2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[chefmom]

IMO, the first call, where CA says she will take Caylee from KC and KC asks for one more day, should be allowed in, as well as the third call. IMO, the SA should play the first call as soon as CA testifies that KC was a wonderful mother, the "mother-of-the-year". Why would she be threatening to take Caylee if KC was such a good mother? Makes no sense, IMO. As far as the third call, I have no doubt what-so-ever that it will come in. It is the start of this case. But for the fact that CA called LE, the events that transpired would never have happened. KC showed no interest in inlisting the help of LE. They found out that Caylee was "missing" only after CA called in a panic.

 

[RR0004]

Oh, but the jury will care...very much IMO. Nothing in this case makes Casey look good. JMHO

 

[RainyGirl]

Oh, but the jury will care...very much IMO. Nothing in this case makes Casey look good. JMHO

I totally agree. IMO, the 911 calls (particularly the 3rd one) will be played for the jury....and will have an incredibly powerful impact. I have observed dozens of trials wherein 911 calls are played (and re-played!) and its unwise to underestimate the power of such calls with jurors. The Casey-supporters, conspiracy theorists and the defense team desperately want to minimize/squash the trunk evidence and anything and everything connected to the smell of HUMAN decompsition in the trunk. "Ain't gonna happen!" In my experience, when it comes to contested 911 calls, the overwhelming majority of such calls are given the green light to be played at trial. Just off the top of my head I can think of four trials here in which not only were the 911 calls played at trial, but the jury asked for them to replayed (and replayed and replayed!) during their deliberation.
JMO.....

ETA: I 100% agree with AZlawyer that the THIRD CALL is the one that the defense is the most worried about. No doubt about it. Cindy's horrified realization that this was NOT just Casey's sick game of "keep away" with Caylee hit her full on and she allowed a true, "unguarded moment" in which she let the truth spill out. Cindy did know the car smelled of a dead body......and that's why excited utterances are so important in trying to get to the truth. Its those "unguarded" and "emotionally-loaded" moments that every human identifies with-----the shields are down....and the truth spills out. JMO

 

[Cat13067]

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 do live in Florida, and this case has been on Good Morning America, Dateline, Larry King, and Geraldo along with many other news outlets. Of course it is in local newspapers, and the national smut mags. Everyone down here knows about Caylee being murdered, and they have a pretty good idea of who did it

 

[marspiter]

It's tough to tell from the defense motion, but let's think about which parts of which 911 calls they actually want to exclude.

CALL #1: Nothing much here, except maybe the conversation between Cindy and Casey while on hold--Cindy threatening to take custody, Casey asking for "one more day." None of this is hearsay, because Cindy's statements would not be offered to prove the "truth of the matter asserted" and Casey's statements are statements of the defendant.

CALL #2:
Operator: Is Casey not telling you where her daughter is?
Cindy: Correct.

OK. So Cindy's (implied) statement here is: "Casey will not tell me where Caylee is." This is a statement that was made out of court by Cindy and would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Casey would not tell where Caylee was). This is a relatively calm call and includes all the silliness about the stolen car and money, so the statement might not qualify as an "excited utterance." It might qualify as a spontaneous statement describing a condition or event while the person (Cindy) was then perceiving the condition (Casey's refusal to tell where Caylee was). But even if the statement is initially excluded as hearsay, if Cindy lies about it on the stand it will come in under a hearsay exclusion for prior inconsistent statements of a witness.

CALL #3: We all know this is the one the defense is worried about.

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.
...
Operator [to Casey]: Can you tell me a little bit what's going on?
Casey (calm): My daughter's been missing for the last thirty-one days. ...
Operator: And that you know who has her?
Casey: 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.
...
Operator: And you last saw her a month ago?
Casey: Thirty-one days. It's been thirty-one days.
Operator: Who has her? Do you, do you have a name?
Casey: Her name is Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
Operator: Who is that? Babysitter?
Casey: She's, she's been my nanny for about a year and a half, almost two years.
Operator: And why, why are you calling now? Why didn't you call thirty-one days ago?
Casey: I have been looking for her and have gone through other resources to try to find her, which was stupid. But...

OK, the statements from Casey are easy. Non-hearsay because (1) statements of the defendant, and (2) not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted (i.e., the State will not be trying to prove that ZFG stole Caylee, or that Casey got a call from Caylee on July 15. Quite to the contrary.).

How about Cindy's statements? First of all, every bit of Cindy's part of this call would fall within the excited utterance exception IMO. This is like a law school exam example of an excited utterance. Notice that Cindy has dropped all attempts in this call to give some fake reason for the detectives to come--the car, the money--because she has finally realized that an actual emergency exists: Caylee is not just being hidden from Cindy but is actually MISSING. This puts the smell in the trunk in a whole new (terrifying) light for Cindy. Second, if Cindy is inclined to lie about any of these things (i.e., if she denies that she believed that the car smelled like a dead body) then those parts of the call will come in to impeach her.

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

As AZ was pointing out the 3rd call is going to be the main focus. They aren't using hearsay. There is no need. The 3rd phone call has very important evidence in it with out having to use hearsay. First you will notice Casey herself tells the operator that Caylee has been missing for 31 days (that's huge). Even the operator says why are you calling now and not 31 days ago.

Second you have Cindy indicating the smell in the car and that she is scared and expresses clear concern for what has happened to Caylee. Also for the jury you have the stark contrast in the attitudes expressed in this call. CA is clearly worried and upset....ICA on the other hand shows little to no concern.

I believe the state has said it's more concerned with using the 1st and 3rd phone calls. I think AZ outlined these calls very well as to what the SA is going to be using and why. The part about putting the smell of the trunk in a new and terrifying perspective. Yeah the 3rd phone call is going to be huge for the SA in terms of presenting it's case to the jury.

As to the opinion comment of your post NTS. So based on that opinion no one should report any form of child abuse or neglect to authorities unless the parent reports it themselves. That is essentially what that opinion is stating and to me that's rather scary and disturbing. KC never did call police and tell them her child was "missing". With out CA calling who knows how long Caylee would have been "missing".

 

[LindseyLou]

From today's articles re: the Anthony's Good Morning America interview:
http://http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-casey-anthony-parents-gma-annivers20100615,0,4028570.story

The grandmother also said she told 911 operators her daughter's car smelled like a dead body because she was trying to get authorities to quickly respond to her house.

"You can't take back anything that you say or feel at the time and I don't take [it] back," Cindy Anthony said. "All I know is I was desperate to get someone out to my house, desperate...When you're desperately needing something, especially when it comes to your children, you pretty much do or say whatever it takes to get help."

 

[Frigga]

Thanks LindseyLou for the remarkable quote by Cindy Anthony!

And therein lies the problem Cindy... think about what YOU just said and then contrast it with WHAT YOUR DAUGHTER DID (read DID NOT) DO while her child needed help- NOTHING, nada, zip, zilch.

Why? Because Casey knew EXACTLY where that precious baby was and exactly what had happened to her. She also knew that those very facts would be what would send her to prison for life or worse, the needle.

It is fascinating to me how when Cindy defends Casey her very words end up actually condemning her.

One thing I know, is the subconscious mind NEVER LIES!

Thank you Cindy, for actually getting to the truth!

 

[The World According]

Thank you Lindsey Lou, what a great quote!
http://http://www.orlandosentinel.co...,4028570.story

"The grandmother also said she told 911 operators her daughter's car smelled like a dead body because she was trying to get authorities to quickly respond to her house.

"You can't take back anything that you say or feel at the time and I don't take [it] back," Cindy Anthony said. "All I know is I was desperate to get someone out to my house, desperate...When you're desperately needing something, especially when it comes to your children, you pretty much do or say whatever it takes to get help."

Textbook: desperate...excited utterance

There is no need for smart, good people to be up in arms about this, just roll your eyes and channel Charlie Brown's classic, "Good grief!" and have a good laugh.


Our standards and what we would do in our families is not the altered reality the Anthonys lived and continue to live in. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so we can safely assume they will lie, mislead and manipulate throughout the pre trial, the trial and all of the years of the appeals. If you expect that it wont be shocking. It is upsetting, yes, shocking NO!!!!!!
Lucy doesn't move the football some of the time. Lucy moves the football, every time.

 

[tlcya]

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..
snipped and BBM from NTS post#159

um I won't even bother to argue your point above that Casey owed Cindy no explanation about her daughter's whereabouts. You know what, yes I will. That child lived her entire life in that home with CA being a primary caregiver along with Casey. Yes ICA and CA had a parting of ways/fight - whatever you want to call it. But the CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE fact remains, that Casey AND Caylee were occupants of that home and then suddenly after a blowout, the older A's never see Caylee again. IMO that gives CA EVERY right to question the "mother" of that child, who I might add has proven time and time again that she is irresponsible to said CA.

Let me also just say that once LE was involved, Casey owed them an immediate explanation of where Caylee was and she did not provide one but rather hindered their investigation. IMO ICA owes everyone an explanation and has since that beautiful child went missing. All this time later, we are all still waiting for that explanation.

 

[notthatsmart]

As AZ was pointing out the 3rd call is going to be the main focus. They aren't using hearsay. There is no need. The 3rd phone call has very important evidence in it with out having to use hearsay. First you will notice Casey herself tells the operator that Caylee has been missing for 31 days (that's huge). Even the operator says why are you calling now and not 31 days ago.

