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.)

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 3

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

In POINT TWO of the appeal, Casey’s defense wrote that:

II. The Appellant’s constitutional rights were violated when she was convicted of four separate counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer because each count stemmed from the same single offense where there was no break in the temporal aspect of the crime.

In that sense, if I fire a bullet through the brain of someone (who dies, obviously) and, as it passes through my intended victim, kills the person standing immediately behind him; does that constitute two homicides but one murder charge because it was one bullet? After all, it stemmed from the same single offense. That’s the logic of this Appellant’s argument. The defense also argued Fla. Const. Article 1 §9:

”[…] that individuals are given ‘protection from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense arising out of a single episode.’”

I completely disagree. First, let’s look at the testimony by law enforcement at Casey’s murder trial acknowledged by her defense:

TRIAL TESTIMONY

Corporal Rendon Fletcher:

“Corporal Fletcher relayed that the Appellant, after questioning, stated that her daughter was missing, in the custody of a nanny, and that the Apppellant was conducting her own search.” LIE #1.

Lieutenant Reginald Hosey (then Sergeant) and Officer Adriana Acevedo:

”[…] Officer Acevedo escorted the Appellant to the last stated location of the ‘nanny.’” LIE #2.

Hosey: “[…] after being escorted to the Sawgrass Apartments, […] the Appellant was led back into her residence…” LIE #3. There was never a Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez living at Sawgrass, in Apt. #210 or anywhere else. She led Hosey on a wild goose chase.

Detective Yuri Melich:

“The recorded statement by the Appellant stated that she worked at Universal Studios, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales was Caylee Anthony’s babysitter, and that the Appellant informed Jeffery Hopkins and Juliette Lewis of the disappearance of her child.” LIE #4.

You cannot simply lie to every law enforcement officer that comes down the pike and consider it one big lie. It may have been one in Casey’s mind, but each lie to each officer is a separate offense.

On March 12, 2009, I addressed the fraud charges filed against Casey by her onetime friend, Amy Huizenga, on a post titled Double Jeopardy. Casey stole and cashed her checks while she was out of town. Thirteen third-degree felony charges were filed in all. She was convicted of six and Judge Stan Strickland withheld adjudication on seven.

This applies today because the defense tried to do the same thing then; to count the separate charges as one. They failed. On The Wisdom of Solomon, dated January 10, 2010 - three years ago! - I wrote:

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.

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

On each and every count, Casey must submit a DNA sample because she is now a convicted felon. There it is, the words everyone has been waiting for…convicted felon. Time to move on to the next chapter, but first, Casey apologized to Amy Huizenga.

“I’m sorry for what I did. I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

§

That same standard for double jeopardy applies today, as surely as the day I wrote it in the 2009 article based on those fraud charges:

In essence, Casey’s defense team points out that under law, she should be charged for one crime by one count. The defense also claims that charging her with multiple counts for the same act prejudices her, therefore the counts should be dismissed.

According to the motion, “Miss Anthony is guaranteed double jeopardy protection by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 9 and 17 of the Florida Constitution for duplicative charges.” Let’s take a look at what the law says:

I will leave the indentation out for now, but the following paragraphs are from my 2009 article:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Florida Constitution – Article 1, Sections 9 and 17

SECTION 9.  Due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 17.  Excessive punishments.

Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

The double jeopardy rule of the Fifth Amendment is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in agreement with the common law concept ofres judicata which prevents courts from relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment. There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

1. being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
2. retrial after a conviction
3. being punished multiple times for the same offense

Does the defense motion to dismiss those extra charges, something it sees as ancillary in nature, hold any merit? In Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, a split court found that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. In Solem, a bare majority of the court held a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

In Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, a life sentence without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine was upheld. The case produced five separate opinions. While seven justices supported a proportionality review under the Eighth Amendment, only four favored application of all three factors cited in Solem. As one court has concluded, disproportionality survives; Solem does not. (McGruder v. Puckett (5th Cir.’92) 954 F.2d 313, 316.) In Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, determined Solem was wrongly decided and the Eighth Amendment contained no proportionality guarantee. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O’Connor and Souter, found the Eighth Amendment encompassed a narrow proportionality principle. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Moreover, in Solem v. Helm, the court focused on the nonviolent nature of both the defendant’s current offense of uttering a ‘no account’ check (one of the most passive felonies a person could commit) and his prior offenses. The majority acknowledged a life sentence for fourth-time heroin dealers and other violent criminals would pass constitutional muster.

