Cindy's BoA Checking Account

[Intermezzo]

I believe on the statements from discovery show the bank put money back on the AT&T bills but I'm not 100% sure. I think it was the bank as it shows a withdrawal and then it being put back in.

Okay, I just went back and checked her checking account and I do not see any reimbursement so it is either a rumor or we heard about through another source. What I did see, though, was CA's BOA credit card that was run up to $5,000 in purchases and before CA discovered it, the balance was over to $8,000 with late charges and credit charges. There is no way they would have ever survived her living with them without doing something with her. jmo

I think you are correct...just couldn't find it..
I did find a post by Princess Prudence on page 2 of this thread which shows an AT&T payment

After the $3590.85 deposit on 5/6/08 the following electronic transactions took place:

5/7/08 Online banking withdrawal $1,010.91
5/7/08 Online banking withdrawal $ 400.00
5/7/08 Online banking withdrawal $ 300.00
5/7/08 Online banking withdrawal $ 200.00
5/8/08 AT&T payment for Casey $ 574.60
5/12/08 Online banking withdrawal $ 800.00

I believe that AT&T payment was reversed..but I am not certain.

Though it could be correct and Cindy paid Casey's cellphone bill after they found out Casey had stolen the money from her Grandfathers assisted living account had that charged reversed and funds returned to the grandfathers account and Cindy ended up paying for Casey's bill.

 

[LambChop]

I missed this
On Monday June 16th, Someone went to the new Super Walmart #3782 on S Goldenrod store, that store is close to the Anthony home
too bad there is no time stamp...

Cindy did state on Mondays she goes in to work early and gets home late around 7pm due to staff meetings...what is the chance, after being Off work for 2 days she goes shopping on a Monday night after a long day at work.

I believe he said after 4pm because he was on his lunch hour and worked the later shift. His first statement was he saw her on his lunch hour and most people were thinking 12pm. That is a lot of money and he only saw her with one small bag. jmo

 

[Intermezzo]

I believe he said after 4pm because he was on his lunch hour and worked the later shift. His first statement was he saw her on his lunch hour and most people were thinking 12pm. That is a lot of money and he only saw her with one small bag. jmo

The after 4pm could fit the timeline...if not for the cellphone pings...
The guy said he saw her at the Wal-Mart in Casselberry (Seminole County) on North Semoran Blvd..
iirc her cell pings for June 16th do not place her in that far north into Seminole county ..the furthest she went was Tony's apartment off University Blvd, near Goldenrod rd.

 

[LambChop]

The after 4pm could fit the timeline...if not for the cellphone pings...
The guy said he saw her at the Wal-Mart in Casselberry (Seminole County) on North Semoran Blvd..
iirc her cell pings for June 16th do not place her in that far north into Seminole county ..the furthest she went was Tony's apartment off University Blvd, near Goldenrod rd.

Thinking about the $178 charges at Walmart one has to wonder if Caylee was gone by early afternoon and KC knew she was not going home and had no clothes. The only clothes in the car were those work slacks. If she left the house as GA stated dressed for work, she had shorts and t-shirt on in Blockbuster's. So maybe she did some clothes shopping on her way out to TL's. Dress for Fusion, sneakers, etc. she would have needed all these things. jmo

 

[Intermezzo]

Thinking about the $178 charges at Walmart one has to wonder if Caylee was gone by early afternoon and KC knew she was not going home and had no clothes. The only clothes in the car were those work slacks. If she left the house as GA stated dressed for work, she had shorts and t-shirt on in Blockbuster's. So maybe she did some clothes shopping on her way out to TL's. Dress for Fusion, sneakers, etc. she would have needed all these things. jmo

Possible, yes.

Ping Map for June 16th,2008
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...8592,-81.309128&spn=0.265966,0.43396&t=h&z=11

Casey could have went to Walmart around 1pm, when she left the house to go to "work", until George left and it was safe for her to return.

June 16th she stayed within the boundaries of the same 3 cellphone towers until 4:15pm when her cellphone pings have her travelling north

If it was Casey that made that purchase at the new super WalMart on new Goldenrod rd...it would have been before 4pm...and it looks like the pings would have been the same as if she were at home, I believe..
--------------

just noticed which thread I am on... I went off topic...my apologies..:innocent:

 

[MsMacGyver]

I'm trying to find some proof on this thread that FCA wasn't an authorized person on CA's account. Lots of reading today...

 

[Intermezzo]

I'm trying to find some proof on this thread that FCA wasn't an authorized person on CA's account. Lots of reading today...

MsG, you will probably have to go through and read the BoA discovery documents/statements as well..it's linked at the beginning of the thread

I think it's about piecing things together, that we come up with the conclusion that the account holder was Cindy and Casey was stealing money from the account...

I do believe there may have been a time when Cindy said to Casey if she needed to get anything for Caylee she could borrow money from her...and then Casey just kept on taking....

Casey's name does not appear on the bank statements nor the checks (not that that is any indication of joint account..unless new checks are ordered)

iirc, Casey did not sign her name on the checks she signed as Cindy

Also, in the 911 calls Cindy mentioned having Casey arrested for stealing money from her bank account..she says she had the statements to prove it..

And in the July 3rd MySpace post Cindy accuses Casey of stealing money, lots of money.

 

[Friday]

It's so sad that the prosecution couldn't introduce the real motive (imo) that casey had for murdering Caylee. It was out of spite. Pure and simple. In casey's own words to Lee on day 31 "Perhaps I AM a spiteful *****) Yup, there it is, her confession on why she murdered Caylee. Cindy shut off Casey's thieving (which by all accounts lasted for a very long while). So out of spite, Casey took away what Cindy held near and dear...It is plain and simple, and explained in Casey's Diary of days post.

No matter what Jeff Ashton says in his book to justify why he didn't/couldn't bring all this in, I believe the root of the explanation is that he grossly underestimated its importance. This information was more than just the missing motive (which we know the prosecution isn't obligated to provide--unless it wants to improve its chances of winning a conviction. :banghead This information was the only way to make sense out of a senseless crime.

I think JA was so stymied by the prospect of trying to pin CA down with every single mistruth, and expose CA's real behavior and relationship with KC, that he convinced himself it wasn't necessary.

If he'd done that, I think the judge would have found CA's myspace letter to be relevant.

Hindsight. Sigh.

 

[Friday]

I forgot about that! I was thinking along the lines of the 911 call when FCA said she was trying to find Caylee the last 31 days on her own. Remember the shopping trip she took at Target with Amys money.

I wish some of the other jurors would come out of hiding and give some more information on what went on inside that room. I still can't believe all of them would care for JB over JA. Remember JB's cutting the cheese joke, I thought he was trying to compete with JA after he saw the courtrooms reaction to the pig in the blanket joke. JA offered some relief in the form of a joke, to relieve some stress from a very serious and sad case. He even explained his reasoning.
The jury foreman thought JA joke was in poor taste but never mentioned JB's cheese one which actually bombed because of poor timing. That foreman was an idiot...jmo

I don't disagree with what you've said at all, but I think maybe that in a trial, the jury looks at the prosecutors as the "big guys" with all the power, while the defense is..well on the defensive, ergo the "little guys." Generally, people don't like to see "big guys" ridiculing and laughing at little guys while the little guys are trying to do their jobs. People tend to feel bad for the little guys and take their side whenever possible.

Before the trial, I thought Jeff Ashton's courtroom antics were childish and unseemly for the prosecutor in such an important case. His laughing behind his hand at Baez was obnoxious, and I think it helped turn the jury against him and more importantly, his entire case.

 

[MsMacGyver]

MsG, you will probably have to go through and read the BoA discovery documents/statements as well..it's linked at the beginning of the thread

I think it's about piecing things together, that we come up with the conclusion that the account holder was Cindy and Casey was stealing money from the account...

I do believe there may have been a time when Cindy said to Casey if she needed to get anything for Caylee she could borrow money from her...and then Casey just kept on taking....

Casey's name does not appear on the bank statements nor the checks (not that that is any indication of joint account..unless new checks are ordered)

iirc, Casey did not sign her name on the checks she signed as Cindy

Also, in the 911 calls Cindy mentioned having Casey arrested for stealing money from her bank account..she says she had the statements to prove it..

And in the July 3rd MySpace post Cindy accuses Casey of stealing money, lots of money.

Thanks Intermezzo....:seeya:

Makes sense to me!...I don't think there would be any proof of FCA being on the account that we could see but, the evidence you presented tells me you probably had it right. If FCA was approved, why not sign her name instead of CA's. I'm only at page 5, too many irons in the fire today. It's interesting to read through if no one has already. I see some already using the info here for other threads to add to the big picture of unanswered questions. You always seem to be here to pull my behind out of the fire.....:slap:

:floorlaugh:.......Deserts on me....:cupcake:.......:coffeecup:

 

[MsMacGyver]

I don't disagree with what you've said at all, but I think maybe that in a trial, the jury looks at the prosecutors as the "big guys" with all the power, while the defense is..well on the defensive, ergo the "little guys." Generally, people don't like to see "big guys" ridiculing and laughing at little guys while the little guys are trying to do their jobs. People tend to feel bad for the little guys and take their side whenever possible.

Before the trial, I thought Jeff Ashton's courtroom antics were childish and unseemly for the prosecutor in such an important case. His laughing behind his hand at Baez was obnoxious, and I think it helped turn the jury against him and more importantly, his entire case.

I think you bring up a good point Friday...Hopefully the jurors didn't base their decision on who they liked better...JB or JA..but from the few we have heard from ya gotta wonder...:waitasec:

Perception and sequestration are two huge factors...imo

I could go into more of an explanation but...I...must...stay...on...thread...topic......:couch:

 

[logicalgirl]

Thanks Intermezzo....:seeya:

Makes sense to me!...I don't think there would be any proof of FCA being on the account that we could see but, the evidence you presented tells me you probably had it right. If FCA was approved, why not sign her name instead of CA's. I'm only at page 5, too many irons in the fire today. It's interesting to read through if no one has already. I see some already using the info here for other threads to add to the big picture of unanswered questions. You always seem to be here to pull my behind out of the fire.....:slap:

:floorlaugh:.......Deserts on me....:cupcake:.......:coffeecup:

It's probably a good idea to consider that banks don't actually check signatures when you write a cheque anymore. All deposits go through a centralized processing centre and focus on the numerical ID across the bottom left of the check, and whether the date and amounts match. It is up to the individual account holder to check whether or not your balances match your activity.

 

[Peazzzer]

IIRC, LDB sat at the prosecutors table during the trial ticking off 'hundreds' of checks written off of CAs account. What it came down to was if JB brought something up about someone, they were ready to open both barrels and add the stealing. It was after CM brought up the felonies and opened that door. I'm so sorry I don't have my mifi battery to get the info, but it is out there. Why does it seem this all went down another lifetime ago? Lamb, I agree!

 

[KarmaGet'em]

IIRC, LDB sat at the prosecutors table during the trial ticking off 'hundreds' of checks written off of CAs account. What it came down to was if JB brought something up about someone, they were ready to open both barrels and add the stealing. It was after CM brought up the felonies and opened that door. I'm so sorry I don't have my mifi battery to get the info, but it is out there. Why does it seem this all went down another lifetime ago? Lamb, I agree!

Are you referring to this?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/06/casey-anthony-why-didnt-she-testify-wkmg-points-to-sidebar.html

Casey Anthony’s decision not to testify at her murder trial surprised many people today.

WKMG-Channel 6 investigative reporter Tony Pipitone found a possible explanation in a sidebar from last Friday: a discussion about Casey’s criminal activity.

He read a transcript of the sidebar on the 6 p.m. news. You’re likely to hear more about the sidebar in a special that WKMG will offer at 10 p.m. tonight. Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee.

Prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick warned defense attorney Cheney Mason that the defense would open the door up to Casey’s criminal activity by talking about family dysfunction.

Prosecutor Jeff Ashton added: “You think you’re going to be able to keep out all the stealing if you start that, that’s what she’s saying?”

Burdick said: “There are hundreds of checks that she wrote on her mother’s account, hundreds.”

Pipitone then interpreted the conversation: “The state was threatening, if Casey Anthony testified, to bring in not just the crimes she was convicted of, the Amy Huizenga convictions and taking her checks, but hundreds of checks that Casey Anthony wrote on her mother’s account, stealing that we’ve not confirmed yet.”

Pipitone said he saw Burdick going through checks from Cindy’s account yesterday. “That’s what the state was about to do,” Pipitone said. “And that is one reason why — there are many possible reasons — Casey Anthony did not testify today.”

The actual sidebar transcript is here:
http://spoiledmom-mommyconfessions.blogspot.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-trial-sidebar-transcript.html

 

[MsMacGyver]

No matter what Jeff Ashton says in his book to justify why he didn't/couldn't bring all this in, I believe the root of the explanation is that he grossly underestimated its importance. This information was more than just the missing motive (which we know the prosecution isn't obligated to provide--unless it wants to improve its chances of winning a conviction. :banghead This information was the only way to make sense out of a senseless crime.

I think JA was so stymied by the prospect of trying to pin CA down with every single mistruth, and expose CA's real behavior and relationship with KC, that he convinced himself it wasn't necessary.

If he'd done that, I think the judge would have found CA's myspace letter to be relevant.

Hindsight. Sigh.

I agree...JA perceived this trial to be a slam dunk as alot of us did, even with all the lies...and there was certainly an abundance of them. I believe we have to spread the blame with those who also contributed to the verdict. Judge P allowed ALOT of unethical behavior in his courtroom and he was the one directly responsible for deciding to sequester the jury. Neither JB, DS, FCA nor JA were held to a level of behavior most courts of law expect and theres a reason why this was the first jury in almost 20 years to be sequestered. Last but not least..where the buck stops at..the jurors themselves. They were our last line of defense for justice. Regardless whether they felt the evidence was lacking, I believe the time spent deliberating, the absence of requests to review evidence that was presented, tells me there was more lacking than proof...jmo

 

[LambChop]

Something else that makes no sense. If CA thought KC was really working what did she think KC was doing with her money. I'd be worried she was spending the money on drugs or something illegal. I mean, really, isn't it irresponsible for CA not to have asked her where is your money going??? We are talking almost 3 years of KC stealing from them. Those are the tough questions they needed to ask.

Then CA says she had no reason to believe there was anything wrong because Caylee was with KC. And the worst was the comment about, "Oh, she knows I'm mad at her." It's as if she said, "Well, we know boys will be boys," as it this was something being passed off as lighthearted. jmo

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I'm trying to find some proof on this thread that FCA wasn't an authorized person on CA's account. Lots of reading today...

Are you serious??

 

[LambChop]

I'm trying to find some proof on this thread that FCA wasn't an authorized person on CA's account. Lots of reading today...

KC's name was not on the checks so she is not authorized to write checks, plus KC signed her mother's name. jmo

 

[denjet]

I agree...JA perceived this trial to be a slam dunk as alot of us did, even with all the lies...and there was certainly an abundance of them. I believe we have to spread the blame with those who also contributed to the verdict. Judge P allowed ALOT of unethical behavior in his courtroom and he was the one directly responsible for deciding to sequester the jury. Neither JB, DS, FCA nor JA were held to a level of behavior most courts of law expect and theres a reason why this was the first jury in almost 20 years to be sequestered. Last but not least..where the buck stops at..the jurors themselves. They were our last line of defense for justice. Regardless whether they felt the evidence was lacking, I believe the time spent deliberating, the absence of requests to review evidence that was presented, tells me there was more lacking than proof...jmo

I'm not sure I agree with your entire post ... IMO JA and LDB were well prepared and had ample evidence to win their case ... I think they streamlined their case and kept some evidence out that wasn't as strong or reliable as the rest and didn't muddy the water ...

They didn't need to stoop to Jose and Mason's level, the evidence and witnesses would tell the story ... and they did for the majority of people watching the trial and following the entire case, thus the public outrage

But the rest of what you say I totally agree with ...
What the prosecution didn't prepare for was the constant favoritism and exceptions made for the defense, the lack of courtroom decorum, the lack of formality, the free reign Jose was given to present his witnesses and introduce evidence on the fly and disrupt the proceedings with his drama ...

Judge Perry's erring on the side of caution to avoid appeals was taken too far, but maybe he thought like the prosecution that the case was solid and surely a jury would have more than enough to return a guilty verdict ... He always made sure he included the prosecution when reprimanding Jose and Mason's tactics ... that was wrong
He also didn't look into juror misconduct even when it was obvious the jurors had been talking ... that was wrong

:twocents:

 

[MsMacGyver]

I'm not sure I agree with your entire post ... IMO JA and LDB were well prepared and had ample evidence to win their case ... I think they streamlined their case and kept some evidence out that wasn't as strong or reliable as the rest and didn't muddy the water ...

They didn't need to stoop to Jose and Mason's level, the evidence and witnesses would tell the story ... and they did for the majority of people watching the trial and following the entire case, thus the public outrage

But the rest of what you say I totally agree with ...
What the prosecution didn't prepare for was the constant favoritism and exceptions made for the defense, the lack of courtroom decorum, the lack of formality, the free reign Jose was given to present his witnesses and introduce evidence on the fly and disrupt the proceedings with his drama ...

Judge Perry's erring on the side of caution to avoid appeals was taken too far, but maybe he thought like the prosecution that the case was solid and surely a jury would have more than enough to return a guilty verdict ... He always made sure he included the prosecution when reprimanding Jose and Mason's tactics ... that was wrong
He also didn't look into juror misconduct even when it was obvious the jurors had been talking ... that was wrong

:twocents:

TA

Great Post Denjet. I presented that part of my post as a response to Friday. After I came back later I realized it might be misunderstood.
IMO...The states case had more than enough evidence to convict and I believe if JA thought for one minute the case was lacking in that area, he would have compensated for it. I saw their reaction when the verdict was read, JA looked like he had just been punched in the gut and had all the wind knocked out of him...same feeling alot of us had that day.
Your post said it all!