2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[beach]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

BBM

To answer your question that I bolded - Simply, it is her constitutional right to take the stand and testify on her own behalf. She has every right to get up there on the witness stand, be sworn in and refute the things of which she feels wrongly accused. Personally, I would LOVE to see that. Of course, that would bring us back to the issue of impeachment though. le sigh

 

[Cat13067]

See now this is confusing to me. First your saying this is all CA's doing and implying that CA should have never called police because it was none of her business. Then in this post your saying CA should have called about her concerns earlier. Perhaps after smelling the car CA was hoping there was a logical explanation and ICA would be able to put her mind at ease by telling her what was going on. I mean I doubt CA immediately though ICA killed Caylee. I just dont see a parent automatically jumping to that conclusion, but obviously CA know something was a miss.

The problem with saying CA made up the it smells like there was a dead body in the car comment is that the tow yard guy and GA both also testified that they felt the smell was indeed human decomp. I personally think it was that smell that alarmed CA enough to finally step in and find ICA and figure out what was going on.

Also this 911 call is not the SA's major evidence. This case does not hinge on this evidence in and of itself. This 911 call is just further circumstantial evidence to go along with the mountain of it the SA has. So saying the SA's case is weak because they are relying on this evidence is a bit misguided.

The "bombshells" in this 911 call are going to be ICA admitting that Caylee has been missing for 31 days and that she admits to not reporting it. I think it's interesting that even the 911 dispatcher ask why they haven't reported this sooner. That jury is going to want answers for those 31 days. The other big one for the jury when they listen to these tapes is going to be ICA's behavior during the conversation about her missing child. She showed no amount of elevated stress when talking about her "missing" child on these tapes. That is going to be huge for the jury. They are going to question why ICA was acting rather nonchalant and slightly annoyed on the phone call. The logical answer I think is pretty obvious when you piece together all the other evidence.

I agree with 100% when you said, CA was alarmed by the smell in the car, and stepped up to find her daughter. CA didn't go look for her daughter when she went to Universal to pick up Caylee. CA didn't go look for her daughter on July 3rd when she heard she was at a nightclub. It was the decomposition smell that caused CA to find her daughter, and the jurors will hear that when they listen to those 911 calls. There was panic, and fear in CA voice, because she knew her daughter had done something horrible.

 

[Cat13067]

I want to try to stay on topic in this thread. Do not wish to talk about duct tape or phone calls from the nanny. There seems to be a lot of case law on both sides of this argument. The Judge will have to study this one, it is not cut and dry. IMO This to me is a unique set of circumstances that is not comparalble to most cases.IMO It is 31 days since anyone in the family had seen Caylee. That in itself trumps any excited utterance IMO. The Jury is going to wonder why Ca didn't call police when she smelled the horrible smell. IMO Ca is going to explain that she made that statement to get the police out there and it had been hours. IMO The Jury may find Ca believable. Impeaching Ca and Ga is not going to look good to the jury. IMO They may begin to feel sorry for the grand parents. IMO I believe Ca and Ga are going to get very emotional on the stand, lots of crying and some jurors may relate. IMO The state needs to find some real evidence that the jurors can clasp on to. IMO This whole thing could backfire on them. IMO

I believe GA, and CA should not worry about the prosecution impeaching their testimony. The parents of ICA should worry about being prosecuted for obstruction of justice after DC testifies. IMO

 

[BondJamesBond]

First - I wanna thank all the members posting on this thread for maintaining the spirited discussion w/o attacking each other. :clap: Way to show us how its done. :thumb:

Second - I wanna comment on a minor point in the following w/ BBM:

I agree with 100% when you said, CA was alarmed by the smell in the car, and stepped up to find her daughter. CA didn't go look for her daughter when she went to Universal to pick up Caylee. CA didn't go look for her daughter on July 3rd when she heard she was at a nightclub. It was the decomposition smell that caused CA to find her daughter, and the jurors will hear that when they listen to those 911 calls. There was panic, and fear in CA voice, because she knew her daughter had done something horrible.

IMHO, as of the morning of 7/3, Cindy started stepping up her game to locate Casey. On that day Cindy initiated a on & off series of calls w/ Ryan which are shown on her cell records and corroborated by Ryan's statement to LE. After returning from the Universal goose-chase that afternoon (at what appears to be her discovery of Caylee's missing Teddy Bear) Cindy, w/ Lee's help, appeared to discover something on Casey's MySpace page regarding Fusian (resulting in Casey later deleting content in the first of two major content deletion campaigns) and called Fusian twice. Unsuccessful, Cindy then attempted to reach Caylee's babysitter(s)...first Brittany S. - whose number Casey had given her as related-to-ZFG - and second Lauren C. a real, former babysitter. THEN Cindy dispatched Lee to find Casey and he took up the nightclub chase caper. See the "Cindy Attempted to Contact ZFG" thread for the details.

And, IMHO, while Cindy was insistent on Casey taking her to SEE Caylee, 7/15,...and I agree the smell prolly had some measure of influence on her actions...it was the sheer discovery that the Pontiac had been IN IMPOUND and IN ORLANDO for the period during which Casey had been insisting she & Caylee were in Jacksonville, and, that the Pontiac still had Caylee's carseat in it for this time period...it was the sum of all of these factors, and not the smell alone, IMHO, that compelled Cindy to lay eyes on Casey 7/15.

So....IMHO, while Cindy would later say that there were no red flags, despite her 'my caylee is missing' MySpace entry - quite to the contrary - Cindy was escalating her efforts to locate Casey during the 31 days long before the Pontiac smell became a factor. The smell was one of many factors.

HTH.

 

[marspiter]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

Bold by me.

And there it is. Yes you may have your own opinion of what you think hearsay should be, and then there is the legal definition. So by the legal definition the SA is not using hearsay. So until evidence can be produced showing that the SA is using hearsay evidence (by its legal definition) can the allegations of the SA using hearsay evidence be put to rest?


Second bold: That's a bit misguided. The jury is going to be interested in the entire phone call and is going to analyze it thoroughly. They are also going to be interested in CA's testimony because the jury is going to want an explanation for the 31 days of not reporting. So testimony by CA showing that ICA was telling people Caylee was safe with a nanny is very relevant. CA is also not the only one whom ICA told this too. I believe many of her friends and TL in their testimonies have said ICA made statements during this 31 day time period that Caylee was with a nanny.



Third bold: Actually when ICA does speak to the 911 operater it pretty much strengthens what CA was saying. CA was saying her grand daughter was missing and her daughters car smelled like a dead body. Then ICA basically says yeah my daughters been missing for 31 days. CA was rather frantic on the call and ICA was nonchalant about the whole thing. So yeah in a way your right ICA talking with the 911 operator does trump CA in the minds of the jury.....just not in a good way for her defense.

 

[The World According]

I haven't seen this posted in this thread (or the GMA thread), maybe I just missed it, but I found Brad Conway's observations pretty telling -



BBM

This was from the written article, page 2

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/TheLaw/exclusive-george-cindy-anthony-speak-anniversary-caylees-disappearance/story?id=10911174&page=2

Thank you!! This is good, good stuff.
All of the local Florida defense experts, including Mr. Bill Sheaffer, Mr. Richard Hornsby,( both of whom who, in my recollection , have been correct one hundred percent of the time on their predictions of how the judge would likely rule in this trial) , the national former prosecutors and even some judges have opined, several of our lawyers that are members here, one our experts that testifies in trial regarding the very subject matter of what constitutes excited utterances and now even Cindy's lawyer have all opined that the tapes are coming in to the trial.

The only question for me ever is how far afield Mrs. Anthony will go trying to negate her statement. As many of you wise members have pointed out, no one has ever went to jail for lying to Larry King or GMA, but under oath on the stand, with Judge Perry presiding is an entirely different matter. Indeed!!

 

[strawberry]

Based on their interview yesterday, I think it is fairly clear that the State has good cause to treat them as hostile witnesses at trial.

 

[notthatsmart]

Thank you!! This is good, good stuff.
All of the local Florida defense experts, including Mr. Bill Sheaffer, Mr. Richard Hornsby,( both of whom who have been correct one hundred percent of the time on their predictions in this trial) , the national former prosecutors and even some judges have opined, several of our lawyers that are members here, one our experts that testifies in trial regarding the very subject matter of what constitutes excited utterances and now even Cindy's lawyer have all opined that the tapes are coming in to the trial.

The only question for me ever is how far afield Mrs. Anthony will go trying to negate her statement. As many of you wise members have pointed out, no one has ever went to jail for lying to Larry King or GMA, but under oath on the stand, with Judge Perry presiding is an entirely different matter. Indeed!!

Well IIRC, Rh also said it was his opinion that it was an accident and she tried to cover it up. IMO Is he 100 percent correct on that too? A guilty Kc is newsworthy and worth a lot of money. IMO I don't expect the press is going pursue Kc's side of the story here at all. IMO Furthermore, to put Ca in jail supports my notion that the Sa eye is off the ball. IMO Kc is the one on trial here and they should not lose sight of that. IMO To put everyone in jail that doesn't fit their SA story is the likes of Mccarthyism. IMO Oh we don't have any real evidence, so we'll just arrest everyone that doesn't fit our story. The good Jury in Florida is going to listen to both sides of the story equally. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

Based on their interview yesterday, I think it is fairly clear that the State has good cause to treat them as hostile witnesses at trial.

That may not be such a good idea. Marcia C did that with Kato and it didn't go over too good. IMO I think the defense is loving these kind of conversations because the focus here is on Ca and not Kc.IMO I think the Judge will allows these calls in, but the state bear a huge responsibility with them, as it can cause exactly something like that to happen. Hostile witness, now lets beat up on the grieving Grandmother and see how that goes over to the Jury. I just can't see these things happening at trial. sorry

 

[marspiter]

Well IIRC, Rh also said it was his opinion that it was an accident and she tried to cover it up. IMO Is he 100 percent correct on that too? A guilty Kc is newsworthy and worth a lot of money. IMO I don't expect the press is going pursue Kc's side of the story here at all. IMO Furthermore, to put Ca in jail supports my notion that the Sa eye is off the ball. IMO Kc is the one on trial here and they should not lose sight of that. IMO To put everyone in jail that doesn't fit their SA story is the likes of Mccarthyism. IMO Oh we don't have any real evidence, so we'll just arrest everyone that doesn't fit our story. The good Jury in Florida is going to listen to both sides of the story equally. IMO

:waitasec:

Just for clarification, and not meant to be snarky. You do understand that lying under oath is illegal. Perjury for example in NC is a class F felony and carries a sentence of 10-49 months depending on your prior record.

Here is the statute for perjury in Florida:
Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 837
PERJURY

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.--

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendant's mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes....HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0837->Section 02#0837.02

 

[marspiter]

Thank you!! This is good, good stuff.
All of the local Florida defense experts, including Mr. Bill Sheaffer, Mr. Richard Hornsby,( both of whom who, in my recollection , have been correct one hundred percent of the time on their predictions in this trial) , the national former prosecutors and even some judges have opined, several of our lawyers that are members here, one our experts that testifies in trial regarding the very subject matter of what constitutes excited utterances and now even Cindy's lawyer have all opined that the tapes are coming in to the trial.

The only question for me ever is how far afield Mrs. Anthony will go trying to negate her statement. As many of you wise members have pointed out, no one has ever went to jail for lying to Larry King or GMA, but under oath on the stand, with Judge Perry presiding is an entirely different matter. Indeed!!

Well IIRC, Rh also said it was his opinion that it was an accident and she tried to cover it up. IMO Is he 100 percent correct on that too? A guilty Kc is newsworthy and worth a lot of money. IMO I don't expect the press is going pursue Kc's side of the story here at all. IMO Furthermore, to put Ca in jail supports my notion that the Sa eye is off the ball. IMO Kc is the one on trial here and they should not lose sight of that. IMO To put everyone in jail that doesn't fit their SA story is the likes of Mccarthyism. IMO Oh we don't have any real evidence, so we'll just arrest everyone that doesn't fit our story. The good Jury in Florida is going to listen to both sides of the story equally. IMO

In TWA's example she is saying that RH is commenting on the tapes coming into trial and that it was an excited utterance by legal definition. RH is using his professional experience to make that determination. His "opinion" has a basis in law and his understanding of the law.

As to your example of RH saying it's an accident. That is his opinion based on speculation, and not based on the knowledge of his profession or evidence. His speculation of it being an accident holds no more weight then my speculation that the Chupacabra did it.

 

[marspiter]

Well IIRC, Rh also said it was his opinion that it was an accident and she tried to cover it up. IMO Is he 100 percent correct on that too? A guilty Kc is newsworthy and worth a lot of money. IMO I don't expect the press is going pursue Kc's side of the story here at all. IMO Furthermore, to put Ca in jail supports my notion that the Sa eye is off the ball. IMO Kc is the one on trial here and they should not lose sight of that. IMO To put everyone in jail that doesn't fit their SA story is the likes of Mccarthyism. IMO Oh we don't have any real evidence, so we'll just arrest everyone that doesn't fit our story. The good Jury in Florida is going to listen to both sides of the story equally. IMO

It should be further added that Florida is not a Police state, or run by a tyrannical dictatorship, and there is no grand conspiracy on the part of the SA. The SA is not going to just put people in jail who's stories don't match that of the State. To me these types of allegations are unwarranted.

As I pointed out earlier perjury is illegal. Subsection 2 of the above statute should also be noted since this case is a capitol felony case. CA and GA will not be jailed for going against the SA's story. However they can be jailed for giving conflicting statements under oath. Which they've already done.

 

[MD MOMMY]

To me, any part that Ca says Kc said is hearsay. IMO Perhaps not legally as AZ says, but it certainly isn't from Kc's mouth.IMO At what point does a defendant have rights when it comes to things they may not have said? IMO

Kc said the baby was kidnapped. IMO She did not say the baby was okay and at the babysitters. IMO That is something Ca said Kc said. We can talk til were blue in the face about this, but the Jury is only going to want to know what Kc said to the 911 operator.IMO Once Kc speaks, it trumps everything CA said. IMO

The part about the smell in the car was old news and plenty of time for Ca to reflect on that.IMO That is not an excited utterance. IMO

But your OPINION of what constitutes an excited utterance isn't within the law. See my post several pages back, I laid it out based on statute and case law.

 

[Trapshooter]

That may not be such a good idea. Marcia C did that with Kato and it didn't go over too good. IMO I think the defense is loving these kind of conversations because the focus here is on Ca and not Kc.IMO I think the Judge will allows these calls in, but the state bear a huge responsibility with them, as it can cause exactly something like that to happen. Hostile witness, now lets beat up on the grieving Grandmother and see how that goes over to the Jury. I just can't see these things happening at trial. sorry

NTS the State is fairly certain that these calls will show the jury the excited utterances from CA and the non-concern from ICA.

As for "beat up on the grieving Grandmother", that is not what the SA will be doing. If CA perjures herself she will be declared a hostile witness. But let's not forget the actions of the "grieving Grandmother" that showed such belligerents during her testimony, under oath, at the Morgan deposition. This same grandmother told the world to "get off your " and find Caylee!!! Not ONCE did the A's go searching for their granddaughter and blamed the media and the world for "putting a nail in Caylee's coffin".

IMO, I DO see these things happening at trial. The testimony of CA will become very heated, argumentative and in the end, CA will impeach herself.

 

[strawberry]

That may not be such a good idea. Marcia C did that with Kato and it didn't go over too good. IMO I think the defense is loving these kind of conversations because the focus here is on Ca and not Kc.IMO I think the Judge will allows these calls in, but the state bear a huge responsibility with them, as it can cause exactly something like that to happen. Hostile witness, now lets beat up on the grieving Grandmother and see how that goes over to the Jury. I just can't see these things happening at trial. sorry

I always thought that as hostile witnesses the prosecutors would have more liberty with questions, no? Like they can ask leading questions or something? I don't think it means they will be hostile TO the witness or portray her as anything other than someone who will not or cannot testify without mixed motives. I know I would have a hard time testifying against my loved ones. I wouldn't see it as beating up on the grieving grandmother. I'm not familiar with the Marcia C/Kato situation...

 

[tlcya]

ther_beatingA_Dead:argue:

 

[marspiter]

That may not be such a good idea. Marcia C did that with Kato and it didn't go over too good. IMO I think the defense is loving these kind of conversations because the focus here is on Ca and not Kc.IMO I think the Judge will allows these calls in, but the state bear a huge responsibility with them, as it can cause exactly something like that to happen. Hostile witness, now lets beat up on the grieving Grandmother and see how that goes over to the Jury. I just can't see these things happening at trial. sorry

Yes CA is the grand mother of the victim. However CA is also the mother of the defendant. So by CA impeaching herself and the SA having to pursue her as a hostile witness. That's going to show that CA is trying to defend her daughter and less the grieving grandmother of the victim. Having to treat CA as a hostile witness in my opinion is not going to be good for the defense.

It's like this, you don't have to cover up something if there's nothing to cover up.

 

[jon_burrows]

I think all three calls will come into evidence.

If I remember correctly, when Cindy went back to work and told one of her coworkers the car smelled like death, the coworker told her to call the police. Cindy said she wanted to give Casey a chance to explain herself first. Someone please correct me if my facts are wrong...I'm going off of memory.

The reason the frantic search happened for Casey on that particular day was because of the smell in the car. Cindy and George knew in their hearts what that smell meant but Cindy was still hanging on to an alternate explanation from Casey. Cindy knew that she had to lay eyes on a live Caylee in order to calm her suspicions. Cindy was getting nowhere with Casey so she called the police twice, hoping they would get something out of her. The third call (completely different, hysterical Cindy) was made because she finally knew for sure she wasn't going to see Caylee that night because Casey concocted the kidnapping story. I believe if Cindy had taken a few minutes to think things through or wait until George got home, that call would have never been made. That's what I interpret to be 'excited utterance'.

As for the car being towed and the lies about Jacksonville, etc, I don't think they played a big role in the 911 call. Lies were commonplace in that house so Casey lied about where she was...she lied about everything. That's nothing new. Casey also ran out of gas a lot and didn't take care of the car (I remember GA saying he was always cutting coupons for her to change her oil, etc. but she never did).

IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

It should be further added that Florida is not a Police state, or run by a tyrannical dictatorship, and there is no grand conspiracy on the part of the SA. The SA is not going to just put people in jail who's stories don't match that of the State. To me these types of allegations are unwarranted.

As I pointed out earlier perjury is illegal. Subsection 2 of the above statute should also be noted since this case is a capitol felony case. CA and GA will not be jailed for going against the SA's story. However they can be jailed for giving conflicting statements under oath. Which they've already done.

I think you got my point. Thanks The state of Florida is not a tyrannical dictatorship and are not running a grand conspiracy. IMO It is my opinion that they are going to focus on Kc and not Ga and Ca. It is just wishful thinking that Ca and Ga are going to jail. IMO It is my opinion that this case is going to be tried on the evidence and not a bunch of hearsay from people who have no idea what happened here. It is Kc that has the information needed. IMO IIRC The defense has said that Kc has a compelling reason for her actions. IMO That compelling reason may obliterate all this hearsay that so many are depending on. IMO

Opinon: I believe putting GA and Ca in jail is a big waste tax dollars spent and a huge mistake on the state side. IMO Ga and Ca did not kill Caylee. IMO They did not wish any of this. IMO They are victims of a horrible incident. IMO Blood is thicker than water and they are going to support their daughter unconditionally. IMO Caylee is gone, there is nothing they can do about that now. IMO This 911 call is going to open up a huge can of worms for the State. IMO This puts them against the grieving Grandmother whom is on their witness list. IMO This can not possibly be a good thing for the State. IMO

 

[Oakley]

That may not be such a good idea. Marcia C did that with Kato and it didn't go over too good. IMO I think the defense is loving these kind of conversations because the focus here is on Ca and not Kc.IMO I think the Judge will allows these calls in, but the state bear a huge responsibility with them, as it can cause exactly something like that to happen. Hostile witness, now lets beat up on the grieving Grandmother and see how that goes over to the Jury. I just can't see these things happening at trial. sorry

I don't generally respond to your posts, NTS, cuz we see things on opposite ends of the spectrum. But I just have to say I can't imagine anyone 'beating up' on Cindy, and much less perhaps, any jurist seeing Cindy as a grieving grandmother. If you mean expecting her to answer some tough questions truthfully, and holding her feet to the fire 'beating her up,' well, perhaps. But the jury will see that for what it is. JMHO.