While we ponder the legality of the double jeopardy clause in the appeal, allow me to look at the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to go into any detail of what transpired. This is purely about the charges, the trial, and the conviction.

On August 10, 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and 8 counts of first-degree murder. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment. He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Despite killing 168 people, McVeigh was only charged with 8 murders. Casey was convicted of four misdemeanor counts of lying to law enforcement personnel. The convictions should stand. Double jeopardy, in this case, would mean reducing her convictions from four to one. No dice, I say! Why? If Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys used the same logic and prevailed in a similar motion to dismiss the counts by reducing the eight murder charges to one, that means out of 168 deaths he was responsible for, he would have been tried for one single murder and the entire weight of those deaths would have been reduced from 8 to 1. Would he have been sentenced to death for one murder? If so, would it have been appealed? Yes, and it would have carried much less weight. With Casey, it’s the same thing in my book, although the charges are not similar. I am merely making an analogy.

Ultimately, double jeopardy should not be an appeal issue as far as I’m concerned. Casey was convicted, sentenced, and she did her time on all four counts. That cannot be taken away from her. In the end, it will hinge on whether she was in police custody when she was questioned.  Was she free to go and was she Mirandized? Should she have been? By her own admission, she spoke freely. Should she have been Mirandized just because she decided to sing like a bird? Not until she was placed in custody, meaning under arrest or when her freedom was greatly deprived; enough to be equal to an arrest. Custody could be interpreted as being handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. It could also include her interrogation — an attempt to elicit incriminating statements — but to what extent? Who said she was a suspect at the time?

I believe the appellate judges will rule against her. Those misdemeanor convictions will stand by a vote of 2-1. No matter what the outcome is, she’s still — and shall always remain — a convicted felon. Thank you, Amy Huizenga.

Shop Amazon’s New Kindle Fire

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. 

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 1

Casey’s appeal will be heard today. I will expound on that after it unfolds. First, here’s a little background music to set the mood…

I guess most of you know by now that Casey lives in a gated community in Cape Canaveral. If you know the location; fine, but I’m not going to disclose it here. There are too many people living there and they don’t need an onslaught of visitors, including media-types and hostile folks out to get her.

For certain, she has been spotted around town. I know people in that neighborhood; some so well that I won’t even discuss them — and virtually across the street from her. I will tell you what I do know about her, though, before I go into today’s appeal and what I wrote years ago that led up to this motion; the gist, of which, is whether she was Mirandized while being questioned, whether she was legally under arrest when placed in the back of a police vehicle the night of July 15, 2008, and whether the four misdemeanor convictions for lying to law enforcement should be considered double jeopardy. In other words, were four charges too many? Could they have been condensed into one since they were, virtually, one and the same?

Casey likes the Cape Canaveral neighborhood and the surrounding area. She loves the bars at the port, where giant cruise ships sail. They are a sight to behold. She’s always enjoyed that side of Central Florida and I can’t say I blame her. For sure, if you’ve never been up close to a cruise ship or watched one leave port while sitting on an outside deck sipping a cold drink, munching on a fresh grouper sandwich or oysters on the half shell, you’re missing something. Besides, don’t cruises run in her family?

She’s been spotted out and about, alright, but she never looks anyone in the eye. Never. That’s why a lot of people question whether it’s her or not. They’re pretty sure, but they’re not sure. During the day, there’s hardly a time that she doesn’t wear her big sunglasses. To me, that’s a giveaway. Most of the time, she wears wigs. That helps keep her from being identified.

Where she lives, she walks her pet. A maintenance man offers up treats to all the neighborhood dogs, but wonders why this particular woman thanks him while looking askance; her face emotionless. Never in the eyes. No smile, but gracious just the same.

In order to move into the place where she lives, she needed help. This is where it gets quite interesting. Her father, George, is seen all the time. He never hides from view. He’s the one who got her in. She’s got a three-month lease with an option for three more. 

On the day of the final hearing before the trial, George took the stand. Jose Baez asked him if he’d be willing to lie for Casey in order to save her life. He said yes. Jose asked him one more time and he responded with a resounding YES, heard loud and clear throughout the courtroom. I know; I was there.

