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

[circe257]

I'm more than a bit befuddled as to how a thread about a diary devolves into a discussion about the integrity of LE. While not a sworn member of LE, I have worked in the field for over 10 years. I've seen both good and "bad" people behind the badge. By and large most of them have been good and the bad are usually weeded out fairly quickly. The fact of the matter is - they are normal people, just like the rest of us; they have the same strengths, weaknesses, etc. The problem is most people put LE on a pedestal, which helps to reinforce an us/them mentality. I could go on, but this thread isn't the appropriate place for this discussion.....As a matter of fact not everything in this post is about the diary, but is answering some items brought up in the thread. If this is not the correct place for it please forgive me and feel free to move it elsewhere.

That said...when LE investigates a case - they document everything they investigate, whether it ends up being useless or not. This is why they took photos of the diary and the child rearing book, because they looked at them while they were there. IF they didn't take them into evidence, those items either weren't on the warrant or they weren't convinced of their evidentiary value, so they simply snapped a photo and moved on.

The sunshine law in FL is in place for transparency reasons, not so LE/SA can do a horse and pony show for the media/public. I would be shocked if after this case the legislature doesn't take a good, hard look at this law IMO.

As far as the discovery issue goes, the trial isn't until October, IIRC, so the SA has a lot of time before they have to give things over to the defense. They don't have to release them right away and with the sunshine laws probably shouldn't. IMO I think they are holding close to the vest for this reason alone and the items they've released either aren't integral to the case or are things the defense would have an easy enough time collecting for themselves in their own investigation. The judge and the SA have no control over evidentiary items that may have been turned over/investigated by another entity, such as the FBI.

The defense had no right to look over LE's shoulder when the remains were found, which is why the judge didn't allow it. They have the right to review after the fact, which is why documentation of evidence is crucial. If they didn't document properly, know that JB and his team will raise a huge stink about it and can use that to knock down the state's case at trial.

Most convictions in this country aren't determined by hard evidence, but circumstantial evidence. Ultimately it is up to the jury to decide the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Are innocent people tried and convicted in this country? Yes, they are. That is why there are so many rights ascribed to defendants. That is why there is an appeals process and entities such as the Innocence Project are in existence.

Are the diary and the tantrum pages in the child rearing book important? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. MOO.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Little OT here but company ID's are company property and KC should have returned her badge after she was terminated. If LE took the badge they may have returned it to Universal. I would think they used the badge to contact Universal to verify her employment and Universal may have asked them to return the badge. Since it has no bearing on the case there is no need to inform KC or CA. IMO

Bold is mine-

Rules don't apply to Casey.. or Cindy. LOL :crazy:

 

[flyonsweetangel]

I'm more than a bit befuddled as to how a thread about a diary devolves into a discussion about the integrity of LE. While not a sworn member of LE, I have worked in the field for over 10 years. I've seen both good and "bad" people behind the badge. By and large most of them have been good and the bad are usually weeded out fairly quickly. The fact of the matter is - they are normal people, just like the rest of us; they have the same strengths, weaknesses, etc. The problem is most people put LE on a pedestal, which helps to reinforce an us/them mentality. I could go on, but this thread isn't the appropriate place for this discussion.....As a matter of fact not everything in this post is about the diary, but is answering some items brought up in the thread. If this is not the correct place for it please forgive me and feel free to move it elsewhere.

That said...when LE investigates a case - they document everything they investigate, whether it ends up being useless or not. This is why they took photos of the diary and the child rearing book, because they looked at them while they were there. IF they didn't take them into evidence, those items either weren't on the warrant or they weren't convinced of their evidentiary value, so they simply snapped a photo and moved on.

The sunshine law in FL is in place for transparency reasons, not so LE/SA can do a horse and pony show for the media/public. I would be shocked if after this case the legislature doesn't take a good, hard look at this law IMO.

