The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 975,430 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.
  • Advertisements

Everyone Lies, Everyone Cries…..

Posted by thedarwinexception on June 29, 2011

Today the judge comes out ready to go. The defense’s first witness will be Cindy Anthony – but they need 3 more minutes to mark exhibits. The judge tells them that this is why he wants them there are 8:30 – and Baez says they were. They still need three more minutes. So the court waits for Baez and his team to mark exhibits.

And what is Cindy going to claim as her own this time?

Baez talks to her about the shorts that were found with Caylee’s remains. These shorts no longer fit her. The picture that has been entered into evidence of Caylee wearing the shorts was taken in early 2007. And Caylee, like all other children, would have grown quite a bit between 2007 and 2008.

Baez asks the witness if Cindy had also taken a video at the same time that the photo was taken. She says she did. Baez wants to enter that video into evidence. The state objects and there is a side bar.

Baez is allowed to enter the video. Cindy cries as the video plays. The video shows Casey and Caylee playing on the floor together with Casey bouncing Caylee on her legs. Baez asks how she knows the date of this video. Cindy says she knows it was taken early in 2007 because of the skirt is she is seen wearing in the video. She didn’t wear that skirt after this time. It was a Hawaiian print, and even though she still had the skirt, she didn’t wear it after early 2007.

Baez then asks Cindy again about the photo taken at her brother’s wedding where Casey is obviously pregnant to everyone except her immediate family. Again, there is a sidebar. Baez must have lost this one – when they come back he starts showing Cindy pictures of their pool.

Cindy identifies a picture of the ladder leaning against the pool and explains how the ladder attaches to the pool. She then identifies a picture of the ladder lying on the ground, up against the pool and says this is how it would look with the ladder off the pool.

Baez then shows Cindy another picture and Cindy starts crying. He asks if she would like to take a break and she says that she is OK. This picture is a picture of Caylee walking up the ladder, with Cindy walking up the ladder behind her. There’s another sidebar. Baez must have won this one, as well, because he continues with the photo of Caylee and Cindy in the pool.

The photo was taken in the summer of 2007. Caylee is walking up the ladder with Cindy’s hands just lightly on her back. Cindy says that she certainly got better at this – that she could walk up the ladder by herself and get into the pool. Cindy would just be behind her as a safety net. Baez shows more photos showing Caylee on the ladder and she and Cindy getting into the pool.

Cindy says in 2008 that Caylee probably swam in the pool 3 or 4 times a week. And the week that Cindy was on vacation and home with Caylee, they swam in the pool every day. But always with a life vest.

Cindy says that they took numerous precautions with Caylee around the pool. They made sure that once Caylee started walking, that they moved their pool box to up against the house so that Caylee couldn’t climb on it and get into the pool. They took extra precautions every day to take the ladder off from the pool and take it off when they were done. They also taught Caylee that she had to be with a grown up to go into the pool, and why, that she could get hurt. They kept the life vest on the back patio.

Baez then shows Cindy another photo – this one of Caylee at the sliding glass door that goes fro the living room to the patio. She is reaching up to open the door. Cindy says that in this photo Caylee is approximately the same height as the last time she saw her.

Cindy also testifies that Caylee always had shoes on when she left the house.

On June 16th, 2008 Cindy came home and found the ladder attached to the pool. This was highly unusual. So much that she called George at work to see if he left the ladder up – because she also saw the gate open. When she went to work again, she told her co-workers about the ladder being on the pool.

Baez then asks the witness if at this time, she was also having marital problems. There’s an objection and another sidebar. The judge calls for a break.

When they return from break the judge says that he has reviewed the case law concerning theory of defense. The judge recaps the defense’s theory in this case, that the death was an accidental drowning and that his client’s subsequent behavior was caused by long term sexual abuse of Miss Anthony at the hands of her father and brother. He asks Baez if this is correct. Baez says”among other things….” And the judge wants to know “what other things?” Because that’s all Baez has offered in his opening statement. The judge says he has reviewed case law and as long as the proposed exhibits are relevant and admissible, they can come in under “theory of defense”, but that Baez can’t use this as a blanket for entering just any testimony he would like – it has to be relevant and admissible. So the judge asks Baez “What is your theory of defense?”

The judge goes on that he is basing his assumptions about the defense theory on Baez’s opening statement. And that this assumption of defense is the only reason he allowed the photos of Caylee climbing the steps to the swimming pool. The judge says if the theory of defense is ever changing, well, somebody try to explain it to him.

And they go to sidebar.

They come back and Cindy gets back on the stand.

Baez asks Cindy if she advised Yuri Melich about the ladder being up against the pool on July 16th 2008. Cindy says yes, she advised him of this within 24 hours of calling law enforcement.

Baez is done. Burdick cross examines.

Burdick asks about the clothes – specifically the shorts. Even after Caylee went missing form her home, Cindy maintained Caylee’s bedroom, and all of her clothes were still in her room. Cindy even kept her birthday presents – because after she went missing and before her remains were found, she had a birthday. IN the past, when Caylee would outgrow clothes, Cindy would have a garage sale and sell some of them. She also would store outgrown clothes in plastic containers.

When Caylee went missing she was”pretty much” potty trained. They would still carry pull ups when they went out or would be driving distances where they couldn’t get to a potty right away. When she was home, she would wear underwear. Burdick asks when Caylee made the switch from full fledged diapers to pull ups. Cindy says early in 2008.

Burdick shows Cindy the photograph that shows Caylee wearing the shorts that were found with her remains. It is obvious in that picture that she was wearing either a pull up or a diaper. There is plastic from a diaper visible above the top of the shorts.

Burdick shows Cindy a series of photographs showing Caylee’s clothing. Cindy says that she or George were generally the ones who washed the clothing. And she and Casey bought a lot of Caylee’s clothing – plus what she got from friends and family. Cindy recognizes the “Circo” brand as a Target brand. Lots of Caylee’s clothes were from Target.

Cindy says she recognizes all the photos as tops and shorts that belonged to Caylee. These are items that were in Caylee’s room as of June 2008. There are a mixture of size 2 and 3 clothes.

Burdick asks the witness if, like all children, was a little stockier when she was less mobile, and as she learned to walk she thinned out while growing taller. Cindy says this is true. (And when a kid is wearing diapers – the same shorts might fit once they are wearing underwear.)

Cindy says the particular shorts that were found with Caylee’s remains, she hadn’t seen those in a while. Burdick points out that this could have been because they were packed in a backpack and kept in Casey’s car – or George’s car, or even her own car. The witness says this could have been possible. But these particular shorts weren’t one of her favorite outfits. She wouldn’t have dressed Caylee in these. Casey might have, but she wouldn’t have. Cindy doesn’t recall seeing these shorts after 2007.

Burdick then asks Cindy how heavy the ladder was. Cindy doesn’t know, but she couldn’t have lifted it with one hand. Caylee couldn’t have lifted it.

The door is heavy, as well; you have to have a pretty good force to open it.

Caylee was a very compliant child – she would follow instructions. And if you gave her directions she would listen. And it was Cindy’s testimony that she was very careful to give Caylee instructions about putting on the life vest or climbing the ladder to the pool.

The pool was approximately 4 feet deep. If you stood outside the pool, an adult could not retrieve objects that were in the pool unless those objects were at the edge.

Caylee was never left home alone.

Burdick then asks about the “incident” when the ladder was found on the pool and the gate being open. Burdick asks if it’s true that Caylee couldn’t open that gate. Cindy agrees she couldn’t. Burdick also asks if Cindy has testified previously that this incident was before the gas can incident. And then once she said it was previous to that, and once she said it was the month before.

And she said she called George, she doesn’t know if it was from the house phone or the cell phone. And it would have had to have been a call to his cell phone – or his work phone. And she remembers speaking to him – she didn’t leave a message.

Burdick asks if the witness would acknowledge that she’s already been pretty unreliable with regards to other dates and events that happened in June 2008. She even got the date wrong that she last saw Caylee.

Burdick then has Cindy go over her time card for the time period of June 16th. Her time card accurately reflects that she was at work that day – and it also accurately reflects her vacation from the week before.

Burdick asks Cindy if Casey ever told Cindy that there had been an accident involving the pool. Cindy says no,. Burdick asks if Casey continued to assert that the child was kidnapped. Cindy says that is correct.

Burdick is done. Baez re-directs.

Baez asks if the photos shown to Cindy by Burdick are all just photos of tags. Cindy says all but one. And all but one are also knit material garments. Stretchy. Cindy says they have kept a lot of Caylee’s stuff. Caylee’s clothing that she had outgrown would have been kept throughout the house. And no, Cindy hadn’t seen her wearing those shorts she had been found in for several months.

Cindy says that there were several times a year she would go through Caylee’s drawers and pull out old clothes – mostly holidays and seasonally. And unless she was washing the clothes, she probably wouldn’t see Caylee’s clothes.

Cindy says that she wasn’t overly strict with Caylee – she ran around and played. Baez asks if she was an average toddler – Cindy says she thought she was above average.

Baez is through.

Burdick asks exactly what material the shorts were that were found with Caylee. Cindy says a sturdy cotton that has less give than a denim fabric.

The witness is excused. The defense calls Lee Anthony.

Baez asks Lee if he once owned the Sunfire. Lee says yes – he owned it from 2000 to 2005. Lee identifies photos of the trunk of the car. Lee says there were a few stains in the car when he owned it. They were all outside the spare tire cover.

Baez then asks Lee when was the first time he noticed that his sister was pregnant. Lee says that he noticed in early to mid pregnancy. This is when he was living at home with Casey and his parents. He was waiting for her to come out of the bathroom one night, and when she came out of the bathroom, he could see her mid-section, and to him she was obviously pregnant. At that time it struck him as odd, because he hadn’t noticed it before that time. Lee says he made a comment towards Casey – something like” What the hell is that?” pointing to her stomach. And she just kind of waved him off. The next time he saw his mother he asked her “Is Casey pregnant because it looks that way to me.”

Lee says that he and his mother never talked about Casey’s pregnancy. Casey had picked Lee up at the airport – and she was very obviously pregnant then. This was several months after Lee had asked his mother about Casey’s pregnancy. No one ever talked to him about Casey’s pregnancy until a few days before Caylee was born. That was the only time it was acknowledged to Lee that Casey was even pregnant. Baez asks Lee if he went to eh hospital to see Casey when Caylee was born. Lee says “Regrettably, no I did not.” Baez asks Lee why he didn’t go, and Lee says that he was hurt. He just didn’t want to be there.

Baez then asks him who he was angry with – there’s a sustained objection. Baez tries four different questions in a row asking why Lee was hurt, why he didn’t go to the hospital, who he was made at, why he did what he did – all sustained objections. Baez asks for a sidebar so he an explain relevancy, and the judge allows that. In the meantime, while the parties are at the sidebar, Lee starts breaking down on the stand. He is getting clearly emotional, starting to cry and rub his eyes.

