so! This is nothing new, and it leads me to believe that, had the more prudent O’Mara prevailed, he would have worked out the messy kinks because he knows how much the judge and most in the legal field admire his honesty and professionalism. I believe the motion to recuse was Zimmerman’s idea, and his alone; just like taking command of his Website again. Not to mention his parents’.

Here’s the deal, in my opinion. Judge Kenneth Lester will “Stand His Ground” and remain seated. Why? Because Florida and federal law is on his side, and I don’t think he will relinquish anything to a punk, whether it’s “appealing” or not. He doesn’t strike me as a quitter.

According to The Law of Judicial Disqualification or Recusal, Florida Rules of Disqualification: Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges, Zimmerman’s defense cites:

(d) Grounds. — A motion to disqualify shall show:

(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or

(2) that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.

I can clearly understand the first motion to recuse against Judge Reckseidler based on (d)(2), but will the motion against Lester stand on the merits of (d)(1)? On his motion against Lester, Zimmerman added:

(f) Determination — Successive Motions. — The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

This means if the judge denies the defense request, no explanation is to be given. A simple “NO” will suffice. End of story. Time to move on.

As I wrote in my first article, Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse, a defendant cannot simply lie to a judge and get away with it. If a judge cannot respond without showing any kind of opinion regarding said lie, what’s the court to do? Evidence proved Zimmerman lied and the judge responded with disdain. Lying in court is against the law, and if all a person has to do is lie to the judge to get him/her recused for voicing concern, it would be anarchy in the courtroom. This would mean that every time a judge cries, “May God have mercy on your soul” after a death sentence is pronounced, the defendant should get the case thrown out of court. Not guilty on a technicality. The judge voiced his opinion on the verdict and a personal belief in religion. Separation of church and state!

Now, we come to a matter of law. Let’s quickly examine Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge. The most important part of this section is that in order to warrant a recusal, the judge’s expressions of opinion about the merits of the case must have originated outside the case.

Held: Required recusal under §455(a) is subject to the limitation that has come to be known as the “extrajudicial source” doctrine [or factor]. Pp. 3-16.

The general rule is that a judge should be disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…” This pertains to a prior opinion, and that would mean Judge Lester would have to have had an interest in the case before it was assigned to him. Surely he heard about it in the news? That’s not relevant. (See: Liteky v. United States (92-6921), 510 U.S. 540 (1994).) Under Liteky, the judge is expected to form opinions based on what is presented during the proceedings, not before. Remember that a judge formulates an order based on case law, and each side presents its own case law examples. Such is the situation regarding this recusal motion and the state’s very own response.

If we go back to the Casey Anthony v. State of Florida case, we saw multitudes of examples where Judge Perry admonished Jose Baez. If ever there was a situation that appeared to be biased and prejudiced, that was the one. Had Ms. Anthony been convicted, would it have been overturned on appeal based on the less than cordial interaction between Perry and Baez? I seriously doubt it, and do you want to know why? Because, in the end, the defendant was found not guilty of murder. The End. If the judge showed any bias or prejudice toward the defendant or any of her attorneys, the jury failed to notice. Why? Because the system worked and it will work again.

Judge Lester is tenacious. He has no reason to relinquish the bench. He saw right through George Zimmerman from Day 1 and he will see him right through to the end. That’s my judgement. That’s my opinion.

George & Cindy's "Charity" Website Suspended

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM 10:00 PM:

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

CAYLEEMARIEANTHONYFOUNDATION

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Quiet Observations, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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

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

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

THE BALLAD OF CASEY

For the rest of her life

Her name will be mud

For taking the life

Of her own flesh and blood.

For what lies ahead

Is a brewing storm.

Her Caylee long dead

Was fed chloroform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Also see Orlando Sentinel)

The convenience of karma and the cancer disconnect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if you smoke, please quit now.

Examining the Examiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average: $1.46 per article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Biblical Proportions

SOLOMON, PART I

On January 27, 2010, I wrote a post titled, “The Wisdom of Solomon”. It was two days after The Honorable Judge Stan Strickland listened to Amy Huizenga’s thieving friend plead guilty to thirteen counts of fraud. Here is part of what I wrote that day:

State Attorney Frank George stood up at his respective podium and began to speak. On July 8, 2008, Casey wrote a check in the amount of $111.01 that accounted for charges 2, 3, and 4. She wrote this check at Target.  On July 10, she passed a check at Target in the amount of $137.77 that accounted for charges 5, 6, and 7. Also on July 10, she passed a third check at Target for $155.47 and that took care of counts 8, 9, and 10. Counts 11, 12, and 13 took place on July 15 when she wrote a check for $250 at the Bank of America. He then brought up count 1 which referred to a deliberate scheme of conduct overall. She planned on writing checks until they bounced off the walls, I would guess. Good thing we live in the information age, where account balances are instantaneous almost everywhere we go.

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. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing. “I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

In closing, he added what he felt was the right thing to do:

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.”

Of particular interest now is the Solomon-like decision Judge Perry faces regarding the recent clarification of Casey’s probation period set by Judge Strickland. I find it ironic that good old Solomon once again rears his head at the now acquitted and much detested convicted felon.

MOSES, PART I

That brings me to another biblical figure - Moses. He was the guy who cast ten plagues on the people of Egypt. He also parted the Red Sea after he turned the Nile into blood. The pharoah was none too happy with that, so he let Moses and his people go out of Egypt to be slaves no more.

My reason for bringing up Moses has little to do with him, actually. It’s more about the pharaoh at the time, and what his edict was while Moses was packing up the Israelites to wander in the desert for forty years. Every mention of his name and every word etched in stone was struck from the official records. (Historical records actually show that Ramses II was not in charge at the time, but Hollywood disagrees.)

As Ramses II, Yul Brynner exclaimed in Cecil B. de Mille’s film The Ten Commandments, “So it shall be written, so it shall be done.” In this same light, I proclaim that the name Casey Anthony will no longer be permitted on this blog. It is now stricken from the record. However, I do have an appropriate replacement. We know that Caylee called Cindy Ci Ci, and George was Jo Jo. What did she call her mother? How about Ca Ca? From now on, Caylee’s mother will only be known as Ca Ca. Yes, you know how it’s pronounced.

SOLOMON, PART II

Back to the problem Judge Perry called “a legal maze” and “a legal morass”. What sort of decision should he make? According to the Department of Corrections, Ca Ca served her probation while incarcerated and was duly discharged a year later; free from all restrictions. According to what Judge Strickland said in open court on January 25, 2010, her probation was supposed to begin AFTER her release from jail, not while she was sitting in a cell, and he made it clear last week, on August 1, when he issued a corrected Order of Probation and corrected Court Minutes, nunc pro tunc to January 25, 2010. Nunc pro tunc, of course, means now for then; whatever the action is, it has a retroactive legal effect.

Here’s the dilemma. Ca Ca’s defense argues that she has served her probation while incarcerated and they have a letter from DOC to prove it. On the other hand, Judge Strickland made it abundantly clear that Ca Ca did not serve her probation as per his instructions, and his order stated that it was to begin after her release, only there was a mix-up on the first order, as written by the court. But that was not Judge Strickland’s fault. Meanwhile, Cheney Mason filed a motion on his client’s behalf, the EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING TO QUASH, VACATE, AND SET ASIDE COURT’S ORDER. 

Judge Perry said (at the August 5 hearing on the matter) that what Strickland stated in court should trump all - not what the defense claimed. At the same time, Perry acknowledged that she DID serve out her probation in jail according to the Orange County Corrections Department. What a quagmire. “If anything could go wrong,” he said, “it went wrong here.”

Perry is quite aware of safety concerns, meaning keeping Ca Ca safe from harm. To openly serve probation now opens up a can of worms since her address would be made public due to Florida’s sunshine laws. You know, what with all those death threats and whatever.

