2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[notthatsmart]

In which call does Cindy say "my daughter says that Caylee is OK and at the babysitter's"? None of the 911 calls will be brought in for that purpose. That will come in when Cindy and Lee are on the stand and they testify that Casey kept saying that Caylee was perfectly fine and at the babysitter's, that they had just spoken on the phone a few hours earlier, that she just didn't want to disturb her sleep patterns by going to get her, and that there would be no problem whatsoever with picking her up from the babysitter's in the morning. This is not hearsay, because statements made by the defendant are excluded from the hearsay rule.



We know this is not the case because Cindy and Lee both gave the same story--Casey maintained that Caylee was perfectly fine and at the babysitter's, that they had just spoken on the phone a few hours earlier, and that she just didn't want to disturb her sleep patterns by going to get her, and that there would be no problem whatsoever with picking her up from the babysitter's in the morning. She said this repeatedly to both Cindy and Lee. Lee is very clear in his interviews that Casey was changing her story completely when she finally "confessed" that Caylee had been missing for 31 days.

Bolded part, but isn't that part hearsay?

 

[Swancat63]

IMO, maybe CA was so upset BECAUSE she knew "There's something wrong", the smell in the car, no Caylee, and hadn't CA talked already about getting custody of Caylee, per SP?? To try and make it seem that all is good at Anthony Land doesn't fit the evidence, the LE interviews. Something was so wrong that CA knew about, she wanted to take Caylee. CA KNEW things just weren't right or the threat of custody would have never been brought up. Add that to not seeing Caylee but smelling, and there you go! GA and CA know KC best, she lived there. They knew what she is and is capable of and if they had followed thru on the threat, Caylee might have had a chance. Let them live with their lies now. But IMHO when they both smelled that car, then no Caylee, they knew what they smelled and there had indeed "been a dead body in the damn car".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whiteangora]

Well, I do not agree with your assement of what my thoughts or rational is, however, I do believe Ca should have called the police on the 3rd call given the new information. IMO At that point, Kc did get on the phone and told the 911 operator what was going on. IMO The other two calls were about a stolen car which was not stolen or missing. I can see why the 911 operator did not dispatch immediatley, there was no emergency, she had the vehicle. IMO
Kc went with her in the beginning to the police dept. IMO She was very cooperative. It was not Kc's fault that the police station was closed. IMO I believe they got LA there because they knew they could not communicate with Kc. IMO I believe Ca got the police there because she knew she could not communicate with Kc.IMO This lack of communication goes way beyond and after she was out of jail, they still could not communicate with their own daughter, it goes on to this very day. IMO If the car smelled like a dead body was in it, Ca should have called hours before about it. IMO

I believe these 911 calls will come in regaurdless of the technicalities of the hearsay rule, However, it is not going to be a big bombshell to the jury. IMO Ca was emotional and did not know the whole story and was using some pretty unreasonable tactics to get Kc to talk. IMO It was not working with Kc or the police, So Ca said something exciting to get the police there and that worked. IMO I believe she did it with reflective thought, and she knew that would work. IMO

bbm
I would not describe Casey's behavior as "cooperative" then or at any other time. She had no choice but to go to the police station, her mother was driving.
Cindy said what she said because SHE was excited, not to make her call sound exciting.:banghead:

 

[notthatsmart]

I am not sure how proving that Kc changed her story to Ca and La is going to prove premeditated murder. When the police came, Kc did not change her story. IMO I guess its Ldb's way of showing conciousness of guilt. IMO , however its going to take a heck of a lot more than that to prove premeditated murder. IMO It is also my opinion that trying to use hearsay evidence to prove something so serious shows weakness on their part. IMO If you have proof that she did it, then why do you need he said she said evidence? IMO

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I see your point about the 3rd call, but what about the other call? I mean isn't that what they are trying to do is show that Kc changed her story, but do it through hearsay and not through Kc's mouth? Kc told the police that her daughter had been kidnapped. IMO She did not tell the police that her daughter was okay and at the babysitter. IMO The state wants both. IMO To show consciousness of guilt. IMO The latter (Caylee at the babysitter and is okay) is hearsay and not said with an excited utterance. IMO

Opinion: This is all Ca's doing. Kc is an adult and responsible for her own actions. It really is none of Ca's business what Kc is doing. Kc does not have to explain herself to Ca. IMO She got on the phone with the 911 operator and told her what happened. IMO However, she never had to go home with her mom, she never had to be cooperative with her mom, she was not living under her moms roof for a month. Kc was being very cooperative with her mother. So, this is not about Ca, it is about Kc and Caylee. The state is taking their eye off the ball again IMO. They need to prove that Kc did something to Caylee, and they are not going to do it through Ca's excited utterances.. IMO This is a classic case of he said she said.. They need some real proof here. IMO I think the Judge will prolly allow these hearsay calls in, but I do not think it will influence a jury that much. IMO The Jury is going to be looking to Kc the person on trial and not Ca. The state needs to prove Kc did this and not that Ca thought she did it. IMO

1st bold - Casey was financially living off of Cindy, relying on her to practically raise Caylee, and stealing money from them left and right. I can promise you that Satan would be ice-skating through Hell before my daughter would tell me that it's "none of my business" what she is doing with my granddaughter for a month, especially when my daughter's car smells like a dead body and she's playing hide & seek with that baby.

We're not talking about a mother being so nosy as to demand intimate details about her daughter's date, how many times they kissed, etc. In this case, Cindy's granddaughter was supposedly at that time, 'missing'! As in "kidnapped", even though we now know that was a lie. How anyone could believe it's none of Cindy's business what Casey is doing is just preposterous!

2nd bold - Casey was being cooperative with her mother!? Not at all, hence why the police were called specifically pertaining to Caylee and they did respond! Again, there is an innocent 2 yr. old baby involved here, this is not the time to play cat & mouse games! Sometimes in fact, when people call LE just to make a false police report, it can have a very bad outcome. There are more ways than one to kill one's own child, you know? For once, Cindy did the right thing in reporting Caylee missing, rather than the phony car theft report, and if it ends up costing Casey her life, oh well, too bad for Casey. Maybe she shouldn't have tried to fool LE by escaping their wrath.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I am not sure how proving that Kc changed her story to Ca and La is going to prove premeditated murder. When the police came, Kc did not change her story. IMO I guess its Ldb's way of showing conciousness of guilt. IMO , however its going to take a heck of a lot more than that to prove premeditated murder. IMO It is also my opinion that trying to use hearsay evidence to prove something so serious shows weakness on their part. IMO If you have proof that she did it, then why do you need he said she said evidence? IMO

It appears as though you don't understand a case built on circumstantial evidence.

A case built on circumstantial evidence is comprised of many, many building blocks both large and small. Consciousness of guilt evidence is merely one piece of the entire puzzle the State will put together for that Jury.

The ultimate "proof that she did it" comes through to the Jury bit by bit until finally, the entire puzzle paints a complete picture, in this case of Casey's absolute guilt of murdering Caylee. The State isn't going to exclude anything "just because" they also have all of the other puzzle pieces.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

IMO, maybe CA was so upset BECAUSE she knew "There's something wrong", the smell in the car, no Caylee, and hadn't CA talked already about getting custody of Caylee, per SP?? To try and make it seem that all is good at Anthony Land doesn't fit the evidence, the LE interviews. Something was so wrong that CA knew about, she wanted to take Caylee. CA KNEW things just weren't right or the threat of custody would have never been brought up. Add that to not seeing Caylee but smelling, and there you go! GA and CA know KC best, she lived there. They knew what she is and is capable of and if they had followed thru on the threat, Caylee might have had a chance. Let them live with their lies now. But IMHO when they both smelled that car, then no Caylee, they knew what they smelled and there had indeed "been a dead body in the damn car".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course Cindy knew, which is why she so fearfully asked George for reassurance, "It's the pizza, right George? It's the pizza that smells so badly." (para)

But she also told George, "We lost her. We lost Caylee."

Yes, Cindy knew the car smelled like a dead body, as did George who was SO terrified to open the trunk alone, that he had to ask the tow yard guy to come with him to open it, and George said he himself prayed, "Please don't let this be my Caylee."

ETA: It wasn't just Shirley's statements about Cindy getting custody of Caylee, Cindy admitted in her deposition that she was advised by her counselor to get custody of Caylee and throw Casey out on her lazy butt.

 

[LC446]

It is the totality of the evidence, not bits and pieces, it is everything put together. These calls are part of the evidence, not all the evidence. It is part of the proof. Attacking bits and pieces of evidence individually does not give a cohesive alternative to the big picture. The 911 calls are simply a part of the big picture. AZLawyer explained This is not hearsay, because statements made by the defendant are excluded from the hearsay rule. So it is not he said, she said. ICA changing her story is part of the big picture. No one individual piece of evidence proves premeditated murder, but IMO the collective presentation of the evidence does. IMO the 911 calls will be admitted and they are but a piece of the big picture.

 

[miss plum]

*snipped*
I can hardly stand to listen to a thing CA says but when I hear her on this call it brings me to tears--her pain and panic and realization something terrible has happened are so obvious-- and it's clear the story is going to end horribly. Which it did: a dead baby wrapped in duct tape tossed in a swamp. What are the odds she would make up a wild story and then the facts would corroborate it so dreadfully? I believe it is going to be a giant bombshell to the jury.
IMO and also many, many other people's O.

 

[marspiter]

Well, I do not agree with your assement of what my thoughts or rational is, however, I do believe Ca should have called the police on the 3rd call given the new information. IMO At that point, Kc did get on the phone and told the 911 operator what was going on. IMO The other two calls were about a stolen car which was not stolen or missing. I can see why the 911 operator did not dispatch immediatley, there was no emergency, she had the vehicle. IMO
Kc went with her in the beginning to the police dept. IMO She was very cooperative. It was not Kc's fault that the police station was closed. IMO I believe they got LA there because they knew they could not communicate with Kc. IMO I believe Ca got the police there because she knew she could not communicate with Kc.IMO This lack of communication goes way beyond and after she was out of jail, they still could not communicate with their own daughter, it goes on to this very day. IMO If the car smelled like a dead body was in it, Ca should have called hours before about it. IMO

I believe these 911 calls will come in regaurdless of the technicalities of the hearsay rule, However, it is not going to be a big bombshell to the jury. IMO Ca was emotional and did not know the whole story and was using some pretty unreasonable tactics to get Kc to talk. IMO It was not working with Kc or the police, So Ca said something exciting to get the police there and that worked. IMO I believe she did it with reflective thought, and she knew that would work. IMO

See now this is confusing to me. First your saying this is all CA's doing and implying that CA should have never called police because it was none of her business. Then in this post your saying CA should have called about her concerns earlier. Perhaps after smelling the car CA was hoping there was a logical explanation and ICA would be able to put her mind at ease by telling her what was going on. I mean I doubt CA immediately though ICA killed Caylee. I just dont see a parent automatically jumping to that conclusion, but obviously CA know something was a miss.

The problem with saying CA made up the it smells like there was a dead body in the car comment is that the tow yard guy and GA both also testified that they felt the smell was indeed human decomp. I personally think it was that smell that alarmed CA enough to finally step in and find ICA and figure out what was going on.

Also this 911 call is not the SA's major evidence. This case does not hinge on this evidence in and of itself. This 911 call is just further circumstantial evidence to go along with the mountain of it the SA has. So saying the SA's case is weak because they are relying on this evidence is a bit misguided.

The "bombshells" in this 911 call are going to be ICA admitting that Caylee has been missing for 31 days and that she admits to not reporting it. I think it's interesting that even the 911 dispatcher ask why they haven't reported this sooner. That jury is going to want answers for those 31 days. The other big one for the jury when they listen to these tapes is going to be ICA's behavior during the conversation about her missing child. She showed no amount of elevated stress when talking about her "missing" child on these tapes. That is going to be huge for the jury. They are going to question why ICA was acting rather nonchalant and slightly annoyed on the phone call. The logical answer I think is pretty obvious when you piece together all the other evidence.

 

[The World According]

On the 911 tapes Cindy can be heard telling Casey if this is how she wants to play it, Cindy and George will take her to court and sue for custody.

No RN thinks that one may have a suit for custody of a child, temporary or permanent, based on anything less than abuse or neglect. Cindy can try to put a bow on Casey's parenting now all she wants, the truth is in that short exchange, Cindy believed Casey not to be a good mother, she did not trust her grand-daughter's safety and best interest were in good hands with Casey. There are no two ways about it!

What exactly did Cindy tell her co workers when she returned to work that day? Wasn't she so emotionally distraught that they sent her home? Did she even mention the car smelling and they were insisting to her she had no choice, she must call the police?
If yes, this will sure up things in a hurry. I don't need for them to be. I am sure. It may help others that are feigning confusion, like Cindy, to to be reminded of the totality of the days comments to others. If Cindy says I returned to the office, that makes one implication. If she returned to the office a nervous wreck, nearly ill, worried, inconsolable and her supervisor sent her home, having counseled her to call the police with her concerns, that is quite different, right?

This is where that neat little section in between tell the truth, and nothing but the truth comes in when one takes the oath before they sit on the witness stand to give sworn testimony, you know....the section that says the whole truth.


She called her supervisor from Gentiva on the night of July 15 and this is what she said:

Cynthia said, "Oh my God Debbie, if something happened to the baby or if the baby's dead, I don't know what I'm going to do!"

Page 7: http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0121/18530509.pdf

 

[marspiter]

In which call does Cindy say "my daughter says that Caylee is OK and at the babysitter's"? None of the 911 calls will be brought in for that purpose. That will come in when Cindy and Lee are on the stand and they testify that Casey kept saying that Caylee was perfectly fine and at the babysitter's, that they had just spoken on the phone a few hours earlier, that she just didn't want to disturb her sleep patterns by going to get her, and that there would be no problem whatsoever with picking her up from the babysitter's in the morning. This is not hearsay, because statements made by the defendant are excluded from the hearsay rule.



We know this is not the case because Cindy and Lee both gave the same story--Casey maintained that Caylee was perfectly fine and at the babysitter's, that they had just spoken on the phone a few hours earlier, and that she just didn't want to disturb her sleep patterns by going to get her, and that there would be no problem whatsoever with picking her up from the babysitter's in the morning. She said this repeatedly to both Cindy and Lee. Lee is very clear in his interviews that Casey was changing her story completely when she finally "confessed" that Caylee had been missing for 31 days.

Bolded part, but isn't that part hearsay?

Bolded part should answer your question.

 

[faefrost]

Bolded part, but isn't that part hearsay?

No. They are each relating conversations they had directly with the accused. They can testify as to what the accused said. Comparing their testimony speaks to the truthfulness of what was said, not the truth of the accused story. It shows a consistency to her stories.

In a nutshell if CA were to have said "My son told me my daughter has lost our granddaughter" than it might have been hearsay. But a witness describing a direct communication with the defendant is not.

 

[The World According]

There is a damn good reason that states proceed and successfully prosecute domestic violence cases after a recantation from the bruised and battered woman.
The idea of someone wanting to retract a statement they gave, is not new to the State of Florida, and the jurors will not have just fallen off a turnip truck. Mrs. Anthony's and Casey's remarks on those 911 calls are coming in to the trial, and the jurors can decide for themselves what weight to give them.
It is just a piece of the puzzle. We don't need it to carry the day, we just add it to the ten thousand other pieces.

 

[logicalgirl]

Sounds to me like some attorney coached CA on trying to do some damage control....advising her exactly what she needed to say publically to TRY to get that 3rd 911 call not to fall under the 'excited utterance' exception. Total BS and it will never fly. All one has to do is listen to the tape to hear the pure desperation in CA's voice. She was a terrified grandmother crying hysterically and with good reason.

In her own words: (respectfully snipped from AZ's transcription)

Cindy (crying): ...Her, her mother finally admitted that she's been missing.
...
Cindy: ...[M]y daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. ...
...
Cindy: ...he just admitted to me that she's been trying to find her herself. There's something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car.
...
Cindy: ...I'm scared (unintelligible--crying hysterically). Caylee's missing. Casey has admitted Zanny took her a month ago. She's been missing for a month.


You can bet your sweet behind she wanted those cops out there asap.
And not because Casey had 'stolen the Pontiac' and some more money....and unlike the 2nd call, not even because Casey wouldn't tell her where Caylee was. THIS 3rd CALL AND CINDY KNEW THE URGENCY. It might just be the ONLY time I have ever believed every word that came out of her mouth at one time. Because she was desperate, terrified, and hysterical that she NOW KNEW Caylee was missing, she KNEW Casey was a liar and a thief and she KNEW that it smelled "like there's been a dead body in the damn car."

I agree Beach, it looks like someone has TRIED to coach Cindy on flipping her third 911 "excited utterance" call. But apparently Cindy isn't coachable! Perhaps the producer who seems to accompany her to each hearing has had a hand in it. Maybe it's been Baez or even Ms Lyon(s). But Cindy doesn't lie well, and she doesn't coach well either.

And her "let me park this statement in this parking stall over here, and not the one it was in before" just doesn't stand up to any form of logic at all. Cindy is expecting a jury to believe the LE wouldn't rush to her residence over a "missing" and "kidnapped" 2.5 year old child who hadn't been seen by her mother for 31 days but she thinks they WILL rush over to take a whiff of the trunk of a car that smells like a dead body. Not a dead body in the trunk of a car, but just the smell of one?

It seems to me a missing child would be red hot emergent, while a smell would be kinda sorta urgent. The missing child must be found - the smell in the trunk of a car isn't going anywhere soon.

So tell us all that again Cindy. Your precious baby grand daughter has been missing for 31 days and is presumed kidnapped, but you are emphasizing the smell in the trunk of a car? Are you certain you are this child's grandmother - or are you the concerned owner of a car that smells?

 

[The World According]

In which call does Cindy say "my daughter says that Caylee is OK and at the babysitter's"? None of the 911 calls will be brought in for that purpose. That will come in when Cindy and Lee are on the stand and they testify that Casey kept saying that Caylee was perfectly fine and at the babysitter's, that they had just spoken on the phone a few hours earlier, that she just didn't want to disturb her sleep patterns by going to get her, and that there would be no problem whatsoever with picking her up from the babysitter's in the morning. This is not hearsay, because statements made by the defendant are excluded from the hearsay rule.



We know this is not the case because Cindy and Lee both gave the same story--Casey maintained that Caylee was perfectly fine and at the babysitter's, that they had just spoken on the phone a few hours earlier, and that she just didn't want to disturb her sleep patterns by going to get her, and that there would be no problem whatsoever with picking her up from the babysitter's in the morning. She said this repeatedly to both Cindy and Lee. Lee is very clear in his interviews that Casey was changing her story completely when she finally "confessed" that Caylee had been missing for 31 days.

AZ lawyer, thank you very much for helping us here, as you always do. You are one of the people that make Websleuths what it is, respected. We all appreciate your legal expertise, very much!

 

[Trapshooter]

Hello??? Can anyone see me? Seems as if my post to notthatsmart has not been answered and I was just wondering was I invisible? lol

notthatsmart I would really appreciate you bolding the parts of the 911 call that you are calling hearsay! Thanks!!!!!

 

[The World According]

I appreciate your view of KC being more willing to talk to LA, maybe not because he would listen, but more because he might have been less judgemental initially. Most siblings are easier to admit to than parents. But I think you are characterizing KC like a small child who wouldn't eat her peas instead of an adult with a legal and moral responsibility as a mother for the welfare of another human being.

Actually, in the legal world KC owed an explanation to everyone, including her parents and most importantly, LE, who were representing the safety and security rights of a small child.

This is not about someone knocking over a cookie jar and the best way to handle them to get them to admit it, it's about the legal responsibility of a mother to report a child that (ostensibly) was missing for 31 days, or a child that died accidentally in her care if that is indeed what happend. KC is a legal adult and owed everyone in this case the truth about what happened to her daughter under her care, not to mention being liable for her safety. Any other action or refusal to cooperate is naturally seen as obfuscating something far more sinister.

CA should not have to pussyfoot around to get her to tell the truth about the wellbeing of a family member she was accountable for protecting. LE doesn't need to coddle her by interviewing her in a special way. The truth was KC's sole responsibility after she was discovered and during this investigation and she refused to comply. It is not like she is a pet dog that needs to be coaxed into obeying a command.

Her refusal to cooperate cost her parents untold grief and the taxpayers much unnecessary burden. How can we justify treating someone who did this with kid gloves, like a child who broke a window instead of one who caused the death of another human being?

If Caylee had been Casey's twin sister and she did the same thing to her, I wonder if it would be so easy for her parents to act as if it was some silly misunderstanding. If Caylee could come back today as the person she was meant to have grown up into, would she think it was fair that KC was given so many excuses and she had to suffer as a result? Or would she think it was sad that the only members of society willing to stand up for her rights in all of this were the State of Florida?

:bow::bow::bow::bow:

If I had a dime for every time I was told, "As long as you live in my home, you will live by my rules!", I'd be rich. My brother turned eighteen, was paying rent and nevertheless had to park his brand new motorcycle because our folks were not going to lie awake at all hours of the night waiting for him to pull up on that thing to know that he was home ,safe. If we didn't like it,we were free to go. I bet my experience was like most American families, you may think you are an adult, but the fact that you are still home says you are not autonomous. Right?
I wouldn't even have dreamed of coming home without my car, let alone try to come home without a child that my mother was practically raising.
For all intents and purposes Caylee was a child of Cindy's, by all accounts the baby was bonded to Cindy, Cindy provided the home, the food, the clothes, the care on a daily basis. Of course she had every right to know the baby was well and safe. To say otherwise is preposterous, by anyone's standards. Brad Conway, an attorney for George and Cindy Anthony said today he doesn't doubt "for a second" the tapes will be entered into evidence.
If anyone gets the misguided idea they should take the witness stand and tell such fanciful stories they are sure to insult the jury. They may lose the jury forever then. I trust the jury instructions make allowance for the fact that if one should find that the witness was NOT forthcoming or not honest or not to be believed in one part of their testimony...the jury has the option to set aside only that portion, OR THEY MAY DETERMINE THEY HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN THE TRUTHFULNESS OF ANY PART OF THAT WITNESS TESTIMONY, at all. This is where the Anthonys are going to learn, the very, very hard way, that indeed there is nothing innocuous about telling lies to authorities.
I have for a very long time and still do maintain the opinion that deep down mom and pop hate Casey for taking away the one pure thing in their lives, Caylee. All of these things they do and say, that they have to know will be impeached at trial, are subconscious clues to that dark secret.
If as and when Cindy tries to deviate from her prior statements it will not bode well for her daughter. Her only hope is that is still a year away and maybe with counseling and prayer she may, over the time, change her ways. The calls are coming in, imo, and the jury will be as struck by them as we were. They will be played in opening statements. Judge Perry does not seem to me to be going to have any problem making very short order of this on July 15th.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnIrCC_n3nk[/ame]
Watch Cindy here singing so sweet and softly Child of Mine. She had every right to demand to know where the baby was. Only a vile Casey thought not. God bless Caylee!

 

[ZsaZsa]

I agree Beach, it looks like someone has TRIED to coach Cindy on flipping her third 911 "excited utterance" call. But apparently Cindy isn't coachable! Perhaps the producer who seems to accompany her to each hearing has had a hand in it. Maybe it's been Baez or even Ms Lyon(s). But Cindy doesn't lie well, and she doesn't coach well either.

And her "let me park this statement in this parking stall over here, and not the one it was in before" just doesn't stand up to any form of logic at all. Cindy is expecting a jury to believe the LE wouldn't rush to her residence over a "missing" and "kidnapped" 2.5 year old child who hadn't been seen by her mother for 31 days but she thinks they WILL rush over to take a whiff of the trunk of a car that smells like a dead body. Not a dead body in the trunk of a car, but just the smell of one?

It seems to me a missing child would be red hot emergent, while a smell would be kinda sorta urgent. The missing child must be found - the smell in the trunk of a car isn't going anywhere soon.

So tell us all that again Cindy. Your precious baby grand daughter has been missing for 31 days and is presumed kidnapped, but you are emphasizing the smell in the trunk of a car? Are you certain you are this child's grandmother - or are you the concerned owner of a car that smells?

And isn't it odd that the one thing she says that she exaggerated for dramatic effect, just to get the police there faster- was true- and was verified by everyone who smelled that smell.. :innocent:

 

[Reality Orlando]

I have many friends in FL, a few know a little about this case, but some know nothing other then the fact Caylee was a missing child from there. I know that sounds impossible, but it's true. I live in AZ, no one I know knows anything about this case. I thought the same as you, everyone had to have heard those 911 calls made by Cindy.

I guess many people live in their own little world, for the most part. I will say most do know a little about the JB case, but this case and Haleigh's not so much.

I guess it depends where they're from in Florida. Everyone I know down here knows a great deal about the case...even the guys at my husbands work. It was all over the news daily for weeks. There are blogs and special Casey Anthony sections in the main newspapers with big headers. The news about this case was impossible to avoid anywhere in Central Florida for about the first 6 months.