Annie

[Cerenity2u]

I posted this and it was deleted as there are other posts about Annie, and was asked to post there

So Here it is

I cant remember word for word what I wrote but basically this is to do with Annie, Casey and Zenaida

This is a very interesting theory and it proves that there is another Zenaida OR Its Casey's Alias!
What did she have to pick My DAY of birth for (not year)

http://.com/2009/01/16/zenaida-gonz...venture-zannie-and-annie-go-to-traffic-court/

Another WS poster sent this to me via PM a week or more ago, and Ive been sitting on it pondering what it all means...

It could mean nothing but frankly I do not think so - I think there is defintiely *something* in this but I am not sure what it is.....

Wow!!!! Thank you so much for sharing this info. Very interesting indeed. I am wondering if there are security cameras where Zenaida/KC paid on the tickets in person? If so, then I believe LE has it and this will turn out to be a HUGE piece of evidence against KC.

 

[Z-sleuth]

IrishEyes,

I read somewhere that citation numbers are issued by dispatch. Not sure if that's true or not. Any chance two partners were patrolling together and each patrolman issued a citation to one of the girls?

 

[Ripley007]

Excellente lol yes thank you Jan 11th

Just checking cause we do it reverse to you - you guys say 01/11 and to us that would be the 1st of Nov - we do it 11/01 - 11th jan lol

Zsleuth do you have a link and page number ?

Jane-Ah, yes, however, I am former military, so I'm used to both ways. The Navy way would also read 1/11 as Nov 1st. Was speaking though as a civilian. :HappyBday:HappyBday:HappyBday

 

[JaneInOz]

It's on page 3 of this thread, Jane:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74429&page=3

EDITED: Start with BondJamesBond's post #52.

Hi :blush: I did try doing a search but i guess was putting in wrong terms...
As i said someone passed it on to me..who saw it there and doesnt post in the Caylee threads

 

[Z-sleuth]

It's hard for me to imagine this is just a coincidence. It would be great if some WSer in Orlando would go inspect the citations and see if the location of the traffic stop and tag number of the vehicle are the same on both tickets.

As you note, if it wasn't Casey using the ZG alias, there's another ZG out there (who just happens to be the same age as Casey and just happened to get a ticket on the same day as Annie. And I believe Casey texted someone about getting a ticket that day, although I can't seem to locate that reference at the moment.

 

[JaneInOz]

It's hard for me to imagine this is just a coincidence. It would be great if some WSer in Orlando would go inspect the citations and see if the location of the traffic stop and tag number of the vehicle are the same on both tickets.

As you note, if it wasn't Casey using the ZG alias, there's another ZG out there (who just happens to be the same age as Casey and just happened to get a ticket on the same day as Annie. And I believe Casey texted someone about getting a ticket that day, although I can't seem to locate that reference at the moment.

Well isnt there anyone on here that lives there?

Its a bit far for me to go

 

[Z-sleuth]

Well isnt there anyone on here that lives there?

Its a bit far for me to go

Me too. I was hoping to ask marellano, who did some local sleuthing recently. But I haven't been able to contact her.

 

[gardenhart]

hey now.... :nono:
there is nothing heartbreaking about that picture except that it has the image of a dear sweet departed child in it.

there is NOTHING WRONG with a mother taking a picture of herself!
as a young mother once struggling to find her own identity, i STRONGLY disagree with this statement.

she is NOT PUSHING caylee out of the way... i don't see a hand on her face or anything of the sort!!

who is to say that a mother may only take photos of her child... that every single picture should be of her baby... and if OMG the mother MUST photograph herself, the baby is required to be in mommy's lap.

i am no KC supporter, but jeez!! :furious:
i know we all want to crucify her for her every movement and rightly so, but..... sheesh.

i am sorry if this comes off as mean, its not supposed to, it just got under my skin.

My goodness, Broderick's post wasn't a personal slam at you, or even young mothers in general. :waitasec:

 

[JaneInOz]

I had to go back through all the posts to find out what on earth was going on LOL

I saw Caylee immediately in the background the moment I first saw the photo yesterday (and actually my thought was ah there's Caylee in her car seat with her mum. That instead of being dumped off she took her out with her all the time... This kinda proved it

These two Annie and Casey were just taking a self posing shot of each other - having fun fooling around etc... If they had moved either side to put Caylee in then they probably wouldn't have all got in the shot.

Casey took a gazillion photos of Cylee. She was a photoholic...she was just taking a pic of her and her best mate.

