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

[Friday]

NO, unfortunately we do not. But I am willing to be that last dollar in my checking account that LE has it.

If you turn out to be right, I'll be so thrilled! :blowkiss:

 

[Friday]

Putting aside for a moment what KC did to Caylee, it is still crystal clear that Casey really is completely, totally, heartless.

It wasn't enough for her to merely amuse herself by luring Amy into being homeless, KC next proceeded to steal all Amy's money.

ETA: I know there are many other, meaner, actions of hers, but when each one is viewed singly and without considering Caylee's fate at all, it's still obvious that KC is just plain evil. Evil. <shudder>

 

[impatientredhead]

Don't worry about the wrong checkbook excuse. KC also signed Amy's name to some checks. Besides that, in a jail videotape with the A's, KC says she feels bad about using Amy's money and she also explains the circumstances were desperate (paraphrasing here). She never claims it was an innocent mistake. In fact, IIRC, she soon afterward reiterates that she would lie, cheat, and steal to protect her daughter. :sick:

I am baffled that JB has not months and months ago tried to enter a no contest plea with restitution. He could cut a check from one of those licensing deals he has worked out for his client.

 

[RubyB]

I apologize for my questions, but I've never followed the KC=ZG22 thread, and I can't find the time to play catchup for the next few weeks. So could you please tell me whether there's been any firm indication that LE has considered or investigated any connection between the KC/ZG traffic ticket payment that day?

If KC was pretending to be ZG that day, I assume the location where she paid the ticket would have video cameras all over the place?

Thanks so much in advance.

Friday, it would be a real chore at this stage to try to get up to speed on that thread. Last I saw it, it was 53 pages long and being actively derailed by a bunch of antibiotic/pink eye/viral infection BS talk.

I obviously can't summarize all of that info here, and in fact I wouldn't be the best candidate to do so as I suffer from a touch of the menopause fog. I can say this though. There are a ton of odd coincidences that make you go hmmmm. There's been a lot of speculation about KC using a fake ID at times; LE has been real hush-hush on that subject. I'm hoping that it's true and the name on that ID turns out to be ZG. You're right, if KC showed up to pay toward this ZG22 traffic ticket, they'll probably have her on video. And maybe it's KC's fingerprint and sig on this ZG22's ticket?

There isn't any firm indication that it's being investigated (but it does appear that someone(?) is monitoring the situation). I don't find that unusual in this case, as I firmly believe that there are just some things (the really good "bestest" stuff) that will be withheld from the public until trial. Perhaps that's just me, but I have to think that they've got more than they're showing, and they're perusing it so aggressively because they know they've got the goods to push for the ultimate penalty.

BTW, I'm actually feeling bad that I brought this subject up in this thread, because it could be deemed off topic and there have been some kinda wacky responses one wouldn't expect from those not up to speed on the KC=ZG22? thread (I should have just bumped that up). When everything needs to be qualified with a big ole "IF" it's just leading to even more speculation...

I do appreciate the thoughtful inquiry and have enjoyed your posts over time. :blowkiss:

 

[HeSaidSheSaid]

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.

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.

And she only signed one of the forged checks with her own signature, the others she signed Amy's name. So that "accident" won't work as a defense.

 

[Friday]

I am baffled that JB has not months and months ago tried to enter a no contest plea with restitution. He could cut a check from one of those licensing deals he has worked out for his client.

You're right, Red. How in the heck do you plead "Not Guilty" to a series of crimes you committed on videotape, in a bank, no less?? Could he intend to plead some kind of temporary insanity caused by the extreme duress of her child's "kidnapping"? The kind of insanity that would cause her to focus not on her missing child, but on lingerie, sunglasses, and beer? That, I have to see. LOL

 

[RubyB]

And she only signed one of the forged checks with her own signature, the others she signed Amy's name. So that "accident" won't work as a defense.

...and the fact that she used the routing numbers from the account to attempt to pay her (outrageous) cell phone bill. BTW, I think this is the same way she scammed her GP's account, with the routing numbers from a B-day check?

 

[Friday]

Friday, it would be a real chore at this stage to try to get up to speed on that thread. Last I saw it, it was 53 pages long and being actively derailed by a bunch of antibiotic/pink eye/viral infection BS talk.

I obviously can't summarize all of that info here, and in fact I wouldn't be the best candidate to do so as I suffer from a touch of the menopause fog. I can say this though. There are a ton of odd coincidences that make you go hmmmm. There's been a lot of speculation about KC using a fake ID at times; LE has been real hush-hush on that subject. I'm hoping that it's true and the name on that ID turns out to be ZG. You're right, if KC showed up to pay toward this ZG22 traffic ticket, they'll probably have her on video. And maybe it's KC's fingerprint and sig on this ZG22's ticket?

There isn't any firm indication that it's being investigated (but it does appear that someone(?) is monitoring the situation). I don't find that unusual in this case, as I firmly believe that there are just some things (the really good "bestest" stuff) that will be withheld from the public until trial. Perhaps that's just me, but I have to think that they've got more than they're showing, and they're perusing it so aggressively because they know they've got the goods to push for the ultimate penalty.

BTW, I'm actually feeling bad that I brought this subject up in this thread, because it could be deemed off topic and there have been some kinda wacky responses one wouldn't expect from those not up to speed on the KC=ZG22? thread (I should have just bumped that up). When everything needs to be qualified with a big ole "IF" it's just leading to even more speculation...

I do appreciate the thoughtful inquiry and have enjoyed your posts over time. :blowkiss:

Thanks much, Ruby. I understand now. If LE does have any form of proof of a KC/ZG connection, they'll have to turn it over to the Defense so we'll probably know about it before the trial. Right? Now I'm not even certain of what I think I know. :banghead:

 

[countzero]

You're right, Red. How in the heck do you plead "Not Guilty" to a series of crimes you committed on videotape, in a bank, no less?? Could he intend to plead some kind of temporary insanity caused by the extreme duress of her child's "kidnapping"? The kind of insanity that would cause her to focus not on her missing child, but on lingerie, sunglasses, and beer? That, I have to see. LOL

Just want to know how much of this "ugly coping" defense is JB willing to dish out in court before the SA, jury, people in the room, sheriffs, and Judge S will have been rolling their eyes for minutes. Oh and the millions of us watching the streaming video live.

Especially during this fraud charge trial. Does he really believe "ugly coping" excuses will fly by on the pig and be accepted as a responsible defense.

He should just plead out this one, move on to letting us see just how "good" he really is as a defense attorney.

 

[countzero]

...and the fact that she used the routing numbers from the account to attempt to pay her (outrageous) cell phone bill. BTW, I think this is the same way she scammed her GP's account, with the routing numbers from a B-day check?

Yeppers. Also I think she used the same MO when she made up that dummy deposit slip and gave it to GA/CA. :doh: Even Homer has more up stairs than KC did.

 

[RubyB]

Yeppers. Also I think she used the same MO when she made up that dummy deposit slip and gave it to GA/CA.

I should have also said that I think this is a trick she learned bilking CA's account.

:doh: Even Homer has more up stairs than KC did.

Mmmmm... DONUTS

 

[RubyB]

Thanks much, Ruby. I understand now. If LE does have any form of proof of a KC/ZG connection, they'll have to turn it over to the Defense so we'll probably know about it before the trial. Right? Now I'm not even certain of what I think I know. :banghead:

No doubt that they will have to turn it over to the defense. But these Sunshine Laws have some major exceptions to them. Some things are deemed to prejudicial to put out there. Here is a link to an article that member "salvarenga" (props) posted in another forum and I've dragged around. Very helpful, I think.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/

I'm no WM fan (she's up there with NG on the obnoxious meter IMO), but there's a lot of common sense to this article. We, the public, want full disclosure, but it doesn't really work that way.

 

[flyonsweetangel]

Maybe not in your state, but in mine it has happened. In one case I know of they didn't get the stiffest penalty, but there was a plea bargain and the judge sentenced on the high-end on the pre-sentencing guidelines and would not accept the plea bargain.

With all the closing of prisons, several states on the brink of collapse, just the financial climate of today, judges are not ordering lock up like they once did. Governments are not any longer in a position to lock someone up especially when this was their first offense. I dont want it to be, but I still think KC will not get the death penalty. As I stated this check fraud will just help in getting her a longer term in prison. JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

No doubt that they will have to turn it over to the defense. But these Sunshine Laws have some major exceptions to them. Some things are deemed to prejudicial to put out there. Here is a link to an article that member "salvarenga" (props) posted in another forum and I've dragged around. Very helpful, I think.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/

I'm no WM fan (she's up there with NG on the obnoxious meter IMO), but there's a lot of common sense to this article. We, the public, want full disclosure, but it doesn't really work that way.

The concern I have about the WM article is that the exceptions to the Sunshine Laws that she is discussing would all require a motion and order by the Court to be invoked. No such motion or order has appeared on the docket. Even a motion filed under seal would appear on the docket, as would the motion to file the motion under seal. As would the motion to intervene filed by the press, the motion to exclude video cameras from the courtroom, the motion to allow gum-chewing in the courtroom, etc. etc.

To summarize what I've said on other threads:

1. If evidence is being given to the defense but hidden from us, we would know about it from the docket. Remember the jail video? We didn't get to see it, but we got to see the entire process of how it was hidden from us.

2. If evidence is being hidden from the defense, it is certainly not HELPFUL evidence (i.e., bad-for-Casey evidence), because the prosecutors CAN NOT USE any such evidence at trial unless they disclose it first. I doubt seriously that they would hide any evidence GOOD for Casey either, because they could get in a lot of trouble for that.

3. LE could, possibly, be holding on to some item of evidence to make sure it is what they think it is or to follow up on it before disclosing it, especially if premature disclosure could result in some Anthony family member tampering with the evidence. But I can't really think of anything that would fall within that category, and this is a dangerous game to play as trial gets closer and disclosure gets more important. They are not going to risk having evidence excluded that is really helpful to the case.

4. The FBI may not have sent all their results to LE yet. Other third parties also may not have responded to document requests. Or LE may have things but still be "processing" the information prior to disclosure.

 

[Intermezzo]

Putting aside for a moment what KC did to Caylee, it is still crystal clear that Casey really is completely, totally, heartless.

It wasn't enough for her to merely amuse herself by luring Amy into being homeless, KC next proceeded to steal all Amy's money.

ETA: I know there are many other, meaner, actions of hers, but when each one is viewed singly and without considering Caylee's fate at all, it's still obvious that KC is just plain evil. Evil. <shudder>

:clap: I quite agree

 

[Intermezzo]

Yeppers. Also I think she used the same MO when she made up that dummy deposit slip and gave it to GA/CA. :doh: Even Homer has more up stairs than KC did.

In TL's interview, did he not say, that Lee(during the time he went to collect Casey's belonging) told them Casey was a pro at stealing money after apologizing for not being able to warn them about Casey.

 

[countzero]

In TL's interview, did he not say, that Lee(during the time he went to collect Casey's belonging) told them Casey was a pro at stealing money after apologizing for not being able to warn them about Casey.

Sure he did as well as CA blabbering to AH about KC's lies and stealing family funds. :doh: Homerisms run in the family. I am gonna wear out this wonder smilie by the trial. :crazy:

As CA has stated many times, "there are truths within her lies" also apply to the speaker.

 

[MarleneM]

The paper towels in Casey's trunk could not be the paper towels KC bought with checks from Amy's account. Casey stole the checks after Amy went to PR on July 8.

The car went to the tow yard on June 30.

When I saw KC buying a large bulk pack of paper towels with AH's money in the Target video, I thought (knowing she was staying with TonE at the time) 'why the heck do those guys need that many paper towels? Party maybe?'

I reflected on KC buying so many paper towels in the Target video after the AR came out, but knew the dates meant the ones she bought that day were not the ones in TL's trash bag found in KC's car trunk at the tow yard. But it got me to thinking, what if KC set out to clean her car from TonE's by grabbing the boys' trash and rolls of paper towels from their stash? And maybe the guys noticed and asked who the heck used up all their paper towels so quickly? Perhaps they had had a large pack and the last couple rolls disappeared one day in late June.

If so, maybe in her grocery shopping at Target KC wanted to replace the paper towel rolls she took from them. Always wanting to impress (and since it's not her money) did she buy another large pack of towels for TonE and his roommates in that Target video? I know TonE was asked as to how his trash ended up in the trunk of her car, but I wonder if he or his roommates were ever asked why KC would buy them such a large (12pk?) package of paper towels in July? In hindsight now in the light of the autopsy report, are any new bells going off for TonE about paper towels?

 

[weasel]

If Casey is facing more than a dozen fraud charges, including fraudulent use of personal identity, might we find out if she had a fake I.D. in her purse and who's name is on it?

 

[JSR]

The concern I have about the WM article is that the exceptions to the Sunshine Laws that she is discussing would all require a motion and order by the Court to be invoked. No such motion or order has appeared on the docket. Even a motion filed under seal would appear on the docket, as would the motion to file the motion under seal. As would the motion to intervene filed by the press, the motion to exclude video cameras from the courtroom, the motion to allow gum-chewing in the courtroom, etc. etc.

To summarize what I've said on other threads:

1. If evidence is being given to the defense but hidden from us, we would know about it from the docket. Remember the jail video? We didn't get to see it, but we got to see the entire process of how it was hidden from us.

2. If evidence is being hidden from the defense, it is certainly not HELPFUL evidence (i.e., bad-for-Casey evidence), because the prosecutors CAN NOT USE any such evidence at trial unless they disclose it first. I doubt seriously that they would hide any evidence GOOD for Casey either, because they could get in a lot of trouble for that.

3. LE could, possibly, be holding on to some item of evidence to make sure it is what they think it is or to follow up on it before disclosing it, especially if premature disclosure could result in some Anthony family member tampering with the evidence. But I can't really think of anything that would fall within that category, and this is a dangerous game to play as trial gets closer and disclosure gets more important. They are not going to risk having evidence excluded that is really helpful to the case.

4. The FBI may not have sent all their results to LE yet. Other third parties also may not have responded to document requests. Or LE may have things but still be "processing" the information prior to disclosure.

You know I think you've highlighted beautifully how the discovery process works. I think, unless you work in the legal field, it's hard to grasp just how slow the discovery process can run. Most of the time the public does not see the discovery process as it's happening as it is in this case. In this case you have many many third parties reviewing and testing material. I don't doubt there will be some huge bombshells that really put this case together down the road. Right now we have to be patient. Although, quite frankly there is still a lot of evidence out there right now that would convince a jury Casey is guilty of the charges against her. And many people have been convicted on much less evidence (i.e. Scott P.)