Evidence

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Virtually anything said by Casey to another person will be admissible. Thus, if CA or GA testifies, whatever Casey told her/him would be admissible. As an earlier poster pointed out, what Casey said is different from hearsay, because of Casey's special position as the defendant. As the defendant, she is a party in the criminal case, and a "party admission" is not excluded by hearsay rules. (The other party in the criminal case is, of course, the State.)
So virtually everything Casey told people is admissible. BUT this reminds me of something: recently I've been watching the NG "bombshell" videos of the "tot mom" (I hate that expression) at the "actual time of her arrest for murder". Remember how the police interviewer, at one point, calls another detective and says "She's just invoked" ? Meaning, that Casey had just invoked her right to counsel. A defendant's invocation of her right to counsel is supposed to bring all police questioning to a screeching halt. Yet, as one TV talking head pointed out, they continued to talk to Casey after she gave her little speech about having her lawyer present. (It is very obvious that Baez or someone had explained this to her, and had tried to school her on the fact that she should just SHUT THE ** UP and should use the magic phrase "I want my lawyer with me" to stop the questioning.) Too bad they were only able to tell fool Casey this after those July 16 interviews she had voluntarily given police. Every word of those wild-goose-chase (Universal, etc.) interviews is admissible, whether Casey testifies or not. At the time those early interviews were given, Casey was not in custody and she was speaking voluntarily to police. Because she was not in custody at that time, the police didn't even need to inform her of "Miranda" rights.

Whatever Casey said after she "invoked" would not be admissible, but from what I saw of the arrest tapes, she didn't say much of anything significant during that period.
Now, remember that when Casey gave her little detached, quasi-erudite speech about "I have a right to have my lawyer with me" speech, she said something like, "As my lawyer and I have always said..."

That phrase (which I paraphrased from memory) was thrown in because she and her lawyer are going to try to claim that Casey was invoking her right to counsel from Day One, and therefore nothing at all that she told the police should be admitted. Which, of course, is total bunk. On about July 16-17, Casey was blabbing away voluntarily, and it's all coming in.

What CA said to the 911 operator will almost surely be admitted, whether she testifies or not. It qualifies as "excited utterance" or maybe "present sense impression." What GA or CA (and anyone else) commented about the car's smell will almost surely be admitted, whether that person testifies or not. It clearly qualifies as "present sense impression", so hearsay rules do not operate against such a comment.

Imagine the battle over who will call, or not call, GA or CA to the witness stand. Imagine this trial with neither parent testifying. That's not going to happen; they will be called to testify, but just imagine how it would be!

Someone earlier mentioned marital privilege in relation to GA and CA. But I don't think that's a factor here, since neither GA nor CA is a party to the "lawsuit" which is the criminal prosecution. Not sure about that.

Bottom line: Virtually everything Casey said b/f her invocation of her right to counsel (which came very late in the game) would be admissible. Since GA and CA are almost certain to be called as witnesses, just about everything they have said during all this will be admissible, because it will qualify as "impeachment" evidence. Everyone here knows that on cross-exam it's okay to bring up a witness's prior statements, for the purpose of impeachment. Their many prior statements are not consistent. Normal people's prior statements are seldom entirely consistent with what they testify to (much less, those of CA and GA); with CA and GA, there are already discrepancies just btw the various statements made by each of them. It will be an impeachment-fest.

What Caylee supposedly said during her short life may cause a disagreement about hearsay. If CA wants to testify "Caylee said Zanny had a white dog", it seems to me that would be offered to prove the truth of the matter declared--it would be offered to prove that Zanny had a white dog. (So jurors could then surmise that in order to own a dog, you must first exist.) I don't think that would be admissible. It would be hearsay.
 
PotatoHead said:
A few more that seem to be relevant to this discussion:

This one does address that even though Casey's parents uttered these things outside of a court statement, even though they may possibly hearsay, they can still be used by prosecution for other purposes -
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3082375&postcount=60

Pulling this one from another thread, as an answer to this would be great, too. Is JG's statement also hearsay?
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding us that Casey once told JG that Lee had come into her bedroom. You asked if JG's statement--that Casey told him Lee had come into her bedroom--would be admitted under hearsay rules?

I think that statement would be excluded for reasons other than hearsay rules. Wasn't that something Casey told JG back when they were dating (early 2006, or so)? If so, I think the evidence (Casey's statement to JG about Lee) would be excluded because it's too remote in time from the relevant time period. (The important time period being, the period of Caylee's murder.)

