Casey's Diary Entry for June 21st & Missing Pages #1

[ecs5298]

What records would we be expecting to see in the event of such requests. At least the record of such requests being made? Would the request itself be in camera?

We would probably see the requests to the FBI to analyze the items but they will withhold the FBI reports with the results on them.

Case in point. We saw OSCO ask the FBI to check the 3 pieces of duct tape for latent prints from GA, CA and LA. The report came back as "no latent prints found...of GA, CA or LA" Notice not one mention of KC's prints. I'm sure while they were checking they checked any prints they found against KC's finger prints. That's why the request for KC's was separate from GA, CA and LA. That way the FBI could report separately on GA, CA and LA and that could be released to quell the notion that Cindy did it. You'll also notice we never saw the "request" for KC's prints. This is probably an example of evidence being held back from the Sunshine Law.

 

[LinasK]

Absolutely correct. There are probably evidence reports that we won't ever see until the trial such as fingerprint data on the duct tape, plastic bags, chemical analysis of the Gatoraide bottle, etc. The SA and defense can ask that certain items be excluded from the Sunshine Law. That's why we may never see the "smoking gun" evidence.

Well, if all we're seeing is the tip of the iceberg, her conviction should be a slam dunk!

 

[fortytwo]

We would probably see the requests to the FBI to analyze the items but they will withhold the FBI reports with the results on them.

Case in point. We saw OSCO ask the FBI to check the 3 pieces of duct tape for latent prints from GA, CA and LA. The report came back as "no latent prints found...of GA, CA or LA" Notice not one mention of KC's prints. I'm sure while they were checking they checked any prints they found against KC's finger prints. That's why the request for KC's was separate from GA, CA and LA. That way the FBI could report separately on GA, CA and LA and that could be released to quell the notion that Cindy did it. You'll also notice we never saw the "request" for KC's prints. This is probably an example of evidence being held back from the Sunshine Law.

Funny you should mention that.

I'm not sure we did see OCSO ask for a print comparison. The gas can tape was submitted to the FBI on Dec.13, 08 along with an examination request that didn't breath a word about fingerprints, latent or otherwise, or include any names. The report for the results of that evidence submission was dated Dec.15, 08, and referenced a communication dated Dec. 12, 08. This is the FBI report that found no fingerprints.

The request for latent fingerprints was in the Jan. 9, 09 submittal, and also didn't mention any specific names. At any rate, it was weeks after the "no prints" report that cited "elimination" prints from the other As. I don't think that the As were singled out. I think their prints were just included/named as comparison prints which the FBI didn't have on record.

If you haven't already, please take a look at this post I put in the Duct Tape thread. It bears tangentially on this subject.

 

[karenz]

I've been sitting and spinning on the diary for a couple days now.

I have read the excerpt and without confirmed dating it could really apply to breaking up with a guy or quitting a job so in that regard they could explain it away.

BUT

Coupled with the Beautiful Life Tattoo around that same time period there is NO DOUBT in my mind what this meant.

 

[Rumpole]

I've been sitting and spinning on the diary for a couple days now.

I have read the excerpt and without confirmed dating it could really apply to breaking up with a guy or quitting a job so in that regard they could explain it away.

BUT

Coupled with the Beautiful Life Tattoo around that same time period there is NO DOUBT in my mind what this meant.

We don't know, but I am sure LE do know. Its probably obvious if you look at those pages in real life, and perhaps obvious from other pages. I think if it looks easy to prove they will go with it. If not it could be too big a hassle to argue in court.

 

[sarah7855]

We would probably see the requests to the FBI to analyze the items but they will withhold the FBI reports with the results on them.

Case in point. We saw OSCO ask the FBI to check the 3 pieces of duct tape for latent prints from GA, CA and LA. The report came back as "no latent prints found...of GA, CA or LA" Notice not one mention of KC's prints. I'm sure while they were checking they checked any prints they found against KC's finger prints. That's why the request for KC's was separate from GA, CA and LA. That way the FBI could report separately on GA, CA and LA and that could be released to quell the notion that Cindy did it. You'll also notice we never saw the "request" for KC's prints. This is probably an example of evidence being held back from the Sunshine Law.

