2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[The World According]

Oohh, RR, that bonding comment was very telling in itself. You are right!!! The only inference to be drawn from that is they were NOT bonded. That sets the stage alright.

 

[TallyHo]

Oohh, RR, that bonding comment was very telling in itself. You are right!!! The only inference to be drawn from that is they were NOT bonded. That sets t he stage alright.

AFAIK, after looking at all of the discovery and looking at Cindy's statements in particular the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was an ongoing power struggle between CA and KC over Caylee. This "bonding" statement is probably Exhibit A to that fact. It could definitely be part of motive in this case too. Combine a)KC wanted the life of being with a man in the entertainment business and who just so happened to not want kids yet (and not to mention that she wanted OUT of the Anthony's home - probably out of their LIVES would be a more accurate statement here) and b)KC was NOT going to let her mother have Caylee...... and you get a recipe for justification in a warped mind for a missing toddler.

 

[faefrost]

I agree 100%. The Judge will rule on case law. If the Defense can come up with ANY case law to support their motion ..... then it would be duly considered by the Judge. There is no reason for anyone in the audience during the Hearing on these issues, including the Defendant's parents, to become frustrated or shake their head in disagreement, when Judge Perry makes a ruling based on LAW.

It seems the issue at law is whether or not Cindy's 911 statements are classified as "EXCITED UTTERANCE" legally. And Prosecutor LDB laid out the reasons quite clearly, supported by LAW, as to why the 911 statements are admissible.

Prosecutor LDB said the State will NOT use the 2nd 911 call because it was not made in the presence of the defendant.

excerpts: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html
Statements made by Cindy Anthony that immediately precede Casey Anthony's statements are relevant to show Casey's state of mind when making her statements to her mother or to the police. The fact of the calls as well as the content of the calls give context to the defendant's responses and set forth the circumstances in which the defendant "created" the kidnapping story after denying there was any problem locating Caylee Marie Anthony. These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant, guilt being the ultimate material issue

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE - A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
(1) regarding an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement;
(2) before there was time to contrive or misrepresent;
(3) while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event

The disclosure by Casey Anthony that Caylee was kidnapped by the nanny and missing for thirty-one(31) days, revealed just before the final 911 call was a sufficiently startling condition or event to meet the requirements of section 90.803(2). The statements were made while the event was ongoing, rather than being related after the event, negating the likelihood that Cindy Anthony had time to contrive or misrepresent; and the statements were made while Mrs. Anthony was under the continuing stress or excitement caused by the event. Mrs. Anthony's statements at a later date - for example that the smell in the car was from garbage or a pizza - are prime examples of what occurs when someone engages in "reflective thought."

However, there can be no question from her tone of voice, the content of her statements relating to the event in question (the alleged kidnapping of Caylee), her own description of her state of mind at the time of the call, and the time elapsed since Casey's "revelation", that Cindy Anthony's statements made during the last 911 call were made under the stress caused by the event.

Not completely true. The prosecutor will not be submitting or playing the second 911 call as direct evidence. This is part of the absurdity f the defense motion to block the 911 calls. Once the prosecutors put CA on the stand and start questioning her on the events of that day, and her actions and conversations, all bets are off. If her testimony deviates from what actually happened the SA will go for the tapes. And given how many diferent versions of events CA has testified to since, it is extremely unlikely that the prosecutor will not be able to play all of the tapes at that point. And honestly it does not matter if the jury gets to hear them as part of the prosecutors presentation of evidence, or as part of their questioning of CA. So long as they hear them.

Also there are a few other strikes against trying to keep the 911 calls from trial. Judges tend to view them in much the same manner as they view statements to LE. They are given a great deal more weight and truthfulness as they are a direct official statement to public authorities and are almost always made in a stressful moment. They will not seal them or block their use lightly or for anything but the strongest and clearest reasons illustrated under compelling prior case law. Plus much of the prior history of their use has been in part to insulate the 911 call center staff from the need to directly testify in most cases. This is why 911 calls are mainly treated as "evidence" and not "testimony" in most places. (at least thats how it was always explained to me back when I was a call center supervisor).

