It was a quiet day in the Anthony case. So quiet WESH News told us about some old news they dressed up to be “new.”
WESH news told us today about a “new” Prosecution witness list. Bob Kealing reports there are 25 new names, and goes on to say it will be a “family affair” when the trial begins, in May. The members of Casey Anthony’s family scheduled to testify for the Prosecution include: Cindy, George, Lee, Cindy’s brother, Rick, Cindy’s mother, and Lee’s fiance, Mallory Parker. Also on the list, Casey’s friends: Annie Downing, brothers Jonathon and Sean Daly, and Ryan Pasely.
These are hardly new witnesses. However, there are new witnesses related to the Laura Buchanan investigation, though Bob Kealing didn’t reference them.
This appears to be another non-story by WESH news. (There still is no deposition (or explanation) to the story about William Fitzgerald’s “new” deposition.)
Motion to Strike the Strike
The Defense has submitted new witness names of its own; they claim this new witness list is to rebut the State’s new list. However, the State cried foul and filed a motion to strike, since it is well past the deadline to add non-expert witnesses, and the Defense failed to show cause for adding the witnesses.
Then, the Defense came back with an argument of it’s own called: Motion to Strike the State’s Motion to Strike Defense Supplemental Witness List.
Given the title of the motion, can’t you just tell it will be impish and classic Baez? Oh, it does not let us down! The motion has the ring of a high-schooler on a playing field, after a defeat, crying to the teacher: “No fair, teacher! They cheated!”
Then, Judge Belvin Perry submits an order to the Defense’s Motion to Strike the State’s Motion to Strike Defense Supplemental Witness List. Judge Perry advised the Defense to provide good cause for adding the new witnesses. If the Defense can do that, the witnesses “might” be approved. The State will argue against the issue during the March 2nd hearing.
Open the Law Book, Please
I have come to the point where I think some of these motions by the defense are just plain sad. I almost feel sorry for the Defense, they are very much out of their league. The first paragraph of this motion complains about the fact that Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane-Burdick will not contact the Defense, and sets the sophomoric tone for the rest of the writing in the motion:
…counsel for the State of Florida has made no attempts to contact the undersigned in order to resolve this dispute or make inquiry of the supplemental witness list filed by the Defense. Had counsel taken the time to inquire she would have been advised of the following:
a. Marvin Schecter has been withdrawn from the Defense witness list.
b. Kathleen Belich also known as Kathleen Gallager was listed to rebut witnesses just listed by the State involving an investigation launched against Laura Buchanan. She is also a witness involving State witness Maya Derkovich. (While the State has recently informed the defense that they have not [sic] intention to call Maya Derkovich as a witness, the defense has not ruled out calling her)
c. Kenneth Drupiewski was listed to rebut the State’s recent attempts to introduce a diary written by Miss Anthony while she was a juvenile in high school. Despite the obvious date of 2003 on the diary the State has at taxpayers expense, spared no expense in utilizing both the FBI and Secret Service to date this diary to fit their timeline. Despite their inability to do so, this does not appear to deter the State in presenting this evidence. Mr. Drupiewski is one of the individuals mentioned in the diary and will be able to testify about the timing of breaking up with Casey Anthony as a high school student.
I added the red text for sentences that astounded me. Does the defense really believe it’s the State’s job to inquire about their witness lists? Apparently so.
Why is it necessary to add an aka name for Kathi Belich? It appears to be a purposeful attempt to cast a slight shadow on Kathi; or perhaps, to purposely expose her personal information.
The Defense wants to use Casey’s boyfriend from high school to date the diary in the year 2003? This is to rebut the FBI results of the 2004 origination of the diary? What could this young man say about the diary – that he remembers Casey writing the entry? This is just not possible. What young man is going to remember the writings of a long ago girlfriend? If this witness attempts to testify about this particular diary, it will backfire, in my opinion.
There is another statement in this recent motion that floors me with its total lack of understanding of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Discovery:
Both the undersigned counsel and other members of the defense have made it known to this honorable Court that the State of Florida continues to file discovery at will with no regard to ANY deadlines by this Court….
Well, uh, yeah, the State does that. They work with with law enforcement who continues to deliver investigative reports to them!
Linda Drane-Burdick, in open court and in response to Jose Baez complaining about the State’s additional discovery, said, “I’m not gong to stop doing my job…”
Oh, woe to Jose Baez and his team of Bad News Bears. These poor bears just can’t wrap their brains around the fact that no one gets to cry, No fair, in a big boy and girl courtroom.