2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[Horace Finklestein]

I think you got my point. Thanks The state of Florida is not a tyrannical dictatorship and are not running a grand conspiracy. IMO It is my opinion that they are going to focus on Kc and not Ga and Ca. It is just wishful thinking that Ca and Ga are going to jail. IMO It is my opinion that this case is going to be tried on the evidence and not a bunch of hearsay from people who have no idea what happened here. It is Kc that has the information needed. IMO IIRC The defense has said that Kc has a compelling reason for her actions. IMO That compelling reason may obliterate all this hearsay that so many are depending on. IMO

Opinon: I believe putting GA and Ca in jail is a big waste tax dollars spent and a huge mistake on the state side. IMO Ga and Ca did not kill Caylee. IMO They did not wish any of this. IMO They are victims of a horrible incident. IMO Blood is thicker than water and they are going to support their daughter unconditionally. IMO Caylee is gone, there is nothing they can do about that now. IMO This 911 call is going to open up a huge can of worms for the State. IMO This puts them against the grieving Grandmother whom is on their witness list. IMO This can not possibly be a good thing for the State. IMO

Of course the hearsay won't be allowed. CA and GA have a lot to answer for that is not hearsay - it is their direct involvement in the investigations...tampering with evidence, changing their stories, accusing innocent people of crimes, etc. I can never tell if you're serious or not. Cindy isn't a 'grieving grandmother' she is an extremely angry and vindictive person who has been lying to protect her daughter. Why would she be grieving when she stated not too long ago that she thought caylee was still alive?

 

[The World According]

They are coming in. Put the glass down.

This is too , too funny! God knows we need a little levity!

"Put the glass down" should be the title of the book!

 

[marspiter]

I think you got my point. Thanks The state of Florida is not a tyrannical dictatorship and are not running a grand conspiracy. IMO It is my opinion that they are going to focus on Kc and not Ga and Ca. It is just wishful thinking that Ca and Ga are going to jail. IMO It is my opinion that this case is going to be tried on the evidence and not a bunch of hearsay from people who have no idea what happened here. It is Kc that has the information needed. IMO IIRC The defense has said that Kc has a compelling reason for her actions. IMO That compelling reason may obliterate all this hearsay that so many are depending on. IMO

Opinon: I believe putting GA and Ca in jail is a big waste tax dollars spent and a huge mistake on the state side. IMO Ga and Ca did not kill Caylee. IMO They did not wish any of this. IMO They are victims of a horrible incident. IMO Blood is thicker than water and they are going to support their daughter unconditionally. IMO Caylee is gone, there is nothing they can do about that now. IMO This 911 call is going to open up a huge can of worms for the State. IMO This puts them against the grieving Grandmother whom is on their witness list. IMO This can not possibly be a good thing for the State. IMO

What hearsay? I believe hearsay has been well defined in this thread. It's been well established by a certified lawyer on this board what hearsay is and that CA's testimony and these 911 tapes do not constitute hearsay. CA is allowed to testify as to what ICA told her as those comments came directly from the defendant.

It's like this perhaps a demonstration of hearsay in simple terms is needed as it seems there is confusion.

If ICA makes a comment to CA that comment came directly from the mouth of ICA and CA is allowed to testify as to what ICA told her. Now ICA is perfectly allowed to get on the stand and deny saying it but that opens her up for questioning and then the state will bring in others who heard ICA say the same thing to them directly.

However if ICA makes a comment to LA and LA tells CA. CA can not get on the stand and claim this is what ICA said because.....drum roll. That's hearsay. However in that example LA could be called to the stand to testify as to what ICA told him directly.

This 911 call establishes a couple good points for the state which I think makes the defense a little nervous.

1. You have ICA admitting to not reporting her child missing. The 911 operators response is going to be the same response the jury is going to have.
2. You have ICA and CA talking about a possible custody suit.
3. You have Cindy's excited utterance which also goes hand in hand with GA's testimony, Tow Yard Guys testimony, trunk evidence, ect.
4. You have the stark contrast between CA and ICA during the call. One being upset and worried the other not.
5. You have ICA establishing a time line....31 days. Which to me then opens up evidence that shows ICA's behavior during that 31 days.

 

[notthatsmart]

But your OPINION of what constitutes an excited utterance isn't within the law. See my post several pages back, I laid it out based on statute and case law.

So did the defense. IMO See defense motion. It is my opinion that both sides have compelling arguments. We will have to see what the Judge decides.

An excited utterance relies on new information.IMO The smell of a dead body in the trunk, was not new information.IMO It sounds to me like it was speculation information... Her actions were that of an experienced RN that knew the smell of human decomposition and that is why she just went to work instead of calling 911. IMO If it really smelled like a dead body in the trunk, she would have called 911 immediatley. IMO We will just have to agree to disagree on that part and wait for the Judge.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I think you got my point. Thanks The state of Florida is not a tyrannical dictatorship and are not running a grand conspiracy. IMO It is my opinion that they are going to focus on Kc and not Ga and Ca. It is just wishful thinking that Ca and Ga are going to jail. IMO It is my opinion that this case is going to be tried on the evidence and not a bunch of hearsay from people who have no idea what happened here. It is Kc that has the information needed. IMO IIRC The defense has said that Kc has a compelling reason for her actions. IMO That compelling reason may obliterate all this hearsay that so many are depending on. IMO

Opinon: I believe putting GA and Ca in jail is a big waste tax dollars spent and a huge mistake on the state side. IMO Ga and Ca did not kill Caylee. IMO They did not wish any of this. IMO They are victims of a horrible incident. IMO Blood is thicker than water and they are going to support their daughter unconditionally. IMO Caylee is gone, there is nothing they can do about that now. IMO This 911 call is going to open up a huge can of worms for the State. IMO This puts them against the grieving Grandmother whom is on their witness list. IMO This can not possibly be a good thing for the State. IMO

Bold 1 - Don't bet anything you might hold dear to you for fear you'll lose it in that bet. The Anthonys have done plenty to prompt their arrests once the State has Casey nailed away. Perjury in a murder one case isn't likely to be forgotten, much less their other lies and cover-ups.

Bold 2 - "Supporting your daughter unconditionally" does not, or should not include lying for her. There have been a multitude of lies from the Anthonys, but the most recent was just yesterday during the GMA interview. Cindy lied when she said she didn't really mean her statement about a dead body in the damn car, "it was just to get the police there quicker", and yet, can you explain then why she told her co-workers that very same statement that the car reeked of a dead body when she returned to Gentiva later that afternoon? Was she trying to get her co-workers to "quickly" respond to the home as well? Of course not.

Cindy has a twisted sense of what constitutes "supporting my daughter". She is using that phrase in an attempt to blanket all of her lies, but in reality, any decent parent on that Jury will know that is just the opposite of what unconditional love really means. If she was honest and really loved Caylee unconditionally, her alliance would fall on the side of that baby, and truth. Absolute pure truth.

 

[notthatsmart]

What hearsay? I believe hearsay has been well defined in this thread. It's been well established by a certified lawyer on this board what hearsay is and that CA's testimony and these 911 tapes do not constitute hearsay. CA is allowed to testify as to what ICA told her as those comments came directly from the defendant.

It's like this perhaps a demonstration of hearsay in simple terms is needed as it seems there is confusion.

If ICA makes a comment to CA that comment came directly from the mouth of ICA and CA is allowed to testify as to what ICA told her. Now ICA is perfectly allowed to get on the stand and deny saying it but that opens her up for questioning and then the state will bring in others who heard ICA say the same thing to them directly.

However if ICA makes a comment to LA and LA tells CA. CA can not get on the stand and claim this is what ICA said because.....drum roll. That's hearsay. However in that example LA could be called to the stand to testify as to what ICA told him directly.

This 911 call establishes a couple good points for the state which I think makes the defense a little nervous.

1. You have ICA admitting to not reporting her child missing. The 911 operators response is going to be the same response the jury is going to have.
2. You have ICA and CA talking about a possible custody suit.
3. You have Cindy's excited utterance which also goes hand in hand with GA's testimony, Tow Yard Guys testimony, trunk evidence, ect.
4. You have the stark contrast between CA and ICA during the call. One being upset and worried the other not.
5. You have ICA establishing a time line....31 days. Which to me then opens up evidence that shows ICA's behavior during that 31 days.

This does not make sense to me. If what Kc allegedly told Ca is not hearsay, then what do we need an excited utterance for? Isn't that what the exemption to the hearsay rule is all about? Does there first not have to be hearsay in order to have an exemption to hearsay? How could it not be hearsay? Heck anyone could accuse anyone if thats the case. IMO

 

[angeldust]

imo Cindy knew exactly what that smell was and thats WHY she DIDNT call the police right away, she was probably sick to her stomach and not wanting to face the truth of what she knew, she like myself probably hoped against hope that her daughter would have a explanation for what her gut was already telling her.

I also noted that someone stated here that Casey went with her mom to the police station and it was closed so she did co-operate (I think the words were). Well we have no proof that if it was open and they did get out the car that casey wouldnt have done a runner cos there is no way on earth she would have stepped foot in that station cos she knew they would make her produce Caylee and she couldnt do that.

Just pointing out that its not co operation cos we dont know what she would have done had it been open

 

[marspiter]

This does not make sense to me. If what Kc allegedly told Ca is not hearsay, then what do we need an excited utterance for? Isn't that what the exemption to the hearsay rule is all about? Does there first not have to be hearsay in order to have an exemption to hearsay? How could it not be hearsay? Heck anyone could accuse anyone if thats the case. IMO

Because CA's statements are not being used to prove whether the nanny exsisted. Only that the conversation took place. Also ICA's direct comments on the tape are not hearsay as they came directly from ICA.

The excited utterance has nothing to do with hearsay as I understand it. What the excited utterance is trying to establish is that CA was speaking the truth as to what she thought she smelt in the car. CA's observation of the smell in her excited utterance has nothing to do with what was said by ICA. It is there as further evidence to go along with GA's testimony, the dog hits, trunk evidence, ect.

There are two different things going on in these 911 calls as I see them. That is why the SA outlined both in it's motion.

 

[The World According]

imo Cindy knew exactly what that smell was and thats WHY she DIDNT call the police right away, she was probably sick to her stomach and not wanting to face the truth of what she knew, she like myself pobably hoped against hope that her daughter would have a explanation for what her gut was already telling her.

I also noted that someone stated here that Casey went with her mom to the police station and it was closed so she did co-operate (I think the words were). Well we have no proof that if it was open and they did get out the car that casey wouldnt have done a runner cos there is no way on earth she would have stepped foot in that station cos she knew they would make her produce Caylee and she couldnt do that.

Just pointing out that its not co operation cos we dont know what she would have done had it been open

:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:
I notice you are posting from Scotland, how wonderful!

 

[strawberry]

imo Cindy knew exactly what that smell was and thats WHY she DIDNT call the police right away,

Respectfully snipped by me.

Has anyone here smelled a dead person and a dead animal and can they tell me how the smells are different? I've heard it's not the same smell. I smelled a cat thrown out to rot in a hot July (hillbilly neighbors) but I've never smelled a corpse. Would I know what the smell of a dead body was? IMO George definately would from his detective days; perhaps Cindy was just going by what he said. I don't know that being a nurse would necessarily expose you to the smell of death...usually you don't keep bodies around that long after a patient dies.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Respectfully snipped by me.

Has anyone here smelled a dead person and a dead animal and can they tell me how the smells are different? I've heard it's not the same smell. I smelled a cat thrown out to rot in a hot July (hillbilly neighbors) but I've never smelled a corpse. Would I know what the smell of a dead body was? IMO George definately would from his detective days; perhaps Cindy was just going by what he said. I don't know that being a nurse would necessarily expose you to the smell of death...usually you don't keep bodies around that long after a patient dies.