And the final most obvious reason why I can't see the defenses motion succeeding. KC is heard on the tapes. The tapes are direct conversations with the defendant. Lawyer types, please correct me if I am wrong... but I am pretty sure a direct recorded conversation with the defendant made on the counties official 911 call system cannot ever be considered hearsay? y/n?

 

[LindseyLou]

I agree 100%. The Judge will rule on case law. If the Defense can come up with ANY case law to support their motion ..... then it would be duly considered by the Judge. There is no reason for anyone in the audience during the Hearing on these issues, including the Defendant's parents, to become frustrated or shake their head in disagreement, when Judge Perry makes a ruling based on LAW.

It seems the issue at law is whether or not Cindy's 911 statements are classified as "EXCITED UTTERANCE" legally. And Prosecutor LDB laid out the reasons quite clearly, supported by LAW, as to why the 911 statements are admissible.

Prosecutor LDB said the State will NOT use the 2nd 911 call because it was not made in the presence of the defendant.

excerpts: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html
Statements made by Cindy Anthony that immediately precede Casey Anthony's statements are relevant to show Casey's state of mind when making her statements to her mother or to the police. The fact of the calls as well as the content of the calls give context to the defendant's responses and set forth the circumstances in which the defendant "created" the kidnapping story after denying there was any problem locating Caylee Marie Anthony. These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant, guilt being the ultimate material issue

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE - A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
(1) regarding an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement;
(2) before there was time to contrive or misrepresent;
(3) while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event
The disclosure by Casey Anthony that Caylee was kidnapped by the nanny and missing for thirty-one(31) days, revealed just before the final 911 call was a sufficiently startling condition or event to meet the requirements of section 90.803(2). The statements were made while the event was ongoing, rather than being related after the event, negating the likelihood that Cindy Anthony had time to contrive or misrepresent; and the statements were made while Mrs. Anthony was under the continuing stress or excitement caused by the event. Mrs. Anthony's statements at a later date - for example that the smell in the car was from garbage or a pizza - are prime examples of what occurs when someone engages in "reflective thought."

However, there can be no question from her tone of voice, the content of her statements relating to the event in question (the alleged kidnapping of Caylee), her own description of her state of mind at the time of the call, and the time elapsed since Casey's "revelation", that Cindy Anthony's statements made during the last 911 call were made under the stress caused by the event.

I'm willing to bet the fact that she ever mentioned "smells like a damn dead body" in the 911 call haunts her every day. I agree re: "reflective thought" -she would NEVER have said that in hindsight. I just wonder though, when she said the car smelled like a dead body - did she actually think something happened to Caylee then?

Thank you Think Tank!

 

[The World According]

AFAIK, after looking at all of the discovery and looking at Cindy's statements in particular the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was an ongoing power struggle between CA and KC over Caylee. This "bonding" statement is probably Exhibit A to that fact. It could definitely be part of motive in this case too. Combine a)KC wanted the life of being with a man in the entertainment business and who just so happened to not want kids yet (and not to mention that she wanted OUT of the Anthony's home - probably out of their LIVES would be a more accurate statement here) and b)KC was NOT going to let her mother have Caylee...... and you get a recipe for justification in a warped mind for a missing toddler.

Hi Tally! Spot on friend, and thus the "Maybe because I am a spiteful *****" comment Casey explained to brother that night about why.

 

[LindseyLou]

Hi Tally! Spot on friend, and thus the "Maybe because I am a spiteful *****" comment Casey explained to brother that night about why.

Maybe throwing CA's words back at her - "take that" ???

 

[notthatsmart]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

I'm willing to bet the fact that she ever mentioned "smells like a damn dead body" in the 911 call haunts her every day. I agree re: "reflective thought" -she would NEVER have said that in hindsight. I just wonder though, when she said the car smelled like a dead body - did she actually think something happened to Caylee then?

Thank you Think Tank!

Well after smelling the trunk, Simon went back to work, George went to work, Ca went to work, so their actions are not so excited. IMO

 

[The World According]

Maybe throwing CA's words back at her - "take that" ???

Hi Lindsey, glad to see you posting with us. The struggle between mom and Casey is going to be pretty up front and center if mom testifies. I do not think it will be lost on the jury at all. Even within the 911 call you hear them arguing in the background, Cindy is saying "Answer their questions!", whereas Casey is saying I don't have anything to say to them. Can you imagine how that will go over? Many, many lawyers have opined that of course these 911 calls are coming in, just as sure as they do in every trial where there is one. I'll take the opinion of the local, state, national experts over Baez's ( just judging by the results of his attempts ) any day of the week and twice on Sundays. He may as well be back on getting his too remote in time, former Kronk family members nonsense into trial. LOL! Don't worry, Judge Perry will make short order of this on the 15th, as he has all other matters.

 

[Wisteria]

Hello there. I just noticed you are new too. We are glad you are with us!:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june:

OT thank you so much! Not so new to reading, just posting. Love it here.

Best yet: "If you don't like it, file a motion!" AL

 

[Wisteria]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

She called 911 because her grandaughter was missing. That is not an emergency?

 

[marspiter]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

No emergency? Hmm ok then, yeah sure. Lets see her daughter is stealing money from people, they find the car has been towed and has a smell that is describe as being that of a dead body (by multiple witnesses). The grand daughter is missing and the mother continues to be evasive as to her where abouts.

Perhaps your right a 2 year child missing isn't really something to be worried about. Hey she'll turn up in a couple weeks just like the TV remote thats been misplaced in the couch cushions...no biggy.

I mean why did the sheriffs department even get involved. I lose my car keys all the time right, and I don't have LE inconveniencing me with questions about where my keys might be. So yeah I can see the logic in that. There was absolutely nothing going on that should have had Cindy concerned in the least. At least nothing as concerning as to be classed as an emergency.

Hmm maybe Cindy should be charged with misuse of 911 since she wasn't calling in an emergency.

 

[Aedrys]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

One, a missing grandchild is most certainly an emergency. Just because Casey didn't tell her mother for thirty one days that Caylee was missing doesn't mean it wasn't an emergency at the time of the 911 calls. It was definitely an emergency to Cindy as we can hear it in her voice. After hearing these calls, the jury is not going to buy that this wasn't an emergency.

Two, Casey was also refusing to talk to the 911 operator, a move that would make her mother more upset, not calm her down. The 911 calls, especially the third one, are important in showing Casey's non-caring frame of mind at the time her daughter was missing. And it also goes to show that she kept spinning stories like always with everything, and for once, her mother wouldn't believe them. Otherwise Cindy wouldn't bring up the different stories in the first place. And Casey was THERE for all of those calls and didn't correct her mother on those different stories. Plus, she's a pathological liar, so it's impossible to prove anything of truth coming out of her mouth in the first place. It won't be hard for the jury to believe that she spun these stories to her mother to keep up the lies and not get into trouble, especially considering she didn't want to have any part of the 911 calls. Casey did NOTHING during these calls to calm her mother down, or show she cared for her distraught mother or her missing daughter one bit. These calls (at least the third one) will be admitted and will be devastating to her defense.

She also told everyone through texts and phone calls that the baby was at the babysitter's and then taken by the babysitter, so this isn't hearsay when it can be backed up in other ways. BTW, the SA is going to prove her consciousness of guilt with her own words, not Cindy's. Her own words are not hearsay. If she had been smart enough to turn off her phone and shut her mouth, them the SA would have a bigger problem proving her consicousness of guilt. The 911 calls just add to everything else in this case and give more evidence with Casey's own voice as well as her mothers. All IMO.

 

[marspiter]

Well after smelling the trunk, Simon went back to work, George went to work, Ca went to work, so their actions are not so excited. IMO

Yes and everything was peachy keen just another bright sunshine filled day in the Anthony home. I mean it's not like their grand daughter turned up dead or anything.

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

Casey:" Hey Mom, there's no emergency here. I killed Caylee ,because she pissed me off & she was cramping my partying,wild men lifestyle. By the way Mom.... You pissed me off too wanting to get custody of Caylee, & expecting me to watch you being a Mom to her. You also make such a fuss because I take a few $$ from you . You are next ,but don't make a fuss about it.!!!":angel:

 

[LindseyLou]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

I think she was ticked off at KC for keeping Caylee from her and being so shady (e.g., stealing money and disappearing for a while), but I don't think she had any idea before that day that KC had murdered Caylee. I think she probably started putting the pieces together that day and something started to not sit right in her mind - I think once she had all of the pieces and recalled the car smelling so bad, that's when she started freaking out. Freaking out is what she was doing in that 3rd 911 call. She had just heard that her grandaughter was at the very least missing and to add to that all of the events from that day that were suspicious. I think CA's 911 call was 31 days beyond an emergency call. Thankfully CA was as freaked out as she was about it and called 911 when she did. Who knows how much longer KC would have kept her stories going until someone found out...

 

[ZsaZsa]

Oohh, RR, that bonding comment was very telling in itself. You are right!!! The only inference to be drawn from that is they were NOT bonded. That sets t he stage alright.

That comment started loud bells ringing here too- what had she been doing for the last almost 3 years that she needed to now 'bond' with her only child?

 

[faefrost]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

she found KC, which was what she suspected. However when KC, as the child's primary guardian and responsible party, could not produce the child or provide an adequate explanation as to the child's location, state or health and security it immediately became an emergency.

And before you ask, no I am not a Lawyer, but I have had to specifically give testimony before courts on what constitutes and "emergency" and whether or not a given situation was appropriately viewed as such. I am considered as a qualified expert before the court (at least in NYS) on this particular subject. CA's call was well within the definition of emergency. At least from her point of view and LE and ES's. (obviously not so much in KC's point of view).

The determinant in this case is not any of KC's stories, nor is it any fears of kidnapping, nor even the time involved (31 days). What makes it an emergency at the point of that call is quite simply that a 2 year old child could not be accounted for. No one could answer the question "where is the child right now", no one could produce or physically see the child.

 

[Intermezzo]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

BBM
Interesting.
You think it was not an emergency 911 call because you think Cindy knew or suspected that Caylee was kidnapped or missing?

:waitasec:Casey was charged with Neglect. Based on your opinion above should Cindy have been charged as well?
See below for why I ask this question.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/abuse/publications/mandatedreporters.pdf

" Chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.) mandates that any person who knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that a child is abused, neglected, or abandoned by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for the child's welfare shall immediately report such knowledge or suspicion to the Florida Abuse Hotline of the Department of Children and Families"

"Although every person has a responsibility to report suspected abuse or neglect, some occupations are specified in Florida law as required to do so. These occupations are considered “professionally mandatory reporters”. A professionally mandatory reporter of child abuse/neglect is required by Florida Statute to provide his or her name to the Abuse Hotline Counselor when reporting. A professionally mandatory reporter’s name is entered into the record of the report, but is held confidential (§ 39.202, F.S. and 415.107,"]

Cindy's occupation falls under "professionally mandatory reporters" as required by law to report suspected abuse or neglect.

 

[JSR]

I'm willing to bet the fact that she ever mentioned "smells like a damn dead body" in the 911 call haunts her every day. I agree re: "reflective thought" -she would NEVER have said that in hindsight. I just wonder though, when she said the car smelled like a dead body - did she actually think something happened to Caylee then?

Thank you Think Tank!

Yes, I think she feared Caylee was dead. That last 911 phone call was the last time Cindy was in reality (and truthful). She no longer is in reality and is now comfy in either deep denial or cover up mode. I flip flop every other day to which it is, denial or cover up.