As far as the discovery issue goes, the trial isn't until October, IIRC, so the SA has a lot of time before they have to give things over to the defense. They don't have to release them right away and with the sunshine laws probably shouldn't. IMO I think they are holding close to the vest for this reason alone and the items they've released either aren't integral to the case or are things the defense would have an easy enough time collecting for themselves in their own investigation. The judge and the SA have no control over evidentiary items that may have been turned over/investigated by another entity, such as the FBI.

The defense had no right to look over LE's shoulder when the remains were found, which is why the judge didn't allow it. They have the right to review after the fact, which is why documentation of evidence is crucial. If they didn't document properly, know that JB and his team will raise a huge stink about it and can use that to knock down the state's case at trial.

Most convictions in this country aren't determined by hard evidence, but circumstantial evidence. Ultimately it is up to the jury to decide the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Are innocent people tried and convicted in this country? Yes, they are. That is why there are so many rights ascribed to defendants. That is why there is an appeals process and entities such as the Innocence Project are in existence.

Are the diary and the tantrum pages in the child rearing book important? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. MOO.

Good posting! I still work in the field and yes there are good and bad, sloppy and exact, jerks and nice people.... As a whole most of them feel they are superior to the normal population (for example: special license plates insignas so the cops that stops them knows they are brothers) .. I have seen documents changed after the guilty party has signed them and agreed to the consent and stip ....but all and all we have what we have ... and what other system would you recommend?

 

[JWG]

Bumping.

We now know that the diary was not taken into evidence and is in Brian Conway's possession as "an officer of the court." He said that either the prosecution or defense are welcome to it if they want it, but also indicated earlier that the prosecution did not want it.

 

[debs]

Bumping.

We now know that the diary was not taken into evidence and is in Brian Conway's possession as "an officer of the court." He said that either the prosecution or defense are welcome to it if they want it, but also indicated earlier that the prosecution did not want it.

He further indicated that the entry was from 2003, a full 2 years before Caylee was born.

Okiedokie Brad........what's your proof of that?

 

[shgrbkr]

This just blows me away. WHY would LE photo-document one page out of a private journal belonging to the suspect and not take the whole thing into evidence. Heck, they sent bugs to an entemologist in Indiana, plants to a botanist also in Indiana (I think) and leave KC personal journal out of evidence. Beyond that, why does Brad Conway have it? And how does he know KC wrote that in '03? What did KC tell CA and CA tell BC that's when it was written? If that's the case, then, OK, yeah, that's the ticket...it must be true then.

 

[Patty G]

Adding part of the transcript regarding the diary:
G. ANTHONY: At different times, but not the way I wanted to sometimes. KING: The key evidence. Prosecutors say they have a diary entry allegedly made by Casey days after Caylee's death. It's dated June 21st. And Casey allegedly writes, I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I completely trust my own judgment. I know I made the right decision. I just hope the end justifies the means.

She also allegedly writes, "this is the happiest that I've been in a very long time."

That's not saying anything specific, but generally it does add to the question.

C. ANTHONY: One thing that people -- you know, that went out there and that was clarified. That was written in 2005 before Caylee was even born. We have the diary. Brad has the diary --

KING: Help me here, Brad, because that's supposed to be key evidence here.

CONWAY: Larry, I've got custody of that diary. That was written in 2003, June 21st, two years before Caylee was even born.

KING: Who introduced it? Who brought this to the public?

CONWAY: That was disclosed along with the state's discovery.

KING: Why would the prosecutor issue something that was two years before the baby was born?

CONWAY: Because it was released with the discovery.

C. ANTHONY: No, it wasn't, Brad. It wasn't. Let me explain. The prosecutor didn't have that diary, didn't look at the diary. We had it. Someone at the Sheriff's department took a picture of the diary while they were in our house. We have possession of the diary. And leaked it to the media, and the media ran with it.

And then, a few weeks later, Brad showed the state's attorney's office the diary. They don't want it, because it's not evidence.

KING: Can for forensics authorize the date?

CONWAY: Sure, absolutely.

KING: Will you turn it over to a forensic expert?