Second you have Cindy indicating the smell in the car and that she is scared and expresses clear concern for what has happened to Caylee. Also for the jury you have the stark contrast in the attitudes expressed in this call. CA is clearly worried and upset....ICA on the other hand shows little to no concern.

I believe the state has said it's more concerned with using the 1st and 3rd phone calls. I think AZ outlined these calls very well as to what the SA is going to be using and why. The part about putting the smell of the trunk in a new and terrifying perspective. Yeah the 3rd phone call is going to be huge for the SA in terms of presenting it's case to the jury.

As to the opinion comment of your post NTS. So based on that opinion no one should report any form of child abuse or neglect to authorities unless the parent reports it themselves. That is essentially what that opinion is stating and to me that's rather scary and disturbing. KC never did call police and tell them her child was "missing". With out CA calling who knows how long Caylee would have been "missing".

please quote the quote. I never said those things. IMO

 

[countzero]

Thank you Lindsey Lou, what a great quote!
http://http://www.orlandosentinel.co...,4028570.story

"The grandmother also said she told 911 operators her daughter's car smelled like a dead body because she was trying to get authorities to quickly respond to her house.

"You can't take back anything that you say or feel at the time and I don't take [it] back," Cindy Anthony said. "All I know is I was desperate to get someone out to my house, desperate...When you're desperately needing something, especially when it comes to your children, you pretty much do or say whatever it takes to get help."

Textbook: desperate...excited utterance

This isn't the first time CA has made similar statements to this. In one of her earlier interviews with LE, she apologized for lying to 911 to get LE out to the house that day. I don't have the link for the doc, but it's up in the resource thread.

ETA Link: starts page 7576 - 7583 .... CA jumps from call to call and LE nails her down on 7583 about the "smell".

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0730/20224553.pdf

 

[Trapshooter]

please quote the quote. I never said those things. IMO

There was NO need for Marspiter to "quote the quote" because your opinion, IMO, was implying that since ICA wasn't "living" at home for an "entire month" meant that ICA did not owe CA an explanation! IMO, you are inferring that KC "willingly" got on the phone with the 911 dispatcher but that is totally NOT TRUE! CA forced ICA to talk with the dispatcher and IMO ICA blew that off!

 

[Trapshooter]

NTS I have copied the 911 transcript of Cindy's call. Would you mind bolding the part you think is hearsay and the part that you think is the "excited utterance"? It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Cindy: I called a little bit ago. The deputy sheriff ‘s (inaudible). My granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing. I want someone here now.

Dispatch: OK, what is the address that you’re calling from?

Cindy: We’re talking about a 3-year-old little girl. My daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. I need to find her.

Dispatch: Your daughter admitted that the baby is where?

Cindy: That the babysitter took her a month ago. That my daughter’s been looking for. I told you my daughter was missing for a month. I just found her today, but I can’t find my granddaughter. She 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.

Sorry to quote myself but I wanted to bump this up for notthatsmart.

 

[notthatsmart]

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..
snipped and BBM from NTS post#159

um I won't even bother to argue your point above that Casey owed Cindy no explanation about her daughter's whereabouts. You know what, yes I will. That child lived her entire life in that home with CA being a primary caregiver along with Casey. Yes ICA and CA had a parting of ways/fight - whatever you want to call it. But the CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE fact remains, that Casey AND Caylee were occupants of that home and then suddenly after a blowout, the older A's never see Caylee again. IMO that gives CA EVERY right to question the "mother" of that child, who I might add has proven time and time again that she is irresponsible to said CA.

Let me also just say that once LE was involved, Casey owed them an immediate explanation of where Caylee was and she did not provide one but rather hindered their investigation. IMO ICA owes everyone an explanation and has since that beautiful child went missing. All this time later, we are all still waiting for that explanation.

Okay, it is my opinion that in an emotional world, she did owe her mother and explanation, but in a legal world she did not. IMO The problem is, is that her mother was using the legal world (stolen car, stolen money), to get her explanation out of her daughter. IMO It is also my opinion that it was LA that got Kc to admit to the 31 days, and not Ca. IMO Ca's action of anger , frustration, reaction, thought provoking threats did not work. IMO How do we know Kc wasn't trying to explain this to Ca all along? That Ca just would not listen, where La would? IMO From what I have seen, visitor video's and such, Ca is not a good listener. IMO Some kids just can not communicate with their parents. IMO

 

[tlcya]

a) IMO How do we know Kc wasn't trying to explain this to Ca all along? That Ca just would not listen, where La would?

b) IMO Some kids just can not communicate with their parents.
snipped and BBM from NTS post 174

in response to a) and b) And presumably under that theory LE can also be blamed - as in Casey tried to tell them where Caylee was (invisananny) and LE just wouldn't listen?

Yeah, you may be right NTS - this family's problems begin and end with an inability of Casey to communicate with her parents.

Thats it, I for one am done ther_beatingA_Dead

:doh:

 

[beach]

From today's articles re: the Anthony's Good Morning America interview:
http://http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-casey-anthony-parents-gma-annivers20100615,0,4028570.story

The grandmother also said she told 911 operators her daughter's car smelled like a dead body because she was trying to get authorities to quickly respond to her house.

"You can't take back anything that you say or feel at the time and I don't take [it] back," Cindy Anthony said. "All I know is I was desperate to get someone out to my house, desperate...When you're desperately needing something, especially when it comes to your children, you pretty much do or say whatever it takes to get help."

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."

 

[cecybeans]

Okay, it is my opinion that in an emotional world, she did owe her mother and explanation, but in a legal world she did not. IMO The problem is, is that her mother was using the legal world (stolen car, stolen money), to get her explanation out of her daughter. IMO It is also my opinion that it was LA that got Kc to admit to the 31 days, and not Ca. IMO Ca's action of anger , frustration, reaction, thought provoking threats did not work. IMO How do we know Kc wasn't trying to explain this to Ca all along? That Ca just would not listen, where La would? IMO From what I have seen, visitor video's and such, Ca is not a good listener. IMO Some kids just can not communicate with their parents. IMO

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?

 

[AZlawyer]

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

<respectfully snipped>

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.

Okay, it is my opinion that in an emotional world, she did owe her mother and explanation, but in a legal world she did not. IMO The problem is, is that her mother was using the legal world (stolen car, stolen money), to get her explanation out of her daughter. IMO It is also my opinion that it was LA that got Kc to admit to the 31 days, and not Ca. IMO Ca's action of anger , frustration, reaction, thought provoking threats did not work. IMO How do we know Kc wasn't trying to explain this to Ca all along? That Ca just would not listen, where La would? IMO From what I have seen, visitor video's and such, Ca is not a good listener. IMO Some kids just can not communicate with their parents. IMO

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.

 

[marspiter]

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

please quote the quote. I never said those things. IMO

Ok lets look at the bolded part here. First off we are not talking about a normal situation of a child moving out of the home. We don't know the exact circumstances of why ICA left but lets look at what we do know.

First Casey was stealing from family and friends. CA was aware of the stealing. Also CA for 2 years of Caylee's life was her primary care giver. CA/GA find the car has been towed. ICA failed to inform of this as they were contacted by the tow yard because they were the owners. Next there is a horrible smell in the car. One that certainly caused alarm. Then CA goes to track ICA down to confront her about whats going on. Caylee is not in her mothers care or at TL's with ICA.

So by looking at your opinion in the quote above you are basically saying that it was none of CA's business and that she should have not called the police because it was ICA's daughter that was missing.

The point of my post is based on that rational at what point does a concerned family member, teacher, emergency worker, or concerned citizen call the police to report abuse. By the rational of the opinion in your post it was not CA's place to call in the police because of her concern for Caylee's well being.

It should be noted that ICA never did contact authorities on her own about her child and then when offered LE's help ICA tried her best to hinder LE.

So my point still stands: At what point based on your opinion should CA have called LE to report her concerns about her grand daughter. Let's also keep in mind that Caylee was in fact found dead near the A home.

 

[notthatsmart]

Ok lets look at the bolded part here. First off we are not talking about a normal situation of a child moving out of the home. We don't know the exact circumstances of why ICA left but lets look at what we do know.

First Casey was stealing from family and friends. CA was aware of the stealing. Also CA for 2 years of Caylee's life was her primary care giver. CA/GA find the car has been towed. ICA failed to inform of this as they were contacted by the tow yard because they were the owners. Next there is a horrible smell in the car. One that certainly caused alarm. Then CA goes to track ICA down to confront her about whats going on. Caylee is not in her mothers care or at TL's with ICA.

So by looking at your opinion in the quote above you are basically saying that it was none of CA's business and that she should have not called the police because it was ICA's daughter that was missing.

The point of my post is based on that rational at what point does a concerned family member, teacher, emergency worker, or concerned citizen call the police to report abuse. By the rational of the opinion in your post it was not CA's place to call in the police because of her concern for Caylee's well being.

It should be noted that ICA never did contact authorities on her own about her child and then when offered LE's help ICA tried her best to hinder LE.

So my point still stands: At what point based on your opinion should CA have called LE to report her concerns about her grand daughter. Let's also keep in mind that Caylee was in fact found dead near the A home.

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