:clap: ITA!

 

[Steely Dan]

Thanks for the welcome!
I really don't feel there is enough evidence either, however, JB was just on the TV saying they can absolutely prove that it was written in 03. LOL, whatever JB!

What else can he say. He has to draw attention away from it. Even though his reasoning is probably lame.

We would probably see the requests to the FBI to analyze the items but they will withhold the FBI reports with the results on them.

Case in point. We saw OSCO ask the FBI to check the 3 pieces of duct tape for latent prints from GA, CA and LA. The report came back as "no latent prints found...of GA, CA or LA" Notice not one mention of KC's prints. I'm sure while they were checking they checked any prints they found against KC's finger prints. That's why the request for KC's was separate from GA, CA and LA. That way the FBI could report separately on GA, CA and LA and that could be released to quell the notion that Cindy did it. You'll also notice we never saw the "request" for KC's prints. This is probably an example of evidence being held back from the Sunshine Law.

They should already have her fingerprints on file from when she was arrested.

 

[sarah7855]

Firstly, the duct tape was not 'wrapped around' Caylee's head - it was recorded as a piece covering the mouth area. Secondly, there is no evidence as yet as to whether the duct tape was placed there ante or post-mortem, or why. There is also no evidence that the duct tape contributed to Caylee's death since no COD can be determined.

How does the duct tape prove that an intentional and premeditated murder took place, rather than say an accident due to some negligence on KC's part or a sudden loss of control but with no malice or intent? How does the fact that KC most probably wrapped Caylee's body in bags and hid her in that wood prove that she intended to kill her?

KC is charged on 3 alternative counts:

1st Degree Murder
Aggravated Abuse
Aggravated Manslaughter

Which one of the charges does the evidence you mention prove? Which of the charges, if any, does that evidence rule out?

This is not to answer the question posed by your post, but rather to point out some things that I feel, IMO, are important:

An important note regarding the above is that it was all discovered AFTER Casey was indicted on October 14th, 2008 with First Degree Murder (Capital), Aggravated Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaugther of a Child, and four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer...and the GJ did present that Casey did kill Caylee in a "premeditated design". So, apparently LE had enough evidence proving premeditation before Caylee's remains were found to present to the GJ and receive the indictment that was delivered. I've attached a .pdf file of the indictment for your reference.

And for clarification, the duct tape did extend so far past the mouth area as to be stuck to the remaining hair, so much so that it had to be cut out. So, maybe the tape was not completely wrapped around her head, but it did cover more than just what was her mouth.

 

[NeedAnswers]

Hi Everyone! Looooong time lurker, first time poster........I just found out that in order to see restricted stuff I have to post more, so I guess I have to be pulled out of Lurk-dom and into the wonderful world of posting.
I just have a question, in regards to the SunShine Law and all of the info that is released to the public, does anyone know what information is NOT allowed to be released? And if say, fingerprint evidence was among the thing not allowed to be released; JB would have it still, right?

Thanks for the answers, I love this forum and apparently will be posting much more often!

 

[sarah7855]

Hi Everyone! Looooong time lurker, first time poster........I just found out that in order to see restricted stuff I have to post more, so I guess I have to be pulled out of Lurk-dom and into the wonderful world of posting.
I just have a question, in regards to the SunShine Law and all of the info that is released to the public, does anyone know what information is NOT allowed to be released? And if say, fingerprint evidence was among the thing not allowed to be released; JB would have it still, right?

Thanks for the answers, I love this forum and apparently will be posting much more often!

Welcome!
This link has more than you'll ever want to know about the FL Sunshine Laws:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0119/ch0119.htm

Basically, the State's Attorney doesn't have to release anything that is an "ongoing investigation". So for instance, you brought up fingerprints. Those are definitely allowed to be released to the public as there's no rule barring them, unlike autopsy photos. The recently released docs show that GA, CA, and LA's fingerprints are not on the duct tape. However, let's say they did find a set of prints, not belonging to those three, that they think might be Casey's...they would withhold that info while they do further testing, since it's an ongoing investigation. Hope that helps in some way

The link that I provided can sum it up better, it has a LOT of info.

ETA: From what I understand, someone correct me if I'm wrong, we see pretty much everything that JB sees, with the obvious exception of autopsy info/photos. The doc dumps are discovery going to the defense team that becomes public record once it's released by the State.

 

[Alice]

I have been going back and forth on the diary as well. I too am confused as to why it was not on any of the evidence lists. Even if they weren't sure about when the entry in question was written wouldn't they still take it until they could examine it more closely? Logically they must have taken it. Yet there is no record of them taking it. Weird.

Anyway, if it can be proven that the entry was written it 2008 it shows that KC was not nervous and upset over her child's abduction. Thus contradicting what she said to the police and her later assertion that she was following a script. In her most private thoughts she was happy.

 

[Lanie]

Firstly, the duct tape was not 'wrapped around' Caylee's head - it was recorded as a piece covering the mouth area. Secondly, there is no evidence as yet as to whether the duct tape was placed there ante or post-mortem, or why. There is also no evidence that the duct tape contributed to Caylee's death since no COD can be determined.

Respectfully snipped.

This goes to REASONABLE DOUBT.

Because of the amount of time between death and discovery of remains, a lot of evidence was lost.
Yes, the duct tape could have been put on after death, but for what reasonable purpose?
Had Caylee's remains been found with a bullet hole in her skull and the bullet sitting right there in the bag, same argument applies, she could have been shot after death. Knicks and cuts on the bones found, she could have been stabbed after death. A noose found still tied in the general area of where her head was, she could have been hung after she died. All these things imply by those who say accident, this child died accidentally, and Mother Casey decided to make it look like a murder. Is that reasonable? Not in my opinion.
This is real life. It isn't some 60 minute fictional crime drama on TV where everything is 100% conclusive, and there is usually some twist so the original main POI turns out to be innocent. In real life, it usually is just what it looks like. It is a reasonable assumption to make when finding skeletal remains falling out of garbage bags in the woods with duct tape over the mouth area going into the hair on both sides the duct tape was applied in the commission of a homicide in real life. Especially when you add in the mother was the last to see the child alive, the mother claims she was kidnapped by a non-existant nanny, the mother did not report fake kidnapping, the grandmother did, 31 days later, at which point the mother is finally saying the first thing about the fake kidnapping, after partying, getting tattoos, stealing from her friends, etc. during this 31 days.
Lanie

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Wasn't that entry in her diary from 2003?

 

[Alice]

Bravo Lanie!

 

[debs]

I have been going back and forth on the diary as well. I too am confused as to why it was not on any of the evidence lists. Even if they weren't sure about when the entry in question was written wouldn't they still take it until they could examine it more closely? Logically they must have taken it. Yet there is no record of them taking it. Weird.

Anyway, if it can be proven that the entry was written it 2008 it shows that KC was not nervous and upset over her child's abduction. Thus contradicting what she said to the police and her later assertion that she was following a script. In her most private thoughts she was happy.

They took several notebooks into evidence. I would not immediately call this a diary. I would call it a notebook. Whether the use was to act as a diary is irrelevant. The actual book was a "notebook."

 

[diablo]

Why do you say that ?

He could easily have the evidence

because seemingly all evidence can be refuted.
JB will have an expert state why they concluded it came from 2003.
The State will cross-examine that expert & also provide their own to prove it was 2008 -- if they decide it is part of their case.

Lastly, it may not be part of the criminal case, but just part of the sentencing.

 

[ecs5298]

This goes to REASONABLE DOUBT.