CONWAY: Absolutely. It's in my state of keeping as an officer of the court. If the defense wants it, it's theirs.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/13/lkl.01.html

 

[momtective]

Adding part of the transcript regarding the diary:
G. ANTHONY: At different times, but not the way I wanted to sometimes. KING: The key evidence. Prosecutors say they have a diary entry allegedly made by Casey days after Caylee's death. It's dated June 21st. And Casey allegedly writes, I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I completely trust my own judgment. I know I made the right decision. I just hope the end justifies the means.

She also allegedly writes, "this is the happiest that I've been in a very long time."

That's not saying anything specific, but generally it does add to the question.

C. ANTHONY: One thing that people -- you know, that went out there and that was clarified. That was written in 2005 before Caylee was even born. We have the diary. Brad has the diary --

KING: Help me here, Brad, because that's supposed to be key evidence here.

CONWAY: Larry, I've got custody of that diary. That was written in 2003, June 21st, two years before Caylee was even born.

KING: Who introduced it? Who brought this to the public?

CONWAY: That was disclosed along with the state's discovery.

KING: Why would the prosecutor issue something that was two years before the baby was born?

CONWAY: Because it was released with the discovery.

C. ANTHONY: No, it wasn't, Brad. It wasn't. Let me explain. The prosecutor didn't have that diary, didn't look at the diary. We had it. Someone at the Sheriff's department took a picture of the diary while they were in our house. We have possession of the diary. And leaked it to the media, and the media ran with it.

And then, a few weeks later, Brad showed the state's attorney's office the diary. They don't want it, because it's not evidence.

KING: Can for forensics authorize the date?

CONWAY: Sure, absolutely.

KING: Will you turn it over to a forensic expert?

CONWAY: Absolutely. It's in my state of keeping as an officer of the court. If the defense wants it, it's theirs.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/13/lkl.01.html

Who the heck keeps a "diary" in protective custody by an "officer of the court" if it doesn't contain anything significant?

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

Who the heck keeps a "diary" in protective custody by an "officer of the court" if it doesn't contain anything significant?

People who want to keep it's entire contents sealed so they can negotiate the best deal for an exclusive reprint of Casey's diary on some media avenue that will pay them. I'm sure when the A's see that diary it's covered in dollar signs.

 

[JWG]

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.

Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

 

[BondJamesBond]

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.

Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

Good point re: scope of the warrant vs. diary. Perhaps a question for the "Legal and Procedure questions" thread, eh?

...being lazy. Does anyone have the warrant description @ their fingertips? I wanna fabricate a memory that it had some vague language that might've put the diary in play. :waitasec: Then again, if it had relevance and the warrant was a little fuzzy...even if LE was playing it safe to prevent it being thrown out...it seems like they'd have been right back w/ a new warrant. Interesting situation. Not the diary...but a picture of the contents...hmmmmmm :waitasec:

I just have this unexplainable compulsion to...uh..., 'pick it apart'...don't you?

 

[beach]

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.
Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

Exactly.

should the SA want to reconsider forensic testing, the fact that it is in the custody of an officer of the court would help ensure the integrity of the evidence.

 

[JWG]

Bond, here you go. As an FYI, the diary was photographed during the Dec 20 search.

Dec 11 warrant:
View attachment Search Warrant Dec 11.pdf

Dec 20 warrant:
View attachment Search Warrant Dec 20.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

He further indicated that the entry was from 2003, a full 2 years before Caylee was born.

Okiedokie Brad........what's your proof of that?

I assume he's going by the little "'03" written up in the corner of the inside cover. I know there are pictures of it earlier in this thread.

 

[AZlawyer]

Bond, here you go. As an FYI, the diary was photographed during the Dec 20 search.

Dec 11 warrant:
View attachment 3730

Dec 20 warrant:
View attachment 3731

It doesn't look like the diary would fit within either of these property descriptions. If it had been dated "June 21, 2008," I bet they would have taken it in anyway as evidence of the crime found during the lawful execution of a search warrant. But this one is dated " '03 " and is ambiguous as to the event(s) being discussed...so they just photographed it.

I wonder how it ended up with Brad C, though. I don't think Cindy and George turned it over to him to ensure that they didn't tamper with it. It sounds to me like a negotiated agreement to have it kept safe with an "officer of the court." (Apparently, JB did not spring to mind as a trustworthy option.) The question is, what do the prosecutors intend to do with it, if anything? Are they going to get the ink tested? If not, why bother keeping it safe?

 

[debs]

I assume he's going by the little "'03" written up in the corner of the inside cover. I know there are pictures of it earlier in this thread.

I know you're just tweaking my nose with that information. However, I do not accept that as proof. In fact, the alacrity with which they offered the information about that diary makes me even more suspicious that it has been altered in order to reflect something the Anthony's WANT people to believe, versus what it in actuality represents.

 

[Chezhire]

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.

Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

You are correct that this item could not be seized based upon the language in the search warrants of Dec. 11 or Dec. 20 (when it was photographed.) Bear in mind that authority per a search warrant does not expire and can still be acted upon in a legally executed future search, should something that is covered by a previous search warrant turn up, ergo had the Dec. 11 search warrant included something about books/notebooks/diaries, it could have been seized on Dec. 20 when they were executing the Dec. 19 warrant. Search warrants MUST be very particular and precise, else they can be challenged and quashed pretty easily.

I hope that LE does take BradC up on his offer & have it tested, course, that's more for my own speculative thoughts...

Bond, here you go. As an FYI, the diary was photographed during the Dec 20 search.

Dec 11 warrant:
View attachment 3730

Dec 20 warrant:
View attachment 3731

As usual, thanks for the reminder about this fact.

It doesn't look like the diary would fit within either of these property descriptions. If it had been dated "June 21, 2008," I bet they would have taken it in anyway as evidence of the crime found during the lawful execution of a search warrant. But this one is dated " '03 " and is ambiguous as to the event(s) being discussed...so they just photographed it.

I wonder how it ended up with Brad C, though. I don't think Cindy and George turned it over to him to ensure that they didn't tamper with it. It sounds to me like a negotiated agreement to have it kept safe with an "officer of the court." (Apparently, JB did not spring to mind as a trustworthy option.) The question is, what do the prosecutors intend to do with it, if anything? Are they going to get the ink tested? If not, why bother keeping it safe?

I agree that it wasn't something that could be seized (see above.)

I'd imagine that on December 20, with so many things going on right before said date re: finding Caylee, etc., and the evidentiary load upon LE, that they photographed everything so that they and the SA could review it later to determine any future need for same. Pretty standard procedure. If I were representing the Anthonys, I'd have required that they give me this for safekeeping, just in case. You and I know that you never really know who will decide to point the finger at your clients! :crazy:

 

[OneLostGrl]

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.

Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

He's a joke. A friggin' sell out, IMO.

 

[Kentjbkent]

After hearing the discussion about the diary entry on LK last night, I am intrigued. I suspect this entry is NOT from 2003, and although this particular diary may have been started by KC in 2003, she wasn't a regular "nightly" user.

My theory....

I am suspecting that Cindy may have originally found this diary in KC's room when she was digging around looking for "evidence" of where KC was staying, sometime between Father Day's and June 23 (date on this page we have seen).

I think maybe KC had written a few pages about that fight she had with Cindy on the evening of the 15th, or perhaps previous fights....but just lashing out in writing how she felt about Cindy, etc.

I think Cindy ripped the previous pages out, either the night she found them, or shortly after she realized KC was in real trouble once the knowledge that Caylee was missing was reported. I think Cindy destroyed this evidence the night she found the diary, or in anticipation of a search warrant. (Perhaps even the night she was washing the pants, etc...you know, the other "obstruction" stuff) I think when she was reading the diary (and seething at what she was reading about HER), she just skimmed over anything that wasn't directed at her (Mom).

When LE conducted the search, I agree that they probably could not seize it, and perhaps now figure that even if they could prove that pages were missing from the diary, they could not prove that those missing pages led right up to the date of this page (in 2008) so it is a moot point and not a valuable tool.

I think the reason that Mr. Conway is now in possession of this diary is that Cindy panicked when she realize that LE was interested enough to photograph it, and is afraid that they will come back for it, and if they do, she intends to make them fight Brad Conway for it....probably in a court hearing.

Another reason I think this.....last night Brad Conway responded to LK's question as to why the Anthony's needed a lawyer since they weren't charged with anything, right?" Brad stated that he was retained when it was being speculated that the Anthony's may have impending obstruction charges brought against them. This may be when Cindy turned the diary over to Brad, since she certainly would have been charged with obstruction if she defaced that diary in any way!

I don't think Brad knows a thing about this diary. He is only going by what Cindy told him...that THAT PAGE is from 2003. He didn't even seem to know the details last night about LE's possession/lack of it...Cindy had to "correct" him. I don't think Brad is very up-to-date on any of the evidence in this case that has been released, and probably because he doesn't care as that evidence isn't going to be used against HIS clients.

Hope this isn't rambling...just got off work and finally getting the chance to blow off this steam I have been carrying since seeing their appearance last night!!

 

[JWG]

After hearing the discussion about the diary entry on LK last night, I am intrigued. I suspect this entry is NOT from 2003, and although this particular diary may have been started by KC in 2003, she wasn't a regular "nightly" user.

My theory....

I am suspecting that Cindy may have originally found this diary in KC's room when she was digging around looking for "evidence" of where KC was staying, sometime between Father Day's and June 23 (date on this page we have seen).

I think maybe KC had written a few pages about that fight she had with Cindy on the evening of the 15th, or perhaps previous fights....but just lashing out in writing how she felt about Cindy, etc.

I think Cindy ripped the previous pages out, either the night she found them, or shortly after she realized KC was in real trouble once the knowledge that Caylee was missing was reported. I think Cindy destroyed this evidence the night she found the diary, or in anticipation of a search warrant. (Perhaps even the night she was washing the pants, etc...you know, the other "obstruction" stuff) I think when she was reading the diary (and seething at what she was reading about HER), she just skimmed over anything that wasn't directed at her (Mom).

When LE conducted the search, I agree that they probably could not seize it, and perhaps now figure that even if they could prove that pages were missing from the diary, they could not prove that those missing pages led right up to the date of this page (in 2008) so it is a moot point and not a valuable tool.

I think the reason that Mr. Conway is now in possession of this diary is that Cindy panicked when she realize that LE was interested enough to photograph it, and is afraid that they will come back for it, and if they do, she intends to make them fight Brad Conway for it....probably in a court hearing.

Another reason I think this.....last night Brad Conway responded to LK's question as to why the Anthony's needed a lawyer since they weren't charged with anything, right?" Brad stated that he was retained when it was being speculated that the Anthony's may have impending obstruction charges brought against them. This may be when Cindy turned the diary over to Brad, since she certainly would have been charged with obstruction if she defaced that diary in any way!

I don't think Brad knows a thing about this diary. He is only going by what Cindy told him...that THAT PAGE is from 2003. He didn't even seem to know the details last night about LE's possession/lack of it...Cindy had to "correct" him. I don't think Brad is very up-to-date on any of the evidence in this case that has been released, and probably because he doesn't care as that evidence isn't going to be used against HIS clients.

Hope this isn't rambling...just got off work and finally getting the chance to blow off this steam I have been carrying since seeing their appearance last night!!

Nice thinking there Kent!

One thing we should fold into your theory is where KC was on the 21st. I don't believe she left Tony's at all that day, largely due to being hung over from the $60 bar tab she ran up the night before at Fusian. :tipsy:

So after the fog of liquor lifts on the 21st she decides she had a really good time and decides to celebrate in writing. I can see that. But if she wrote it at Tony's, when did she take it back to the 'rents home and leave it? :waitasec: