Casey's Diary Entry for June 21st & Missing Pages #2

[angeldust]

lol i know

however it was just a thought i honestly believe she does write things for her mothers effect she knows she s reading her diaries you only have to look at the Everyone lies Everyone dies post to know she s responding to her mothers my caylee is missing post. Then there was the death penalty post about why do people kill people...
intentionally or not ms anthony does put her thoughts onto paper to her detriment I think.

 

[Tulessa]

The only other thing that is hanging out there would be "I've made new friends that I really like". Because the only friends she apparently had at the beginning of 2005 do not exist, JL, JH, Nanny, Nanny's roommate, Nanny's sister, Nanny's mom. So who were these new friends. Up to this point she had only had contact with her old friends. Also the missing pages could point to dating the June 21st date by the year.

Now if they can date the ink, we should be hearing about that soon. jmo

And remember GA was concerned in his FBI interview about her new friends? He didn't know these new people he stated. So that ties right back into the diary entries being more recent?

 

[LambChop]

brittany scheiber

BS: Uhm, we graduated May of’ 04. Caylee was born August ’05. She’s a month before mine.​

DR: So yous (sic) were pregnant together?
BS: Yes​

EE: Did you guys converse about that? Kind of share…​

BS: Actually, she told me when she was seven months that she just found out (sighs)

So if KC does not testify she can't dispute this admission. If she claims to have found out at 7 months that diary entry is not about her pregnancy. Good catch.

 

[Just Jayla]

Chris and Jesse I think were brand new friends, weren't they? And probably she starting hanging out with their friends as well. I just think she's rotated "friend groups" more than once. Probably has something to do with the fact that she lies to them all the time.

I think the journal entry fits remarkably well for 6/21/08, but also very well for 6/21/05. If I were the SA, I would not attempt to use evidence that is so easily weakened unless I could get the ink dated.

Ain't that the kicker in all of this-Another item that we might be able to reign in here in this forum, but may never see the light of day in court...at least the state appears to be giving this one the ole college try.
But lesson learned prior-what if the state had run with the whole Casey ZFG/Annie/May 24th drivers license conspiracy? Or the Dora MySpace? That would have been a debacle for them, yet for a time, it was such a sure thing here in these walls.
Guess such things are better left to the pros!

 

[gngr~snap]

That was great thought to come up with the Jesse/pregnancy theory and kudos to the poster who did.

But...is that something ICA would really write those thoughts about? Since she appeared to be not too impressed with her pregnancy - ie wasn't shouting it out to the world - not sure if I can go down that road.:waitasec:

Maybe it's just a coincidence - but it sure

sounds like 2008 material to me.

Gah! KC was making it for Caylee's 03 (3rd) birthday. She got the diary in 04 from Zanny , wrote it in 08 about 05! Until she was so rudely interrupted and sent to her Dorm! She had to start from the very beginning y'know. It was very sentimental and meant just for Caylee's eyes.
Y'all need to try KC think! It makes total sense!

I am KIDDING!
IMO it will be explained just like that!

 

[lauriej]

So if KC does not testify she can't dispute this admission. If she claims to have found out at 7 months that diary entry is not about her pregnancy. Good catch.

...unless kc was telling a 'mis-truth' to brittany------(nah, kc wouldn't do that, right?)

 

[cecybeans]

Okay, I may be off the wall here, but this diary thing has been bugging me for the longest time. Why on earth would CA have given this one item to BC to hang onto? We all know he would never have locked it up safe in his office if it were part of the actual murder investigation. It had to have something in it that CA wanted to keep protected, but in plain sight (unlike Caylee's "other" carseat which she admits is stored in the attic away from the rest of her items in the shrine of Caylee's bedroom).

Little Bitty and I have had several conversations about this. Yesterday she said she was perusing the Orlando Sentinel blog and someone there mentioned they heard that JB was mentioned in the diary somewhere. Well that would make perfect sense then.

RH wrote an excellent blog on the time line in regards to JB suddenly popping up and surmised that they may have met previously (a reporter tells him JB may have represented JG on a traffic violation of some sort). Here's a link: http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/

That may certainly have happened. And any mention of JB made by Casey could effectively have dated the diary much past the already questionable '03 date written in red in the corner of one page. It might not have any relevance unless it occurred precisely at the time Caylee went missing.

