Is Casey the real Zenaida?

[Valhall]

I checked that status a little while ago and it does not say prosecutorial. It is possible I am looking in the wrong place. Can you check and, if you see prosecutorial status, point me to where I should be looking?

TIA :blowkiss:

Hey, never worry about anything that might clarify things! I'm just looking for the truth like the rest of the members!!

Okay, it still shows prosecutorial. I'll see if I can walk you through getting to the screen you need, but I'm also including a screencap.

Okay, go to the 8/11/03 traffic case and click "Details" (not summary). Then when the case opens up go down to the second "tab" looking thing that says "Charge Details" and then over on the right of that area click "Detail" and the following pop-up window should come up. (I've circled the important part on this one.)

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, you are right. Good point, JWG. He would need to do his best to track down any ZGs and check them out, especially this one.

Are you sure that they don't have to hand over all evidence they will use against her? I'm pretty sure they are bound by law to hand over everything they have in a reasonable amount of time. So far they've pretty much been handing over everything but what could potentially be the most important, blaming it all on the slow pace of the outside forces they don't have control over. By now they surely have everything tested from July and probably the December tests too but each time JB has to beg the judge to make them hand it over.

Yes, without getting into all the details, this is a "full disclosure" case. SA cannot hide inculpatory (damning ) evidence.

ETA: So I don't think they have a "ZFG" fake ID.

 

[AZlawyer]

Do we have reports from the original officers who responded to the 911 calls? Do they include any description of taking an item from KC's wallet or any list of items taken from the house? It seems like we would have seen those reports long ago....

 

[Valhall]

Do we have reports from the original officers who responded to the 911 calls? Do they include any description of taking an item from KC's wallet or any list of items taken from the house? It seems like we would have seen those reports long ago....

Go back and read Lee's interview with OCSO. When he starts talking about the woman detective snatching the ID out of the wallet, the investigator conducting the interview (think it was Yuri) appeared to HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT. Go back and read it and see if you don't feel like he had just been blind-sided by the info.

OFFICER'S NAME CONDUCTING INTERVIEW WAS ERIC EDWARDS

 

[KenoshaKid]

Yes, without getting into all the details, this is a "full disclosure" case. SA cannot hide inculpatory (damning ) evidence.

ETA: So I don't think they have a "ZFG" fake ID.

Which means we've seen all the good stuff already???:waitasec:

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

Go back and read Lee's interview with OCSO. When he starts talking about the woman detective snatching the ID out of the wallet, the investigator conducting the interview (think it was Yuri) appeared to HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT. Go back and read it and see if you don't feel like he had just been blind-sided by the info.

OFFICER'S NAME CONDUCTING INTERVIEW WAS ERIC EDWARDS

I have been watching for the longest time for the report from this female officer. I see that on p 1444 of the docs Lee mentions one of the first responding officers, implying there was more than one but all I've been able to find is the report of Ryan Eberlin approved by Tonya Mwale, the same one that approved Cain's gas can theft report. Is the approving officer someone from the office or that is a witness and partner? If the latter I can find no report by her anywhere or any other female from that first day. On that page he says "she was still there". (when he returned from Tony's with her purse) "She was in the living room with my mother and father." He's color blind so didn't know what color her uniform was but said she was an officer, not a detective. She is the one that snatched something up. This is in the interview with Edwards and Erickson.

Thank you AZLawyer, for that confirmation.

 

[AZlawyer]

Which means we've seen all the good stuff already???:waitasec:

There would be some things we don't have. For example: FBI forensic testing results that haven't been sent to LE yet, raw notes of LE that haven't been converted into report format, things that HAVE been received by LE but not yet sent off to the SA, things that have been received by the SA but are still sitting on someone's desk, being digested, etc., and haven't been given to the person in charge of disclosures, things that have been given to the person in charge of disclosures but he/she just hasn't gotten around to disclosing yet, things that are clearly disclosable but no one is really planning to use as evidence and doesn't seem too relevant anyway so they don't really go out of their way to get it disclosed unless/until JB throws a tantrum, etc.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

 

[rcvela001]

It's possible one of her LE lovers assisted her in getting that ID. I imagine that they would not come forward as it would jeopardize their job.

Didn't her one her previous lovers quit law enforcement right about the same time Caylee went missing and the other was fired?

 

[Valhall]

There would be some things we don't have. For example: FBI forensic testing results that haven't been sent to LE yet, raw notes of LE that haven't been converted into report format, things that HAVE been received by LE but not yet sent off to the SA, things that have been received by the SA but are still sitting on someone's desk, being digested, etc., and haven't been given to the person in charge of disclosures, things that have been given to the person in charge of disclosures but he/she just hasn't gotten around to disclosing yet, things that are clearly disclosable but no one is really planning to use as evidence and doesn't seem too relevant anyway so they don't really go out of their way to get it disclosed unless/until JB throws a tantrum, etc.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

BUT, don't they have the ability to refuse to disclose if disclosing could hamper an active investigation for which the particular piece of evidence is critical? (i.e. if they were still tracking down, for instance, WHEN KC started being ZG22 (this is hypothetical, of course), would they be required to disclose ANY evidence concerning that if they felt it could result in closing doors for them?

 

[nyvictoria]

BUT, don't they have the ability to refuse to disclose if disclosing could hamper an active investigation for which the particular piece of evidence is critical? (i.e. if they were still tracking down, for instance, WHEN KC started being ZG22 (this is hypothetical, of course), would they be required to disclose ANY evidence concerning that if they felt it could result in closing doors for them?

Again, let me say you have done an amazing job of putting together the "Casey = ZG22" story! You've presented a well thought out theory and I, for one, can completely see Casey having this other identity.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe they do not have to disclose ANYTHING that is part of an ongoing investigation. So, if they are still looking into if/when/how Casey took on this identity, they will not disclose any of the related materials.

 

[AZlawyer]

Again, let me say you have done an amazing job of putting together the "Casey = ZG22" story! You've presented a well thought out theory and I, for one, can completely see Casey having this other identity.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe they do not have to disclose ANYTHING that is part of an ongoing investigation. So, if they are still looking into if/when/how Casey took on this identity, they will not disclose any of the related materials.

The "active investigation" exception does not apply to items that fall within the required disclosure categories in a criminal case. (Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5)) There are also multiple court opinions that discuss this aspect of the law--see the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, section 1.d. on this page: http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/sunmanual/1BB05D142D8E4724852566F3006C7A1A

Now, it's possible that the SA could request a court order allowing them to delay certain disclosures pending investigation (for example, if LE believed the Anthony family could interfere with the evidence if they were alerted to the issue)...but we know no such motion has been filed, and there are (as far as I know) no mysterious sealed motions or orders on the docket.

In practice, there are also plenty of delays in disclosure for other reasons like the ones I listed above (not getting around to it, etc). Or the SA might just hold on to something interesting for a couple of months to see what else they could find out before disclosing it, as long as they didn't think they were risking such late disclosure that the evidence would be disallowed at trial. In AZ, for example, we are required to disclose documents in civil cases "in no event later than 30 days" from receipt. But no one is really keeping track and no one kicks up a fuss if you disclose something 4 months after you received it but still 9 months before trial....

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

I think there may be a misunderstanding as to how to read the OC clerk's data. First, the only way I can pull any case up is to first click on summary at the right, then details above. In the charge detail it has 3 parts. The middle section is the prosecutorial phase with the initial phase coming first and the court phase coming last. Now, it shows fully satisfied but the result date now shows 9/11/08 even though it was satisfied and closed in 2003. This is the date the fraud charges were filed and I have a feeling Florida has a law that any type of money type charges including child support arrears puts a hold and possible suspension on the drivers liciense. Perhaps that is why the added more current date. I don't see anything anywhere within this record that shows this ticket is in the prosecutorial phase any longer.

Here are the charge details:
Phase: Initial
Defendant: CASEY M ANTHONY Count #: 001
Offense Date: 8/4/2003 Citation #: 4278CSE
Complaint Date: Information Date:
Statute: 316.646(1)-A - TR- INSURANCE REQUIRED PROOF OF PIP AND PDL
General Offense Category:
Charge Level: Charge Degree:
Phase: Prosecutorial
Defendant: CASEY M ANTHONY Count #: 001
Offense Date: 8/4/2003 Citation #: 4278CSE
Complaint Date: Information Date:
Statute:
General Offense Category:
Charge Level: Charge Degree:
Result: Result Date: 9/11/2008
Phase: Court
Defendant: CASEY M ANTHONY Count #: 001
Offense Date: 8/4/2003 Citation #: 4278CSE
Complaint Date: Information Date:
Statute: 316.646(1)-A - TR- INSURANCE REQUIRED PROOF OF PIP AND PDL
General Offense Category:
Charge Level: Charge Degree:
Result: PRODUCED VALID ITEM AND PAY DISM FEE Result Date: 8/12/2003
Trial Type: TEMPORARY TRAFFIC Final Plea: NO PLEA ENTERED

Here are the case actions:
Docket Date Defendant Docket Entry
8/4/2003 A PAYABLE INFRACTION FILED
8/12/2003 A $5.00 DISMISSAL FEE POSTED AS A RECEIVABLE TO54 5.00
8/12/2003 A CASE SATISFIED 0000 UNKNOWN/NOT PROVIDED DT IMPOS: 08/12/2003 COMM CTL: PENALTY: 0.00
8/12/2003 A SHOWED VALID ITEM/PD FEE AND DISMISSED

 

[nyvictoria]

The "active investigation" exception does not apply to items that fall within the required disclosure categories in a criminal case. (Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5)) There are also multiple court opinions that discuss this aspect of the law--see the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, section 1.d. on this page: http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/sunmanual/1BB05D142D8E4724852566F3006C7A1A

Now, it's possible that the SA could request a court order allowing them to delay certain disclosures pending investigation (for example, if LE believed the Anthony family could interfere with the evidence if they were alerted to the issue)...but we know no such motion has been filed, and there are (as far as I know) no mysterious sealed motions or orders on the docket.

In practice, there are also plenty of delays in disclosure for other reasons like the ones I listed above (not getting around to it, etc). Or the SA might just hold on to something interesting for a couple of months to see what else they could find out before disclosing it, as long as they didn't think they were risking such late disclosure that the evidence would be disallowed at trial. In AZ, for example, we are required to disclose documents in civil cases "in no event later than 30 days" from receipt. But no one is really keeping track and no one kicks up a fuss if you disclose something 4 months after you received it but still 9 months before trial....

Thanks for clarifying! There's a lot of good information there. I'm still not sure I understand they why and how if it all but I doubt the State would do anything to jeopardize their case.

 

[cecybeans]

The laptop internet history seems to be pretty complete for the week leading up to July 15. There are no URLs or cookies for any government or official website in that history, leading me to believe no online payment was made.

Could it be possible that another computer was used? LA's? AD's? UCF library?

 

[MAMABEAR]

Yes, without getting into all the details, this is a "full disclosure" case. SA cannot hide inculpatory (damning ) evidence.

ETA: So I don't think they have a "ZFG" fake ID.

But maybe LE/FBI has this info and haven't turned it over to SA?

 

[Valhall]

Here are the case actions:
Docket Date Defendant Docket Entry
8/4/2003 A PAYABLE INFRACTION FILED
8/12/2003 A $5.00 DISMISSAL FEE POSTED AS A RECEIVABLE TO54 5.00
8/12/2003 A CASE SATISFIED 0000 UNKNOWN/NOT PROVIDED DT IMPOS: 08/12/2003 COMM CTL: PENALTY: 0.00
8/12/2003 A SHOWED VALID ITEM/PD FEE AND DISMISSED

This would be point, actually. And, no, I'm not misinterpreting what I'm reading. The case was never prosecutorial in 2003. It was "initial" and then "court" where she showed her insurance and driver's license at the court and paid a small fee and it was completely dismissed (as per Florida statute).

A dismissed and completely closed 2003 traffic case was made "prosecutorial" in September 2008. That would be the point....a rather bizarre one at that.

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

In looking again at ZGs case I see that a result date of 8/12 was entered in the prosecutorial phase section, this date being in between her case being assigned to collections and defaulting. I think her drivers license was suspended because of this defaluting. If she was an illegal it would be pretty hard to get and show valid ID if the SS is required. Did I read something about SS card being required more recently than she would have gotten her license issued last?

Valhall

This would be point, actually. And, no, I'm not misinterpreting what I'm reading. The case was never prosecutorial in 2003. It was "initial" and then "court" where she showed her insurance and driver's license at the court and paid a small fee and it was completely dismissed (as per Florida statute).

A dismissed and completely closed 2003 traffic case was made "prosecutorial" in September 2008. That would be the point....a rather bizarre one at that.

I could be the one misunderstanding but it clearly says that citation was satisfied and the date entered was the day they charged her for the check fraud. I'll bet they put a hold on the liciense of any Casey M Anthony in the system. Here more recent traffic violation under her name without the M doesn't have this section so the system went through and marked anything connected to her drivers license with the exact matching name. They would do that to flag the liciense, I believe, so they can collect the funds.

 

[JWG]

This would be point, actually. And, no, I'm not misinterpreting what I'm reading. The case was never prosecutorial in 2003. It was "initial" and then "court" where she showed her insurance and driver's license at the court and paid a small fee and it was completely dismissed (as per Florida statute).

A dismissed and completely closed 2003 traffic case was made "prosecutorial" in September 2008. That would be the point....a rather bizarre one at that.

Now I'm following, and I do see the 9/11/08 date now in the prosecutorial phase of the 2003 citation. :thumb: 9/11/08 is also the date the check forgery, fraudulent use of an ID, and theft of more than $100 entered the prosecutorial phase. See case numbers 08-CF-0013520-O and 08-CF-0013521-O.

 

[pregodego2]

I've always felt suspicious of the June 9th date - it's the original date said caylee went missing and then coincidently a ZG has her office broken into.... just odd.

also, has anyone paid close attention to the description casey gave of the supposed ZG? CA went off about this at the trial with the ZG suing casey. She said short dark hair, 5'something (can't remember), 120 pounds and on a scale of 1-10 she was a 10. UMMM besides for me not agreeing that casey is a 10, it sounds an awful lot like casey was describing herself. She certainly would rate herself a 10. Casey just basically described what she sees in the mirror. And it would add up to the decription the police would have of this ZG who has the traffic violations because it was casey who they really stopped.

Do we have access to the decription of the car casey.. ahem sorry, "ZG" was driving when she got stopped?

 

[Valhall]

I'll bet they put a hold on the liciense of any Casey M Anthony in the system. Here more recent traffic violation under her name without the M doesn't have this section so the system went through and marked anything connected to her drivers license with the exact matching name. They would do that to flag the liciense, I believe, so they can collect the funds.

Yep, we're in agreement now on the interpretation of the record. The case was satisfied (actually dismissed) and then changed in September. Now, as to the reason, I definitely agree it has SOMETHING to do with the charges filed on the same date, but I'm not sure it is because they were flagging the license.

My question is - for this particular traffic case - can it be changed to the status of "prosecutorial" indefinitely without charges filed on something different? The reason I ask this is because if, during the investigation they found that at the time of this citation KC had two driver's license, they can bring charges against her for that. Can they trip this to prosecutorial and just leave it for some time and then file a charge of holding two driver's licenses?