Baez has the objection overruled once they come back form sidebar, and he again asks Lee “Can you tell us why you were angry and who you were angry with and why you didn’t go see Caylee and Casey at the hospital?” And now, a much more emotional Lee answers Baez with “I was very angry with my mom and with my sister. And I was just angry with everyone in general that they didn’t want to include me and that they didn’t find it important enough to tell me. Especially after I had already asked. So I was very hurt. And I didn’t want to – I don’t think I wanted to believe it.”

Baez asks if there were other reasons why he was angry. Lee says no.

Ashton crosses the witness. He asks about the photograph of the trunk of the car –t he one in which Lee pointed out the three stains that he said had been present back when he was driving the vehicle. Ashton circles the stain on the spare tire cover and asks Lee if this stain was present when he was driving the vehicle. Lee says that this is not a stain he had seen previously. Ashton asks the witness if the car had a stench or a stink when he owned the car. Lee laughs and says “no, no it didn’t”.

Ashton asks the witness if, in preparation for the trial, Lee was asked to meet with the prosecutors or a member of the team to go over his testimony and prepare him for what questions he would be asked on direct examination. Lee says he believes so, yes. Ashton asks if Lee refused to do that. And Lee says yes, he did refuse.

Ashton then asks if Lee met with Mr. Baez this week to go over the testimony Lee would give on direct with him. Lee says that it was not to go over his testimony, and that Lee had previously refused to meet with Baez, as well. Lee says that he had reached out to Baez prior to this week, and they followed up with that with a meeting earlier this week.

Ashton asks “You reached out to Mr. Baez?” And Lee says yes, last week he had. Ashton asks for what purpose – and Baez objects. The objection is overruled. Ashton says “My question is why would you, after refusing to meet with anyone from the prosecution team reach out to Mr. Baez?”

Lee says that while he was in court the last time, prior to being called to the stand, during a break, he sat in with his parents, and there was a discussion, or he sat in on a discussion, where information came out that he thought would be important for Jose to be made aware of, so he took it upon himself a few days later, because it didn’t seem like Jose was going to be made aware of it, to make Jose aware of that.

Ashton asks if this was on the subjects that he has testified to today during his direct examination. And Lee says no, he hasn’t discussed them on the stand today.

Ashton then asks Lee about his discovery of his sister’s pregnancy. Ashton wants to know if he had a conversation with Casey when he discovered her “bump”. Lee is not quite sure he said “bump” – but he does say he just made a reference to it without really expecting a response from Casey. He just said something like ‘What the hell is that?” to Casey in passing.

Ashton asks Lee if Lee remembers having his deposition taken on July 30th 2009. Lee says he remembers. Lee acknowledges that he was under oath at the time, and that he was questioned by Mr. George. Baez was present at this deposition.

Ashton shows Lee a series of questions and answers from the deposition – about Lee seeing Casey’s belly for the first time. The deposition asks if Lee “called her out on it”. And Lee said that he didn’t think it was his place – that if he questioned anyone it wasn’t directly to her.

Lee says that he doesn’t think his testimony today contradicted that – that he didn’t “call her out” on being pregnant when she picked him up at the airport, either, and he doesn’t know which encounter this deposition is talking about.

Ashton allows the witness to read the entire page of the deposition. Lee says he still can’t tell which encounter this was- it could have been either.

Ashton then asks Lee if, when his parents found out about Casey’s pregnancy, they were really excited. And Lee says he couldn’t tell him, because no one admitted it to him.

Ashton asks Lee if it is his testimony that from the time he learned of Casey’s pregnancy until the time the child was born, that there was no activity in the house that was indicative of preparing for the birth of a child.

Lee says he isn’t saying that at all – actually, that was one of the reasons he was so angry and decided not to go to the hospital when Casey had the baby. Because he wasn’t included in it, and when he did ask about it, it was denied to him and he was told to let it go. So that’s what he did, he let it go.

Ashton asks if it’s true that his parents were”over the top” about the baby. Lee says especially afterwards, absolutely. And Ashton says “no- even before! They were over the top – you even described them as over the top.” Lee says “My parents are very over the top – prior to Casey ever having Caylee, to be honest with you, I never really paid a lot of attention. It was something that I was told to let go and not address, and I was frankly quite angry that I wasn’t included in it, so it was easier to block it out at that time.”

Ashton shows Lee another part of his deposition. This is the part where Lee discusses the period before Caylee was born. In this passage Lee says that his role was to be in the background just to support, but not go over the top, because his parents wanted to be the ones that went over the top.

Ashton asks if this is the accurate description of his parent’s emotions about the impending arrival of their granddaughter – that they were over the top. Their excitement – that is what Lee meant to convey in that answer.

Lee says that was the impression he was under – that he wasn’t asked to be involved with things, so all he could do was sit back and be non judgmental, sit in the background and let them take care of it, they would do whatever was necessary and their nature was to be over the top.

Ashton asks Lee what preparations his parents made in the house for Caylee’s arrival. Lee says that he thinks they bought a crib. Ashton asks “Didn’t they re-decorate an entire room for her?’ Lee says he wasn’t involved in it, but he believes that they did. And Cindy doesn’t do anything halfway – it was decorated to the nines – and that was in preparation for Caylee.

Lee says that he lived in the room right next door – and Ashton says “Wasn’t there Winnie the Pooh everywhere>” Lee says he knows there was – but he never went in the room until after Caylee was born. Ashton asks if his mother and sister went shopping and bought all kinds of stuff – and had parties.

Lee says he doesn’t know if they had a baby shower – he wasn’t invited. Lee says he thinks the baby shower was in June. Ashton asks if Mallory was invited – Lee says he doesn’t believe so.

Ashton asks where Lee was – the shower was at his house. Lee says he doesn’t know – all of this was something that was either hidden from him or something he wasn’t made a part of. So he didn’t go out of his way to find out what was going on or invited himself.

Ashton points out that his parents weren’t hiding this from their friends and loved ones – they invited them to a party.

Ashton says to Lee that during his deposition, they discussed this period of time leading up to Caylee’s birth and whether or not he was present when Caylee was born. Ashton asks if Lee cried during this portion of the deposition. Lee says he doesn’t think so. Ashton asks what was different 2 hours ago in the courtroom that caused such raw emotion that wasn’t present during his deposition.

Lee says that two years ago he didn’t hold the belief that Caylee was dead. Lee says that during the last two years, and two hours ago he has come to the place where he believes that she is. He says his emotions come from the fact that he has regrets. He wishes he could have been there a lot more than he was.

Ashton says that Lee attended and spoke at a memorial service for Caylee in January of 2009 – six months before this deposition was taken. Lee says yes he did.

Ashton is done. Baez re-directs. Baez asks about the stain again. The one that Ashton described as “the size of a basketball.” Baez asks if this stain is visible in the picture. Lee says he sees a few stains, but nothing the size of a basketball. There is some white powder – but that’s not the stains Lee was referring to.

Baez asks if Lee saw his mother use an entire bottle of Febreeze in the car. And he didn’t see the crime scene technicians use “Blue Star” in the trunk.

Lee testifies that he did not meet with the defense team prior to his testimony for the state. And he did not advise the defense of any testimony he was going to give for the state.

Lee testifies that his mother is one who told him to”let it go” when he asked about Casey’s pregnancy. He also said in his deposition that his mother had some “mixed feelings” about Casey being pregnant – she wasn’t happy that Casey was having a baby out of wedlock.

Lee doesn’t know exactly when Casey’s shower was – and if it was after Caylee was born.

Baez also goes further with Ashton’s line of questioning about why Lee cried this morning on the stand – yet didn’t cry in his deposition while discussing the same issues. Baez asks if it’s different being in the courtroom than it was in a conference room during the depositions, and Lee says yes, and he’s also in a much different place emotionally than he was a couple of years ago, and this is very emotionally draining.

Lee also says that he still didn’t believe Caylee was dead at the time of the memorial service. Lee says that he doesn’t know when he actually came to the belief that Caylee was dead – he thinks that even to this day if he saw someone that looked like her that he might look twice or event here times. He says that last year, particularly, was a hard time for him around his and Caylee’s birthday.

Baez is done. Re-cross by Ashton. Ashton asks if he remembers testifying for the state a few weeks ago. He says he does. Ashton asks how many times Mr. George had to step up to him and “refresh his recollection” during that testimony. Lee says probably as many times as he’s been shown something here today by Ashton or Baez. Ashton says “During your direct by Baez did he have to refresh your recollection at all?” Lee says he thinks a couple of times. Ashton sets him straight – Baez didn’t’ have to refresh his recollection at all. Lee’s memory seemed to be just fine when he testifying for Baez. But when Mr. George asked him questions on direct – Lee’s memory was more “troublesome”. Lee says it is hard to remember stuff you did two years ago.

Ashton again shows him his deposition. He said that he only said something “probably” to his mother – that if she wasn’t making it a big deal, he wasn’t going to, either. That he only said something to her “in passing”.

Ashton then shows him a question and answer from the deposition that “refreshes his recollection” that the baby shower was in the months preceding the birth.

Lee is excused. Baez calls Cindy Anthony (again). Baez asks her when Casey’s baby shower was. Cindy says it was postponed – it was around the 27th of August, Caylee was supposed to be born in September, and they had the baby shower slated for August 13th, Caylee was born on August 9th, so she had to switch the invitations, and contact everyone and change the date of the baby shower.

So the shower was held after Caylee was born, because Caylee came a month early. And this is bullshit, and more of Cindy believing Casey’s lies. Caylee wasn’t a month early, it’s just that Casey had to keep the conception in line with the time she was with Jesse Grund so she could bullshit him into believing it was his kid. “Early” my ass. The kid was right on time.

Baez then shows Cindy the picture of Casey at Cindy’s brothers wedding (again). He asks her if, at this time, she thought Casey was pregnant. She says no. (Which I still find shocking – you know, if my mother had been as stupid and gullible as this woman, my teenage years would have been a lot more fun.)

Baez asks Cindy who attended the baby shower. Cindy says Casey’s friends, her friends, Casey’s grandmothers and aunts, Jesse Grund’s mother (Caylee’s other grandmother – ooops maybe not – she was “early”.), neighbors. Lee wasn’t there – none of the guys were.

The state has no questions for Cindy – she is excused.

The defense calls Ryan Eberlin – a member of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. On July 15th 2008, he was dispatched to the Anthony home,. He had never had any contact with them before. When he arrived he participated in asking questions and evaluating the situation. He noticed the Sunfire automobile, but did not notice any particular odor from the vehicle.

At one point during the time he was there he placed handcuffs on Casey Anthony. He was subsequently ordered to remove them by Sgt. Hosey.

The defense has no further questions.

Cross by Burdick. This witness was the junior officer on the scene. The handcuffs were only on Casey for 2 or 3 minutes. After that, she was released, she went back into her house and she was free to go about her business.

Burdick asks why Casey was handcuffed, and the witness says that while Casey was in the house her mother had approached him and informed him that Casey had stolen her……

At this point Mason objects and Burdick says that the defense opened the door. This causes a sidebar. Then a legal matter that forces the jury back into the holding area.

The state then questions the witness outside the presence of the jury. She asks why the witness put handcuffs on Casey. He says that Cindy Anthony approached him with receipts saying that Casey had stolen her credit card and made fraudulent purchases and that she wanted to press charges. The officer then went into the house, got Casey, handcuffed her and brought her to his squad car to continue the investigation of the fraudulent use of credit cards. That’s when his Sgt. Said that they weren’t going to worry about these alleged crimes right then, that the kidnapping took precedence. He ordered the witness to take the cuffs off of Casey, and he did.

This happened after Casey did her written statement at 1 am. And before Melich arrived at 4 am.

The defense pleads to the court that the defendant isn’t on trial for these charges and they are not relevant.

The judge says that the defense elicited the testimony that the defendant was in handcuffs, and wants that information to be put to the jury with absolutely no explanation as to why. Which opens the door for this particular testimony. The court will fashion a jury instruction that deals with this, and he writes up a curative instruction.

“The evidence which you are about to hear concerning the reasons for the handcuffing of Miss Casey Anfony, is solely to explain why the deputy took those actions and is not to be considered for any other purpose. The defendant is not on trial for those acts and you should not consider this evidence for any other purpose than to explain why the deputy handcuffed the defendant.”

Burdick then continues to question the deputy. She has him explain that Cindy wanted Casey arrested for the fraudulent use of her credit cards, and that his sergeant later ordered him to take the handcuffs off.

Yuri Melich showed up after this. He was not present during any of this.

The deputy is excused.

The defense’s next witness is Corporal Eric Edwards. He is a Corporal with the Orange County Sheriff’s department. He was one of the lead detectives in this case – or, as he says, he “assisted a great deal.” Masons asks if he knows a “Linda Tinelli” – which causes a side bar, and then causes the jury to be sent out yet again for a “legal matter”.

When the jury has left, Mason proffers the witness. He again asks if the Detective knows a “Linda Tinelli” The detective says he met her through the investigation. Tinelli was brought to the witness’s attention by a woman named Lori Cree, who was a volunteer from Texas EquuSearch. He doesn’t remember the date – but it was about December when they visited Texas EquuSearch and he got a call from Lori Cree, bringing Linda Tinelli to his attention. Tinelli was a volunteer at the KidsFinder tent. Tinelli spent a great deal of time at the tent with the Anthony’s. The witness thinks that her role was to keep the sheets with the list of volunteers.

Lori Cree told the witness that Linda Tinelli had mentioned George Anthony brought duct tape to the KidsFinder tent. This is one reason that the OCSD deposed Miss Tinelli.

The witness says that he showed either a video or a still picture form the video to Miss Tinelli. He showed her the missing photo that depicted Caylee that had duct tape on it to fasten it to the tent pole. She didn’t specifically identify the tape as the tape that George had.

The witness doesn’t remember when he drove out to meet with her again, but he does remember driving out with Det Allen to talk to her about some correspondence or communication she had had with the Anthony’s. Mason asks the witness if this was in March 2009. The Detective says it was.

During this visit the detectives wanted to place a bug/listening device in her lamp in her living room, with the intention of having her invite George and/or Cindy to her house to speak with her and try to capture their conversation.

The detective says that this is so, that the Anthony’s had been contacting her. They wanted to meet with her and talk to her. Miss Tinelli had visited the Anthony home previously and mentioned to the Anthony’s that the police had spoken to her. After this, the Anthony’s were persistent in talking with her and repeatedly asking to meet with Miss Tinelli. The OCSD had concerns with what the Anthony’s might ask her to say.

Miss Tinelli was uncomfortable with the whole “listening device” thing, because she would have to get her husband’s permission to do that. She felt it was a little intrusive into her personal life – so they never did it. They did talk about the possibility of her wearing a wire when she spoke to the Anthony’s. But she never did that, either.

The state has no questions on the proffer

Mr. Mason has a few more questions – regarding a phone message that Cindy left on Miss Tinelli’s phone. Or maybe it was George that left the message – but he thinks it was Cindy.

Mason is through.

The judge asks Mason what material fact this evidence tends to prove or disprove – or what relevancy it has to the defense theory. Mason asks how much time he has.

Mason says that it shows that the prosecution was focused not just at the defendant on trial, but also at others, because of the processes of the law enforcement investigators.

The judge asks part two of the questions: what does this have to do with the theory of the defense? Mason says that the defense theory, as laid out to the judge earlier – the dysfunctionality and the circumstances involving what happened after the accidental drowning and who did what in an effort to conceal or to cover that up. The investigation carried on in that regard and the detectives in the case were so involved in going down that road that they asked a woman on two occasions to wear a wire and record the conversations with the Anthony’s to try and get incriminating statements from the parents.

The judge asks Mason if the detectives were successful in getting incriminating statements from the parents.

Mason says no, they weren’t. Because after being asked twice to record conversations with the Anthony’s, she refused to do it. Otherwise, all she’d be able to testify to is what is already in evidence about the duct tape.

The judge asks for comments form the state on the proffer. Burdick says that it is obvious from the proffer, as well as what was argued at sidebar, that this line of questioning is offered only for the purpose of inviting the jury to speculate on the motives of law enforcement, without ever asking what their motivation was to do something, because their motivation would be irrelevant, since their motivation does not relate to any material facts regarding Casey Anthony’s guilt or innocence.

Mason says that it’s interesting that the objection is speculation – since we are expected to speculate about the murder weapon being duct tape.

The judge rules that the evidence is not relative – either to the theory of the defense’s case or to any material facto of the case. The state’s objection is sustained.

The judge asks about the next witness – he doesn’t’ know who the next witness is and what she is going to testify about. If there are going to be “issues” he’d much rather take them up now then have the jury going in and out of the courtroom or sit through endless sidebars.

Burdick gets up and says to the judge that the State objects to the next witness’s testimony on the basis of relevancy. This witness was at a command center at some unknown date and time and saw George Anthony with duct tape that cannot be further identified. This testimony is of no material value. If she could say it was a particular brand of duct tape, the state would not object, but that’s not what she is going to say.

The judge says “but she can say it’s duct tape.”

Burdick says “…but that doesn’t establish any relevance.”

“You’re saying it’s not relevant because she can’t say what brand it is?”

“Or identify when shown a specific brand to say that’s what was used.”

The judge says “So, are you saying to whenever the state of Florida sees someone with a gun or a knife and can’t say for certain what type of gun or knife it was, and a victim in a murder case was killed with a gun or knife, that evidence is not admissible.”

“Not unless we can tie it in to some relevant time frame that would establish materiality. The fact that someone possessed a gun or a knife would never be admissible unless it could be tied in to a relevant time frame.”

“Well, isn’t she going to testify it was at a volunteer tent?” The defense says yes, this is what she will testify to.

The judge rules then that it would only go to whatever weight the jury will assign it. The judge says he thinks that the defense would like it very much if this is the position the state would hold – since most witnesses can’t identify a serial number of a gun, or even distinguish between a rifle and a semi-automatic. All they can tell you is that somebody stuck a gun in their face and robbed them at gunpoint. But that’s a debate for another time….

The judge says the testimony is admissible.

The defense calls Linda Tinelli. She says that she knows George and Cindy Anthony. When Caylee went missing, the Anthony’s had a command center. She went down there to offer her help as a volunteer. She coordinated the table where they took donations and handed out t-shirts, pins and bracelets. She worked the table with George Anthony. This was towards the end of July until December. The last day was December 8th. She says that there was duct tape at the table. It was used to tape down the tablecloths when it was windy and put up posters of missing children.

Mason is done direct. And the witness is excused.

The defense calls Yuri Melich. Again. Melich testifies that in his role as lead detective – he had a supervisor, but was in charge of the case. He was called to the Anthony home it was the early morning hours of July 16th. At some point someone pointed out the smell in the car. George Anthony was the one who pointed it out,. At that time Melich didn’t do anything with that information. He had the car towed to the central operations center later in the day.

He was at the home in the early morning hours, spent an hour or so there taking the original taped statement, left with Casey to show him the locations of the babysitters homes, came back and dropped Casey off and left again. As he was leaving, he had contact with George Anthony, who approached Melich while he was in his car getting ready to leave. Melich left at around 7 in the morning. Then he met with Casey at around noon at Universal Studios. He thinks there were two or three uniformed officers at the Anthony home while he was there.

Melich did not confiscate the car until after Casey was arrested. He made arrangements with Mr. Anthony to pick up the car and items that were in the car or had been in the car.

Baez points out that it wasn’t until Casey was under arrest that they decided to go and gather evidence from the car.

Baez asks if the reason Melich arrested Casey was because he thought she might harm herself. Melich says he arrested her because she met the elements of the crime that she was arrested for. And yes, based on another case that was in the media at the time, He thought that she might harm herself.

Baez says – “So based on media coverage of another case, you arrested her?”

Melich says again, that she fulfilled the elements of the crime that she was arrested for, but he did have this in his mind and that helped him to decide to actually make a physical arrest.

Baez asks if, after Casey was arrested, the focus went to the car. Melich says that the focus was always on the missing or kidnapped child, but yes, they did focus their attention on the car, but it wasn’t the sole point at that time.

Baez asks if the detective wanted to do a thorough job and look at every possible scenario – Melich of course, says yes, but, keeping in mind that they were going off of what they were told had happened. And this included that the child was kidnapped by a known individual, and they had all these other names to go with it.

Baez asks if they were also told by everyone in the house that the child went missing on June 9th. Melich agrees that they all said that initially, even George Anthony. Within a few days they found this not to be correct, and that the correct date was June 16th.

Baez asks if they had in their possession at that time all the information on Zanny the Nanny. Melich says he doesn’t know if they had all the information – they had what Casey and the rest of the family told them about this person the nanny – the kidnapper. But they had yet to talk to friends and other people that she was associated with – these outcry witnesses to tell the detectives who this Zanny person was.

Baez asks if shortly after the investigation began they were able to determine that this Zanny person didn’t exist. Melich says that he wouldn’t say “shortly after” – it took a while because Casey never changed her story about the nanny being the kidnapper. In communications that Melich monitored between her and her family at the jail, she was still talking about the nanny. So he wouldn’t say “shortly”. Ultimately they came to believe that this nanny didn’t exist, but he can’t pinpoint a day that he came to believe this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Melich testifies that he had no contact with the Anthony family before this date. And in July of 2008, he subpoenaed Casey Anthony’s cell phone records. Baez asks if he could have also subpoenaed George Anthony’s cell phone records. Melich says that he ultimately did subpoena George’s cell phone records. Baez asks for what time period he subpoenaed George’s cell phone records. He doesn’t recall exactly for what period. He says he subpoenaed the records for multiple periods – including June and July.