But what if ICA met JB before the time that Caylee went missing and happened to mention him in there? There is nothing unethical about representing someone you met at a club, if that's where they met, but it might explain why he popped up and why CA wanted to keep this as proof should it ever become an issue.

A friend connected with attorneys in Orlando told me that JB is part of a group of lawyers that make business investments locally, some of them clubs (we know that MN is part owner of the club he used to meet with TM right before the November 2008 searches). It's not inconceivable that JB knows the owner of Fusion whether part of an investment club or not; I googled the owners address once and found it was less than a couple of miles away from JB's home address. It's certainly possible JB frequented Fusion and met her there prior to all of this happening.

I am not conspiracy-theory nuts enough to suggest that JB could have known her long enough to be the elusive - allegedly "rich and married" according to one of her accounts - baby daddy (although lord knows practically every other male close to the defendant has had their dna tested), but it is certainly possible to me that he knew her prior to all of this and if so that might explain CA hanging onto something that has very little direct relevance to the case but might be useful afterward. I just cannot imagine why she would have gone to such lengths to protect it otherwise, particularly in a place where all her conversations about it could also be safe under the aegis of client privilege. It's no secret that CA or GA have not been big fans of JB - if the poster at Orlando Sentinel isn't simply making this up and it was leaked from a reliable source, then that would be an excellent reason why Cindy felt the need to safeguard something from ICA's defense attorney that might prove useful later and why BC felt it was all right to hang onto because it didn't directly pertain to the actual case. I really cannot see otherwise why CA would feel the need. Help me here!

 

[AZlawyer]

So if KC does not testify she can't dispute this admission. If she claims to have found out at 7 months that diary entry is not about her pregnancy. Good catch.

:waitasec: Wait, 6/21/05 would be just right for her "finding out" about her pregnancy 7 months in--and even if she already knew (which she did IMO), it would be just the exact time when she was "outed" and had to make decisions (keep the baby, lie to Jesse).

 

[NoNameLeft]

By 6/21/05, she was indeed telling everyone about her pregnancy and acting like it was the happiest thing in the world. Plus a diary is supposed to be for the secret stuff, right?

And, of course, the murder was presumably even more secret lol.

And she could have been genuinely happy at that time. The previous 7 months (denying to be pregnant) were probably stressful, that's a long time when you're a teenager. Her happiness could be explained as her daydreaming about Jesse being her ticket out of the Anthony home. Playing house with Jesse, maybe even getting married and freed from her parents.

 

[Eidetic]

i have just read a post where someone asks if maybe this was written june 21st 2005 just before caylee was born and when i think about it it could well be attributted to her pregnancy

see this is why we should always keep an open mind (quite clearly mines a little tainted) because if you read this with the pregnancy in mind it reads a little differently..... well I think

Journal entry
I have no regrets, just a bit worried. "Not sorry about what's happened to her, worried about what may happen to me! I got rid of her and she is still cramping my style :maddening:"
I just want for everything to work out okay. ...For me.
I completely trust my own judgment & know that I made the right decision. Instead of taking the other options which were: Grow up/step up and start providing for her child, give Caylee up for adoption to strangers or let her mother raise her. She was not having any of those. Killing Caylee was less difficult for her :sick:
I just hope that the end justifies the means. I hope what I did pays off in my favor because I have so much invested already... it was messy, a lot of work and lies!
I just want to know what the future will hold for me. If she were writing about being pregnant, wouldn't she be wondering about both of their futures? At the very least, her child's future?
I guess I will soon see -- Someone was going to have to know Caylee wasn't coming back so it was a waiting game at this point.
This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time.I want to call her a bad word...
I hope that my happiness will continue to grow --If you were talking about keeping the baby inside of you, why would you doubt your happiness growing? Why would you not instead be talking about the baby growing inside of you?
I've made new friends that I really like. TL +roommate etc, Fusion crowd, Amy... Why in the middle of writing about a pregnancy would someone trail off about how great their new friends are? Expectant mothers have baby on the brain.
I've surrounded myself with good people -- ...That believe my crap lies, do favors for me that I can easily steal from.
I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change. Finally happy? Why would delivering the baby inside your womb change your happiness? Sounds to me like she is confirming for the third time she is not remorseful for what she has done, rather she is thrilled and again does not want to face the consequences.

Red additions mine.

I just cannot buy this journal entry as a doting mother to be.

 

[JWG]

:waitasec: Wait, 6/21/05 would be just right for her "finding out" about her pregnancy 7 months in--and even if she already knew (which she did IMO), it would be just the exact time when she was "outed" and had to make decisions (keep the baby, lie to Jesse).

I agree that the '05 date ties in well with the pregnancy, and that the entry could be used by an attorney of average skill to argue the diary is irrelevant.

However, in Baez's pleadings he is currently fixated on the diary as being started in 2003. He is going to bring in Kenneth D. to describe the timing of his breakup with KC as being the trigger for the June 21 entry. So the question hanging out there is, did KC break up with Kenneth D. (or vice versa) when she was 7 months pregnant in 2005, or did she break up with him in 2003? Based on the utter mystery within the Anthony household as to who the father was, I'd say 2003 was the breakup date. A 2005 date would look real strong if Kenneth D. were Caylee's father, but we have yet to see a JAC request for a DNA test.

Presumably he has asked his client when it was written, and she responded "2003, just as I had dated it." If he were truly inquisitive, he would have asked her what happened during that time to write what she did. Based on his rather flip "chocolate" response, it would seem he is not the inquisitive sort.

If Jose continues down this path, and the state produces evidence that the diary truly was manufactured and sold in 2004, then it seems that causes him a problem even if the entry in question was from 2005. :waitasec:

Which brings me to a question. Let's assume there is a hearing down the road to rule on a motion to exclude the diary and the defense argues that the diary was written in 2003, and the state shows the diary was not even manufactured until 2004. Diary goes in. Then at trial, the defense - having read this thread - puts forth the argument that the diary was written in 2005. Can the state then introduce the record of the evidence hearing showing that at that time, the defense claim was 2003? :waitasec: If so, the jury would see two different claims by the defense, thus lessening the credibility of either (because presumably their client gave them the scoop).

 

[AZlawyer]

I agree that the '05 date ties in well with the pregnancy, and that the entry could be used by an attorney of average skill to argue the diary is irrelevant.

However, in Baez's pleadings he is currently fixated on the diary as being started in 2003. He is going to bring in Kenneth D. to describe the timing of his breakup with KC as being the trigger for the June 21 entry. So the question hanging out there is, did KC break up with Kenneth D. (or vice versa) when she was 7 months pregnant in 2005, or did she break up with him in 2003? Based on the utter mystery within the Anthony household as to who the father was, I'd say 2003 was the breakup date. A 2005 date would look real strong if Kenneth D. were Caylee's father, but we have yet to see a JAC request for a DNA test.

Presumably he has asked his client when it was written, and she responded "2003, just as I had dated it." If he were truly inquisitive, he would have asked her what happened during that time to write what she did. Based on his rather flip "chocolate" response, it would seem he is not the inquisitive sort.

If Jose continues down this path, and the state produces evidence that the diary truly was manufactured and sold in 2004, then it seems that causes him a problem even if the entry in question was from 2005. :waitasec:

Which brings me to a question. Let's assume there is a hearing down the road to rule on a motion to exclude the diary and the defense argues that the diary was written in 2003, and the state shows the diary was not even manufactured until 2004. Diary goes in. Then at trial, the defense - having read this thread - puts forth the argument that the diary was written in 2005. Can the state then introduce the record of the evidence hearing showing that at that time, the defense claim was 2003? :waitasec: If so, the jury would see two different claims by the defense, thus lessening the credibility of either (because presumably their client gave them the scoop).

BBM

No, the argument made previously by the defense would not be admissible at trial.

I just don't think the SA should attempt to use the diary unless they can positively date it to 2008. It's too weak and distracts from the strong evidence. What do you say in closing? "True, it could have been written in 2005. But maybe it was written in 2008!" Blah. Snooze. Jury thinks you are a :loser: .

 

[JWG]

BBM

No, the argument made previously by the defense would not be admissible at trial.

I just don't think the SA should attempt to use the diary unless they can positively date it to 2008. It's too weak and distracts from the strong evidence. What do you say in closing? "True, it could have been written in 2005. But maybe it was written in 2008!" Blah. Snooze. Jury thinks you are a :loser: .

OK, enough slapping upside my head. :slap:

Diary not coming in. :nono:

 

[Ssejors]

So if KC does not testify she can't dispute this admission. If she claims to have found out at 7 months that diary entry is not about her pregnancy. Good catch.

Caylee was born Aug 9th. So Being as FULL TERM is 40 weeks so, estimated conception date was between November 9 and November 16. Making ICA 33 weeks pregnant on June 21st. 33 weeks = 7.84 months. Nearly 8 months.

If Caylee was early then there is a chance that ICA may have only been 31 or 32 weeks along on the 21st of June.

What was the date of the wedding where she denied being pregnant?
ETA (JUNE 3rd is when rick says he saw them, the day before the wedding)


I dont think it is possible that she DIDNT know she was pregnant until she was 7 months along. Was there a time where ICA suspected she was pregnant and miscarried PRIOR to conceiving Caylee? Usually by 5 months that baby is rolling around in there all crazy like so it's unlikely that she didnt feel or KNOW what was going on.


Maybe after all the wedding fiasco and such, ICA finally admitted that she was pregnant, to herself and her mom. Maybe she ORIGINALLY was hoping to hide the pregnancy from everyone and just do away with Caylee the day she gave birth, with out telling anyone that she was EVER pregnant. But she was called on it and couldn't keep lying so she decided to go ahead with keeping the baby. Maybe, as I mentioned up thread, this entry is ICA deciding that, having a baby was going to be ok.

she may have already KNOW,deep down, that she was pregnant but she told everyone that she only JUST found out. So June 21st and being 7 months pregnant DOES fit for the diary entry being June 21st 2005 Am I all over the place with this?


Where are the regs with theirs heads on straight to help me with this ?

 

[Ssejors]

:waitasec: Wait, 6/21/05 would be just right for her "finding out" about her pregnancy 7 months in--and even if she already knew (which she did IMO), it would be just the exact time when she was "outed" and had to make decisions (keep the baby, lie to Jesse).

Well YEESH! :banghead::banghead::banghead: I should have kept reading cause you managed to say what I just spent an hour working on, in one nicely put sentence. :great:

 

[Ssejors]

Red additions mine.

I just cannot buy this journal entry as a doting mother to be.

ITA 100% that this was 2008 diary entry.


BUT

He he he. I'll play Devil's Advocate here for a sec if you will bare with me.

ICA spends a Minimum of 5 months hiding a pregnancy and eventually flat out denying it.

Why, once finally forced to ADMIT that she is pregnant, would she all of a sudden take on the role of Doting mother?

Denying a pregnancy, one would think, is a fairly good sign that one does NOT want to BE pregnant.

I remember when my hubby and I were trying to get pregnant and the slightest GAS pain would send me rushing off to get a test.

Spending months on end NOT telling anyone takes conviction. When you DO want a baby, you wanna yell from the top of a mountain when you finally ARE pregnant. Clearly she never wanted a baby. CLEARLY!

I can ALMOST fathom that this is about finally ACCEPTING Caylee and the pregnancy, however, if it WERE a case of being forced to finally admit and deal with the pregnancy, out in the open WITH CA on her heels at every turn, then I can't see why she would say that she is the happiest she has ever been.

I really am with you on this one tho Eidetic.
it really does seem to be far more fitting with the time line for 2008. To me that is.

TIA for allowing me to verbalize this all over the place! ha ha

 

[LambChop]

BC took the diary because LE took a picture of it and I'm assuming BC took it for safe keeping and protect his clients against charges of tampering should the diary later be entered into evidence. There were pages torn out so I'm thinking BC wanted to make sure his clients were protected and would not be accused of tearing out more pages.

And once the FBI report is in, we'll all know. Then it will be in, or it will be out. Anticipation can drive us nuts!!!!!!

 

[Just Jayla]

Living near DC had its advantages when I was growing up-We got to go on some pretty cool field trips. One year, we went to the J Edgar Hoover building and got a tour of the FBI facilities and various labs.
Very cool stuff, rooms full of old guns and spy equipment, the lavish possessions of drug dealers including a stuffed grizzly...and one of the areas I remember distinctly is the ink and typewriter forensics (probably now computer/tech) areas. They told us they could figure out which of hundreds of typewriters had been used to type a letter, that they could test ink...It was fascinating to me at the time that it was even possible.
If this diary were to make it in based on the findings of an ink specialist, I don't think there should be any issue with convincing a jury of the science. There are decades of work behind ink studies and the FBI is so familiar with it, they can make the process intelligible (literally) to a 5th grader.

ETA: What are the chances the pen could be as rare as Henkl and only manufactured before or after a certain year as well??

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/258/forensic-databases.html

International Ink Library
The collection—maintained jointly by the U.S. Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service—includes more than 9,500 inks, dating from the 1920s. Every year, pen and ink manufacturers are asked to submit their new ink formulations, which are chemically tested and added to the reference collection. Open-market purchases of pens and inks ensure that the library is as comprehensive as possible.

How does the library work? Samples are chemically analyzed and compared with library specimens. This may identify the type and brand of writing instrument, which can be used to determine the earliest possible date that a document could have been produced. If the sample matches an ink on file, a notation is made in the database. The U.S. Secret Service generally provides assistance to law enforcement on a case-by-case basis. For more information, contact ###-###-####.

 

[gngr~snap]

Living near DC had its advantages when I was growing up-We got to go on some pretty cool field trips. One year, we went to the J Edgar Hoover building and got a tour of the FBI facilities and various labs.
Very cool stuff, rooms full of old guns and spy equipment, the lavish possessions of drug dealers including a stuffed grizzly...and one of the areas I remember distinctly is the ink and typewriter forensics (probably now computer/tech) areas. They told us they could figure out which of hundreds of typewriters had been used to type a letter, that they could test ink...It was fascinating to me at the time that it was even possible.
If this diary were to make it in based on the findings of an ink specialist, I don't think there should be any issue with convincing a jury of the science. There are decades of work behind ink studies and the FBI is so familiar with it, they can make the process intelligible (literally) to a 5th grader.

ETA: What are the chances the pen could be as rare as Henkl and only manufactured before or after a certain year as well??

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/258/forensic-databases.html

International Ink Library
The collection—maintained jointly by the U.S. Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service—includes more than 9,500 inks, dating from the 1920s. Every year, pen and ink manufacturers are asked to submit their new ink formulations, which are chemically tested and added to the reference collection. Open-market purchases of pens and inks ensure that the library is as comprehensive as possible.

How does the library work? Samples are chemically analyzed and compared with library specimens. This may identify the type and brand of writing instrument, which can be used to determine the earliest possible date that a document could have been produced. If the sample matches an ink on file, a notation is made in the database. The U.S. Secret Service generally provides assistance to law enforcement on a case-by-case basis. For more information, contact ###-###-####.

See? WRITING INSTRUMENTS!

What if that pen came from a lab or radiology dept... a plastic surgeon or a tattoo shop. They would be considered MEDICAL DEVICES wouldn't they? Surgical skin markers... I just wonder... but ai bet they are not included in that list.
They even have their own MSDS... material safety data sheets -cause they aren't thought of as "writing instruments" but "medical material"

ehh the diary won't be allowed anywayMOO

 

[Intermezzo]

Hi intermezzo l I didnt consider for a second you were being condescending, your question comes across sincerely i would like you to know that i personally think the same as yourself this was written 2008 after caylee death.

I understand your question and to clarify if i can cos i dont make sense to myself sometimes i know what im trying to say so here goes

Another poster stated that they thought this could have been attributed to the pregnancy time of 2005 just before caylee was born, so i had a read at it with this in mind it hadnt crossed my mind once that it was the pregnancy she was refering to.

So with that in mind and with casey living in la la land i thought
the end justifying the means could mean she knows shes lied about lots and to jesse but maybe it will be worth it. Its casey were talking about here so she would be justifying to herself it doesnt really matter how it effects others, she will only be thinking about herself.

I also believe she writes these things so her mother will read them. ie im so happy its all out ( well the truth acocording to casey that is) im so looking for ward to the future i have great (imaginary) friends etc

was just looking at this from another perspective but ultimately i believe 2008

hope that made sense

bbm
yes it makes sense
Thank you...