Phooey. Ask OCSO how many real death threats they’ve received since her release from incarceration. From my own experience with trolls and the “vengenance is mine” crap - yes, that’s the way one idiot spelled it, insinuating harm on me - almost every one of them lives far enough away to be a real threat, although I wouldn’t trust any of them face-to-face, and that leads me back to Ca Ca. Personally, I feel she should be more afraid the farther away from home she is, as she enters uncharted territory. There are more crazies out there in the world than there are in Orlando. Believe me, I thank God for the Atlantic ocean, but that’s another story.

Ahum.

Moving on, I am left with prior motions the defense filed before the trial which asked the court to seal jail records, including visitation logs, telephone conversations and commissary purchases. They were filed and denied while Strickland was on the bench, and they were refiled, along with new ones, after Judge Perry took over. Both judges made it very clear that the judicial branch holds no legal sway over the legislative branch; the one that controls jails and prisons. Consequently, neither judge ruled in favor of the defense because they had no authority to do so.

That leads me to what I think the judge should do. Since he has no power over the jail because it’s a completely separate governmental branch from the court, his decision should be based on those prior rulings. The court does not have to honor the administrative decisions the jail makes in its day-to-day operations. What both judges have been saying all along is that they have no control over the executive branch, and at the same time, the jail has no power over the judicial. There you have it - a very simple solution to a complex problem. Ca Ca did not serve a day of probation while incarcerated because she did not satisfy the court’s order. The heck with what the jail says.

MOSES, PART II

As Ramses said about Moses, let Judge Perry say the same thing about Ca Ca. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. While he wanders through what must be at least 40 years worth of court cases, let’s see how he rules. Personally, I think the answer should be a year of supervised probation. Afterward, she can find her Promised Land. By then, she should be old news and TMZ won’t pay her another dime.

Have a Happy Heavenly Birthday!

Well Worth 10 Minutes of Your Time

Dumbfounded, With Prejudice

When Cheney Mason joined Casey Anthony’s defense team in March of 2008, he proclaimed that the day would come when “we will walk out of here with Casey in arm.” He was that confident she would be acquitted. He was right.

Please tell me what you think on Orlando Magazine

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Pets, Lies and Duct Tape

In his opening statement, Jose Baez guaranteed that the jury would come to believe that George Anthony had sexually molested Casey when she was young, that he found Caylee’s body floating in the backyard pool, and he alone applied duct tape to her face. Somehow, someway, he would explain how meter reader Roy Kronk disposed of the child’’s body so he could later “discover” it and collect a reward. But as the defense wrapped up its case Thursday it was clear that Baez had failed to deliver the goods. His strategy created a lot of smoke but yielded little substance. 

What do you think?

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

A Fool's Errand

Casey seems to have turned into a hostile client. Two psychologists and a psychiatrist told the court she is as competent to stand trial today as she was when Judge Strickland ordered a mental evaluation three years ago.

What do you think?.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

All Fired Up

What really transpired behind closed doors, in chambers, on Saturday? It could be some sort of trap Mason has set for the judge – a legal technicality he hopes will derail the trial, but I don’t think so. There’s discord in this defense team. They are in disarray, and I sense that they are turning on each other.

Read my opinion and leave yours. There’s plenty of room to drive a Mack Truck through…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

The Truth About Cindy's Testimony

What Cindy said on the stand Thursday was shocking, but the fact is, she did tell the prosecution almost the same thing back in July of 2009 during her deposition.  Technically, she didn’t lie the other day, unless she lied about it to begin with.

Whatever you think, it will be up to the jury to decide, but here’s what she said…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

The Defense Wrests

Are Cheney Mason and Jose Baez really that bad or are they smarter than we think?

You can read my opinion and share your thoughts at Orlando Magazine.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

A Velvet Glove on an Iron Fist

The past couple of days in the courtroom have been brutal, especially for the defense. What is Judge Perry to do?

Share your thoughts at Orlando Magazine.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!