 

[lawlady84]

Snipped for space

I have a question. I don't see how this would cause the info to be thrown out. I don't think that LE released the info to the media specifically. They had to turn over the info in discovery. The state has to hand that over and they not only have to hand it over to the defense, but because it is public record, it would have to be released to any other tax-paying Joe Shmoe of the county, right? In fact, it would seem that if anyone did anything wrong it would be the media themselves. Baez has not tried to stop these items from being released, in fact it was his insistence to have them that allowed us to see them when we did. IIRC the state are the only ones who have tried to have anything from being released to the media (the Pics and X-rays). I just don't see how anything has been done wrong. No one could have predicted on July 15th that this case would turn out like this and certainly no one would have expected all the excitement over the documents.

I am so nosy, I love reading court documents. They are always fascinating, but no one in the real world knows that. There is no way, since it has never happened before, could anyone have known that it was going to turn out like this, but it seems to me that they are just doing what they have always done. I guess this is all to say that I am confused as to how the state has done anything wrong here. Anyone else?

I think you are right - with all due respect to whoever posted all of the FL rules, there is a difference between an open criminal investigation and an open prosecution. Florida has very, very liberal disclosure statutes - coupled with very liberal judges who allow this disclosure. The defense would need to take this up with the state legislature - not the court.

Note the law says "confidential" information is exempt - any judge could seal the records and they wouldn't be released. Remember back to the hearing where all autopsy photos were sealed and they put them on a secure server for the defense?

Go to the Smoking Gun website - you can see tons and tons of court documents. The difference here is that not many people usually REQUEST EVERY document - and with the explosion of the internet/scanners, people can read everything. But its totally legal.

You can't taint the jury pool with facts - Releasing a DNA result doesn't taint the jury pool. The SA coming out and saying "This DNA means X is guilty" taints the jury pool. Facts are facts.

ALSO, if you think Florida is bad - try Georgia. You can go online and get the criminal records, warrants, mug shots, trial transcripts, for ANYONE! I was working in a department that did intellectual property enforcement - typed in a guys name who was selling fake watches - and saw more court documents than I could have imagined, including a full domestic battery complaint (wasn't pretty). Its all out there, just have to look for it.

So no, I don't think this will get this case thrown out - JB would have to sue Al Gore for inventing the internet

 

[Irish_Eyes]

IrishEyes,

I read somewhere that citation numbers are issued by dispatch. Not sure if that's true or not. Any chance two partners were patrolling together and each patrolman issued a citation to one of the girls?

The citation numbers were sequential by officer so it appeared that they were being written out of a book....also the sequence would change officers occassionally which led me to believe that maybe the book stayed with the car, which might be used by different officers on different shifts...

Is it definite that two officers weren't in the same car writing tickets? No. It does seem rather unlikely.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I had to go back through all the posts to find out what on earth was going on LOL

I saw Caylee immediately in the background the moment I first saw the photo yesterday (and actually my thought was ah there's Caylee in her car seat with her mum. That instead of being dumped off she took her out with her all the time... This kinda proved it

These two Annie and Casey were just taking a self posing shot of each other - having fun fooling around etc... If they had moved either side to put Caylee in then they probably wouldn't have all got in the shot.

Casey took a gazillion photos of Cylee. She was a photoholic...she was just taking a pic of her and her best mate.

I was wondering if this picture was taken on St. Pat's. Annie could just be wearing the hat because she's Irish, but Casey is wearing the green also, and it looks like a fairly recent picture of Caylee...Interesting because St. Pat's is around the time the infamous computer searches were performed...maybe being stuck with Caylee on St. Pat's was another aggravation for KC...St. Pat's is a huge celebration where I'm from, (not far from where the Anthony's were from in Ohio), but I'm not sure how big it is in Orlando...

 

[Betabry]

All of LE and the State Attorney know the law and cases so I am bewildered why they are releasing all this prejudicial information prior to a trial in November! Why take a chance on getting penalized?

Imagine you are the DA and a judge says to you,
"What was your purpose in releasing all that investigative material to the media since it is all exempted from the Sunshine Act?

</Lurk>
pg 34 of the LE guide pdf
Moreover, the active criminal investigative and intelligence
information exemption does not prohibit the disclosure of the
information by the criminal justice agency; the information is
only exempt from and not subject to the mandatory inspection
requirements in s. 119.07(1), F.S., which would otherwise apply.

pg 35
Such information is considered “active” as long “as it is related to
an ongoing investigation which is continuing with a reasonable,
good faith anticipation of securing an arrest or prosecution in the
foreseeable future” or "is directly related to pending prosecutions
or appeals.”

JB should have those missing interviews while they certainly could have been withheld from the public. Why? I don't know, but maybe it has something to do with the drug thing.

