Skip to content

March 7, 2011

59

no contest

by Andrea O'Connell

In the case against Casey Anthony, closing arguments were held today with regards to two important Defense motions which were presented last week.  The two motions were, 1) Motion to suppress the Universal Studios interview, and 2) Motion to strike jail videos (the Defense alleges the Anthony family was tricked into acting as “Agents of the State” at the behest of Law Enforcement).

If courtroom motions were won or lost over the clarity of the arguments presented, the Prosecution would win, hands down. As a result of the intelligence and clarity of the States argument versus the free-flowing and dramatic defense argument, there was no contest.  However, the competition is not about who is the better orator; it’s about which side can bring appropriate case law to support their individual argument(s).

Cheney Mason cited a lot of case law but hardly connected the relevance between the case law and the facts of the case.  His delivery today was difficult to follow, and he consistently confused many of the known facts in the case.

Linda D. Burdick, Assistant State Attorney, was precise, methodical, and most importantly, her arguments were factual.

Mr. Mason charged the Orange County Sherriff’s Office with being completely deceitful and conspiratorial in their efforts to trick Casey at Universal Studios.  Mr. Mason accused anyone in a uniform or a marked car with police intimidation of Casey, who was not at all familiar with the law and didn’t realize her rights.

With regards to the Anthony’s being Agents of the State, Mr. Mason argued that it didn’t matter if the Anthony’s were “unwittingly” working at the behest of the Police, the fact remains, he contends, they were like puppets doing the bidding of the Police.

Linda D. Burdick, on the other hand, argued after Mr. Mason and immediately clarified the factual misstatements Mr. Cheney made. (It was a thing of beauty!)  She pointed out that up until the time of Casey’s arrest, the suspect in the case was Zenaida Fernandez Gonsalez – not Casey Anthony.  All reports and statement were filled out with Zenaida as suspect, therefore, Casey was not the suspect, not in custody, and not treated as a suspect.

With regards to the Anthony’s as Agents of the State’s motion, Ms. Burdick pointed out that it was the Anthony’s who sought the help of the Detectives, not the other way around.  As it turned out in this case, both the Anthony’s and Law Enforcement were working toward the same goal: finding Caylee.

There were quite a number if interesting moments in today’s proceedings.  Also, it was nice to see Detectives John Allen, Yuri Melich, and Eric Edwards present at the hearing.

Judge Perry advised that he will rule on these motions by the end of next week.  It appears to be no contest, in favor of the State, however, anything can happen – and it usually does!

George and Cindy Anthony were present and both were chewing gum!  I believe that Judge Perry does not allow gum-chewing in his courtroom. The Anthony’s, as is their habit, place themselves above the rules and the law, as we know.  In addition, Judge Perry recently admonished the gallery to refrain from facial expressions or gestures during hearings.  Perhaps George Anthony missed that direction because when it was Ms. Burdick’s opportunity to argue, George Anthony persistently shook his head from side to side to communicate his disagreement.

I wonder how much longer Judge Perry will tolerate this behavior from the Anthony’s?

Casey appeared very uncomfortable today.  It was interesting to see all the tricks Casey used to pretend not to hear what Ms. Burdick was discussing.  Casey shifted in her seat, looked around, wrote furiously on her yellow pad, and whispered to Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason to try to avoid listening.  When Mr. Mason argued his case, Casey sat very still and attentive.  She worked quite hard to avoid hearing anything that resembled the truth.

Casey may not be able to hack what’s coming, and what she will hear.

Advertisements
59 Comments Post a comment
  1. Mar 8 2011

    I am curious, why didn’t the State present to the court the taped interviews with Casey at the home and from the University? The tapes will straighten out Mr. Cheney’s forgetfulness. Or in this case, they would bring out the facts in this case.

    Reply
  2. CptKD
    Mar 8 2011

    Don’t worry, Shyloh!
    Mason “ordered” (TOLD) HHJP to listen to the Universal tapes…

    I personally have no doubt that he will listen to the taped interviews, followed with reading through the transcripts for any further clarifications.
    Seeing as Mumbles Mason had everyone confused with his so-called “timeline”, JP will have no choice but to, if he hasn’t already.

    I honestly believe that he WAS ready to rule yesterday – He just didn’t want the Duh-fence to cry that he was biased in ruling in the two Motions DENIED.

    Hence the delay, and putting over to next wk – Keep evey one guessing a little longer….

    CptKD

    Reply
    • CptKD
      Mar 8 2011

      Oooops – TYPO
      Meant to say “EVERYONE”!
      Not “evey one”!
      Sounds like I’m talking like my two year old nephew there!
      LOL!

      CptKD

      Reply
    • Weezie
      Mar 9 2011

      Does HH mean His Highness?

      Reply
  3. offthecuff
    Mar 8 2011

    I hope all that gum doesn’t end up under their seats or thrown about the sidewalk outside!!! Ewww!

    I think Perry is most cautious here. Hopefully not too cautious.

    Reply
  4. CptKD
    Mar 8 2011

    offthecuff – It wouldn’t surprise me, one bit!
    These folks have absolutely NO CLASS, and conduct themselves in a manner which puts them above EVERYONE, including the LAW!

    As for HHJP – I’m hoping that he’s going to make the right move on these two Motions. Though I feel that he will, we’ve been surprised in the past with some of his moves and manuevers…

    Either way, and whatever the outcome, the NANNY will still ‘exist’ and come into eveidence one way or another… So will ALL THE LIES!

    Beyond that, I believe the State still has an abundant amount of evidence to put this “bee-otch” to bed!

    To the DEATH BED!

    CptKD

    Reply
  5. Molly
    Mar 8 2011

    Like anyone could make a “puppet” out of Cindy Anthony!!! He also referred to casey as “the child”. Oh Please. After seeing the closing arguments i am more sure that JP will deny the motions. Perry already knows how he’s going to rule, but must check all cases cited & get his ducks in a row to present his decision.

    Reply
    • Mar 8 2011

      Hey Molly! I know… I almost hurl when he refers to Casey as a child… The only child here is the victim, Caylee, who the Defense would like to pretend never existed. I agree with you that Judge Perry has a pretty good idea how he’s going to rule, but wants to cross his T’s and dot his I’s. He wants to be really careful, which is a good thing – I just wish he’d hurry up already! (Just kidding!)

      Reply
  6. Molly
    Mar 8 2011

    JP will have to tread lightly on the anthony’s behavior in court, he may issue another warning. it will be very hard for him to throw out the grandparents of the victim even though they show no regard for the courts orders.
    I wonder too if all of that casey writing & reading of documents will be allowed at trial. her behavior isn’t getting by JP either. will he allow her to scribble her way thru trial as she acts like she’s not even listing?

    Reply
  7. jon
    Mar 8 2011

    Hi. I’d just like to know exactly what Casey is writing on those pads. Probably stick people representations of her parents (and now Lee too) and drawing arrows through them or something.

    Reply
    • Mar 8 2011

      Ha! Jon, you’re probably right there! I think she was writing letters… It was really interesting how she was so distant when Linda D. Burdick was delivering her closing. Casey couldn’t handle it – I wonder how she’ll hold it together for the trial…. probably pretty badly….

      Reply
      • jon
        Mar 9 2011

        We’ll find out soon enough how she’ll handle it. When the witnesses start testifying at the trial and Casey sees all this piling up against her, I doubt we’ll see all the whispering and smiling. I really want to see her cringe and crumble in that seat. Sooner or later the reality has got to begin to settle in on her that this is serious business. I hope to God nothing happens to lead away from a conviction. We were all so sure OJ was going to be convicted and look what happened. I thought Melich was outstanding when he testified. His professionalism and just the way he looks – suit, tie, demeanor, etc. speak volumes and stand out in such stark contrast to the A’s. When I saw Lee last week, I thought to myself that he looked like someone trying to get out of jury duty as opposed to being a witness in a pre-trial hearing for first degree murder. All the A’s are in need of a serious makeover if they want to appear credible at the trial, although they think they’re probably above such stuff. I’m soooo sick of them.

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        Jon: Looked like Lee had been in the bushes cutting down trees, trying to look for the missing Caylee. lmao. MAKEOVERS? Are you kidding. Unless they get rid of the cud they are chewing, even designer clothing wouldn’t help. I wonder if Justin Beiber copied Cindy’s hairdo? I like George’s hair, but his attitude needs a makeover. Lee, atleast he’s consistent with a “DUH, where did he go, where did he go”, kind of cartoon character, along with his uncontrolled laughter. He’s a nervous puppy dog.

      • jon
        Mar 10 2011

        Hi Weezie. I should have clarified the “makeover” statement. They need COMPLETE makeovers and that doesn’t stop with their clothing……the biggest makeover this tribe needs is a personality makeover. I guess if they weren’t on the public coffers at this point (they are on disability or something, aren’t they?) they could hire an image consultant although I think any advice that person would offer would fall on deaf ears. After all, the A’s all think they’re such hot sh*t. I agree about the gum. There’s something so disagreeable about adults chomping on chewing gum; it all belongs in a barnyard ; not a court room. If they have attorneys, which I assume they all do at this point, you’d think one of the things that person would have told them is how to conduct themselves on the stand (again, though, probably falls on deaf ears). I never thought it was possible to hate people who you don’t know as much as I hate this bunch. At least with the Croslin’s you can say they’re just trailer park trash, but this family is a whole ‘nother story.

  8. CptKD
    Mar 8 2011

    Molly –

    I have seen it many times in our CANADIAN court system, where members of the family have been “ejected” out of the courtroom due to being unable to contain themselves, or not abiding by the court’s rules.

    Whether it is a family member on trial, or an outside individual that has brought harm to a family member, WE ARE ALL REQUIRED to keep a form of decorum, and our state of emotions in check –

    Being in “COURT”, especially while “IN SESSION”, is a SERIOUS matter that requires a set of rules, and procedures to be followed –

    For example:
    * Rising when the Justice of the Peace enters the courtroom.
    * Proper dress attire.
    * NOT CHEWING GUM!
    * Outbursts, and/or other distracting physical actions/reactions.
    * Speaking directly to the Defendant.
    * Etc…

    It’s quite simple really, and the RULES are usually posted outside the courtroom doors.

    If one CANNOT follow those rules then they will be asked to leave the courtroom – NO QUESTIONS asked. And NO ANSWERS given.

    They can be ordered out via the Courtroom Officers (I don’t mean Attorneys here – I’m guessing in the US they are Deputies?) and if/where necessary by the Justice him/herself. That’s usually a really BAD sign, when we have to go THERE!

    I saw it happen once, to an elderly gentleman who had lost his daughter to a horrific, maniacal, ‘in-your-face taunting’, murderer –

    The old guy just could NOT keep himself together.
    He was yelling out, and screaming directly at this Defendant, that he had taken his baby, BRUTALLY at that.
    He cursed him to HELL, understandably so, and well, that just became a disasterous move on his part.

    Unfortunately the JP had to toss him out of the room, because the verdict was coming in, and no matter how many times she told him to simmer down, he simply could not control himself –
    He was devasted!
    And he was so frightened at what the verdict was going to be…

    Needless to say – Though he was NOT permitted back into the court while the verdict was being delivered. This Madame Justice felt sooo awful for having had to expell this fellow, that she ordered for him to be brought to her Chambers, where she personally met with him to explain the circumstances and issues.

    I have never seen this done in my whole entire career –

    It was truly touching, and it actually made the next day’s papers!

    Again, this is not something that happens very much or is very common amongst your usual judges.

    She just felt horrendous for this man, and went beyond the call of duty to assist in soothing him – In sharing in his grief, through compassion and a listening ear, that she simply could not provide to him in the courtroom!

    As well, she had the pleasure in (if you can call it so) sharing that, in fact, the verdict had come back – GUILTY!

    As hard, and as “non-chalant” as some Police Officers, Attorneys, Courtroom Assistants, and Judges seem to be, or become at times…

    For the most part, there will always be someONE or someTHING that brings home all the benelovence and sympathy that one can muster.
    Without even meaning to, or realizing that it has occurred, it hits the heart so hard, that there is no escaping the felling of sadness and sorrow that follows –

    I’ve been there, myself – Many times, at that!

    CptKD

    Reply
    • Mar 8 2011

      Hi CptKD,
      What an amazing story! It was a very loving and considerate thing for the Judge (Justice of the Peace) to do! The poor man – what devastation he suffered. I’m sure the Judge tried everything to try to maintain decorum in the courtroom and calm him down. It’s such a horrific situation, the poor guy just couldn’t contain himself.

      Reply
      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        Andrea; Great post. I thought you would find it interesting to see what a Justice of the Peace is in Ontario, Canada. They are not Judeges presiding over trials. But they do hold a lot of responsibility. Just didn’t want people who see JP as that. It is a short form for Judge Perry. Thanks.

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Hi Weezie –
        You are absolutely correct, IN A WAY!

        PERHAPS, I should have addressed the PRESIDING JUDGE as exactly that – The Presiding JUDGE. So as to NOT confuse the American People.

        One of the definitions of Justice of the Peace officers, includes that they are in fact inferior to the JUDGE, but they are used to determine and RULE on Small Claims issues, as well, they will over see Minor Infractions, in order to alleviate the number of cases on the Judge’s Docket.

        Where a Defendant is pleading Guilty, in minor offences cases, the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE can prescribe the remedy, as in fine’s and probation.

        I will stand ( sort of side-ways) corrected here, and should have used the term “Sitting Judge”; however, in my LE circle of collegues, they ARE many times addressed as such – JPs!

        They ARE in effect JUSTICES OF THE PEACE – Only higher ranking, and thereby, presiding and ruling over more serious, and/or criminal cases put forth before them. They ALSO sit on the SUPREME COURT BENCHES.

        Again – I stand (somewhat) corrected, and will refrain from here, from using or implying anything where LE, or OUR Judicial System is concerned, in a manner that is reflecting, or used in my POSITION, my line of work and/or profession.

        Before I completely sign off here, I would like to point something out in closing :

        * A Justice of the Peace (JP) is a puisne judicial officer.

        * A Puisne Justice or Puisne Judge (pronounced /ˈpjuːni/—as its derivative, “puny”—derived from the French puisné (modern puîné) “junior”) IS THE TITLE FOR A REGULAR MEMBER OF A COURT. This is distinguished from the head of the Court who is known as theCHIEF Justice or CHIEF Judge. The term is used almost exclusively in common law jurisdictions such as England, Australia, South Africa, Kenya, Canada, Sri Lanka, India, and formerly in Hong Kong. Generally, the term is only used in relation to judges of a superior court, e.g., the Supreme Court or the High Court of a jurisdiction.
        (Sources from Wikipedia)

        Thank you Weezie, for bringing to my attention!
        I hope this clears it up!

        CptKD

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Please note that the term JUSTICE OF THE PEACE is used in CANADA to reflect any sitting JUDGE, other than the CHIEF –

        I have referred with my collegues, and I am correct in stating as such!

        To satisfy you, and the American People, I will not use JP to address our CANADIAN Judges in future comments, seeing as these are the intials used by the HH-JUDGE PERRY!

        I trust this will resolve the “JP” conflict –
        CptKD

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        This is fun. click on #5
        http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90j04_e.htm#BK5

        That doesn’t spell Lawyer to me.

    • Weezie
      Mar 9 2011

      Boy I sure am stupid. I forgot to paste this in above, sorry. Up here in Ontario, you can go to a JP to have a parking ticket cancelled, a moving violation argued. You can get married by a JP, but you sure wouldn’t see him sitting in as Judge in a court, not even a lower court.
      http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/jpaac/en/role.htm

      Reply
      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        HELLO –

        Copied from the link you just posted:

        The judicial functions, powers and duties of a Justice of the Peace are set out in legislation and CASE LAW.
        TWO OF THE MORE IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE ACTS WHICH CONFER JURISDICTION UPON A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ARE THE CRIMINAL CODE AND THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL OFFENSES ACT, but there are many other federal and provincial statutes and regulations that empower justices of the peace with legal authority and/or jurisdiction. Primarily, THE TWO PRIMARY JURISDICTIONS ARE CRIMINAL LAW AND REGULARITORY LAW (provincial offences).

        Weezie – WAke up!
        LOL!

        Teasing .. But seriously, I KNOW what I’m talking about!

        CptKD

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        By the way, I LIVE and WORK in Ontario!
        Toronto, to be exact!

        CptKD

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        You must be my neighbour then. lol. It is rather confusing but I’ll defer to your friends knowledge, for the next few minutes. lol

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Seriously – I would not lead you astray.
        They are all JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
        Unless they are CHIEF, that’s what they are!
        And if you are CHIEF, you are CHIEF “JUSTICE”, or CHIEF JUDGE.

        Even your post above with #5 – It clearly states that they are JUSTICES of the PEACE!

        I just knew, how sideways I bent, that I couldn’t be, and wasn’t wrong –

        I do appreciate the test though, Weezie!
        You ARE good – LOL!

        Hug & A Wink,
        CptKD

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        You are too funny. I slapped my own ass. But you see, even I could become a JP, without be the hated Lawyer. Let’s even it off and say for the sake of CASEY TRIAL, atleast I will use JP to mean Judge Perry. Funny isn’t it, that 2 JP’s can equal a Judege? I don’t get that one.

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Yes, I agree – The two JP thing is a little on the strange/complicated side…

        But listen –

        If you’re ever stading around the courthouse, you’ll hear the term “JP” quite abit.

        For the last and final time, “JP” means Justice of the Peace.

        Example: “When’s they “JP” back on the bench?”

        I assure you, they are NOT talking about Judge Perry all the way up here in our Toronto Courthouses….

        And so, being that we ARE dealing with an American case, I will only refer to “JP” as meaning Judge Perry, ok?

        Unless we start monitoring a CANADIAN case, then I’m going back to what my “JP” means, alright!
        LOL!

        It’s been fun, Weezie!
        You’ve given me a real ‘wake up’ this morning, and an amazing laugh along with it!

        You are a peach!

        Thx, eh!

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        From one peach to another and fellow Torontonian, you are right side up not sideways. So now I know, when I get in trouble again, and I go to court, I won’t chew gum and I will refer to the Judege as JP. It is really confusing because a Justice of the Peace doesn’t have to be a Lawyer? I still don’t get why the judges are referred as that even though they are a JP as well as a Judge.??? God I need a drink!
        lol

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Peaches….
        I’m sorry if I’ve led you to “needing a drink”!

        Please don’t pull a “Charlie” on us now!

        We need you here –
        Alert and somewhat sober, k!

        I just made a pot of coffee –

        How ’bout of cup of that –

        IF absolutely necessary, I can toss in a little Bailey’s in there for ya, k!

        LOL!

        Now that I’m back to being UPRIGHT, I thik it’s time I got a few things done around here…

        Get my chores done, need to do a couple things for a collegue, and then I’m back to doing some things here.

        I have some info to share with regards to the time that Casey was brought to the station, after Universal, and what the purpose of all that was prior to her actual ARREST.

        Back in a bit, to try to fit that part of the puzzle together for us….

        Great big, warm CANADIAN regards to all,

        It’s snowing like a Banchee over my house….

        CptKD

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Please refer to the Judge as “Your Honor” “Sir”, “M’am”, or “Madame Justice”, ok!

        Running around, or stanind in court yelling “JP”, “JP”, is NOT going to score you any brownie points –
        Do keep that in mind!

        Besides, why would you be summoned, or forced to appear before a Justice of the Peace? Huh?

        Got my wheels a-spinnin’,now, Weezie…. LOL!

        CptKD

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        This is actually what I meant to provide:

        Qualification

        (15) A candidate shall not be considered by the Advisory Committee unless he or she has performed paid or volunteer work equivalent to at least 10 years of full-time experience and,

        (a) has a university degree;

        (b) has a diploma or advanced diploma granted by a college of applied arts and technology or a community college following completion of a program that is the equivalent in class hours of a full-time program of at least four academic semesters;

        Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause (b) is amended by striking out “or a community college”. See: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, ss. 39 (1), 80 (2).

        Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (15) is amended by adding the following clause:

        (b.1) has been granted by a post-secondary institution, other than a college of applied arts and technology or a university, a diploma, certificate or other document evidencing successful completion of a program that can reasonably be considered to be equivalent to a program offered by a college of applied arts and technology and described in clause (b);

        See: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, ss. 39 (2), 80 (2).

        (c) has a degree from an institution, other than a university, that is authorized to grant the degree,

        (i) under the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000,

        (ii) under a special Act of the Assembly that establishes or governs the institution, or

        (iii) under legislation of another province or territory of Canada;

        (d) has successfully completed a program designated as an equivalency under subsection (16); or

        (e) meets the equivalency requirement set out in subsection (17). 2006, c. 21, Sched. B, s. 3.

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        What is this ?
        It says absolutely NOTHING about Justices of the Peace!

        Now,you’re messing with my fragile state of mind….

        Weezie – Please…..Make it stop!

        I’ve proved my case to you!

        I am affiliated with LE!
        I work in LE!
        I also have my Paralegal Degree!

        I tell you, they are JUSTICES of the Peace!
        It doesn’t matter how you slice and dice it….
        It is what it is!

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        What the heck does the Lieutenant Governor have to do with this?

        CptKD

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        Lt. Gov. can appoint a Justice of the Peace, or change their status. (Not the Judge’s status)

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Yes – TRUE!
        But it doesn’t change the name of the JUDGES!
        The JUSTICES OF THE PEACE!
        The LT. Gov., can change whatever, but he CANNOT change their NAMES!

        That is already a done deal!

        CptKD

  9. Mar 8 2011

    hi andrea hope you are doing fine.l have watched the hearing all od it too.closing arguments of moses mason made me sick and the jury will feel the same way.as too bozo marie if he has to say something his smirk to turn off the jury.as to casey alone the jury just looking at the way she is acting is just crazy.almost like she is not there can you believe it?l bet judge perry has his decision but wants to wait a bit not to give the defense a bad day.all those comments are coming in.casey did things because she wanted too not because she did not.as moses mason said at the podium casey is a child di not know right from wrong well you know what sorry for saying this but if she was a child when police came to talk to her was she a child when she opened her legs to all these men that had a piece of her?DID SHE NOT KNOW THAT IF SHE DONT USE PROTECTION WHEN HAVING SEX THAT SHE WOULD GET PREGNANT?WELL SHE DID SHE HAD A BABY THAT SHE LATER TELLS PEOPLE SHE DID NOT WANT THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY MY MOTHER DID NOT WANT ME TO GIVE IT UP THAT SHE WILL HELP HER WOW WHICH WAY SHOULD WE LOOK AT THIS?DAM IF YOU DO AND DAM IF YOU DONT.ITS AMAZING HOW THIS ANTHONY FAMILY DONT REMEMBER ANYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE THE BABY WENT AND COVERING UP LEFT RIGHT AND CENTRE BUT WHEN IT CAME TO POLICE AND WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY CAME TO THE HOUSE EVERYONE REMEMBERS EVERY DETAIL DID YOU NOTICE THAT IF YOU HAVE WATCHED IT?WHAT A SAD CASE BUT L WILL SAY THIS JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE IS COMING AND CASEY WILL SEE HELL WITH HER EYES OPEN.JUDE PERRY KNOWS AREADY BUT HE DID NOT WANT TO UPSET THE DEFENSE THE STUPID DEFENSE WITH AN ANSWER RIGHT AWAY SO HE IS GOING TO WAIT.THE JURY WONT LIKE MOSES MASON AT CLOSING ARGUMENTS AT THE PODIUM.IF LINDA TAKES THE PODIUM SHE WILL MAKE EVERYONE DANCE UP THERE TRUST ME WHEN L SAY THE JUDGE HAS HIS VERDICT.MASON SUCKS AND SO DOES BOZO MARIE.MASON NEEDS TO GO TO THE OLD FOLKS HOME .HE IS TOO SLOW WITH FINDING WHAT HE NEEDS FOR THE CLOSING ARGUMENT.LINDA ROCKS.GO LINDA CONDEM THAT BITCH SHE SHOULD BURN IN HELL.

    Reply
  10. Weezie
    Mar 9 2011

    I was thinking that JP wanted to show an unbiased overview of the arguments. by not ruling till end of next week. You are right Andrea, he needs time to research all the Supreme Court decisions that were used in both sides of the hearing closings on Friday. One thing that Mumbles addressed at the beginning, which does make sense but will further lengthen the time of the trial. Even if the rulings are in the States favour, all the statements will be argued upon as they come up, of their admissability. Won’t that be a couple of murderous days or weeks! That’s a lot to go through. My own feeling is this: Was 5 minutes during which Casey had been handcuffed, considered custody and a violation of the Miranda rights? What were the handcuffs put on for? Did the Detective ever get questioned why he did that? And who ordered them removed and why? That’s the only reason that one hearing is being argued. I don’t feel like we got to the root of the question, even though Casey did everything willingly, and they were looking for a missing child. Was Casey a suspect, without Detectives verbally saying that? Is that an infraction to Miranda? Did Cindy ask that her daughter be put in jail, to teach her a lesson not to steal, and also to get her to talk and devulge where Caylee was? It’s very complicated this issue.

    The Anthony’s never do what anyone asks them to do. They represented their family goal. To get Casey to talk and tell them where Caylee was at. All three of them had their own methods. The only reason, that George went that day, and also turned away by Casey, was that Baez ordered him away. He knew that the jail tapes had been seen by the public over all the airwaves and he was worried what Casey would say next. It looked bad, and if I was a betting person, those tapes aren’t coming in, not because of the “Puppet theory”; ( the LE making the Anthony’s get information). It’s because it’s too predjudicial, and I agree with that. It’s something a higher court would argue that it did taint the Defendant’s rights. However, there is so many other actions of Casey that will come in, to give the jury an understanding of her state of mind after June 15th. The jailhouse tapes aren’t really supporting anything of great importance, except the desperation of Cindy, George and Lee, trying to get CASEY to give more information of where Caylee could be and the lack of feelings that Casey divulged while beinging questioned by her own family, about Caylee’s disappearance. Her statement “You guys such a waste” if very prejudicial, it’s not coming in.
    I do however, support the Sawgrass visitation and Universal, plus the Park. Those were places the LE and Casey went to, trying to find clues to the disappearance of Caylee. That’s not prejudicial. My thoughts anyway.

    Reply
  11. Weezie
    Mar 9 2011

    CptKD: I’ve been there a few times for traffic violations and one moving violation, and I know how to address the sitting judge, I know to bow after I’m finished or he’s finished with me, and I don’t chew gum. I never touch a drink till the yard arm hits 5!. I kinda thought you would take my ribbing like you give it. So here goes: Peach to peach, I’m glad you are in the legal system. I’m sure you will have quite a bit to teach us. Can’t wait till you return to explain how the officers got away with taking her into a small room and questioning her, without giving her Miranda statement. She was handcuffed for a time as well. If this was after all the running around in the car, then we are home safe. I can’t remember what time this occured. Can you let us in on it?

    Reply
  12. CptKD
    Mar 9 2011

    Hi Weezie –

    Please know, that I can take (and I like) the ‘ribbing’, because I am good at doling it out, and I love being able to share a good laugh with someone.

    I’ve always believed, a sense of humour carries us far, and that it definately helps when things are not always as we would like them to be…
    The lighter side of things, really helps when you’ve seen some of the God-Awful things that go on in the world –

    As for having a drink – I was kidding, and I am actually envious tthat you can do so ( at 1700hrs/5pm LOL!) being that I am UNABLE to drink any alcohol at this time, because of medical reasons and the meds that I am on.

    With regards to your questions regarding Inmate Anthony, and the Officers questioning her in the room at Universal:

    I completely believe, as Det. Melich stated on the stand, that at that particular time, she WAS simply a witness.
    They were astounded that she could express and contain herself in the manner in which she was doing under the circumstances.

    Once in that little room, she was advised that the door was closed for privacy only, she could leave at any time, and she WAS NOT cuffed at that time.
    They were searching for the answers to find Caylee.
    As suspicious as they were becoming of her, she still repeated her same story, and so they went along with her, and maintained/continued to believe that Zenaida was the technical SUSPECT.

    I will add here, that once that questioning began to shift into an accusatory mode, myself, in that exact position, would have stopped the interview, and MIRANDIZED her.
    I may not have ARRESTED her right there and then, but I would have let it be known that she was entitled to representation if she so desired.
    From there, depending on her response, I would have either arrested her then, or brought her back to the station house and done it formally there.

    On the flip side of this, their ultimate goal was to get her to stop lying, and get her to continue with assisting in finding her daughter.

    The other reason I believe she was not arrested then and there, is because they wanted to take her to the station and have her assist in any way, shape or form in figuring out who this “Zanny the Nanny” was.
    They were going to get her to look through some of the pictures of the Zenaidas that they had found.

    They needed something to go on, and she was the only one with those answers.

    They absolutely needed to keep her as a witness up until this point.

    They also wanted to continue building on the fact that she was NOT responding as any other parent of a missing child acts and reacts.

    I believe they took her in, again, under the presumption that she would be shown photographs of individuals, in hopes in finding or picking out ‘ZFG’.

    The other guise about them making “Flyers”!

    I completely believe that was a ruse to get a photograph of her in her “state of missing child mode”.

    When have you EVER seen a missing child’s photo with the mother’s pic along side of it. NEVER!
    The picture, or flyer is ALWAYS about the missing child/individual, and the missing person ONLY!

    They wanted to show, that she WAS NOT typical of any other parents of missing children – Something was NOT adding up.

    Look at photos of any other parent who is missing a child –

    Tell me:

    Do they look anything like the photo of Inmate Anthony smiling all pretty, in her stolen blue shirt, showing her pearly whites, with that special gleam in her eye?

    They wanted this – They got it!

    And they proceeded to arrest her, right there and then –
    “On a f*cking whim!”
    As she so eloquently put it.

    But they did it!
    After they had gotten what they wanted and needed out of her as a witness.

    Was it proper?
    Depends on who you ask, and what side of the fence you sit on where it comes to LE, and what the job descriptions are that they must fulfill.

    As far as the cuffing, and all the driving around –
    I’m not sure, or very clear on what you are asking…?

    I’ll need to familiarize myself with the intricacies, and the timing of those incidents, and/or the manner of the occurences themselves.

    Sorry, there has just been so much info, and though the CANADIAN and US Justice Systems are somewhat similar, there are some differences.

    This pariticular case was handled in a way that was so out of the normal realm of what you do when you have a missing child – This was MESSED right from the outset!

    I will try and get you the answers you’re looking for, if you could please clarify, what it is exactly that you are asking, Weezie!

    Will check back soon –
    Must go stir the Spaghetti Sauce!

    CptKD

    Reply
  13. CptKD
    Mar 9 2011

    *Please note that I recognize that while they had her at Universal –
    They did NOT believe her stories anymore.

    Though she was continuing to insist that it was the nanny whole took Caylee, I believe that at that point, they decided to play it her way, and leave her as a ‘witness’, and take her back to the OCSO to continue with WITNESS matters!

    Just thought I should add that it, seeing as I am aware that they were putting the screws to her about her lies, while they were there….

    CptKD

    Reply
    • Weezie
      Mar 9 2011

      How on earth can those tapes from Universal come in? She was not told she was being recorded, right? If that’s the case I don’t think that part of the taping will come in? H.S. I don’t know anymore, I’m about ready to get my glass of wine. You are so good at explaining things and I keep on confusing you. SORRY……………

      Reply
      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Weezie – I believe she was notified that the conversation was being recorded!
        In every single interview that I have listened to witht hese detectives, they HAVE ALWAYS made it very clear that they are taping the interview –

        She had to know –
        And if she claims different – She’s LYING!

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        OMG; You really know this case backwards and forwards, forget your sideways view!!! lol. You have filled in so many details I didn’t know. I hate to be a pest but can you provide me with the tape at Universal where they tell Casey she is being recorded? I think she should have been pretty dubious about them doing this at Universal? If not, she is dumber than most believe, including me. I didn’t realize there were two visitations to Sawgrass. Thanks for all your details of the timing, even though that isn’t what JP is only considering here. Since you have given a great birds eye view of the events, what do you think JP will do?

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Here is the “YOUTUBE” link to Part I of the interview at Universal!

        She knows she’s being recorded!
        From here, you can listen to the rest of the interviews…

        CptKD

      • CptKD
        Mar 9 2011

        Weezie –
        Here is the actual typed transcript of that interview.
        Found at DocStoc:

        http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6036055/2008-0716-Casey-Anthony-Police-Interview-at-Universal-Studios-1320-Hours

        CptKD

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        “Everything has been a lie” “We are in a position where it doesn’t look very good” ” I know and you know that pretty much everything you have told me is a lie”. “I’m very confident that you know where she is.” “I understand that Caylee may not be in very good shape”. “This is so going so far down hill” etc. ect.

        HE SHOULD HAVE MIRANDIZED HER. This is intimidation and they were so frustrated by her lying that he tried to scare her into a confession. This is SO bad and prejudicial without her having a Lawyer, or being told that anything she said could be used against her in a court of Law!!!! , that it wasn’t anything more than trying to find Caylee, is B.S.
        I am shocked at this interview. I don’t care if they told her she was being recorded, they had the DUTY to inform her. This is a definate APPEAL, if this comes in, any of it.

      • Mar 9 2011

        Hey there weezie! I don’t think that’s entirely correct. Casey was there of her own free will, she was not intimidated, she was told the interview was being recorded, and the door was not locked, just closed for privacy. I truly do not think they needed to Mirandize her then as they were trying to find Caylee and trying to get from her answers as to where Caylee may be. I think the Judge will find the interview will come in due to Casey being the one that lead the Detectives to the location. They initially thought there was an accident and perhaps Casey was afraid to tell them. They also thought at one point the biological father or parents of the father could have Caylee. The point is, they were trying to find Caylee. I don’t think the Judge will suppress, but if he does, out of an abundance of caution, it will not make or break the State’s case…. 🙂

      • Weezie
        Mar 10 2011

        Good Morning Andrea; Have you had a chance to re listen to the UTUBE tape listed above? Those Detectives were playing real hard ball with her, to me that IS intimidation, when you accuse Casey of pretty much lying completely to them. That everything is going downhill, and that she is in great trouble here. PLEASE, that would scare any normal person to ask, “Am I a Suspect here? Since Casey isn’t normal, she didn’t do that, because her method was to play dumb, dumb, dumb. That doesn’t give allowance to LE to carry on without giving her Miranda rights. She wasn’t in a jailhouse setting, and yes she wasn’t in handcuffs, BUT she was setup to be videotaped at Universal, out of prying eyes, and they already knew how they were going to treat Casey in that interrogation. You can’t tell me it wasn’t one either. Just listen to the two of them grill her. Sorry, as much as I hate to think it will get tossed out, it’s not the cream of the cake either. I would rather he exclude it, thatn have more to appeal

      • Mar 10 2011

        Hey Weezie! Well, it sure may have sounded like an interrogation, but the important standard for the court to determine, is whether Casey Anthony FELT interrogated. And, judging by her comments, her apologies, her offering her computer, etc., Casey was not a little bird with ruffled feathers. They did not have to Mirandize her, I found out tonight, since the purpose of her arrest was not criminal in nature…. 🙂 I really think the State will win this one….I’ll eat my words for a week if I’m wrong….

      • Weezie
        Mar 11 2011

        Hi Andrea; Interesting thought. So when did they arrest her for the missing Caylee? I thought the Miranda stated “Any reasonable person” who thought they were eyed as a SUSPECT, would have to have MIRANDA incited to them. Even though Casey didn’t verbalize her wish for a Lawyer, I thought the Law always favours the Defendent and their right to be told “whatever they say may be used against them in a court of Law”, regardless if they know that or not, before they are questioned. The fact is: They never talked to her about the stolen money, it was always about the missing Caylee and her lies. I don’t think it’s coming in (Universal), tape, but if it does it will be very limited – a few lines.

      • Mar 12 2011

        Hi Weezie. They arrested her for murder in October, after the Grand Jury came back with its indictment. Yes, you’re right that if a “reasonable person felt they were suspect, but in a criminal act, Miranda is required. Casey was not a defendant yet when she was at Universal because there was NO EVIDENCE yet to charge her with a crime other than lying to police (not a felony) and endangerment of a child (not a felony). They only charged her with criminal charge of felony later, when Amy Huizenga pressed charges in the felony-fraud case. One has to try to forget all we know now about the case in order to realize, in that moment, on July 16, 2008, Casey Anthony was a mother of a missing child, not a suspect. The detectives slowly realized that something happened to Caylee, but they had (at that point) NO evidence to charge her as a criminal…. That’s why I think it will come in.

      • Weezie
        Mar 12 2011

        You just might have changed my mind. It’s time to get JP out of his robes, get jogging, and back to court so we all won’t loose it, waiting for his decision. I’m getting too anxious and my wine supply is running short. lol

      • Mar 13 2011

        Uh-oh, Weezie…. Better restock because I think we have to wait until the end of the week until we hear about his decision. We all – all of blogdom – are crazy with anticipation!!!
        I do think the decision will be favorable to the State, but then again, I for sure don’t know the intricacies of the law, so who the heck knows…. the research I’ve done and my gut is telling me it will come in…. 🙂 If the defense had done a better job of making their case, they would have a much better shot at it, I believe….

      • Weezie
        Mar 9 2011

        Thanks Cpt. KD. I have now been versed in what really took place in that little room with the big GUNS, and lying Casey. I doesn’t matter how much she decided to hide, they were getting so frustrated with her, that they used BULL tactics on her, without giving her the OPTION of calling a Lawyer (part of the Miranda statement).

  14. Weezie
    Mar 9 2011

    Casey was handcuffed for 5 minutes outside her home in the car. The cuffs were taken off after that time. Off they went to tour the apartments and Universal. I wasn’t aware that she was in a room at Universal and was being taped! I thought that was down at the Station. Sorry for that. However, when she was at the Station, with her visitor’s pass on, and after they had completed whatever they were hoping to find, didn’t they handcuff her? At that time I thought they gave her the Miranda blurb and she requested a Lawyer.

    Reply
  15. CptKD
    Mar 9 2011

    U Said – Casey was handcuffed for 5 minutes outside her home in the car. The cuffs were taken off after that time.

    -Yes, a Superior Officer demanded that she be un-cuffed.
    She had been cuffed by a rookie officer, who by mistake, FOLLOWED Mrs. Anthony’s request to have her restrained. This was wrong on his part, hence the order from his Senior Ranking Officer to release her.

    U Said – Off they went to tour the apartments and Universal.

    – She toured the first set of apartments, where Caylee was dropped off, with the female officer during the late evening hours of the 15th.
    The other apartments, where done later in the morning hours of the 16th with Det. Melich.
    It was Sgt. Allen that brought her to Universal later that morning, in order for them to meet up with Det. Melich who was waiting there for them.

    U Said – However, when she was at the Station, with her visitor’s pass on, and after they had completed whatever they were hoping to find, didn’t they handcuff her?

    – If they arrested her, CHARGED her, mirandized her, then it is very likely that they cuffed her.
    They may not have, right at that very point.
    But she would have been cuffed regardless eventually, for transfer and transport reasons.

    U Said – At that time I thought they gave her the Miranda blurb and she requested a Lawyer.

    – Which would be the right and proper thing to do!
    For anyone facing those kinds of situations or scenarios.

    You should ALWAYS ask for a Lawyer when you see things heading in that direction, or you have been formally charged and arrested.

    CptKD

    Reply
  16. Weezie
    Mar 9 2011

    If you haven’t followed Marinade Dave, here is a really concise article about the summation on Friday.
    http://marinadedave.com/journal/2011/3/9/a-sneaking-suspicion.html

    Reply
    • CptKD
      Mar 9 2011

      Thanks Weezie!
      I’ve already checked out Dave’s latest post…
      Great summation on his part!

      CptKD

      Reply
      • Mar 9 2011

        You guys made some great points and comments! I sure wish I could have joined in today…. Work is getting in the way of my job on the Casey Anthony case! LOL!

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: