2010.01.15 Letter to Judge Strickland WFTV

[hroark2112]

True. But, I'm sure the state will put on an expert to expell any reasonable doubt caused by the "science" of this letter. And SA's will be able to put witnesses on the stand to refute the rest. The SA's could find the particular people mentioned in the letter and have them testify to the fact that they don't even know Casey. I think you're right about the object of the letter being to cast doubt on the State's case, I just don't think it's going to work.

No need to put on any experts to dispel any of the letter. This letter and the other letter regarding "O Town Finest" will never see the inside of a courtroom. They're hearsay, not evidence.

 

[kaRN]

In her own words (except that in parenthesis) as stated by the letter writer herself on the Internet:

(The letter writer) is a science and technology researcher and the president of (an organization) devoted to promoting awareness of toxins in our food and environment that can cause disease, and providing access to nutrition information, natural remedies, and alternative health resources.

Those are really important issues however if you can't pull together a business letter in the correct format, stating clearly your purpose for interjecting yourself in a homocide case, remaining anonymous all the while, you come across as a fruitcake, not a professional IMO.
A science researcher should know how to research who his/her letter should be sent to for starters and would probably not remain anonymous. Oh and they'd have written in APA or some other approved format.

So as much as many people would like to think this letter will provide some reasonable doubt, it won't even make it into evidence IMO. And dare I say, the only reason we're even giving the author this much thread time is because we're bored waiting for the 21st. I researched laptops before I bought one so I guess I too am a technology researcher. I have an impressive array of links to worldwide health initiatives and scientiific research and I interpret that information and attempt to disseminate it so I'm a scientific researcher too.
I'm not either really though and I don't believe the author of the letter really is either. The letter in discussion doesn't even appear to be written by a person with post- secondary education IMO, and certainly not one in sciences. :twocents: Moo

 

[joypath]

IMO, after rereading Cindy's "My Caylee is Missing" Myspace post, her emails with DC, as well as George's recent letter about being under the microscope, there is no way I believe either of them penned a single line of the letter to Strickland.

I don't want to insult them, but the letter to Strickland is far more lengthy, detailed, and frankly lucid, then anything I have seen from the Anthony's.

So, I am not seeing this as an attempt by them to circumvent the system.

Well put but I on the other hand decline to be so charitable as to minimize the insult.....compared to the Anthony ventures into the realm of prose and poetry, this document is heading to that of Pulitizer quality produced by a Nobel Laureate, unfortunately well entrenched within the category of fiction-mystery/thriller,early reader level!

I completely agree that the Anthony family has NOT coordinated this effort, this production is not a unidirectional focused plan but a "buckshot" attack. The hapless "A-Team" latch onto a concept and beat it into the ground, THEN move onto another plan of action.

 

[Boots-OK]

Arrogant, Ignorant and Simple

All my humble take on this letter to the judge business. Doesn't matter who the composer of this "masterpiece" may be.

 

[RR0004]

I think the reason I didn't care to invest anymore time/energy in debunking this nonsense is because it is just that...nonsense. I'm sure whoever wrote this is having a grand 'ole time seeing all the attention they're getting. Why indulge them? Better yet, why enable them to keep on doing what they're doing by feeding off this cr*p. Searching out this info is attaching some credibility to what they're saying...like..."Oh really, maybe I should check this out? Can this possibly be true?" Hey, if we have doubts...maybe a jury of Casey's peers (made up of people just like us) will have as well. I've watched this happen quite a bit over the past 1 1/2 years. I, personally, will give no credence to this bs. Now, if someone comes along and can substantiate their claims I will by all means sleuth away.
PS- no disrespect intended.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I have a question?

Cindy has never admitted to using any cleaning products in the trunk of Casey's car, correct?

The person I believe wrote the letter with the initials J.D. standing for Jane Doe***... yes, I believe it is a psuedo-name for one of the people who were involved in exchanging emails with Cindy and Dominic in the doc dump.

So this woman, who had direct contact through emails with Cindy Anthony in trying to help Casey's defense, insinuates that Cindy did use cleaning products on the trunk of Casey's car?

Maybe investigators should have a nice little chat with this woman and maybe do a little search of her computer? See what all has been said between her and Dominic and Cindy?

She wants so bad to be involved. I say let her be involved.

 

[RR0004]

I have a question?

Cindy has never admitted to using any cleaning products in the trunk of Casey's car, correct?

The person I believe wrote the letter with the initials J.D. standing for Jane Doe***... yes, I believe it is a psuedo-name for one of the people who were involved in exchanging emails with Cindy and Dominic in the doc dump.

So this woman, who had direct contact through emails with Cindy Anthony in trying to help Casey's defense, insinuates that Cindy did use cleaning products on the trunk of Casey's car?

Maybe investigators should have a nice little chat with this woman and maybe do a little search of her computer? See what all has been said between her and Dominic and Cindy?

She wants so bad to be involved. I say let her be involved.

Now, I have no problem with THAT at all.

I think truly what I find the most disheartening- is coloring this tragedy with all this poop. A child has been murdered. Have some respect for her, for the law, and heck even for the family. Stay out of it and let justice run its course. Caylee so deserves that.

 

[kaRN]

I think the reason I didn't care to invest anymore time/energy in debunking this nonsense is because it is just that...nonsense. I'm sure whoever wrote this is having a grand 'ole time seeing all the attention they're getting. Why indulge them? Better yet, why enable them to keep on doing what they're doing by feeding off this cr*p. Searching out this info is attaching some credibility to what they're saying...like..."Oh really, maybe I should check this out? Can this possibly be true?" Hey, if we have doubts...maybe a jury of Casey's peers (made up of people just like us) will have as well. I've watched this happen quite a bit over the past 1 1/2 years. I, personally, will give no credence to this bs. Now, if someone comes along and can substantiate their claims I will by all means sleuth away.
PS- no disrespect intended.

ITA!! It's filler until court day. Maybe we could ask the mods to open up a thread for us all to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and write the judge our own letters. Teehee!!

 

[cloud]

Isn't anyone going to sleuth this stuff lol?

I'll get us started:

Letter writer's info: Juliet L (actually, is it OK to use ful names if they are fake people?) owned a condo at Westgate Lakes,

Actual info: Juliet L doesn't appear in Orange County property records at all (neither does Juliette L), there is no parcel with that number, although Westgate Lakes is indeed a condo property on Turkey Lake Rd (different parcel numbers). Looks like timeshares, though--they are all owned by Westgate Lakes LLC except one that is owned by another corporate entity. No sales there for the last 3 years (probably because they're timeshares).

Shades of zanny the nanny, no?

JMHO

 

[cloud]

It is my opinion that there is no place for someone...or some group...to presume that their opinion matters to the Court. To take it upon themselves to address the court in this manner is extremely inappropriate. There are many able bodied attorneys on the defense who will have their day in court. It's one thing to spout opinions on a website, but to direct this to the judge presiding over the case is most disturbing. I seriously question the mental health of those involved. They know no boundaries IMO.

I think they do, but I also think that they don't care. I call it desperation. I don't think they realise how screamingly obvious it is.

JMHO

 

[CarrieK]

No need to put on any experts to dispel any of the letter. This letter and the other letter regarding "O Town Finest" will never see the inside of a courtroom. They're hearsay, not evidence.

Experts will be called by the defense to dispute the death band hair. That evidence isn't heresay, it came from the FBI. This letter merely states what the defense position is likely to be during the trial. The letter itself won't be entered as evidence, but the issues it raises will. Plus, if the defense attempts to use any of this garbage to raise reasonable doubt, the state will have to refute it. Heresay or not, it goes to the crux of Casey's original story, which unless she takes the stand in her own defense, will be what the state has to disprove.

 

[RR0004]

Experts will be called by the defense to dispute the death band hair. That evidence isn't heresay, it came from the FBI. This letter merely states what the defense position is likely to be during the trial. The letter itself won't be entered as evidence, but the issues it raises will. Plus, if the defense attempts to use any of this garbage to raise reasonable doubt, the state will have to refute it. Heresay or not, it goes to the crux of Casey's original story, which unless she takes the stand in her own defense, will be what the state has to disprove.

Oh, good...maybe they'll (the defense) call Zanny to testify because IIRC she's the crux of Casey's story.

 

[cloud]

Experts will be called by the defense to dispute the death band hair. That evidence isn't heresay, it came from the FBI. This letter merely states what the defense position is likely to be during the trial. The letter itself won't be entered as evidence, but the issues it raises will. Plus, if the defense attempts to use any of this garbage to raise reasonable doubt, the state will have to refute it. Heresay or not, it goes to the crux of Casey's original story, which unless she takes the stand in her own defense, will be what the state has to disprove.

As far as I know (please anyone feel free to correct me here), "hearsay" is not admitted as evidence in any court, whether it's petty claims or civil... certainly not in a criminal trial.

This letter, unless the author is willing to come forth, verify their claims and explain their supposedly privileged knowledge of this case first-hand, it's hearsay. Anyone can write something like this, or something similar, or something that is quite the opposite. But unless whoever wrote it is willing to step up to the plate and testify in court... YAWN.

As I said, I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.

JMHO

 

[iluvmua]

I wonder if Joy Wray wrote the letter?

 

[debbie0604]

People who hide behind anonymity while getting into other's business and dropping other people's names are cowards IMO. This person (or persons) didn't want to reveal their name because they couldn't back up what they were saying, and didn't want to face the music if found out IMO. Pathetic!!! JMO :furious:

 

[cloud]

Oh, good...maybe they'll (the defense) call Zanny to testify because IIRC she's the crux of Casey's story.

Indeed... the ubiquitous zanny-nanny...

Just like Juliette (or whoever the author of that letter claims to be) cannot be found, the "nanny" didn't have an apartment at Sawgrass (sp?)...

I know I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating: how many mothers would leave their child with someone without going right in, checking out the premises (discreetly or overtly), regardless if they even know or trust the person (which in this case I personally believe it's total fiction).

Doesn't happen, IMO.

 

[Boots-OK]

The writer of this letter was not very bright, imo. Their intent was to cast aspersions on the SA's office and the evidence gathered to charge KC. This attempt is not all that interesting to me, personally, for all the reasons posters have mentioned.

However, what will be extremely interesting to me will be the release of the SA's evidence which will be the only response needed to this pitiful letter. We may have to wait until trial to see and hear it - but, that's okay. It will be accurate and not a mish-mash of stuff. You won't have to read and re-read the state's evidence. It will be concise and compelling.

My humble opinion, of course.

 

[cloud]

The writer of this letter was not very bright, imo. Their intent was to cast aspersions on the SA's office and the evidence gathered to charge KC. This attempt is not all that interesting to me, personally, for all the reasons posters have mentioned.

However, what will be extremely interesting to me will be the release of the SA's evidence which will be the only response needed to this pitiful letter. We may have to wait until trial to see and hear it - but, that's okay. It will be accurate and not a mish-mash of stuff. You won't have to read and re-read the state's evidence. It will be concise and compelling.

My humble opinion, of course.

BBM - You're being kind. I would call it something else, in private company .

In a sense, I feel sorry for the defense. They have nothing to offer (as far as I've seen/read) so one can't blame them for resorting to desperate measures (if they do) in order to mitigate and minimalise judgement, verdict and especially sentencing for their client.

However, a subtler approach might work better. Desperation shows... and it doesn't inspire confidence. And if the defense is not confident in their case, or in their client's innocence, how, and on what argument can they expect a jury to find in their client's favour?

Maybe they're just angling for an appeal as a last resort. Who knows?

JMHO

 

[sleutherontheside]

I will say this about the letter.......I doubt the defense team is actually part of this.....sure, maybe people they have encountered along the way, are in fact involved......but with as much evidence that is mounting against KC....they don't need people thinking they are on a letter writing campaign. This is hurting them more than helping them......BUT....as far as the Mort interviews with Kronk's exes.....that is all their own doing and stinks. We all know there have been a number of....shall we say.......unbalanced individuals popping up since day 31. I don't even think we can within 100% accuracy pin it on one. The letter is a collection of comments, posts, emails and blogs we have all seen. If KC has supporters......they are entitled to support her.....but what they are doing is not support...it is disrupting what her own team is trying to do. These are fame seekers and guess what?....We are the ones making them famous.....well....more....notorious.

 

[cloud]

I will say this about the letter.......I doubt the defense team is actually part of this.....sure, maybe people they have encountered along the way, are in fact involved......but with as much evidence that is mounting against KC....they don't need people thinking they are on a letter writing campaign. This is hurting them more than helping them......BUT....as far as the Mort interviews with Kronk's exes.....that is all their own doing and stinks. We all know there have been a number of....shall we say.......unbalanced individuals popping up since day 31. I don't even think we can within 100% accuracy pin it on one. The letter is a collection of comments, posts, emails and blogs we have all seen. If KC has supporters......they are entitled to support her.....but what they are doing is not support...it is disrupting what her own team is trying to do. These are fame seekers and guess what?....We are the ones making them famous.....well....more....notorious.

I agree, but I guess it's because of what they do. When a child gets killed because of anything (in this case I personally think it's family dynamics), one can't just dismiss it as too bad, too sad, get over it.

Please know that I'm not suggesting for a split second that your post implies or even hints at that, I'm just saying that I think the defense team is so desperate in their quest that they might/may resort to desperate measures outside the court, in order to better their odds. In a sense, that's what they're engaged to do, distasteful as it might be on the surface, but they are defense attorneys and that's their job.

I just don't think they're doing much good at all by manipulating and obfuscating... or by make-upping/reinventing their client as someone else other than who she is. I don't think it serves them, and most particularly her, well.

JMHO