State files motion to proceed with check fraudUPDATE CASE TO BE SCHEDULED

[impatientredhead]

The video of Casey writing these checks shows clearly that Caylee was not there with her. Will they be able to use this video in both trials, the fraud and the murder trial ? I don't know the rules on this, and would think that it would be used in both, but am not sure how using in one trial affect's the ability to use in a seperate one. That's it, I have exceeded my question limit for the day...

They would be able to use them in both but if she is not convicted in the fraud case prior to the murder case then they cannot say that she is stealing in them, they would only be presentable in a we can see Casey on this date and no Caylee is in sight. Which really proves nothing, I am sure every mother here could have video of them without their kids in tow. If she is convicted first then they can lay the ground work for that via questioning Amy (again her testimony parameters will be effected by this ruling) and then the tapes.

The question to me will be are they going to call George and Cindy in the fraud case (they cannot ask about money taken from them or Shirley as there are no charges relevant to that) but they *might* be planning to use them to say Casey said she was in Jacksonville on the following dates and then the tape shows otherwise. That is the type of testimony that they could try to get nailed down in the fraud case so if they try to modify answers in the murder case they have sworn testimony in conflict.

 

[RubyB]

I agree with the alter ego theory. However, KC even signed her name on AH's checks then there is also those photos captured by the bank of KC cashing AH's check with her forged signature. Not sure how LE/SA could or would bring the ZG profile into this charge.

Also there are the claims that KC fraudulently used CA cc's and let's not forget SP's bank account removals. Same time period.

I wanted to follow up here to say that I don't think that the KC=ZG22 theory has anything to do with the forging of AH's checks directly, but if they can convict her of the check fraud charges beforehand, it would make it easy to introduce the evidence of her paying toward the ZG22 traffic ticket with the cash from BOA that same day in her criminal trial. That is IF she did. And IF she did, that will make all of the mysteries from that ZF22=KC thread make more sense, and out KC as the nanny. The possibilities here get me a little excited.:woohoo:

 

[JSR]

Another quick question...At the trial for the forgery can KC be asked any questions regarding Caylee's whereabouts at the time the checks were written/cashed? TIA

If, and that's a really big if, Casey were take the stand in the check fraud case, then she would just take the 5th on any questions relating to Caylee. But before the SA could ask any questions relating to Caylee they would need to show relevancy to the actual check fraud case. And IMO Caylee's whereabouts aren't relevant in the check fraud case.

 

[impatientredhead]

If, and that's a really big if, Casey were take the stand in the check fraud case, then she would just take the 5th on any questions relating to Caylee.

As mentioned by another poster above Caylee has no relevancy in the fraud case and the parameters for testimony are much different in a criminal case versus civil case. There won't be any Caylee questions in the fraud case.

 

[Nore]

Valhall, and others who have followed and contributed to that "other" thread (ZG22=KC); this is where my mind immediately went with this new development.
IF KC has an alter ego and fake id, and IF she cashed AH's checked and strolled over to pay toward the ZG22 ticket, and IF there was this fake ID confiscated from KC's wallet, wouldn't the foundation for all of this need to be established before entering it into evidence in her criminal trial?
I've got a weird feeling that LE is preparing to prove that KC is the invisinanny in the financial crimes venue, and in doing so "greasing the skids" for the main event. Please Lord, let me be right...

----------------
I could well be wrong (senior moments) I remember reading something aboout a false drivers license.I think it was in the dep. given by Annie.Didn't kc. get a ticket in which she involved a false license? If only I could remember more or should say where I read it.

 

[Bittiness39]

I can't imagine what their defense to this will be.
"KC is not guilty. AH lent her the money because KC paid for AH's plane ticket to PR with CA's credit card...this was AH's way of paying her back...?"
Naw...see my signature below. JB can whine and complain all he wants. It is not the public's fault that KC is so obviously guilty. She is not getting off on this charge nor the murder of her daughter. She is going to sit in the slammer for life or she is going to death row. The smart, logical thing to do would be to contact the state and try to plead her guilty...make a deal with the state. But that doesn't appear to be the way JB or KC wants to play this.

 

[cecybeans]

IIRC, when KC was indicted for Murder One back in October, the state very generously agreed to postpone the check fraud case (and of course dropped the child neglect charges). I thought it may have been in response to some whining JB made about the disadvantage they would have at sentencing if she had a previous record. He was able to drag that expected date out even further by not filing for a speedy trial in the murder case.

Now, initially, when this all went down, the state had initially set a tentative trial date for January 2009 I believe; and there was a rather nebulous period where folks were speculating on perhaps March, etc. Once Caylee's remains were found, it was clear that to expect the trial would occur during the first quarter of 2009 was clearly impractical (and the state was very thoughtful in allowing the Anthony family to take several months to plan and execute an elaborate memorial for Caylee). So eventually another tentative trial date was set for October 2009.

Given all the delays, foot dragging and other self-serving and histrionic cacadoodledoo JB has larded into the case, I would think that the SA is no longer willing to postpone this check fraud case indefinitely simply to avoid KC having a prior record when her murder trial finally begins.

In addition to the excellent reasons above in which this may prove helpful to the murder case (not only for evidence but to help prevent AH from being unnecessarily shown in a bad light as has been speculated), I'm sure the SA is thinking that otherwise, by the time this gets to trial, they will be dealing with a time line that is either similar to those in Italy or something out of Guantanamo.

Linda DB you go girl! JB (and the Anthony family) have together done more to taint a jury pool than any prosecution attempt EVER could have. Maybe if he had spent less time playing hide the twizzler, yachting with GR, writing whiny unprofessional motions, and engaging in snarky, juvenile mind games with the press, he would be able to make "jury tainting" statements that had even a modicum of traction.

JB needs to put on his big boy panties, stop blaming the SA for his troubles and take responsibility for what he himself has done to taint a jury pool by mismanaging public perception from the inception of his reception.
:boohoo:

 

[ThinkTank]

If, and that's a really big if, Casey were take the stand in the check fraud case, then she would just take the 5th on any questions relating to Caylee. But before the SA could ask any questions relating to Caylee they would need to show relevancy to the actual check fraud case. And IMO Caylee's whereabouts aren't relevant in the check fraud case.

I agree .... KC already took the 5th on allllllllll of the interrogatory questions in Zenaida's lawsuit ....

 

[Rylee May]

Hello Everyone,
I am fairly new here....I mostly lurk. I was just sitting here wondering if the posibility of this timing to go forward with the check charges has anything to do with the fight CA and KC had about the money she stole from SP which could be motive for Caylee's death.
Starting this way could lead up to why Caylee was murdered. I don't know....just thinking out loud I guess....lol

 

[impatientredhead]

If Zenaida's civil case against KC was allowed to move forward BEFORE the murder trial (the Judge agreed that Zenaida should not have to wait to be compensated for her damages) ..... then, wouldn't the check fraud case also be allowed to be presented before the murder trial, so the people damaged by KC's fraud and theft can be compensated?

Technically yes, but if I recall correctly the previous motions about when the fraud case would be heard were during the time the death penalty was not on the table. KC's ability to defend herself against that will be given great consideration by the court. Should be interesting.

 

[JSR]

As mentioned by another poster above Caylee has no relevancy in the fraud case and the parameters for testimony are much different in a criminal case versus civil case. There won't be any Caylee questions in the fraud case.

Agreed. The SA would need to show relevancy regarding Caylee. As I said above I don't think one exists. However, it would depend on how Casey answered, if she ever took the stand. If she opens the door in her answers they the SA could sneak a few questions in. Although it's highly unlikely Casey would ever take the stand.

 

[MysticOne]

IIRC, when KC was indicted for Murder One back in October, the state very generously agreed to postpone the check fraud case (and of course dropped the child neglect charges). I thought it may have been in response to some whining JB made about the disadvantage they would have at sentencing if she had a previous record. He was able to drag that expected date out even further by not filing for a speedy trial in the murder case.

Now, initially, when this all went down, the state had initially set a tentative trial date for January 2009 I believe; and there was a rather nebulous period where folks were speculating on perhaps March, etc. Once Caylee's remains were found, it was clear that to expect the trial would occur during the first quarter of 2009 was clearly impractical (and the state was very thoughtful in allowing the Anthony family to take several months to plan and execute an elaborate memorial for Caylee). So eventually another tentative trial date was set for October 2009.

Given all the delays, foot dragging and other self-serving and histrionic cacadoodledoo JB has larded into the case, I would think that the SA is no longer willing to postpone this check fraud case indefinitely simply to avoid KC having a prior record when her murder trial finally begins.

In addition to the excellent reasons above in which this may prove helpful to the murder case (not only for evidence but to help prevent AH from being unnecessarily shown in a bad light as has been speculated), I'm sure the SA is thinking that otherwise, by the time this gets to trial, they will be dealing with a time line that is either similar to those in Italy or something out of Guantanamo.

Linda DB you go girl! JB (and the Anthony family) have together done more to taint a jury pool than any prosecution attempt EVER could have. Maybe if he had spent less time playing hide the twizzler, yachting with GR, writing whiny unprofessional motions, and engaging in snarky, juvenile mind games with the press, he would be able to make "jury tainting" statements that had even a modicum of traction.

JB needs to put on his big boy panties, stop blaming the SA for his troubles and take responsibility for what he himself has done to taint a jury pool by mismanaging public perception from the inception of his reception.
:boohoo:

Very informative and well said. Wish I could give your triple thanks!

 

[jai-yen]

It's a third degree felony to forge a check.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...31/SEC01.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0831->Section 01

Thank you! Am I recalling correctly that she signed her own name to the stolen check at Target?



~Jai Yen

 

[cjm11]

IIRC, these fraud charges are not light. Somewhere there should be a thread on this. Seems like if convicted, and the sentences are run consecutive (not concurrent), 68 years was mentioned. Of course, my memory ain't what it used to be!

 

[impatientredhead]

Agreed. The SA would need to show relevancy regarding Caylee. As I said above I don't think one exists. However, it would depend on how Casey answered, if she ever took the stand. If she opens the door in her answers they the SA could sneak a few questions in. Although it's highly unlikely Casey would ever take the stand.

Yes, if Casey's defense on the fraud charge puts her on the stand (I will win powerball first) than she could open the door.

The only real defense in the fraud case is to say that she accidently picked up the wrong checkbook, supported by her signing her own name and using her own ID (cajones!) and that she never had an opportunity to right the situation as she has been in jail since becoming aware of it. But I have no idea how JB is going to say that is not her on the tapes.

 

[MysticOne]

Yes, if Casey's defense on the fraud charge puts her on the stand (I will win powerball first) than she could open the door.

The only real defense in the fraud case is to say that she accidently picked up the wrong checkbook, supported by her signing her own name and using her own ID (cajones!) and that she never had an opportunity to right the situation as she has been in jail since becoming aware of it. But I have no idea how JB is going to say that is not her on the tapes.

Oh, my aching head! Could this really be a valid defense???? Is this why, at one point or another (sorry don't remember when or where), GA was asked if Casey ever had a checking account, and if so, where?

My point being, if she never had a checking account, the defense could not use the wrong checkbook excuse, but if she did.... well my brain just doesn't want to go there, after what you just stated.

 

[cjm11]

Yes, if Casey's defense on the fraud charge puts her on the stand (I will win powerball first) than she could open the door.

The only real defense in the fraud case is to say that she accidently picked up the wrong checkbook, supported by her signing her own name and using her own ID (cajones!) and that she never had an opportunity to right the situation as she has been in jail since becoming aware of it. But I have no idea how JB is going to say that is not her on the tapes.

ssshhhh, don't do the work for the lazy one! lol but IF this was the case, KC would have to prove she had a checking account. Has this ever been verified?

 

[Patty G]

Just want to stick in here the booking of Casey on August 30, 2008.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2584637&postcount=77"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Casey Arrested on Fraud Related Charges[/ame]

 

[MAMABEAR]

They would be able to use them in both but if she is not convicted in the fraud case prior to the murder case then they cannot say that she is stealing in them, they would only be presentable in a we can see Casey on this date and no Caylee is in sight. Which really proves nothing, I am sure every mother here could have video of them without their kids in tow. If she is convicted first then they can lay the ground work for that via questioning Amy (again her testimony parameters will be effected by this ruling) and then the tapes.

The question to me will be are they going to call George and Cindy in the fraud case (they cannot ask about money taken from them or Shirley as there are no charges relevant to that) but they *might* be planning to use them to say Casey said she was in Jacksonville on the following dates and then the tape shows otherwise. That is the type of testimony that they could try to get nailed down in the fraud case so if they try to modify answers in the murder case they have sworn testimony in conflict.

Could CA/GA be ask questions about the money KC stole from them and then that would open the door to ask if KC stole money from SP?

 

[countingstars]

IIRC, KC has a different atty for the check charges. JB is not directly involved (though I don't doubt he'll stick his nose in anyhow). Anyone know for sure?