When George was accused, during Baez’s opening statement, of sexually molesting his daughter since childhood, I immediately reminded myself of the words spoken by him only a month or so earlier. Did I really believe George had ever touched Casey improperly? No, of course not. For the most part, no one did. However, did I think there was a (better than) good possibility that the State had been set up? That he was the fall guy, willing to allow it in order to save his daughter from conviction and a possible sentence of death? You’d better believe it! They are a family of liars and the record is clear on that matter, in my opinion. There is no defamation here. No libel or anything else. I firmly believe George swallowed that bitter pill because it was the only thing — a very desperate move — that would help assure his daughter’s acquittal. He set up the defense by turning her into the real victim. This was a brilliant move because, in the end, no one would brand him an incestuous child molester. Who, in all reality, would really believe it? It was a win/win scenario! Do I know this to be true? No, of course not, but this is what I’ve been told, considered hearsay in a court of law.

George has been spending an awful lot of time in Cape Canaveral, according to witnesses willing to speak publicly. He was the force behind her getting into the community where she lives. That comes from inside. He dotes over his daughter like a mother hen. (Let’s not go into how henpecked he is.) He makes sure she is safe. Does this sound anything like a father scorned? One who was maligned so wretchedly by his ingrate daughter?

Let’s say this. During the Christmas holiday season, she left her safe harbor because news crews were parked outside. That’s been going on months now. She went to a condo down the road in Cocoa Beach; a condo owned by snowbirds who are close personal friends of the Anthonys. Does this sound anything like a broken family set apart by the death of their beloved granddaughter? No, but in order to understand that dynamic, one must remember that mother and father still believe the loss was a giant accident; that daughter would never do such a heinous thing of which she had been charged. In the end, the court proved it. They had been right all along, but had they? That no longer matters. In the end, the family seems whole again; over the ordeal that lasted for years, ripping at their souls. Today, George goes happily about his business of being a father, fulfilling the pledge he made under oath on the final hearing before his daughter’s trial. Meanwhile, those persnickety TV trucks are always lurking. In my opinion, they need to leave her alone. Not out of concern for her, mind you, but for the safety of the residents of her community — the people who never invited her in, but must live with her. They could fall victim if enough people with bad ideas try to find her.

When Casey was returning to the condo, a local TV station’s trucks had been laying in wait; ready to pounce. They relentlessly pursued her every step of the way. She called 911 and tried to shake them, to no avail. As the private gate to the community opened for her to enter, the truck followed her in. So did a police car or two, and that was the last she saw of them. No one from the unnamed station reported that incident, nor has there been anything new to report from anyone else. Most people are tight-lipped. No one pays much attention to her in and out of the small world where she resides, seemingly, far from harm. 

If I were you and since I am me, I would proffer this advice: Leave her the hell alone. She may be out of jail, but she will never escape the prison she has placed herself in. Just the other day, someone saw her up close and personal; face-to-face, in other words. A rare sight indeed! She wasn’t wearing her signature sunglasses. Caught off guard! What this person told me was sad, but I felt no sympathy. Casey’s eyes were void. Looking into them, there was nothing but emptiness and a total lack of human emotion; dull and dead. As if she has no soul.

Something I've Been Working On...

This is tentative art (and a working title) for a book cover. Needless to say, it has been keeping me busy, but I should be back to blogging very soon. There’s lots of work involved in this project, with much more ahead. But HEY! My blog comes first. Sorry I haven’t been answering comments, but I certainly have been reading them.

Never say never, but I have no deadline for this book. If you ask me when it will be published, let alone finished, I won’t be able to tell you.

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.

Suburban Drive - Four Years After

Suburban Drive is not far from Orlando International Airport, so as I left the Gun Rights Policy Conference early Saturday evening, heading for home, I decided to take a peek at where Caylee Anthony’s remains were found. What does it look like today? It’s been over four years since that steamy night in mid-June of 2008, when her tiny body and personal effects were thrown into those woods like a bag of trash.

What I expected to find was something akin to what it looked like back then, dumped beneath a tree in kudzu infested woods, a mere 19’ 8” from the curb. From all of my trips to the site, I never sensed the spirit of Caylee, but I was aware of all sorts of vermin, like snakes, that call the place home. I never wanted to go near it at night because of what may be lurking about.

What I saw Saturday was pretty much what I expected. Soon after law enforcement, anthropologists and forensic teams moved in on December 11, the day she was found by Orange County water utility meter reader Roy Kronk, the place was rendered as bald as the top of my head, as if an exfoliant like Agent Orange had been sprayed throughout. I knew the place would take a number of years to spring back to life and I didn’t expect it to ever look quite like it did that fateful day, before investigators began their work. Mother Nature has taken back what is hers, and for six short months, Mother Nature was more of a mother than Caylee ever had.