Because of the amount of time between death and discovery of remains, a lot of evidence was lost.
Yes, the duct tape could have been put on after death, but for what reasonable purpose?
Had Caylee's remains been found with a bullet hole in her skull and the bullet sitting right there in the bag, same argument applies, she could have been shot after death. Knicks and cuts on the bones found, she could have been stabbed after death. A noose found still tied in the general area of where her head was, she could have been hung after she died. All these things imply by those who say accident, this child died accidentally, and Mother Casey decided to make it look like a murder. Is that reasonable? Not in my opinion.
This is real life. It isn't some 60 minute fictional crime drama on TV where everything is 100% conclusive, and there is usually some twist so the original main POI turns out to be innocent. In real life, it usually is just what it looks like. It is a reasonable assumption to make when finding skeletal remains falling out of garbage bags in the woods with duct tape over the mouth area going into the hair on both sides the duct tape was applied in the commission of a homicide in real life. Especially when you add in the mother was the last to see the child alive, the mother claims she was kidnapped by a non-existant nanny, the mother did not report fake kidnapping, the grandmother did, 31 days later, at which point the mother is finally saying the first thing about the fake kidnapping, after partying, getting tattoos, stealing from her friends, etc. during this 31 days.
Lanie

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thank you!

That about sums the whole dam case up. We should be able to just submit this statement to the court and have an immediate conviction!.

 

[Alice]

They took several notebooks into evidence. I would not immediately call this a diary. I would call it a notebook. Whether the use was to act as a diary is irrelevant. The actual book was a "notebook."

Perhaps you are right. I hope you are, but in the photo of the "book" it has a little charm hanging off of a ribbon that is part of the book.
http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set10/1/lg/208794.htm

The charm looks like a little lock to me. If I saw a little book like that with a little lock/lock charm on it I would refer to it as a diary or journal. However, if the person who may have collected it was a man, he might have referred to it as a "notebook."

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[SL_Zero]

They took several notebooks into evidence. I would not immediately call this a diary. I would call it a notebook. Whether the use was to act as a diary is irrelevant. The actual book was a "notebook."

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

"journal" or "diary" define intent.

"notebook" defines physicality.

jour⋅nal
   /ˈdʒɜrnl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jur-nl] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a daily record, as of occurrences, experiences, or observations: She kept a journal during her European trip.
2. a newspaper, esp. a daily one.
3. a periodical or magazine, esp. one published for a special group, learned society, or profession: the October issue of The English Journal.
4. a record, usually daily, of the proceedings and transactions of a legislative body, an organization, etc.
5. Bookkeeping.
a. a daybook.
b. (in the double-entry method) a book into which all transactions are entered from the daybook or blotter to facilitate posting into the ledger.
6. Nautical. a log or logbook.
7. Machinery. the portion of a shaft or axle contained by a plain bearing.

no definition of media.

di⋅a⋅ry
   /ˈdaɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dahy-uh-ree] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a daily record, usually private, esp. of the writer's own experiences, observations, feelings, attitudes, etc.
2. a book for keeping such a record.
3. a book or pad containing pages marked and arranged in calendar order, in which to note appointments and the like.

here's a definition.

heehee did i just poke a hole in my own theory?
oops. hah. oh well.

pretty sure "notebooks" is a nice concise term to label a bunch of cr@p they took without having to be ultra specific.

 

[justbeachy]

They took several notebooks into evidence. I would not immediately call this a diary. I would call it a notebook. Whether the use was to act as a diary is irrelevant. The actual book was a "notebook."

That is my thought on this also. When I was searching (without results, I might add) for a similar diary online, there were several places that used the words "diary," "journal," and "notebook" for the same items.

Plus, and to all the men here, I apologize in advance, but who wrote this stuff down? A woman might write down "journal" or "diary" but a man...come on, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if any type of book with lined pages in it fell into the category of "notebook" to them.

(waiting for everyone to tell me how sexist my remarks are):couch: