Who is E. Gonzalez?TEXT MESSAGING INFO

[Woe.be.gone]

Page 46 - 85 here:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/casey-01-0805-2010_Part2.pdf

Also, Erica Gonzales, Mark NeJame info, some of Kronk's phone record.

Thank you so much. I have no idea how I missed these docs. Interesting.

 

[zoey]

I think Erica had better be careful, who knows what ICA is telling her defense attorneys. Maybe that this is the "real" nanny?

IIRC (& thinking my recall is pretty darn good on this one :innocent---While she was at TL house---she took all her phone calls OUTSIDE of the apartment ....If this EG did hear any kid, it could be from someone else who lived there in the apt complex----.....He did state that when asked about the phone calls she made or received.....(now texting---I'm sure anywhere anytime!)

 

[Just Jayla]

I think Erica had better be careful, who knows what ICA is telling her defense attorneys. Maybe that this is the "real" nanny?

I think the "real" nanny would be something closer to Victoria (Vicki) A.

 

[JWG]

Posted this on the status hearing thread, but more appropriate here ...

The phone conversation(s) occurred from roughly 2:05 PM to 2:20 PM on July 15th. This is the only time Erica spoke with KC via cell phone. This was during KC's drive to the airport to pick up Amy. During that same drive, and about 1/2 hour prior to the call, KC stopped by BoA to clean out Amy's bank account

- an event captured on tape with a notable absence of Caylee in tow. Then right before the call KC stopped by Cast Iron Tatoo to schedule her next inking :bullseye:, with a Caylee again being noticeably absent.

Now, KC was driving Amy's car on this date, because the Pontiac was sitting at Johnson's. Inside the Pontiac - but not inside Amy's car - was Caylee's car seat. Amy and friends could surely testify that no Caylee and no car seat were visible when KC picked them up.

About the only thing Baez could try to do at that point is state that KC left Caylee in the car when she walked into BoA and Cast Iron, and that she hid Caylee in the trunk when she picked up Amy. After all, she had a habit of leaving Caylee in the trunk, sometimes for days on end. :whistle:

 

[claudicici]

...or they could try to say that was the mysterious call when KC spoke with Caylee July 15th?....

 

[QB.]

or they could question the veracity of EG's statement.

 

[Tuffy]

...or they could try to say that was the mysterious call when KC spoke with Caylee July 15th?....

They have her phone records, they can't change the time of the call.

 

[claudicici]

they could say she lied about the time lol

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Only problem with that is the cell phone did not log that call.

That call didn't happen.

That call is another figment of ICA's very active imagination and easily debunked. JMHO


Justice for Caylee

 

[pip]

I wouldn't doubt it if KC was intentionally pretending to be saying things to Caylee when on calls to give the other person the impression Caylee was with her. I think she was paranoid, especially if she knew Cindy was snooping.. if Cindy talked to these people, they would say they heard her talk to Caylee while on the phone, leading Cindy to believe she was OK and Cindy might chill out on her search for KC, buying KC some time to plan. It would fit KC's MO..always scheming and plotting.

 

[shellsbells]

I wouldn't doubt it if KC was intentionally pretending to be saying things to Caylee when on calls to give the other person the impression Caylee was with her. I think she was paranoid, especially if she knew Cindy was snooping.. if Cindy talked to these people, they would say they heard her talk to Caylee while on the phone, leading Cindy to believe she was OK and Cindy might chill out on her search for KC, buying KC some time to plan. It would fit KC's MO..always scheming and plotting.

BBM- I agree, the fact that Ericka mentions hearing KC chide Caylee in very much the same way that JG did leads me to believe that really was calculated. I was really on the fence as to whether KC would really be so daft as to think she's so clever that she would just outsmart everyone (such as with "the code", which I had previously though was a reach), but maybe there's something to that after all.

IMO the devil is gonna be in the details, she tried so hard to cover her tracks and she tried to cover so many different bases with different stories that they ended up being inconsistent or redundant and that will be her undoing. I have a feeling that there's a heckuva doc dump coming...

 

[pip]

Yeah, I think she was trying to create alibi's for future need that Caylee was alive during that time. She had yet to organize fully the explanation she would use in Caylee's 'disappearance'.
Contradictions:
She blurted out she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days.
Forensics show she was already deceased.
No one had seen Caylee w/ KC.

