2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[notthatsmart]

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.

IMO Jury's pick and choose what they believe. If the Sa just throws spaggetti at the wall to create some sort of mountain of maybe's, it won't add up to a conviction. IMO I do not believe there is any jury instruction about any mountain of circumstantial evidence. IMO These people are human and are not going to have the wool pulled over their eyes. IMO The evidence needs to be real. IMO

Maybe + could be+ possible+ hearsay = Maybe + could be+ possible+ hearsay You can add all these things up but they still equal maybe. IMO The SA needs something real. IMO

Many people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, but there is usually a strong motive, a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death. IMO They don't really have anything strong here, and that is why these tapes are so important to them. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

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!!!!!

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

 

[TorisMom003]

IMO Jury's pick and choose what they believe. If the Sa just throws spaggetti at the wall to create some sort of mountain of maybe's, it won't add up to a conviction. IMO I do not believe there is any jury instruction about any mountain of circumstantial evidence. IMO These people are human and are not going to have the wool pulled over their eyes. IMO The evidence needs to be real. IMO

Maybe + could be+ possible+ hearsay = Maybe + could be+ possible+ hearsay You can add all these things up but they still equal maybe. IMO The SA needs something real. IMO

Many people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, but there is usually a strong motive, a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death. IMO They don't really have anything strong here, and that is why these tapes are so important to them. IMO

Actually there is not always a strong motive. Sometimes there have been convictions without a clear cut motive at all. As far as time of death, we have a window of time for that already. June 15 to June 16 before Casey met up with Tony to go to Blockbusters. Cause of death is pretty evident also (IMO), 3 pieces of duct tape across a small childs face will kill that child. Think about it, you know how wide a piece of duct tape is. You can imagine how small a 2 1/2 year olds face is. 3 pieces of duct tape is going to cover more than 70% of that childs face. Place of death is really not that important either (IMO). The child was in her mother's care at the time of death. How do we know this? No one has come forward to say that they were taking care of Caylee at the time, there is NO nanny and Casey was the last person seen with an alive Caylee.

You talk about the SA throwing spagetti at the wall and the jury not falling for it. For me that is laughable because I see the defense doing that, not the SA. The SA has their evidence, witnesses and Casey's own lies to back up their claims. What exactly does the defense have?

 

[treeseeker]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

NTS, I apologize for not having a link, but I think KC told an LE officer who'd arrived at the A's about a phone call she said she rec'd from Caylee on the babysitter's phone - KC said Caylee told her about new shoes and reading a book. This supports CA's statements about KC's explanation about the babysitter.

 

[The World According]

Good news friends, Judge Perry is going to cite prior decided cases that are on point to illustrate why the 911 calls are coming in. He will, in the words of Judge Srickland , "Rule and Roll".
I have good, good faith in him. This ain't his first rodeo!!!
Frankly, I'm OK with Cindy's remarks not making it in ( I know they will ) it is Casey's statement I want the jury to get a load of. She may as well be making a list of errands or groceries she needs:
(sniped with major props and respect to Valhall)
CA: Hello?
911 OP: Hello?
CA: Yes.
911 OP: Hi. Well can you tell me a little bit what’s going on?
CA: My daughter’s been missing for the last thirty-one days.
911 OP: And that you know who has her?
CA: I know who has her. I’ve tried to contact her. I actually received a phone call today now from a number that is no longer in service.
I did get to speak to my daughter for about a moment, about a minute.
911 OP: …And now your, now your three year old, and your three year old daughter is missing? Caylee Anthony?
CA: Yes, Caylee Marie Anthony.
911 OP: A white female?
CA: Yes, a white female.
911 OP: Three years old? 08/09/2005 is her date of birth?
CA: Yes.
911 OP: And you last saw her a month ago?
CA: Thirty-one days. It’s been thirty-one days.
911OP: Who has her? Do you, do you have a name?
CA: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
911 OP: Who is that? Babysitter?
CA: She’s, she’s been my nanny for about a year and half, almost two years.
911 OP: And, why, why are you calling now? Why didn’t you call thirty-one days ago?
CA: I have been looking for her and have gone through other resources to try to find her, which was stupid. But…
911 OP: Okay. Can you, can you give me the name of the ba…the nanny again? Like spell it out for me?
CA: Zenada; Z-E-N-A-I-D-A.
911 OP: Last name?
CA: Fernandez.
911 OP: Fernandez?
CA: Hyphen Gonzalez.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

RBBM. notthatsmart, are you thinking she reflected for plenty of time about that smell and decided it was the garbage that stunk? Are you suggesting she said it was the smell of a dead body only to get LE to respond quickly (as she now is claiming)? Or are you thinking that the smell meant nothing to her, as suspicious as it was at first whiff, when combined with the fresh news that Casey hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days? That the combination of those two facts did not equal any new reason to be upset or "excited" (as in excited utterance) ~ My goodness, the dawning of the correlation of those two facts in Cindy's mind were probably enough to rock her entire world, let alone, make her say the first thing that came into her mind.