Baez acts surprised. He asks if Melich gave those records to prosecutors. Melich says yes – but then he thinks and says maybe he’s thinking of home phone records. He’s not sure what periods of cell phone records were actually subpoenaed.

Baez tries to clarify – so the detective subpoenaed the home phone records for June and July – but not George’s cell phone records? The detective doesn’t recall.

Melich testifies that cell phone records can tell someone the calls placed, received, the duration of those calls and the tower which carried that call – which is useful in pinpointing the location of a person.

Baez asks if he used Casey’s cell phone records to track her location. And Melich says yes, he used her cell phone records to track her movements. Melich says yes, at the beginning of the investigation when they first received the cell phone records, they charted her tower locations. They did not do that for George, Cindy or Lee.

Baez asks if the only person they focused in on with the cell records was Casey. Melich says no – he’s actually pulled cell records and tracked locations for at least one other person he can think of – the person who called in the finding of the remains.

Baez seizes on the “person who found the remains” and says “Ahhh…yes…that would be Roy Kronk, right?” Melich says yes.

Melich testifies that yes, Roy Kronk found the remains on December 11th, 2008. He called his communications office, and they called 911. Upon this call, Melich went to the scene at Suburban Drive and, ultimately, interviewed Roy Kronk. This call was tape recorded to preserve the integrity of the conversation.

Baez asks when Melich first became aware that Kronk had made prior 911 calls about this site – which gets a sidebar.

When the sidebar is complete, Baez asks Melich if, during the month of August, Melich was approached by Officer Gerald White about a tip on Suburban Drive. Melich says yes. Melich says the tip was very general. They had already sent a cadaver dog in that general area, so Melich told the officer that the area had been searched. So that tip was not followed up on.

Melich subpoenaed Roy Kronk’s phone records – he cannot remember exactly for what time periods. He thinks he got those records for June through December. He didn’t create a report or turn these records over to MBI to create a report the way he did with Casey Anthony’s cell phone records. He used the cell tower information only to answer some questions that he had regarding where the cell phone was at a particular time.

Baez asks the detective about the duct tape found near the remains of Caylee. Melich remembers the fact that several months later there was a video television report that made note of the fact that there was duct tape found at the command center that George Anthony was running. Melich noted from that TV report that the duct tape at the command center appeared to have the same markings as the duct tape found near the remains of the body.

Baez asks the detective when and where he went back to George Anthony to ask him where he got this duct tape. Melich says he didn’t.

After this TV report, Melich was also made aware that the gas can had the same duct tape on it.

Baez points out that the detective had evidence that duct tape was found near the remains of Caylee – Melich adds “and on the remains as well” – and he knew that he had duct tape on the can – and he knew that there was no other duct tape in the house. Melich says that yes, at the time of their search warrant there was none. Baez says “and the only other time you ever saw this duct tape was on this video?” Melich says yes.

Baez points out that there are three different locations, three different pieces of this same duct tape.

Baez asks if Melich interviewed George Anthony on July 30th, 2008. Melich says yes. Baez tries to get the witness to say that George reported the gas cans as stolen at that time and that Melich went to retrieve them the next day – but he doesn’t know how to elicit that information through proper questioning and the state keeps getting their objections sustained.

Baez asks Melich if, in addition to the cell phone records from June through December, he also confiscated Roy Kronk’s computer. Melich says no. Baez asks why not – doesn’t that generally yield all kinds of information? Melich says sure.

Baez asks what other investigation he did on Roy Kronk. Melich says he interviewed his co-workers and took his statement.

Baez is done.

Burdick crosses. She asks about the tip that was received in August. Melich had testified that the tip was “general in nature”. Burdick asks if it mentioned Suburban Drive. Melich says yes. The tip said “swampy area crossing a 6 foot fence.” Melich knew at that time that Suburban Drive was very close to the Anthony home, but most of the police focus was at the far East side of Suburban Drive where it dead ends into the school and a wooded area. The area where Caylee was ultimately found was much closer to the Anthony home than to the school area.

So when Melich was brought this tip by Gerald White, he believed that it was referring to the end of Suburban Drive – the wooded area – that had been completely searched. And that cadaver dogs had been sent to this area.

Melich is excused.

The judge excuses the jury for the day.

After the jury is excused, the Judge asks Baez if there is any information on when he will be winding up his presentation. Baez says he believes that will be Wednesday and Thursday. The state estimates they will need two days for rebuttal.

The judge asks how long they will be requesting for closing arguments – and Baez says that brings up an interesting issue. The state had requested in a pretrial motion to split up the argument between lawyers. This would give the state the opportunity to have 4 chances at arguing closing arguments. The defense would object to this structure. Baez wants to know if this is going to be allowed so that the defense knows how to proceed.

The judge wants to know how Baez gets “4 closing arguments” out of splitting up the argument between attorneys

Baez says that they essentially get 4 – one lawyer gets up and talks, then another lawyer gets up and talks….that’s two. Then the defense argues…then the state sends up two more lawyers again – that’s 4.

The judge says he wouldn’t allow two lawyers to split the rebuttal state argument. He can understand 2 lawyers splitting the initial closing argument, but there’s no need for two lawyers on the rebuttal argument.