Also, Casey's claim to Jesse about Lee's alleged misbehavior is not relevant to the criminal case. What does Lee's alleged molestation attempt have to do with the allegation that Casey killed Caylee? Is Casey's defense going to claim that Casey killed Caylee so she wouldn't be molested by big bad Lee? (Wow, Casey--great job of protecting your child from molestation!)

If Lee testifies, I don't even think either side could/would ask him about his alleged attempt to molest his sister. Even if Lee did that (or tried to) that action would do nothing to impeach Lee's veracity. And impeachment of a witness is all about attacking that witness's veracity.

But if for some reason Casey's statement to JG (accusing Lee) were deemed relevant and were deemed not-too-remote-in-time, then hearsay rules would not keep it out. Just about all Casey's statements to other people are admissible, except any statements she made to police after invoking her right to have an attorney present.
 
Thanks Dev for expounding on and explaining this to us. Very helpful. :)
 
Dev said:
Someone earlier mentioned marital privilege in relation to GA and CA. But I don't think that's a factor here, since neither GA nor CA is a party to the "lawsuit" which is the criminal prosecution. Not sure about that.
Click to expand...


Marital privilege?? GA nor CA are being convicted or charged with anything right now, therefore where does the privilege come in?
 
flyonsweetangel said:
Marital privilege?? GA nor CA are being convicted or charged with anything right now, therefore where does the privilege come in?
Click to expand...


Also, isn't marital privilege waived if the crime was against a child?
 
With the latest doc dump being described as a “torpedo” to the prosecution (lol), I think we should have a thread dedicated to the DIRECT (or “physical”) evidence in the case against Casey. Although I think the circumstantial alone could easily convict her, I disagree with those that argue that there is still no direct evidence to tie her to the crime. I think this latest doc dump had more than meets the eye. This is all I have so far..any more ideas out there?

1) Soil on shoes- Ok, I am very surprised to see that only a few people have brought this up, and it is either ignored or gets very few responses. In the latest doc dump, they only refer to the shoes in the house, not the two pairs of boots in Casey’s car. I would think Casey would have worn these to go into the woods.
2) Shovel-There was also a negative match for soil found on the neighbor’s shovel. He states in his interview that she only had it for about an hour. He also saw her repeatedly backing her car into her garage, so he was obviously somewhat keeping an eye after she left. I think it would have been impossible for her make her multiple parking attempts and hide Caylee, without being seen, in an hour. At that time, she was just in panic mode and was trying to think of a plan to dispose of Caylee. I believe she intended to use the shovel at first, then realized the risk of being seen going into those woods with a shovel. As with the shoes, why would the documents just not go ahead and state the shovel from the Anthony’s house was cleared as well? Although like I said, I don’t think she used one at all. It’s pretty easy to dig a hole, my guess is that she used the sign that was found there. Just bend sides a little bit, and scoop out the dirt.
3) Fingerprints-This has also been pointed out many times. I think that Casey’s fingerprints are on the tape. The document excludes George, Cindy, and Lee, or “other” members of the Anthony family. I will never forget reading a People Magazine article where they asked their source (can’t remember his name, or if they even gave it out) if Casey’s fingerprints were on the duck tape, and he says “Read between the lines”. Why on earth would he say this if Casey’s fingerprints were NOT on the duck tape? The line perfectly fits with the document basically saying it all by excluding all the OTHER members of the Anthony family.
4) Trash Bag-We all know it’s not a coincidence that the trash bags in the A house are the exact same kind as the ones Caylee’s remains were found in. Still, that is not considered concrete physical evidence, and you can bet the defense will point that out. I randomly found this one day, and this can directly tie the garbage bag at the crime scene to the one that Cindy gave to LE in July.



Wow..technology today. I would think since trash bags come in pretty large boxes its unlikely the A’s bought a new box since then.And this was back before they had anyone running errands for them, and it’s pretty certain they didn’t leave the house, which makes me 99.9% certain they would have had the same box of trash bags.
Anyway, I think the prosecution is going to nail Casey. I really believe they have so much more than they are releasing, and the direct evidence that will convict her will be almost as overwhelming as the circumstantial. Input about some more direct evidence?
 
I think we have threads on each of these pieces of evidence. This is a critical part of the case to be sure.
But when we lump everything into one thread it is impossible to retrieve discussion on any one evidence discussion because there are posts about all the evidence throughout the thread.
So, please search for existing threads on these pieces of evidence and if there isn't one, please start one.
You have to trust me when I say that come trial or when there is discovery of new information on any piece of evidence you will be so frustrated when you cannot isolate the prior discussion because so many pieces of evidence were discussed in one thread.
thanks :)

Maybe we can try and tie the evidence together in this thread?
thoughts?
 
Thanks I posted something similar under the forensic evidence thread,but I do not know how to move it.I agree totally,with you about the prints and the shoesI didn't mention the shovel,but great point.I believe the "discovery" is as much about the evidence that has been eliminated as much as what is not being disclosed-----YET!
 
Thank you for the thread. I still have not heard anything about the stain in KC's trunk. People have called the body farm result's junk science, but they are highly respected. I just do not see how the hair showing decomp, the body fluids, and what ever else was in that trunk will not be allowed.
 
zippitydo said:
Thank you for the thread. I still have not heard anything about the stain in KC's trunk. People have called the body farm result's junk science, but they are highly respected. I just do not see how the hair showing decomp, the body fluids, and what ever else was in that trunk will not be allowed.
Click to expand...

I also am waiting to hear something about the stain in the trunk. So far it seems as though it's the only thing that hasen't been mentioned yet,I keep wondering why. Could it be because it's nothing or could it be because it's very important evadence. Either way, it seems strange.
 
First off thanks Califoriared.. for bringing up the shoes, Yeah i posted in the other tread how it wasnt the results from the shoes from the car.. but I think it got burried as I really didnt get many comments.. lol..
IM interested in the results from the shoes in the car..
The testing of the bugs..
the video from amscot parking area
any and all test on the plastic bag that we heard at one time had fluid and maggots on it..
and many more little things that seem to get pushed to the background..
 
JBean said:
I think we have threads on each of these pieces of evidence. This is a critical part of the case to be sure.
But when we lump everything into one thread it is impossible to retrieve discussion on any one evidence discussion because there are posts about all the evidence throughout the thread.
So, please search for existing threads on these pieces of evidence and if there isn't one, please start one.
You have to trust me when I say that come trial or when there is discovery of new information on any piece of evidence you will be so frustrated when you cannot isolate the prior discussion because so many pieces of evidence were discussed in one thread.
thanks :)

Maybe we can try and tie the evidence together in this thread?
thoughts?
Click to expand...





Sorry about that, just wasn't sure how to narrow it down. I just didn't see a thread that talked specifically about the physical, rather than circumstantial, evidence against Casey. And like I said I kept seeing other people bring up the point about the shoes from yesterday's doc dump, and it would pretty much be ignored. I think its definately a point worth discussing. I am with you that we should tie it all together here, especially now that we have a lot more info. from yesterday. I've also seen many comments expressing concern because they believe everything on Casey is circumstantial...I'm wondering if yesterday's doc. dump changed anyone's mind on that?
 
I agree that it's definitely worth discussing, but physical evidence IS circumstantial evidence too.

Direct evidence is, any evidence presented that doesn't ask one to draw inferences about that particular piece of evidence. This would include, but is not limited to:

1. Eyewitness of the crime itself being committed. Seeing Johnny flee the scene without seeing Johnny actually committing the crime is circumstantial. You would need to see, hear, smell, taste, feel, etc... the actual crime being committed.
2. A videotape of Johnny actually committing the crime.
3. A confession from Johnny saying he committed the crime. Though in reality, confessions aren't fool proof either.

Other evidences, including, DNA, fingerprints, semen, saliva, blood, hair, skin cells, witnesses seeing Johnny flee, behavioral evidences, doctor's testimony, character witnesses, etc.... ALL make up a circumstantial evidence case.

That's because, semen doesn't mean you killed someone (you could have been seeing this person), but combined with statements of, I have never seen her before in my life, really can make that evidence much more powerful.

Fingerprints in blood in and of themselves, don't mean you killed anyone either. What if you happened upon the scene, tried to help, then fled for fear that you'd be implicated? Combined with, I was not at that crime scene, and it's much more damning.

I just HATE when I see someone on TV say, this is ONLY a CE case. Nothing said could be a more asinine statement, IMO. CE is actually preferred in a court of law, as eyewitness testimony has historically proven to be the most unreliable evidence in existence (and we don't get many recorded for our viewing pleasure).
 
This was started by Imbackon in the Jury Instructions thread and I thought it was a terrific idea. I ended up hijacking that thread to continue but am moving that to here, not only cos a mod suggested it, but also to get more input.

We know a lot of things. So far, lists of evidence I've seen have either been overbroad, like a thread discussing the car trunk evidence is not a concise list of what the car trunk evidence is or shows; and/or includes too many disparate items, such as many excellent lists of the overall case posted by many.

What we're looking for here are facts to add to lists and discussion of those facts to make sure they should be on a list of facts. The idea is to come up with several specific lists which when added together, will either be the dots to connect to show guilt, or will show the totality of the evidence as we know it is unlikely to suffice.

Maybe it will help to think of it as "Posters' Exhibit 1, the Car Trunk Evidence" and so on and so forth, "Posters' Exhibit 23, Behavior and False Statements by KC Evidence" etc. We'll see where it goes.

To get caught up, Imbackon started the car trunk list at post #369, page 15 of jury instructions thread. The latest version is below; do you agree with the items listed? Did we miss anything?

ETA: I'm trying to keep the lists themselves as close to bullet points as possible. This isn't meant to discourage more lengthy discussion of the items on the list(s) themselves.
 
Imbackon later posted another list, which hasn't been discussed yet.

Imbackon said:
Evidence used to place Caylee's body in the Woods early on.
1. Caylee last seen by anyone 7/15 or 7/16
2. No evidence of anyone other than maybe Kronk within 50 feet of where the body was found prior to her actual recovery,
3. Evidence of dereliction of duty by the police in woods search after Kronk calls
3. Kronk did not know the Anthony's and had at least some reason to be in the area due to his job
4. Evidence that the body was there for about 4-6 months due to roots growing thru the body and possibly other entimological evidence
5. Evidence that the body was there for some months due to level of bone deteriation, dispersion of Caylee’s bones , muck on the bones, showing body at least there during floods will be given
6. Items from family home statistically matched to items from Anthony home, plastic bags, sticker showing unlikelihood someone buried her at a later date after KC was arrested and home less accessible (protestors, police, webcam)
7 Missing pooh blanket from home with body (when did CA claim she noticed?)
9. Evidence about depression in earth being formed under the body
What evidence would you need to feel comfortable that it proves length of time in the woods?
Click to expand...
 
lin said:
To rephrase Imackon's excellent analysis:

1. Multiple witnesses have given statements regarding the odor, including trained LE officers.

2. KC's text messages acknowledge a smell of death; she tried to give a reasonable explanation of a dead squirrel but the evidence shows no sign of a squirrel or other animal. With her overall lack of credibility and it being only her text that indicates a squirrel rather than a human body...

3. Multiple trained cadaver dogs from different sources hit on the trunk.

4. Hair from deceased Anthony family member found in trunk.

5. GA and CA statements regarding the smell, including GA I believe under oath.

6. Air sample tests from Body Farm indicating 2.6 days-ish human decompositional event.

7. (added by Jolynna) Evidence of clean up in the car; coverup -- if trying to "frame" KC, why clean up?

I don't need #6 to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a dead body in the trunk of the Pontiac. I accept it and would rely on #6 if I was on the jury, but I don't need it, kwim?

So whose dead body was it? From the hair, we can conclude it was an Anthony family member. From the total circumstance, it being in KC's possession; she being the last seen w/Caylee; Caylee being the only known Anthony family member to die around the time frame of the smell, etc., I think it's reasonable to conclude it was Caylee; absent a showing from the defense that it was someone else's dead body and that would open a big can of worms, wouldn't it? lol I highly doubt the defense will try to use the SODDIT defense --- (Some Other Dude Died In Trunk) because I don't see it getting them anywhere other than another charge to KC, lol. (joking)

So, are we convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. there was a dead body in the Pontiac?

b. the body was Caylee's?
(This is an essay quiz, please explain your answers!!)
Click to expand...
BBM
A hair belonging to an Anthony female [mitochondrial DNA] with decomposition evident on the root ,was found in the smelly trunk.Later the skeletal remains of Caylee Anthony were found.This leads to the conclusion that it was Caylee's hair found in the car,as she was the only female Anthony known to be deceased.
 
I'm convinced that Caylee was dead in the trunk of the pontiac before it was towed! Therefore I conclude she was deceased prior to that date, and after the date she was last seen by someone other than her mother. This fact narrows TOD time of death.

Therefore, because I believe the above to be true, I also believe that Casey's imagi-ringydingding from Caylee in July to be a deliberate attempt to through off investigators and shows consciousness of guilt.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 274 more.
Total: 2,100 (members: 275, guests: 1,825)

Online statistics

Members online
275
Guests online
1,825
Total visitors
2,100
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,615
Messages
18,097,482
Members
230,890
Latest member
1070
Back
Top