And she did not invent the "dead body smell" for the 911 operator as an excuse to get them out there faster. She told the same to her co-workers. . . before she even heard Caylee was kidnapped.

 

[notthatsmart]

I want to try to stay on topic in this thread. Do not wish to talk about duct tape or phone calls from the nanny. There seems to be a lot of case law on both sides of this argument. The Judge will have to study this one, it is not cut and dry. IMO This to me is a unique set of circumstances that is not comparalble to most cases.IMO It is 31 days since anyone in the family had seen Caylee. That in itself trumps any excited utterance IMO. The Jury is going to wonder why Ca didn't call police when she smelled the horrible smell. IMO Ca is going to explain that she made that statement to get the police out there and it had been hours. IMO The Jury may find Ca believable. Impeaching Ca and Ga is not going to look good to the jury. IMO They may begin to feel sorry for the grand parents. IMO I believe Ca and Ga are going to get very emotional on the stand, lots of crying and some jurors may relate. IMO The state needs to find some real evidence that the jurors can clasp on to. IMO This whole thing could backfire on them. IMO

 

[beach]

I haven't seen this posted in this thread (or the GMA thread), maybe I just missed it, but I found Brad Conway's observations pretty telling -

A Florida judge has yet to rule on whether the 911 tapes will be heard during the murder trial, but 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.

BBM

This was from the written article, page 2

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TheLaw/exclusive-george-cindy-anthony-speak-anniversary-caylees-disappearance/story?id=10911174&page=2

 

[Just Jayla]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

If by 'trump,' you mean KC will defeat CA in the game of Who's a Bigger Liar, then yes, KC trumps.
The jury will know very quickly, through a plethora of examples, that KC is a proficient liar. So anything she says in that 911 call or anywhere else will be considered a lie. Cause they were lies.

The only truth on that call was from CA's lips. CA's mind opened the door a sliver to the possibilty something bad happened. It flipped her out. She had an excited utterance in that moment, for a moment her brain nagged her that evil was there....She quickly shut that door and slapped a masterlock on that thing.

It's a little much to think that CA actually staged the 3rd 911 call, staged the crying out to GA when he arrived home. What is she Meryl Streep now?

 

[beach]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

BBM

NTS, surely you do realize that Casey did in fact say that many times to both Cindy and Lee. Granted Casey's own voice was not recorded saying that (to my recollection) during the 911 calls, but you do realize they will have to testify truthfully that Casey assured them of that, correct? I mean, what the heck else could they possibly say? That is kinda the whole crux of her excuse of where Caylee was during the 31 critical days. I say this with all respect, because I honestly don't understand your point here. :waitasec:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I want to try to stay on topic in this thread. Do not wish to talk about duct tape or phone calls from the nanny. There seems to be a lot of case law on both sides of this argument. The Judge will have to study this one, it is not cut and dry. IMO This to me is a unique set of circumstances that is not comparalble to most cases.IMO It is 31 days since anyone in the family had seen Caylee. That in itself trumps any excited utterance IMO. The Jury is going to wonder why Ca didn't call police when she smelled the horrible smell. IMO Ca is going to explain that she made that statement to get the police out there and it had been hours. IMO The Jury may find Ca believable. Impeaching Ca and Ga is not going to look good to the jury. IMO They may begin to feel sorry for the grand parents. IMO I believe Ca and Ga are going to get very emotional on the stand, lots of crying and some jurors may relate. IMO The state needs to find some real evidence that the jurors can clasp on to. IMO This whole thing could backfire on them. IMO

Your two bolded sentences there, you need to read them together and think about what you're saying.

Impeached witnesses are derived from the witness being a liar under oath, untrustworthy as well as untruthful to the Jury.

Now explain again, just how the Jury is going to "feel sorry" for impeached witnesses who have lied, are untrustworthy in the case of a murdered baby, and are being untruthful to the degree of impeachment!? :waitasec:

Jurors, as a rule, detest baby killers to begin with, and their distaste for Casey as well as Cindy and George will only multiply if the grandparents of that murdered baby are anything but, willingly open and honest.

 

[beach]

IMO Jury's pick and choose what they believe. If the Sa just throws spaggetti at the wall to create some sort of mountain of maybe's, it won't add up to a conviction.

*snipped*

And, IMO, it is the defense that is holding and will be tossing the BIG OL' BOWL OF PASTA!

 

[Dignity4Victims]

IMO Jury's pick and choose what they believe. If the Sa just throws spaggetti at the wall to create some sort of mountain of maybe's, it won't add up to a conviction. IMO I do not believe there is any jury instruction about any mountain of circumstantial evidence. IMO These people are human and are not going to have the wool pulled over their eyes. IMO The evidence needs to be real. IMO

Maybe + could be+ possible+ hearsay = Maybe + could be+ possible+ hearsay You can add all these things up but they still equal maybe. IMO The SA needs something real. IMO

Many people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, but there is usually a strong motive, a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death. IMO They don't really have anything strong here, and that is why these tapes are so important to them. IMO

There most definitely are Jury instructions on circumstantial evidence. Rest assured, the State won't be throwing "spaggetti" at the wall, but instead, the mounds of evidence they have worked so diligently on against Casey. They are Caylee's voice, her only voice, and they want justice for her.

The State has a smorgasbord of multiple choice motives. The strongest, thanks to Cindy's own myspace letter admitting to it, is jealousy, spite and vengeance toward Cindy. Shirley Plesea reiterates this motive when speaking about Casey, "I wonder if she hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee."

You're right about one thing though, the Jury is not stupid, and they will have the intelligence to understand that the State can't be held liable for an exact, precise minute of Caylee's death because unfortunately, Caylee's mother didn't love her enough to even report her missing. They will also understand through basic logic, that Casey intentionally didn't report Caylee missing because that deliberate, evil act bought Casey the time she needed to have Caylee's body fully decompose in the Florida heat, therefore also obliterating another one of your points of exactly how Caylee died.

The Defense should, if they were smart, lighten up on magnifying those "unknowns" to the Jury, because the answer to those issues repeatedly reverts back to Casey with her intentionally evil lack of reporting Caylee missing, which will not be in Casey's favor as a constant reminder.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

That just isn't true considering the fact that Cindy was not only the first spoken to (lied to) by Casey about Caylee's well-being, but also the fact that Cindy will face two choices on that witness stand about the 911 calls as well as what she, herself, was told by Casey which was the catalyst for those 911 calls.

Cindy will either have to admit to the truth of what Casey told her, which won't be good for Casey, or Cindy will have the choice to be dishonest and perjure herself as she did in the Morgan deposition.

I doubt Cindy wants to travel that road again, for her own legal good.

 

[chefmom]

They are coming in. Put the glass down.

 

[RR0004]

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

Ok...let me see if I got this straight...the two don't know how to communicate, yet you think Casey was being cooperative. Why? Because she didn't jump out of the car? Have you ever lost sight of one of your kids? Do you know what panic is? Now multiply that by 100x and, no...you don't get an "exciting" utterance...as in "Oh, wow...I lost 10 pounds!"...but rather an "excited" utterance..."My granddaughter is missing....and it smells like there's been a dead body in the car!" (paraphrasing)

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I want to try to stay on topic in this thread. Do not wish to talk about duct tape or phone calls from the nanny. There seems to be a lot of case law on both sides of this argument. The Judge will have to study this one, it is not cut and dry. IMO This to me is a unique set of circumstances that is not comparable to most cases.IMO It is 31 days since anyone in the family had seen Caylee. That in itself trumps any excited utterance IMO. The Jury is going to wonder why Ca didn't call police when she smelled the horrible smell. IMO Ca is going to explain that she made that statement to get the police out there and it had been hours. IMO The Jury may find Ca believable. Impeaching Ca and Ga is not going to look good to the jury. IMO They may begin to feel sorry for the grand parents. IMO I believe Ca and Ga are going to get very emotional on the stand, lots of crying and some jurors may relate. IMO The state needs to find some real evidence that the jurors can clasp on to. IMO This whole thing could backfire on them. IMO

notthatsmart, I understand that the basis for your argument is that it was old news that Cindy hadn't seen Caylee for 31 days and maybe she thought it was pizza smell emanating from the car (we know this is a lie because she also told her co-workers it smelled "like a dead body") and only lied about worrying that it might have smelled like a dead body. But will you walk through the following scenario with me and see if you can understand the obvious parallels?

My child had applied for an armed services scholarship to one of our academies. The doorbell rang unexpectedly and I was delighted to see a military man in uniform. My first thought was that he was there to do the initial interview to begin the long process toward attaining a coveted appointment. Thankfully, that was the case.

Years later, my child had logged over one thousand days (three separate stints) overseas in our most recent conflict. I "hadn't seen him" for much longer than 31 days. But if, during any one of those days, any military officer had rung my doorbell (for any reason at all) I can guarantee you that you would have heard an "excited utterance" from me! God blessed us and we never had to experience that, as so many have had to face.

Likewise, Cindy had smelled death before and she had already experienced not seeing Caylee for 31 days. It is only new information when you put the two together with the fact that Casey freshly admitted that she hadn't been with her either. How could that not cause her to have an "aha" vision, panic and speak her worst fears: the truth ~ She found her daughter's car and it smelled like there was a dead body in it? Now, in my mind, that is a pure, from the heart, vulnerable, truth telling moment.

I think it would be an injustice not to be presented to the jury!

 

[RR0004]

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

How about Casey NOT wanting to talk to the dispatcher/police on the phone? She didn't have to do that either? Or she should have been allowed to do it when she felt like it? Those phone calls show more than an excited utterance...they show that Casey didn't very much care. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting all this...Casey's an adult...she can do and say whatever she wants...so do you think she had the right to take her daughter's life? Because, NTS, regardless of what the State has or doesn't have...regardless of all the legal wrangling...she very well could have. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think...the truth COULD very well be that Casey is responsible for killing Caylee.

 

[Trapshooter]

Thank you notthatsmart for answering my question.

IMO when CA said (paraphrasing) "I can't find my granddaughter. I just found my daughter's car today and it smells like there has been a dead body in the damn car", it came from such a visceral, gut-wrenching truth that only CA knew in her heart to be true. She "knew" at that very millisecond that Caylee was missing, gone, dead. She even told George "we've lost Caylee". It is those excited utterances that come from the gut, the soul, the knowledge without actually "knowing" that put the LE on alert. Cindy did NOT stage that call, you can hear the absolute fear, panic, pain and shock in her voice.

 

[RainyGirl]

Thank you notthatsmart for answering my question.

IMO when CA said (paraphrasing) "I can't find my granddaughter. I just found my daughter's car today and it smells like there has been a dead body in the damn car", it came from such a visceral, gut-wrenching truth that only CA knew in her heart to be true. She "knew" at that very millisecond that Caylee was missing, gone, dead. She even told George "we've lost Caylee". It is those excited utterances that come from the gut, the soul, the knowledge without actually "knowing" that put the LE on alert. Cindy did NOT stage that call, you can hear the absolute fear, panic, pain and shock in her voice.

YES YES and totally YES. As reiterated by multiple posters and patiently and carefully spelled out over and over (and over) again on this thread for the sake of illuminating the TRUTH.......Cindy's words above are textbook "excited utterances". I have ZERO doubt that (at a minimum) the 3rd 911 call will be admitted at trial. In addition, make no mistake that the tapes will have a tremendous impact. To be a proud American IS to be proud and supportive of our legal system. It may not be "perfect", but you can guarantee that a defendant in a criminal trial is given fair and due process to the letter of the law. It is one of the hallmarks of our legal system. For those who may remain confused or still have nagging questions.....I highly recommend you observe a few jury trials (preferably capital murder cases). They are VERY educational and will serve to demonstrate just how ultimately FAIR a jury trial is----from jury selection all the way to sentencing. The bottom line for me is that we must never lose sight of what any Prosecution is trying to acomplish---->JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM. Trust me when I say it's not personal. Prosecutors cannot just build a case and get a criminal indictment against a person out of "thin air" (or just because they don't like the perp!!). It simply does NOT work that way. Call me biased (most of you know my husband's profession LOL), but the primary goal of the State is JUSTICE. The case of FLA vs. Casey Marie Anthony would never have gotton to this stage without significant damning evidence against Casey. It is now up to the State to prove their case, and I am thoroughly impressed by the professionalism and strength of character displayed by Mr. Ashton and Ms. Drane-Burdick. OK....off my soapbox now. I just want to emphasize that sometimes it's important to understand and honestly explore our criminal justice system as a layperson before making any assumptions or unfair accusations. Prosecutors and LE are not in the business of conspiracy theories. They have too much darn work to do already! I am so glad this strong Prosecutorial team is speaking on behalf of Caylee. Heaven knows she needs someone in the courtroom fighting for her. Just my opinions.....take them or leave them.
Peace!