State Motion to recover Investigative Costs

[logicalgirl]

The Goldmans were not after money. They wanted OJ held responsible for their son's death. They wanted to make his life as difficult as possible. They did not care if they ever collected a dime but if word was out that OJ had anything of value or cash on hand, they pressured him. Not for money, but to send a message.

In Casey's case, the state wants to send a message as well. But...they also must attempt to recoup monies needlessly spent. The State of Florida might just be a bit more insistent with Ms. Anthony than the Goldmans were with OJ.

IMO.

Agree. The State - on behalf of the Florida taxpayer - will probably be more insistent than the Goldmans. The State may be sending a message - and it's pay up - unlike the Goldman's message, which is - we will never let you forget what you have done.

 

[krkrjx]

They dont need to go after CA. She didnt impact the case in the end, imo. She didnt change the outcome of the trial with her perjury.

IMO, CA did knowingly and willfully destroy evidence. I agree that her perjury probably did not affect the outcome of the trial given the jury was...well, you know.

 

[krkrjx]

Agree. The State - on behalf of the Florida taxpayer - will probably be more insistent than the Goldmans. The State may be sending a message - and it's pay up - unlike the Goldman's message, which is - we will never let you forget what you have done.

Yup! That was the Goldmans' full intent. They would have filed civil suit against OJ even if he was a pauper and was expected to remain a pauper. It was never about money for them. It was about sending a message to their son's killer that even though he was acquitted they knew what he did, and they were not going to let him forget it.

 

[logicalgirl]

IMO, CA did knowingly and willfully destroy evidence. I agree she probably did not affect the outcome of the trial given the jury was...well, you know.

This has always been a sticking point for me because I know she certainly tried - i don't know of any actual evidence to say she did. The CSI at trial surprised me by saying the trunk was not particularly clean - that he'd seen trunks much cleaner - it was a normal dirty trunk of an older model car. But no evidence destroyed there.
And yes, she washed some pants - but in no way do I believe FCA left any clothing she was wearing when she either killed Caylee and disposed of her body in her car for someone to find. I think she threw them away well before that. Along with whatever shoes she was wearing.
Was it something other than those two examples I am forgetting about? This is not an argumentative challenge by the way - just wonder what I've forgotten.

 

[krkrjx]

This has always been a sticking point for me because I know she certainly tried - i don't know of any actual evidence to say she did. The CSI at trial surprised me by saying the trunk was not particularly clean - that he'd seen trunks much cleaner - it was a normal dirty trunk of an older model car. But no evidence destroyed there.
And yes, she washed some pants - but in no way do I believe FCA left any clothing she was wearing when she either killed Caylee and disposed of her body in her car for someone to find. I think she threw them away well before that. Along with whatever shoes she was wearing.
Was it something other than those two examples I am forgetting about? This is not an argumentative challenge by the way - just wonder what I've forgotten.

I was referring to CA having washed FCA's clothes that were in the car. Who knows that there was not mud or burrs or something from the dump site on those pants before CA cleaned them? There could have been -- pardon me for having to say this -- evidence of decomp on the pants.

 

[Salem]

This has always been a sticking point for me because I know she certainly tried - i don't know of any actual evidence to say she did. The CSI at trial surprised me by saying the trunk was not particularly clean - that he'd seen trunks much cleaner - it was a normal dirty trunk of an older model car. But no evidence destroyed there.
And yes, she washed some pants - but in no way do I believe FCA left any clothing she was wearing when she either killed Caylee and disposed of her body in her car for someone to find. I think she threw them away well before that. Along with whatever shoes she was wearing.
Was it something other than those two examples I am forgetting about? This is not an argumentative challenge by the way - just wonder what I've forgotten.

The other side of this coin, iirc, is that LE told CA that she could wash those clothes. At that point in time, LE was not interested in the car (who knows why???). They honestly thought they had a "missing" child and the mother was going to HELP them find the child. It wasn't until after FCA lied and lied and lied and lied and got totally and completely busted in those lies that LE said "wait, wait, wait, we DO want to see that car."

I remember this because everyone came down hard on CA at the time, but I'm pretty sure that LE confirmed that they told CA they didn't need the clothes and she could wash them. I don't think CA was be sneaky or difficult at this point in the process.

Salem

 

[~ Amy ~]

I thought CA washed the pants before LE ever got involved ? I was thinking she washed them after GA and her arrived back home from the tow yard.I could be wrong , but I was thinking she sent GA on to work at his new job and she washed the knife , wiped down the doll and threw the slacks in the wash machine. Im thinking she said she even made herself a sandwich before heading on back to work that day. All this was before LE ever got involved. But , like I said , I could be mistaken about all this.

 

[krkrjx]

I thought CA washed the pants before LE ever got involved ? I was thinking she washed them after GA and her arrived back home from the tow yard.I could be wrong , but I was thinking she sent GA on to work at his new job and she washed the knife , wiped down the doll and threw the slacks in the wash machine. Im thinking she said she even made herself a sandwich before heading on back to work that day. All this was before LE ever got involved. But , like I said , I could be mistaken about all this.

That's how I remember it.

I realize it is not important in the great scheme of things, given there is no actual evidence that Cindy did anything sneaky. Even her lies cannot be proven as such. Common sense says Cindy helped cover up a crime for her daughter, but common sense and actual evidence are two very different things.

I am just one who will never be convinced Cindy did not have an active hand in the cover-up. But I certainly understand why no legal charges could be brought against her.

 

[natsound]

I'm linking to the statement where CA is talking about the car and what she pulled out of it. I can't sift through this entire 361 page document. On page 69 she discusses pulling things out and febrezing them. Earlier in the doc, she mentions the doll and mentions that white pants are in the car, but she did not mention washing them. Read away:


http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20224558/detail.html

 

[lauriej]

I thought CA washed the pants before LE ever got involved ? I was thinking she washed them after GA and her arrived back home from the tow yard.I could be wrong , but I was thinking she sent GA on to work at his new job and she washed the knife , wiped down the doll and threw the slacks in the wash machine. Im thinking she said she even made herself a sandwich before heading on back to work that day. All this was before LE ever got involved. But , like I said , I could be mistaken about all this.

..yes, she did. and went into this big song and dance with LDB at her state depo explaining the laundry system in their garage---and how "she had a load of darks" ready to go anyway, so she threw them in and went back to work.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/depos/cindyanthonydepo072909.pdf
-----------page 148------------cindy state depo---

 

[logicalgirl]

The other side of this coin, iirc, is that LE told CA that she could wash those clothes. At that point in time, LE was not interested in the car (who knows why???). They honestly thought they had a "missing" child and the mother was going to HELP them find the child. It wasn't until after FCA lied and lied and lied and lied and got totally and completely busted in those lies that LE said "wait, wait, wait, we DO want to see that car."

I remember this because everyone came down hard on CA at the time, but I'm pretty sure that LE confirmed that they told CA they didn't need the clothes and she could wash them. I don't think CA was be sneaky or difficult at this point in the process.

Salem

Yes,that makes some sense to me - I just don't see FCA as the kind of gal who would leave anything "icky" in the actual interior of her car. I think the first thing she would have done was change her clothes, put them in a garbage bag, have a shower and dump them in Tony L's dumpster as she went in the door. Wasn't she wearing shorts when she was in the video store with him that night? I just don't see the pants as being "those pants" at all. She didn't have a "trashy" interior kind of a car like you see with some people, filled with wrappers, and empty bottles and such.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm linking to the statement where CA is talking about the car and what she pulled out of it. I can't sift through this entire 361 page document. On page 69 she discusses pulling things out and febrezing them. Earlier in the doc, she mentions the doll and mentions that white pants are in the car, but she did not mention washing them. Read away:


http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20224558/detail.html

White? Weren't they grey pants? Febreezing doesn't destroy evidence - not the kind the CSI would find. Detailing a car with an interior shampoo might however, but to the best of my knowledge, she didn't send George off to do this, she just sprayed around and threw in a few sheets, and as you say, wiped off the baby doll, put the knife in the dishwasher, took some shoes out if my memory serves me right (and probably ended up throwing them out also because they would probably have retained the smell).

I know both experts said there was limited evidence in the trunk because the remains were bagged three times and only in the trunk for 1 - 3 days max. That is by the way the primary reason I never believed Caylee was in the trunk unbagged and untaped.

 

[logicalgirl]

That's how I remember it.

I realize it is not important in the great scheme of things, given there is no actual evidence that Cindy did anything sneaky. Even her lies cannot be proven as such. Common sense says Cindy helped cover up a crime for her daughter, but common sense and actual evidence are two very different things.

I am just one who will never be convinced Cindy did not have an active hand in the cover-up. But I certainly understand why no legal charges could be brought against her.

I am completely convinced Cindy tried to have a hand in covering up or at least obstructing - but just how much she actually accomplished is something I'm unsure of. She is such a hairbrain who doesn't think things through that I don't believe it was in the end very much at all. More of a nuisance than anything.

 

[LambChop]

White? Weren't they grey pants? Febreezing doesn't destroy evidence - not the kind the CSI would find. Detailing a car with an interior shampoo might however, but to the best of my knowledge, she didn't send George off to do this, she just sprayed around and threw in a few sheets, and as you say, wiped off the baby doll, put the knife in the dishwasher, took some shoes out if my memory serves me right (and probably ended up throwing them out also because they would probably have retained the smell).

I know both experts said there was limited evidence in the trunk because the remains were bagged three times and only in the trunk for 1 - 3 days max. That is by the way the primary reason I never believed Caylee was in the trunk unbagged and untaped.

I always thought KC might have brought the car to the carwash and washed the inside of the trunk with water because she brought TL's car there before picking him up at the airport. Not sure the chloroform would have survived a washing though? jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I always thought KC might have brought the car to the carwash and washed the inside of the trunk with water because she brought TL's car there before picking him up at the airport. Not sure the chloroform would have survived a washing though? jmo

Hmm - I wonder if she would have thought of that - since it was always George who did that - but then the small amount of bugs and the single hair and as you say, the chloroform may not have survived.

And I always had the idea FCA did things to impress people, not because they actually needed to be done. I mean she should have washed out the interior of her trunk, but Tony L was more impressed that she had his car washed...:innocent:

 

[wonders]

White? Weren't they grey pants? Febreezing doesn't destroy evidence - not the kind the CSI would find. Detailing a car with an interior shampoo might however, but to the best of my knowledge, she didn't send George off to do this, she just sprayed around and threw in a few sheets, and as you say, wiped off the baby doll, put the knife in the dishwasher, took some shoes out if my memory serves me right (and probably ended up throwing them out also because they would probably have retained the smell).

I know both experts said there was limited evidence in the trunk because the remains were bagged three times and only in the trunk for 1 - 3 days max. That is by the way the primary reason I never believed Caylee was in the trunk unbagged and untaped.

I agree wholeheartly. I think if she had gone in without all that Casey did to her there would have been a dark/er stain and maybe then they could have obtained a DNA match. (< not sure if that's possible after it sitting for 31 days).
The one hair has always bothered me too (I wish the prosecutors had'nt used that one hair in trial) because I would have thought that some of the hair that was with Caylee's remains would have a death band as well.

 

[strawberry]

[/B]

I agree wholeheartly. I think if she had gone in without all that Casey did to her there would have been a dark/er stain and maybe then they could have obtained a DNA match. (< not sure if that's possible after it sitting for 31 days).
The one hair has always bothered me too (I wish the prosecutors had'nt used that one hair in trial) because I would have thought that some of the hair that was with Caylee's remains would have a death band as well.

I think the hair from the hairmat DID have death bands. I'm pretty sure at least. Because I remember thinking that was a good correlation. But I'm too tired to go looking.

 

[FL Convict]

WOW, thanks for that! I hope you are right about that. I was at one time convinced that Florida inmates with mandatory minimums were not eligible for early release under the 85% rule, and I was wrong about that.

What? You were actually correct.

In Florida, if you're sentenced under a mandatory minimum then you are NOT eligible for gain time. The only time you are is if you're sentenced to a term of years higher than the mandatory minimum.

For example:
Shoot someone doing a robbery...mandatory minimum of 25 years.
You go to trial and lose, judge gives you 30 year sentence. You won't be eligible for gain time until those 25 years are served.

Getting gain time isn't a guaranteed thing either.

Eric Matheny speaks on why he hates mando mins: http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Crimi.../Why-I-Hate-Mandatory-Minimum-Sentencing.aspx

 

[krkrjx]

What? You were actually correct.

In Florida, if you're sentenced under a mandatory minimum then you are NOT eligible for gain time. The only time you are is if you're sentenced to a term of years higher than the mandatory minimum.

For example:
Shoot someone doing a robbery...mandatory minimum of 25 years.
You go to trial and lose, judge gives you 30 year sentence. You won't be eligible for gain time until those 25 years are served.

Getting gain time isn't a guaranteed thing either.

Eric Matheny speaks on why he hates mando mins: http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Crimi.../Why-I-Hate-Mandatory-Minimum-Sentencing.aspx

BBM: Makes sense, but unfortunately it is not true. I don't know if you have followed the Haleigh Cummings case here on WS but I have been watching several persons of interest in that case. They are in prison now for other crimes and four of the five got mandatory minimum sentences. One of the five got more than his mandatory minimum and per the law as I read it, he is the only one of the five who should (after serving his 3-year mandatory) be eligible for gain time. However, per the FL DOC website, all five began earning gain time immediately and have been given earlier release dates.

They all were slapped with significant fines and costs of prosecution. But for some reason the state did not have to go after those costs in a separate motion like with Casey Anthony.

 

[krkrjx]

I am completely convinced Cindy tried to have a hand in covering up or at least obstructing - but just how much she actually accomplished is something I'm unsure of. She is such a hairbrain who doesn't think things through that I don't believe it was in the end very much at all. More of a nuisance than anything.

I have tried to put myself in Cindy and George's position in the first days and in doing so I can see how they acted the way they did. First, they both smelled the towed car and knew the smell to be human decomp, but neither did anything about it. In hindsight, this looks like deliberate suspicious behavior but consider this: If you as a parent were faced with this situation, what would be your first thoughts? I doubt you would immediately jump to the conclusion that your granddaughter had been killed by her mother and hauled away to a dump site in the trunk of the car.

I think the parents were in bonafide denial initially. What parent wants to believe their daughter could do this? I do not think it would be as easy at that point to add 1+1 and come up with 2 as we might assume.

Cindy cleaned the car or at least tried to eliminate the smell with Febreze. She did wash Casey's pants. Now, whether she did so in a deliberate attempt to do away with evidence is open to interpretation. However, in later days, she lied about knowing the smell as decomp and at one point handed LE the wrong hairbrush. And I believe she did both DELIBERATELY to obstruct the investigation. I do not believe Cindy was in bonafide denial anymore by that time.

IMO, the costs of the missing child investigation should fall on George and Cindy as well as Casey. They all played roles and they all told "mistruths." But the situation is that Casey is the only one charged and found guilty of lying to LE so she is the only one who can be dunned. I wish GA and CA could be held responsible for some portion but evidence would be required of exactly what their roles were and when they began playing those roles. We can assume, but assumption is not proof.