KC's mind is very disorganized.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Above in ThinkTank's post #79 with link, pdf. page 49 ~

KC called EG at 0012 hours on July 16, 2008, AFTER deputies had arrived at Hopespring Drive.

Erica texted KC at 0025.

records show that KC called Erica at 0027 (where Erica claims to have spoken to a deputy sheriff from KC's phone.)

Now here's the problem, Erica claims that she called KC's phone back and spoke with a deputy sheriff BUT there isn't a record on KC's phone of an incoming call so that means it was an incoming call to EG from KC's phone." :waitasec:

Who is the Deputy who spoke to EG? Where is his statement?

Here's how the transcript reads - "When she called back(4), she spoke with a deputy who informed her Caylee Anthony was missing. This was the first time she learned of the child having gone missing."

"(4) According to Casey Anthony's cell phone records, there was a call placed to Erica Gonzalez on July 16, 2008, at 0012 hours. This was after deputies arrived at the Hopespring Drive address. Casey Anthony received a text message from EG's number at 0025 hours which was followed by phone call to Erica Gonzalez at 0027 hours. THERE WAS NO INCOMING CALL FROM ERICA GONZALEZ SO THIS WAS LIKELY AN OUTGOING CALL TO ERICA DURING WHICH ERICA CLAIMS TO HAVE SPOKEN WITH A DEPUTY SHERIFF."

-----------------------

Why are there always descrepancies in the testimonies? Is there a Deputy who will testify that he called EG using KC's phone and spoke to Erica Gonzalez at 0027 on July 16, 2008?

Also there is a line in the police report that reads exactly,
"She also knows of one named Jennifer Rosa or Raqual Farrell."
What the heck does that mean? Does she or doesn't she know them?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Posted this on the status hearing thread, but more appropriate here ...

The phone conversation(s) occurred from roughly 2:05 PM to 2:20 PM on July 15th. This is the only time Erica spoke to KC via cell phone.. This was during KC's drive to the airport to pick up Amy. During that same drive, and about 1/2 hour prior to the call, KC stopped by BoA to clean out Amy's bank account

- an event captured on tape with a notable absence of Caylee in tow. Then right before the call KC stopped by Cast Iron Tatoo to schedule her next inking :bullseye:, with a Caylee again being noticeably absent.

Now, KC was driving Amy's car on this date, because the Pontiac was sitting at Johnson's. Inside the Pontiac - but not inside Amy's car - was Caylee's car seat. Amy and friends could surely testify that no Caylee and no car seat were visible when KC picked them up.

About the only thing Baez could try to do at that point is state that KC left Caylee in the car when she walked into BoA and Cast Iron, and that she hid Caylee in the trunk when she picked up Amy. After all, she had a habit of leaving Caylee in the trunk, sometimes for days on end. :whistle:

BBM ~
I just posted above that there was contact via texts and a phone call between the two of them on July 16, 2008, 0012 to 0027. EG claims she spoke to a deputy at 0027. She told LE that she called back but there is no incoming call on KC's phone records. Therefore, LE concluded that the call was initiated at KC's end. Therefore, there should be a deputy who can confirm EG's testimony. Until then, we cannot conclude if they did or didn't talk via phone after June 15.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

IIRC (& thinking my recall is pretty darn good on this one :innocent---While she was at TL house---she took all her phone calls OUTSIDE of the apartment ....If this EG did hear any kid, it could be from someone else who lived there in the apt complex----.....He did state that when asked about the phone calls she made or received.....(now texting---I'm sure anywhere anytime!)

EG says she heard KC say 'Caylee sit down'. EG does not say she heard any children. The conversation is written in the link above (post 79). EG claims she heard KC speak to Caylee but never heard Caylee. If you read something different, please let me know.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think the "real" nanny would be something closer to Victoria (Vicki) A.

Wow! You'd better start a thread with her name then because here we're trying to sort out the truth about EG.

I'm curious about what VA has told LE and how she got sucked into this sad situation.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Only problem with that is the cell phone did not log that call.

That call didn't happen.

That call is another figment of ICA's very active imagination and easily debunked. JMHO


Justice for Caylee

EG agrees to the call. She says she called KC back but there's no record of KC receiving an incoming call at that time 0027. Problem.

Either KC called EG or a deputy called EG using KC's phone as EG did not make an outgoing call at that time but says she spoke to a deputy. Well then there should be deputy who can testify to that. Is it common for a deputy to call someone using a perps phone? Seems strange to me for record keeping/verification purposes. Hinky. More hinky. :twocents:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I wouldn't doubt it if KC was intentionally pretending to be saying things to Caylee when on calls to give the other person the impression Caylee was with her. I think she was paranoid, especially if she knew Cindy was snooping.. if Cindy talked to these people, they would say they heard her talk to Caylee while on the phone, leading Cindy to believe she was OK and Cindy might chill out on her search for KC, buying KC some time to plan. It would fit KC's MO..always scheming and plotting.

True but LE is checking it out and there are some descrepancies in EG's account of things. I'm trying to sort out the real evidence when there is some - not just speculate what could be based on what people think about Casey.

 

[AZlawyer]

Above in ThinkTank's post #79 with link, pdf. page 49 ~

KC called EG at 0012 hours on July 16, 2008, AFTER deputies had arrived at Hopespring Drive.

Erica texted KC at 0025.

records show that KC called Erica at 0027 (where Erica claims to have spoken to a deputy sheriff from KC's phone.)

Now here's the problem, Erica claims that she called KC's phone back and spoke with a deputy sheriff BUT there isn't a record on KC's phone of an incoming call so that means it was an incoming call to EG from KC's phone." :waitasec:

Who is the Deputy who spoke to EG? Where is his statement?

Here's how the transcript reads - "When she called back(4), she spoke with a deputy who informed her Caylee Anthony was missing. This was the first time she learned of the child having gone missing."

"(4) According to Casey Anthony's cell phone records, there was a call placed to Erica Gonzalez on July 16, 2008, at 0012 hours. This was after deputies arrived at the Hopespring Drive address. Casey Anthony received a text message from EG's number at 0025 hours which was followed by phone call to Erica Gonzalez at 0027 hours. THERE WAS NO INCOMING CALL FROM ERICA GONZALEZ SO THIS WAS LIKELY AN OUTGOING CALL TO ERICA DURING WHICH ERICA CLAIMS TO HAVE SPOKEN WITH A DEPUTY SHERIFF."

-----------------------

Why are there always descrepancies in the testimonies? Is there a Deputy who will testify that he called EG using KC's phone and spoke to Erica Gonzalez at 0027 on July 16, 2008?

Also there is a line in the police report that reads exactly,
"She also knows of one named Jennifer Rosa or Raqual Farrell."
What the heck does that mean? Does she or doesn't she know them?

There are always discrepancies even in the testimony of truthful witnesses because people are human and have faulty memories.

Someone called EG from KC's phone at 00:12 on July 16, as you mentioned above. EG texted back "Hey did you call ," which she now inaccurately (but understandably) remembers as her "calling back." She got a call from the deputy right away. And yes, the deputy would no doubt be able to testify to this, but most likely this "discrepancy" will simply never be mentioned in court because it's so easy to resolve.

Police reports contain typos for the same reason--the officers are human and make mistakes. The sentence "She also knows of one named Jennifer Rosa or Raquel Farrell" obviously should read, "She also knows of NO one named Jennifer Rosa or Raquel Farrell." Again, this will never come up in court. At most, EG might be asked in a deposition if she knows JR or RF. She will say no. JB/CM might say, "Did you tell LE something different?" and show her the report, and she will say, "No. I guess that's a typo," and it will never be mentioned again.

 

[AZlawyer]

EG agrees to the call. She says she called KC back but there's no record of KC receiving an incoming call at that time 0027. Problem.

Either KC called EG or a deputy called EG using KC's phone as EG did not make an outgoing call at that time but says she spoke to a deputy. Well then there should be deputy who can testify to that. Is it common for a deputy to call someone using a perps phone? Seems strange to me for record keeping/verification purposes. Hinky. More hinky. :twocents:

We know that there was a deputy using KC's phone at about that time. He spoke to several people who were contacted by or attempted to contact KC late that night. Considering KC's story, obviously someone had to "man" that phone for potential contacts from the "perps" while KC was being questioned. What if KC had called EG at 00:12 to demand that she return Caylee, and EG was returning that call (by text) at 00:25? Should the deputy have called EG from his work phone at 00:27? Would a kidnapper have answered an immediate call-back from an unfamiliar phone? Nothing hinky about using KC's phone to ensure witnesses would answer--but yes, LE needs to know what time they took control of the phone and what time they released it, IF they intend to say anything about calls/texts made by KC that night.