BTW I love reading this stuff! thank you all.
<back to lurking>

 

[lala]

Snipped for space

I have a question. I don't see how this would cause the info to be thrown out. I don't think that LE released the info to the media specifically. They had to turn over the info in discovery. The state has to hand that over and they not only have to hand it over to the defense, but because it is public record, it would have to be released to any other tax-paying Joe Shmoe of the county, right? In fact, it would seem that if anyone did anything wrong it would be the media themselves. Baez has not tried to stop these items from being released, in fact it was his insistence to have them that allowed us to see them when we did. IIRC the state are the only ones who have tried to have anything from being released to the media (the Pics and X-rays). I just don't see how anything has been done wrong. No one could have predicted on July 15th that this case would turn out like this and certainly no one would have expected all the excitement over the documents.

I am so nosy, I love reading court documents. They are always fascinating, but no one in the real world knows that. There is no way, since it has never happened before, could anyone have known that it was going to turn out like this, but it seems to me that they are just doing what they have always done. I guess this is all to say that I am confused as to how the state has done anything wrong here. Anyone else?

The Prosecution filed a motion months ago for a gag order on all evidence and speaking to the media. The Defense fought it and won. (If I remember correctly.) No way they can come back now and say things were leaked.

 

[lastchance]

I mentioned on another thread about surveillance cameras at the DMV. Don't all government offices have to have them? We've seen movie star KC at Target, Blockbuster, Bank of America, if she indeed paid a ticket, there ought to be some taped record of it, don't you think? Any info on this?

 

[AZlawyer]

I found this:

Watch for a Motion to Dismiss All Charges for Prosecutorial Misconduct

Continuing release of material by LE and the state attorney may result in a court dismissing all charges pending.

Consider this case:

Rule 8-8.4 of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct addresses lawyer misconduct.

In pertinent part, the Rule demands that:
A lawyer shall not:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . ..

Furthermore, Rule 4-3.6(a) prohibits a lawyer form making extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by
means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding..."

This is from a motion to dismiss charges against a defendant based upon such conduct alleged against a Fla State Attorney.

The Sunshine Act exempts from publication:
"..Section 119.071(2)(c)1 specifically exempt from 119.07(1)
disclosure "active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information,"

So the media has no right to the material being released.

Defendant claims, "The preservation of the integrity of our criminal justice system requires that this Honorable Court dismiss, with prejudice, the two Informations pending against [defendant.]"

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...fla&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Sunshine Statute
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?app_mode=display_statute&url=ch0119/ch0119.htm

Sunshine law Florida
exempt

c)1. Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

119.0714 Court files; court records; official records.--
(h) Criminal intelligence information or criminal investigative information that is confidential and exempt as provided in s. 119.071(2)(h).

2) AGENCY INVESTIGATIONS.--
,,
3. This exemption applies to such confidential and exempt criminal intelligence information or criminal investigative information held by a law enforcement agency before, on, or after the effective date of the exemption.

[The court dismissed most charges and defendant entered a plea for time served on the rest]

http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7128&page=5

<snipped>

And this:

All of LE and the State Attorney know the law and cases so I am bewildered why they are releasing all this prejudicial information prior to a trial in November! Why take a chance on getting penalized?

Imagine you are the DA and a judge says to you,
"What was your purpose in releasing all that investigative material to the media since it is all exempted from the Sunshine Act?

Sunshine Statute
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?app_mode=display_statute&url=ch0119/ch0119.htm

Did you intend to portray the defendant in a bad light prior to jury selection?

Did you deliberately violate the Canons of Ethics,
"Rule 4-3.6(a)
prohibits a lawyer from making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding...?' "

[Releasing material is the same as making a statement for the purpose of this Rule.]

Anyone have any idea why they released all this material?

http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7128&page=12

<snipped>

And this:


[Question] If the judge rules that everything that has been released to the public is inadmissible against her at trial, could the judge still dismiss due to the release of prejudicial information?"

[Answer] Yes it is possible if a finding is made of deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. If no such finding is made, then no dismissal of charges.

[Question] "Some are saying that they are holding back evidence to present at trial and it doesn't include what LE has made public. Even so, releasing all these interviews, etc. is influencing public opinion against Casey. Will they be able to go forward with a case against her, or can the judge rule that all of the charges against her can be dismissed because of the flood of negative info?"

[Answer] The judge has the authority to dismiss all charges with prejudice if punishment of LE and the SA is called for b/c of the flood of prejudicial information, not leaked, but directly from their offices to media.

Even granting a change of venue is hardly an adequate remedy in this case.
I have never seen anything like this in my years as a homicide prosecutor and I would never have permitted it in a case of mine.

LE and SA will have a hard time justifying it and defense counsel is preparing a strong case.

The release of video interviews has a chilling effect upon future witnesses in cases if they know that what they tell police in a private room may be published and shown on TV for all to see.

Defense counsel has previously filed motions for a gag order which have been denied and an appellate court could find that to be error and dismiss all charges even if convictions are secured in the trial court.

None of this may happen but why take a chance?

The US Supreme Court may get these cases some day and they are traditionally very tough on anyone attempting to deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

<snipped>

And this:

The material released in this case to the media is not authorized by the Sunshine Act in Florida. It is all exempt as provided in the following excerpt of the Sunshine Act.

"(c)1. Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...119/Sec071.HTM
Here is more in the relevant section.

119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--
...

Section 119.071(2)

(2) AGENCY INVESTIGATIONS.--

(a) All criminal intelligence and criminal investigative information received by a criminal justice agency prior to January 25, 1979, is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

(b) Whenever criminal intelligence information or criminal investigative information held by a non-Florida criminal justice agency is available to a Florida criminal justice agency only on a confidential or similarly restricted basis, the Florida criminal justice agency may obtain and use such information in accordance with the conditions imposed by the providing agency.

(c)1. Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. [emphasis supplied]

2.a. A request made by a law enforcement agency to inspect or copy a public record that is in the custody of another agency and the custodian's response to the request, and any information that would identify whether a law enforcement agency has requested or received that public record are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, during the period in which the information constitutes active criminal intelligence information or active criminal investigative information.

b. The law enforcement agency that made the request to inspect or copy a public record shall give notice to the custodial agency when the criminal intelligence information or criminal investigative information is no longer active so that the request made by the law enforcement agency, the custodian's response to the request, and information that would identify whether the law enforcement agency had requested or received that public record are available to the public.

c. This exemption is remedial in nature, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the exemption be applied to requests for information received before, on, or after the effective date of this paragraph.

(d) Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. Any comprehensive inventory of state and local law enforcement resources compiled pursuant to part I, chapter 23, and any comprehensive policies or plans compiled by a criminal justice agency pertaining to the mobilization, deployment, or tactical operations involved in responding to emergencies, as defined in s. 252.34(3), are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and unavailable for inspection, except by personnel authorized by a state or local law enforcement agency, the office of the Governor, the Department of Legal Affairs, the Department of Law Enforcement, or the Department of Community Affairs as having an official need for access to the inventory or comprehensive policies or plans.

(e) Any information revealing the substance of a confession of a person arrested is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, until such time as the criminal case is finally determined by adjudication, dismissal, or other final disposition.

(f) Any information revealing the identity of a confidential informant or a confidential source is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution..."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0119/Sec071.HTM

<snipped>

It is not required by discovery rules and is not to be filed in a clerk's office since it is exempt. Criminal discovery rules merely require submission of material to the defendant and her counsel.

RULE 3.220. DISCOVERY
[good showing of criminal rules w/o a pdf file]
http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

<snipped>

Releasing anything about the character of the defendant, good or bad, violated Canons of Ethics. Thousands of cases have proven that a jury pool is tainted by such revelations. In England, once a defendant is charged, all pre-trial publicity is banned by law for that reason.

Material not intended to be introduced at trial is the worst kind of taint! It will not be subject to court review for relevance and other aspects of admissibility.

How much of the scandals exposed continuously over five months, day after day could you put out of your mind and be a fair juror? This case especially arouses rage and passion as you see in posts and comments all over the World and understandably so.

Questioning thousands of prospective jurors over 100 murder prosecutions, I have seen the devastating effect of pre-trial publicity upon the effort to obtain a fair and impartial jury of your peers. One serious problem seldom mentioned is that it provides an excuse for getting out of jury duty. "Oh, I have absolutely made up my mind and he is guilty. Sorry, but I cannot serve impartially."

Leaks are one thing; but for LE and the prosecutor to openly flood the jury pool with all we have seen is unprecedented and I believe will cause an appellate court to reverse any conviction. There may be drastic penalties in addition.

Do you know of any case=ever=any place=any time= where LE and the DA has done this? In my 30 years in criminal courts and researching the law, I do not.

Change of venue? To where?

After you read the whole thread, let me know if you have any questions.

End of legal discussion.

Now, FWIW, I know nothing about law, but I know I don't like the way this sounds. This was posted by a poster who is/has:

Homicide prosecutor, over 100 murder cases prosecuted.
Taught Trial Tactics at two Pittsburgh law schools
Taught PA Crimes Code at city and county Police Academies.
Created Assistant District Attorney Training Division at Allegheny County DA Office.
Trainer for FBI, ATF, PA State Police and others

With all due respect to the poster you mentioned, I think this is a completely incorrect analysis. For the reasons I mentioned before (which are discussed, IIRC, on p. 37 of the Law Enforcement manual re: the Sunshine Law), I believe that the "investigations" exception does not apply if the material in question is required to be turned over to the defense under the disclosure rules.

If you look at the Motion filed by Baez (I think there's a link in the news report in post #1 of the "Today's News" thread), even Baez is not complaining about the huge volume of documents released to the public. What he is complaining about are: (1) the prosecutor supposedly making an anonymous complaint to the State Bar about him, and (2) the LEAKS perhaps coming from LE/prosecutors--i.e., about chloroform in the trunk and duct tape on the body--BEFORE documents were released to the public. (Interestingly, the only leaks he can think of all turned out to be TRUE and confirmed by the documents that had to be released to the public in any event, so what could possibly be the harm to his client from those leaks?)

 

[RR0004]

This theory occupied quite a bit of my time...omg if it were true! But it doesn't seem to be. I did some checking on the Orange County MyClerk site yesterday. While both AD and ZG were stopped on the same day, it was by different officers and they were issued non-sequential citations. IMHO this makes it very unlikely. I thought it still likely that Annie was with someone since she only got a seatbelt violation and usually you don't get pulled over just for that. The citation immediately preceding hers numerically was to a Lauren D. This young woman is about the same age as Annie/KC and was issued a ticket for speeding...IMHO this is who Annie was with...I checked her out to be sure this wasn't in fact some crazy KC alias but she appears to be a real person...The citation numbers before and after ZG's were both to males, one a minor, and neither in any way related to the case as far as I can tell, so I do think it is really just a big coincidence...wouldn't have suprised me if it had checked out though with all the crazy turns this case has taken!

Let's also not forget, that the officer has the abilty to write up a ticket any way he sees fit...for instance, Annie may have been pulled over for speeding, but the officer was kind enough to write her up for a lesser (no points) offense. It happens all the time.

 

[Stocirpa]

I am willing to concede that the traffic infraction received by Annie Downing on May 24, 2008 is merely a coincidence in having been issued on the same date as the traffic infraction Zenaida Gonzalez (JG) received on that date for driving without a driver's license (criminal offense). However, the ZG matter is significant in that the court docket indicates that this ZG appeared in open court with counsel on 6/11/08 and agreed to pay $50 per month towards paying off the court fees and fines she was assessed. The record further shows that, after making the first 3 payments due, she defaulted on the payment due on 10/15/08. It further shows that her driver's license was suspended on 1/12/09. It seems to me that LE should be able to trace this ZG by the info it already has in its files on her, including a copy of her driver's license and any checks she issued and the name, address and telephone number of her counsel. Perhaps it already has but none of us are privy to that info.

 

[DISPATCHER3062]

Having worked in law enforcment I can tell u that the ticket books are ordered through the state police dept and then they are issued to each dept as needed. They come in cases so if the police dept tells the state police now many cases they need and go to the state police post and pick them up.THEY ARE LOG IN MUMBERS THAT ARE ISSUED TO THE POLICE DEPT. THE CASE IS OPENED AND LEFT IN THE ROOM WHERE ALL OF THEIR SUPPLIES ARE LEFT. WHEN THEY NEED A BOOK THEY SIGN A LOG BOOK TELLING HOW MANY BOOKS THEY TAKE AND THE BEGINNING NUMBER AND THE LAST NUMBER OF EACH BOOK. sO IF ONE OFFICER GETS 2 BOOKS AND THE OTHER ONE WAITS AND GETS BOOKS SOME TIME LATER THEIR NUMJBERS MAY BE QUITE DIFFERENT IN NUMBERS. AFTER THE TICKETS ARE WROTE ONE COPY GOES TO THE PERSON GETTING THE TICKET, ANOTHER GOES TO THE TRAFFIC DIVISSION, ONE GOES TO THE OFFICER PERSON IN CHARGE OF THCKETS., THIS PERSON THEN SEPERATES THEM AND PUTS EACH OFFICER.S TICKETS IN NUMBER ORDER, AND NUMBER ORDER AND THEY ARE SAVED EACH MONTH AFTER BEING FINISHED, THE PERSON IN CHARGE ALSO HAS TO COUNT FOR EACH TICKET THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND THIS REPORT GOES BACK TO THE STATE POLICE POST FOR THEIR FILLING BACK IN THEIR ORDER FORM ACCOUNT. excuse caps didn't pay attention till to late

 

[TSPnc]

No Worry Dispatcher thankx so much for the explaination