To anyone who questions whether she was purposely killed, I will tell you what I heard from prosecutor Jeff Ashton on more than one occasion — you don’t make an accident look like a murder.

You don’t throw a precious little girl into dark and murky woods, either; dead or alive. 

Caylee Marie Anthony. Born 8/9/05. Found at 8905 Suburban Drive.

—

To the right of the cross is a tree wrapped in kudzu (Photo 4.) At its base was where Caylee’s skull and personal effects were found, along with other bones. The rest of her skeletal remains were scattered over a half-mile area.

Click photos to enlarge

Cindy Anthony's Mother Passes

  From the Orlando Sentinel:

Shirley Marie Plesea

PLESEA, SHIRLEY MARIE, 85 of Mt. Dora, passed away Thursday September 6, 2012, after enduring metastatic breast cancer. Born Shirley Marie Giddings, a native of Warren, OH, she and her surviving husband of 66 years, Alexander retired to Florida in 1989. She leaves behind three sons, Daniel of Fort Meyers, Gary of Port St. Lucie, Rick of Murfreesboro, TN; a daughter Cynthia Anthony of Orlando; five grandchildren; and her sister Mary Lou Lillicotch of VA. She is preceded by her mother Velma Lucille Giddings; her brother Robert Giddings; her sister Anne Markle; and her great granddaughter Caylee Marie. Shirley was a devoted wife, loving mother and grandmother, a cherished sister and friend. She will be sadly missed. In lieu of flowers, the family is requesting a donation be made in her memory to Susan G. Koman for the Cure. Donations can be made online or mailed to:

Susan G. Koman

Attention Donor Services

PO Box 650309

Dallas TX 752650309

To everyone who followed the Casey Anthony case, we all had a soft spot in our hearts for Shirley. At this time, I would like to extend my condolences to her entire family. Take comfort in knowing that she is holding on to Caylee Marie.

Gun Power

There’s been plenty of talk around the blogs and forums of late about working out a plea deal. You know, why not let George Zimmerman plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter and get it over with? It would save the state of Florida a lot of money, and that’s what this was all about to begin with, right? Well, yes, it would save money but, no, it was not what the state had in mind at all. Well, maybe there’s one major detail, which I’ll explain later.

To begin with, I now agree with what former lead investigator Chris Serino said about the manslaughter charge. He actually knew what he was talking about, but before any of you throw racial darts my way, or missiles of any kind for any reason, you’d better keep an open mind and read the entire article or you’ll be spending some time left out in the cold during one of the most brutal summers on record.

Yeah, George, take the plea!

No, don’t!

Any way you look at it, if he is convicted of second-degree murder, it goes without saying that it would be a felony conviction. But what about manslaughter? Would it be a felony or a misdemeanor if he’s convicted of that instead? Murder is a piece of cake to explain. It means that malice aforethought must be present, whereas in manslaughter, it’s absent. Absence of malice. OK, that’s easy enough to grasp, but what makes it a misdemeanor or felony?

Involuntary manslaughter means causing the death of another person without intent. Generally speaking, it’s caused by an improper use of reasonable care while carrying out a lawful act, or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. Let’s say drag racing with your car that results in a homicide. You took an unreasonable and high-degree of risk and that’s considered criminally negligent manslaughter. On the other hand, let’s say you’re chopping down a tree and accidentally hit someone with the ax — killing him — there’s nothing criminal about it. In many states, depending on the degree of involuntary manslaughter, it could be a misdemeanor or a felony.

In the case of voluntary manslaughter, we’re talking about an intentional killing that’s accompanied by added circumstances that mitigate the killing, not excuse it. In its most common form, it occurs when a person is provoked to commit the homicide. This is felony manslaughter, and it goes to the very heart of the Trayvon Martin shooting death, whether it’s considered manslaughter or second-degree murder. Either way, if George Zimmerman is convicted, it will be a felony conviction. Interestingly, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the paperwork originally sent to prosecutors stated that there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. The Sentinel article went on to say that it “was signed by lead Investigator Chris Serino and his boss, then-Sgt. Randy Smith, but it was the department’s official position and had the support of [former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee Jr.] said Capt. Bob O’Connor, who oversees the department’s major-crimes division and also was part of the investigation.”

Well, what’s all this hubbub about manslaughter or murder? Why is the public split on it? I mean those in the Martin camp. You see, it really doesn’t matter and that’s why some attorneys believe the state overcharged. Of course, that major detail I said I’d explain later could be as simple as getting him to plead to something — PLEAD DOWN — but it’s not. It can’t be.

You see, back in the late 1990s, George Bush’s younger brother, Jeb, was governor of the great state of Florida. He pushed through a law, Florida Statutes, Section 775.087 (2)-(4), that became effective on July 1, 1999. What was it, you ask, that could have come from a conservative, gun-respecting, NRA-allied Republican; the same Jeb Bush who signed SB 436, better known as “Stand Your Ground” into law in 2005?

Why… the legislation enacted his initiative providing mandatory sentences for felony convictions of crimes in which a gun was used. Plain and simple.

For pulling a gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years is imposed. For certain felony crimes or attempted felonies, the 10 year mandatory sentence is authorized if the criminal possessed a gun (or destructive device). For firing the gun during a crime the mandatory minimum sentence is 20 years. For injuring or killing a victim by firing the gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence from 25 years to life in prison is authorized. (See: Mandatory Sentences Under the 10-20-Life Law and Experts: Florida’s ‘10-20-Life’ empowers prosecutors but handcuffs judges, juries, defense attorneys)

So you see, forget about whether it’s second-degree murder or felony manslaughter because, either way, they are both felonies and if you are in Trayvon’s camp, all you want is a conviction. Stop worrying about a plea. The least Zimmerman could get would be 25-years. That sort of changes the perspective on Mark O’Mara now, doesn’t it? 

New Photo of Casey Emerges

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

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

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

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

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

Sanford Police Video of George Zimmerman

See it for yourself. Watch it again and again. It’s grainy, but you may get something out of it. Please share your thoughts. All opinions are welcome.

The National Rally for Justice on behalf of Trayvon Martin

I attended the rally for Trayvon Martin last Thursday, March 22, in Sanford. I chose to go because I truly believe Trayvon Martin was murdered. I don’t believe George Zimmerman ever set out to kill anyone that day or any other time, but a teenager is dead and he alone is responsible. 

The Stand Your Ground law does not give citizens the right to kill on a whim. You cannot be the aggressor and use the law as an excuse. In truth George Zimmerman stalked a child.

Jeffrey Toobin is an attorney, author and legal analyst. On the slate.com Website, Toobin states, “Trayvon saw someone following him, felt threatened, retreated, was still followed, and then was approached by an armed man who had 100 lbs on him. … Because Zimmerman was acting as an aggressor, Trayvon had the right to defend himself by punching, kicking, tackling, etc. Because Zimmerman was acting as the aggressor, his actions cannot be considered self-defense: you can’t initiate and then claim self-defense. The evidence for initiation is there on the 911 tape. … Why is it that a black man cannot be afraid of a white man who follows and approaches him on a street at night?”

A lot of trashtalk is coming out on Trayvon now. Some of it may be true, but it still means nothing to me. Zimmerman may not be guilty of a hate crime, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent in the 17-year-old’s death.

I will be posting more articles in the coming days, but first, the following is a video I put together of 50 of the 141 photographs that I took at the National Rally for Justice on behalf of Trayvon Martin. Please watch it and if you feel like it, let me know what you think. Right now, I’ve got 50 pictures to post on my blog, but not on my front page. I’ll post a link to it when it’s up.

CLICK HERE TO SEE ALL PHOTOGRAPHS

George & Cindy's "Charity" Website Suspended

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM 10:00 PM:

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

CAYLEEMARIEANTHONYFOUNDATION

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Zenaida's Trial Against Casey Postponed

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jose Baez: Free as a Bird

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

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

NOTICE OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND LETTER OF ADVICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Odds & Ends and Odd Endings

JOSE BAEZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

JEFF ASHTON

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

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

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

JUDGE LINDA DRANE BURDICK?

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

LAST WORDS

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

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

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

Once Upon A Time...

NOW

At my 40th class reunion in November 2011

 THEN

My high school yearbook photo

I know, I know… WHAT HAPPENED!?

This Psycho-Babble Takes the Case

‘ABLOWING’ HIS OWN HORN

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

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

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

Leafy Things... with a Dash of Dirt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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