:yow:

Entire thread on that one...and it goes 'round & 'round. Let's at least keep the spinning plates on-topic. OK?

 

[Mendara]

So when GA told the investigators that he also smelled the scent of death in that car - was he lying as well?

I think the point is very clear - the car DID smell of death. Cindy mentioned the smell to the 911 operator because it was TRUE AND SHE WANTED them to HURRY and get there faster.

She did not make this up.

I always wondered why she didn't just say that YES it smelled of death and she was concerned that the nanny had access to the car and it had nothing todo with KC's guilt, but a fear that her car was used byt hte kidnapper.

Makes more sense than pizza.

 

[angeldust]

Well unfortunately I have smelled the smell and i can assure you its not one u forget or confuse with a dead animal that and gut instinct, sorry if ot

Thanks for the welcome


from Bonnie Scotland x

 

[beach]

:yow:

Entire thread on that one...and it goes 'round & 'round. Let's at least keep the spinning plates on-topic. OK?

Considering how many threads are spinning in circles lately, this cracked me up, Bond. :rotfl:


Keep up the good fight, buddy. :highfive:

 

[Nore]

I hope and pray the 911 calls are allowed in.As far as I am concerned that is one of the few times the truth was spoken in this case.I always thought "suppose someone told me something over the phone.Someone else was able to hear the exchange of words between us,to that person it would not be hearsay,unless the third person repeated it to someone else.Those words would be hearsay..:banghead:

 

[AZlawyer]

Hearsay summary (lots of details left out and capitals for emphasis, not shouting ):

Hearsay is a statement made OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM that is being offered to PROVE THE TRUTH of that statement. However, there are certain exclusions from this definition, including: (1) PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS of a witness, offered to impeach the witness, and (2) statements made by the DEFENDANT. Things that fall within the "exclusions" are called "non-hearsay."

Then there are a couple of dozen "exceptions" to the hearsay rule. You might think "exclusions" and "exceptions" are the same thing, but no. These things ARE hearsay but are admissible anyway. The exceptions include BUSINESS RECORDS and EXCITED UTTERANCES, among other things.

-------------------------

Time for an example! Let's take Cindy's 911 statement "It smells like there's been a dead body in the car!" If we're trying to admit the actual 911 tape, what we're saying to the jury is, "THIS 911 TAPE SAYS that CINDY SAID that the car smelled like a dead body." So there are 2 layers of potential hearsay.

Layer 1: The 911 tape says that a statement was made. This is hearsay because the tape was made out of court and is offered to prove that Cindy really said those things. No hearsay exclusion applies. But it will come in under the hearsay exception for a business record. Now we have to look at each individual statement made in the tape.

Layer 2: Cindy says that the car smells like a dead body. This is hearsay because she said it out of court, and the SA will be offering her statement as proof that the car REALLY DID smell like a dead body. No hearsay exclusion applies, UNLESS CINDY LIES ON THE STAND about whether or not the car smelled like a dead body. If she lies, it will come in as a prior inconsistent statement of a witness. What if she tells the truth? Well, first of all, if she testifies at trial that the car DID smell like a dead body, it isn't too important anymore to play that part of the tape for the jury. Nevertheless, IMO it would come in under the hearsay exception for an "excited utterance" for the reasons discussed many times in this thread.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Will ask if we can change the thread rating system from stars to RPM's (revolutions per minute)

 

[The World According]

Orlando criminal defense lawyer Richard Hornsby speaks with ...
www.randomfaves.com/.../casey-anthony-prosecution-makes-case-for-911-calls/ - Cached

 

[strawberry]

:yow:

Entire thread on that one...and it goes 'round & 'round. Let's at least keep the spinning plates on-topic. OK?

Thanks, never saw that thread.:angel:

 

[marspiter]

You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) could be placed as a linked audio file to the threads so we have a bit of background music.