Casey's Diary Entry for June 21st & Missing Pages #2

SuziQ · #1 02-18-2009, 11:27 AM

Pic one at the below link is a diary entry for June 21st. She talks about how she's happier than she has been in a long time. It appears to be the first page of a new book she bought for the occasion.

Sure doesn't sound like a mom who is upset her kid has been kidnapped. She sounds like she's happy to be free.

http://www.wesh.com/slideshow/news/18739798/detail.html

Picture 15 Shows the year.
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/18740442/detail.html

JBean · #2 02-23-2009, 02:18 PM

continue here

thread 1

Please stay on topic. thanks.

kgeaux · #3 02-23-2009, 02:28 PM

That slideshow just moves me to tears. That poor baby girl. Her little toys and shoes just waiting.

I really think the diary is from 03, just because even though I see the glue (thank you to whoever scanned that pic for us!) I can't see any evidence of torn out pages.

I've been wrong before, though. And it is sure possible I'm wrong now. I even kind of hope I am, because the notation would be POWERFUL evidence, if written in 08. And I think this case needs all the powerful evidence it can get.

Seebra · #4 02-23-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgeaux

That slideshow just moves me to tears. That poor baby girl. Her little toys and shoes just waiting.

I really think the diary is from 03, just because even though I see the glue (thank you to whoever scanned that pic for us!) I can't see any evidence of torn out pages.

I've been wrong before, though. And it is sure possible I'm wrong now. I even kind of hope I am, because the notation would be POWERFUL evidence, if written in 08. And I think this case needs all the powerful evidence it can get.

I have started journals, only to forget about them and then find them years later - then I rip out pages and begin fresh, which is really what I believe the entry to be. The journal (IMO) was started in 03, forgotten about and then revisited (with pages torn out - mine looks just like this one does with the glue and obvious missing pages!!!) - the 03 text on the page still applies, so therefore the new entry can be written on June 21 without problem in her mind.

kgeaux · #5 02-23-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seebra

I have started journals, only to forget about them and then find them years later - then I rip out pages and begin fresh, which is really what I believe the entry to be. The journal (IMO) was started in 03, forgotten about and then revisited (with pages torn out - mine looks just like this one does with the glue and obvious missing pages!!!) - the 03 text on the page still applies, so therefore the new entry can be written on June 21 without problem in her mind.

To me, it isn't obvious that pages were torn out. That's what has me worried! I see the glue, I do not see frayed edges of pages that were removed.

I've torn pages out of my journal, too, not to start fresh, but if I say something ugly and regret it! It shows, though, that a page was torn out. Maybe I am just a messy person, I admit I don't take a lot of pain to make a perfect edge when ripping a sheet out.

JBean · #6 02-23-2009, 03:05 PM

The topic here is the diary and the entry. if your post was removed it is because your post did not address the diary or the entry.
please stay on topic.

Seebra · #7 02-23-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgeaux

To me, it isn't obvious that pages were torn out. That's what has me worried! I see the glue, I do not see frayed edges of pages that were removed.

I've torn pages out of my journal, too, not to start fresh, but if I say something ugly and regret it! It shows, though, that a page was torn out. Maybe I am just a messy person, I admit I don't take a lot of pain to make a perfect edge when ripping a sheet out.

I think also it has to do with the type of diary and the position of the pages ripped out.

I've had some where the pages were completely obviously ripped out (little threads, etc.) and then others that really didn't show much.

I studied the pictures closely, and I am leaning on the fact that roughly 10-20 pages were ripped - this type of journal from what I can make out, also has clumps or sections of the pages that are kind of stitched together - so removing an entire section leaves little trace that those pages were there - such as (at least I think) in the journal photos of her diary.

EDIT: I TRULY, 100% WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe that this entry was written on June 21, 2008 completely related to her daughter's murder.

LinasK · #8 02-23-2009, 08:11 PM

Okay, while in my local Target today, I checked for any cat-themed journals or photo albums and they had none! Of course, this is a regular sized Target, not Target Greatland, I'll try to remember to check that one next time I go there.

icherish · #9 02-23-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgeaux

To me, it isn't obvious that pages were torn out. That's what has me worried! I see the glue, I do not see frayed edges of pages that were removed.

I've torn pages out of my journal, too, not to start fresh, but if I say something ugly and regret it! It shows, though, that a page was torn out. Maybe I am just a messy person, I admit I don't take a lot of pain to make a perfect edge when ripping a sheet out.

It is hard to tell what is what in that crease by looking at a photo rather than the actual page, but I do think pages were torn out. The line of red ink on the frayed edge to the left of "June 21" is the kicker for me.

JaneInOz · #10 02-23-2009, 09:10 PM

I said ages ago that the article with the entry that has the date 03 on the left and then writing on the right hand side Looks Like a NOTEBOOK

whiskeygurl · #11 02-24-2009, 01:07 AM

I read that page in her diary. It sounds that she is completely aware of her own actions. Not admitting it word for word. But basically she removes her problems, she has happiness about it. But awaits the implications of what she has done

Ms.Heather · #12 02-24-2009, 09:13 AM

I absolutely believe that the entry was June 21st of 08. I can imagine that CA was just dying to write down what she was feeling and going through at that point... she couldn't tell anyone about her grand plan... but she could write it down. She probably grabbed the journal and tore out the pages and started fresh. She needed to vent it out, she needed to "talk".
Personally I have done it many times. Bought a cute little journal and said "I'm going to keep my thoughts in here once a week" but ended up just forgetting about it. But when I really needed to write to get something off my chest, I'd find it again and write in it. I believe that is what CA did in this case.
I'd like to hear what the D will say about the journal. What was she going through in 03 that was so life changing????

elfie · #13 02-25-2009, 04:12 PM

I think a comparison of her handwriting in '03 and '08 will help make the determination. Either way it wouldn't be that encouraging for the defense. If it was written in '03, the difference in handwriting between '08 and '03 seems to indicate a change in her thought processes. If it was written in '08 the words are chilling.

Clock's Tickin · #14 03-20-2009, 09:30 AM

Reports are surfacing regarding the contents of the pages torn from KC's diary. This would suggest that LE in fact is in possession of those missing pages! When photos were released of the diary and showed evidence of pages missing, I assumed KC had destroyed whatever had been written there. I wonder where the "lost pages" were found and if they were dated. I'm digging, but can't find anything in the docs about loose pages. Anybody else??

NJ Lawyer · #15 03-20-2009, 09:31 AM

I assume this thread will be revived. On March 18, on the Nancy Grace show there was mention of a "report" (source - no disclosed) that the missing pages of the diary had been recovered and that they missing pages mention pesticides and other stuff and a motive for the crime - to keep Caylee from having to grow up with Cindy Anthony. No mention of where the missing pages were allegedly found and the NG show commentators pointed out that: (1) LE did not recover the missing pages at the same time the diary was recovered (which was when LE came back to the Anthony house after little Caylee's remains were found); (2) it's not the case that prosecutors (or LE?) released to the public the diary and kept the missing pages to produce later (in other words, suggesting that LE just recently received these missing pages).

I am obviously interested in the diary entries (their content; the dates they were actually written) because if the diary says what it's alleged to say, it is a piece of evidence that is inconsistent with the theory that Caylee was killed accidentally and this whole charade is about a 22 year old mother trying to hide an accidental death. (I also believe and stated here a while ago that I think Casey justified killing Caylee to herself by the idea that Caylee would be better off dead than being raised by Cindy Anthony). So I'm interested to find out more about the diary entries. And if this is being discussed in a new thread, someone please let me know! Thanks.

BondJamesBond · #16 03-20-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJ Lawyer

I assume this thread will be revived. On March 18, on the Nancy Grace show there was mention of a "report" (source - no disclosed) that the missing pages of the diary had been recovered and that they missing pages mention pesticides and other stuff and a motive for the crime - to keep Caylee from having to grow up with Cindy Anthony. No mention of where the missing pages were allegedly found and the NG show commentators pointed out that: (1) LE did not recover the missing pages at the same time the diary was recovered (which was when LE came back to the Anthony house after little Caylee's remains were found); (2) it's not the case that prosecutors (or LE?) released to the public the diary and kept the missing pages to produce later (in other words, suggesting that LE just recently received these missing pages).

I am obviously interested in the diary entries (their content; the dates they were actually written) because if the diary says what it's alleged to say, it is a piece of evidence that is inconsistent with the theory that Caylee was killed accidentally and this whole charade is about a 22 year old mother trying to hide an accidental death. (I also believe and stated here a while ago that I think Casey justified killing Caylee to herself by the idea that Caylee would be better off dead than being raised by Cindy Anthony). So I'm interested to find out more about the diary entries. And if this is being discussed in a new thread, someone please let me know! Thanks.

FWIW, considering the source...you hafta factor in the NG-Bombshell-This-Just-In-but-its-really-several-weeks-old-and-often-based-on-non-sourced-speculation coefficient.

Not long after the June21 Diary entry was released to the public, a blogger made the claim that they had a source revealing to them exactly the same details that NG is now reporting. Soooooo....this isn't new news...just new to NG.

I read the blog that made this claim initially, and, as indicated above, it only indicated that the information was from an inside source....so....take it for what it is...Sorry I didn't save a link to the blog (which kinda tells you what I thought 'bout it

).

It would be nice to learn that this is legit, providing essentially a confession in the perps on handwritting.

Hope that helps.

Mendara · #17 03-20-2009, 09:58 AM

If the pages were ripped out of the book and LATER given to LE, then WHO? Ripped them out and WHO gave them to LE?

I honestly do not think that they have missing pages that hold absolute proof of motive and a plan, if so I think JB would be in the hospital. UNLESS of course the pages were found someplace else other than the Anthony home and there is some doubt that Casey actually wrote them, which JB may feel he can challenge and use as a defense tactic of someone trying to FRAME his client.

BondJamesBond · #18 03-20-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BondJamesBond

FWIW, considering the source...you hafta factor in the NG-Bombshell-This-Just-In-but-its-really-several-weeks-old-and-often-based-on-non-sourced-speculation coefficient.

Not long after the June21 Diary entry was released to the public, a blogger made the claim that they had a source revealing to them exactly the same details that NG is now reporting. Soooooo....this isn't new news...just new to NG.

I read the blog that made this claim initially, and, as indicated above, it only indicated that the information was from an inside source....so....take it for what it is...Sorry I didn't save a link to the blog (which kinda tells you what I thought 'bout it

).

It would be nice to learn that this is legit, providing essentially a confession in the perps on handwritting.

Quoting myself to keep the following in context...

I found the original blog, which is dated, Jan 22. So...NOW we know how to calculate what qualifies as new information for NG (3/20 - 1/22) = 58 days

The original blog is here.

Again...I'm only providing here as a means to pseudo-source NG's reference of last night. I do not make any inferences as to the validity of the blogger's sources. Draw your own conclusions there...

AdoraBlue · #19 03-20-2009, 11:36 AM

Did LE seize the actual diary or just photograph it?

And if LE did seize the diary, has there been any mention of forensic investigation of writing impressions, i.e., pages underneath showing impressions of what was written on the "missing" pages?

sarah7855 · #20 03-20-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdoraBlue

Did LE seize the actual diary or just photograph it?

And if LE did seize the diary, has there been any mention of forensic investigation of writing impressions, i.e., pages underneath showing impressions of what was written on the "missing" pages?

There's been no indication of it being taken into evidence or tested in any way, shape, or form.

Hope that helps.

AdoraBlue · #21 03-20-2009, 11:56 AM

Thanks Sarah,

It seemed like I remembered that only a picture was submitted into evidence, but with so many details in this case some things slip my mind.

If LE didn't actually seize the diary, then it seems to me that possibly they couldn't detect any impressions on visual inspection.

lawlady84 · #22 03-20-2009, 12:15 PM

On that blog BJB posted, the editor's reply in the comments seems to suggest someone else found it in the A home and handed it over to LE (and apparently reported it to him).

I'm thinking AD- since she stayed over at the A house while KC was out on bail, and has a lawyer. And very little of her interview was released. It could explain the lawyer because if she found the pages in KCs room, there would be a question about illegal search and seizure if she spoke to LE before she found the pages.

EricaG · #23 03-20-2009, 12:22 PM

Really, a simple ink analysis could end all this speculation. Personally, I do not believe that a 17 year old girl would have those thoughts, or even the same handwriting as the KC we know today.

BondJamesBond · #24 03-20-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawlady84

I'm thinking AD- since she stayed over at the A house while KC was out on bail, and has a lawyer. And very little of her interview was released. It could explain the lawyer because if she found the pages in KCs room, there would be a question about illegal search and seizure if she spoke to LE before she found the pages.

*snipped*
FWIW...if you wanna speculate further on possible legit sources...

Tracy M. (LP's 'female bodyguard') was in the house post-bail and lawyered up
Trash-Diver-Lady (dunno her name) recovered torn cap (Annie-like) from Anthony trash @ the curb, and some papers.

ETA: If either of these were legit, IMHO, LP wouldn't have been able to keep quiet about it, nor would trash-diver-lady.

DebC · #25 03-20-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BondJamesBond

Quoting myself to keep the following in context...

I found the original blog, which is dated, Jan 22. So...NOW we know how to calculate what qualifies as new information for NG (3/20 - 1/22) = 58 days

The original blog is here.

Again...I'm only providing here as a means to pseudo-source NG's reference of last night. I do not make any inferences as to the validity of the blogger's sources. Draw your own conclusions there...

I don't believe any of it. I think it's BS, & NG had nothing better to say that night. JMO