Ashton offers that the defense could split their argument, as well, so essentially they could have 2 closings.

The state says they will need one day for closings. Baez gets up and says “I was expecting less….” The judge says “How much time, Mr. Baez? Half a day, or until the jury goes to sleep…whichever occurs first.”

The judge says he will give the parties an order on Monday dealing with closing arguments with some basic parameters.

Baez then has some discovery violations he would like to talk about. He says that Melich just testified that he subpoenaed six months worth of Roy Kronk’s cell phone records. The defense had only received 2 weeks worth. If Melich was testifying truthfully, this is a major violation. Melich also testified that he had George Anthony’s cell phone records for the same period – the defense doesn’t have those, either.

(I’m betting Melich was simply mistaken – he said several times “I’m not sure, I don’t know without looking at the subpoena…”)

Burdick says she will inquire of Mr. Melich if there are items in his possession that were not turned over to the state.

Burdick says that Mr. Baez is the one that turned over the Anthony family cell phone records to the state, but if he thinks that Mr. Melich has something that the defense doesn’t have, she will inquire of Melich. And she is willing to work with Baez to compare what they have, but there was certainly no intentional discovery violations.

They then take up the matter of the curative instruction regarding Dr. Rodriguez.

The defense has proposed an instruction that states that Dr. Rodriguez cannot resume his testimony because his employer, the Department of Defense, will not allow him to. The state says that this is not entirely accurate. Ashton says that the accurate fact is that his testimony is prohibited due to the rules and regulations of the department of the defense, therefore he was testifying in violation of those rules, and would not be permitted to do so.

Ashton says he doesn’t think the defense would necessarily want that before the jury in that form, so they should come up with some new instruction, since the defense could have subpoenaed him, since he was here, and they chose not to do that. Ashton says he applauds the defense for not choosing to ruin this mans life over it, but they didn’t subpoena him.

Ashton says that a more appropriate instruction would be that he simply is withdrawn as a witness, and that the jury should disregard any testimony he gave.

Mason says that it was Ashton who got a call from the department of defense saying that the witness would be terminated if he testified. Yeah, we could have forced him to stay, we could have identified him as a material witness and had your honor put him in jail (the judge says “that’s true!”) but we weren’t going to do that. I don’t want this instruction to read like he just withdrew – because that’s not the case, the judge was there, and understands the situation.

The judge asks if it is not true that he did not get his employers permission to testify. Mason and Baez both say that they don’t know that. All we know for sure is that he started his testimony, we had a break, Mr. Ashton took his deposition, and then the next thing we know Mr. Ashton gets a call from the department of defense on a Saturday that has the witness shaking in his boots that he’s going to be fired.

Ashton gets up and says let me clarify this implication that the defense is making. Ashton says he got a call from this guy’s employer – a Captain Malick. Ashton says he did not solicit contact with this person. He said that they had learned of Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony by seeing it on television, and that it was in violation of department of defense regulations. That he did not seek their permission and that he was ordered to return home. If he testified, he would be fired. Ashton says he informed the court and defense counsel of this in a private conversation so that the witness would not lose his job over this. Any implication in defense’s comments that I contacted them is 100% false.

Baez says that there is more to this story, since Ashton requested an additional 24 hours to review a deposition that he just took, knowing full well that Mr. Rodriguez was in the hot seat. Baez says they are going to have a motion with regards to that forthcoming, but that their proposed instruction is the most accurate with regards to what transpired.

Ashton says that he is the most accurate with the regards to what transpired, and that all of this is facts that are not in front of the court and that the court simply needs to say that he witness is withdrawn which is factually and legally accurate, and leave it at that. If counsel wants to file something under oath – bring it on. Baez says “we will.”

The judge says that in order for him to craft something that includes facts not before him, they are going to need to have the witnesses’ captain testify. He doesn’t have to do it in person, they can do it over a break, or before or after court hours. And we can find out if that is a regulation by the Department of Defense and whether or not the doctor sought permission to do this. The judge offered to have Mr. Rodriquez held over until Monday, since he was within the jurisdiction of the court. And the judge had also said that if anyone felt that the witness would have fled the jurisdiction despite the court’s verbal order, that he would have had him held at the Orange County Jail until such time that he could testify. The defense then said that they would allow the witness to leave, that they had another expert who could testify to basically the same thing. The judge says that if they are going to tell the story that they are going to tell the complete story. Or, they can tell the benign, that his testimony is stricken and they are to disregard it. And that will be end of story.

The judge says he will have proposed jury instructions for the parties on Tuesday. Since the defense may end on Wednesday, the judge wants the state to have proposed witnesses on hand ready to testify. The judge doesn’t know if he wants to have the jury begin deliberations on a Friday evening. He may want them to start Saturday morning. He may have them deliberating until 6:30-7:00, but he has to keep them separated from that point on. Instructions will probably be 45 minutes.

Just from memory – the judge believes that at this point he is instructing the jury on several lesser, included charges. (Depending on renewed motions for DV – directed verdict) On count one – he is instructing on First Degree Murder, Felony Murder, Second Degree murder, Manslaughter, Count 2 – Aggravated Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Battery (he thinks), Under aggravated manslaughter, no lesser, because there will be an instruction on interlocking verdicts. And there are no lesser for providing false information to law enforcement.

The judge tells the attorney’s to think about any other lesser they may want to ask for.


One Response to “Everyone Lies, Everyone Cries…..”

  1. Starbright said

    Kim, you do a marvelous job of reporting the court proceedings. Enjoy you being back.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: