2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[kaRN]

Oh come on now JSR it's not such a big deal. I mean just leave some food and water out on the porch. Caylee will get hungry and come back. I mean it's not like she's stuck in a tree or something that would require a 911 call.

Perhaps Cindy should have just put some fliers out and drove around the neighborhood instead of bothering the police. They have real criminals to catch.


I truly apologize to anyone who thinks I'm being callous or making light of the situation. That's not the case. I'm just completely astounded by the idea that there was no emergency and I'm trying to wrap my brain around that logic.

Of course there was an emergency. Don't waste brain cells trying to wrap your brain around arguments based on MO, IMO, MOO or IMHO rather than what would be an expected reaction from any normal person under a given circumstance or an established fact.
It is what it is and it terrifies the defense who risk losing the jury on day one when these 911 calls are played.

I can't wait to hear what JB and team offer as KC's other resources used searching for her daughter. She didn't call her parents or brother or use them as resources and she had no car. No emergency on her part. CA is a whole other case.

 

[RainyGirl]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO

snipped and bolded by me.........


:waitasec::waitasec:

JMO, MOO, IMO, etc., etc., etc.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I don't think there was any emergency here, just a Grandmother realizing that what she already knew or suspected was true. IMO I think it should just be treated as a regular intterogation and the hearsay parts removed. IMO And I agree, why do you need Ca to say it when you actually have Kc saying it. I think what the Sa wants is to use the hearsay part of it, where Ca says I thought she was at the babysitters and now I have found out that she has been kidnapped. All hearsay IMO That is to show Casey changed her story proving conscious guilt, but would have to use hearsay to try to make that so. IMO This is just a daughter trying to keep her mother calm, knowing that she will lose it if she gets the truth, and not knowing how to break the news to her. IMO

No way...CA states numerous times that she DID NOT KNOW Caylee was missing. She says it while she defends her little diddy on myspace. She says it throughout her deposition. She actually tries to make what went on during that month seem normal. She talked to Casey, she texted Casey, she had no reason to think Caylee wasn't with Casey.

 

[mitzi]

No way...CA states numerous times that she DID NOT KNOW Caylee was missing. She says it while she defends her little diddy on myspace. She says it throughout her deposition. She actually tries to make what went on during that month seem normal. She talked to Casey, she texted Casey, she had no reason to think Caylee wasn't with Casey.

Bold mine.

Exactly...remember CA/GA's interview on CBS Morning Show, where CA says there were no red flags.....CA must be color-blind, cuz IMO there were big, huge red flags all over the dang place.

 

[The World According]

Listen very carefully Casey: The defense motion is denied!
That is what we'll here from the bench in very short order on the 15th!

 

[The World According]

Here is Florida high profile defense expert William Sheaffer explaining what will likely be the effect on the jury, the desperation of Cindy trying to change her testimony in order to protect her daughter

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w54osrJGqY[/ame]

 

[twomanywords]

Here is Florida high profile defense expert William Sheaffer explaining what will likely be the effect on the jury, the desperation of Cindy trying to change her testimony in order to protect her daughter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w54osrJGqY

Wow, Thanks so much TWA!!
You are a goldmine of info. I always appreciate and enjoy your posts.

When was this filmed? I find it to be so "compelling" as BS portrays the A's as we have seen them all along!

 

[kellymay77]

Here is Florida high profile defense expert William Sheaffer explaining what will likely be the effect on the jury, the desperation of Cindy trying to change her testimony in order to protect her daughter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w54osrJGqY

Thank you for posting that, Wow!!! There will be justice for Caylee ♥

 

[Aedrys]

Oh come on now JSR it's not such a big deal. I mean just leave some food and water out on the porch. Caylee will get hungry and come back. I mean it's not like she's stuck in a tree or something that would require a 911 call.

Perhaps Cindy should have just put some fliers out and drove around the neighborhood instead of bothering the police. They have real criminals to catch.


I truly apologize to anyone who thinks I'm being callous or making light of the situation. That's not the case. I'm just completely astounded by the idea that there was no emergency and I'm trying to wrap my brain around that logic.

I am astounded too, Marspiter. It seems like the defense keeps defying logic and common sense in their argument and then are surprised when that doesn't work. They keep pushing against logic and common sense like this, they won't have a chance in front of a jury. People are not going to leave their brain at the door; they are going to use actual earth logic and common sense when deciding Casey's fate. I wish they would realize that instead of continuing to hope for a non-logical, throw your common sense out the door, Perry Mason moment (that doesn't even sound right for Perry Mason, but that's what it feels like they want to happen). Wake up defense! IT DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN THAT WAY ON TV OR THE MOVIES! The jury is not going to suspend their disbelief to the point of absurdity!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I am astounded too, Marspiter. It seems like the defense keeps defying logic and common sense in their argument and then are surprised when that doesn't work. They keep pushing against logic and common sense like this, they won't have a chance in front of a jury. People are not going to leave their brain at the door; they are going to use actual earth logic and common sense when deciding Casey's fate. I wish they would realize that instead of continuing to hope for a non-logical, throw your common sense out the door, Perry Mason moment (that doesn't even sound right for Perry Mason, but that's what it feels like they want to happen). Wake up defense! IT DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN THAT WAY ON TV OR THE MOVIES! The jury is not going to suspend their disbelief to the point of absurdity!

I still can't believe Baez is taking this nonesense to trial! Plead now end the farce, put a fork in her ... She's done.

 

[LindseyLou]

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.

United States
Main article: Hearsay in United States law
Unless one of the many exceptions applies, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. [1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is only admissible as evidence if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore cannot be admitted as evidence unless the defendant testifies.[2] This has been cited by James Duane as a reason why talking to the government's criminal investigators cannot possibly help a defendant.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Because I was curious as to exactly what the definition of "hearsay" was....I looked it up on Wikipedia. I think the 911 call is more than hearsay in this instance because Cindy personally smelled the car and her "excited" impression was that it smelled like a dead body. I'm not sure how the other statements made by her in the 911 call (e.g., Casey finally admitted...) will hold up, but this one is for sure not hearsay! I am almost sure that Judge Perry will find it relevant, even if there is a case law the defense can manage to pull out.

 

[LindseyLou]

BBM George told Simon Birch he was afraid the smell might be his daughter or his granddaughter. And as Casey said, she's still alive.

Also, don't you think it was crystal clear to GA the moment they retrieved the car that something was wrong if her car distinctly smelled like a dead body? Considering he has LE background experience - he should know instantly the difference between a dead body smell and rotting food smell. They can't be anywhere close to being the same smell.

If that happened to me, I know for sure I wouldn't be going to work after that...I would be on a manhunt to find my daughter and granddaughter to confirm that they were both okay and alive.

 

[ThinkTank]

The main support for Cindy's 911 calls seems to be that Casey, the defendant, was PRESENT when 911 calls one and three were made! The 911 calls are being used by the Prosecution to show Casey's (not Cindy's) state of mind, and to show Casey's consciousness of guilt, in that she felt compelled to make up lies about where Caylee was, after Cindy threatened to get law enforcement involved.

Excerpt from Prosecutor LDB's statements in the State's filing:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html

LDB wrote: "The truth of the matters asserted by Cindy Anthony in any of her 911 calls is not the issue. Cindy Anthony's insisting that she was getting law enforcement involved to locate Caylee, gave the defendant motive to fabricate alternate theories for the location of the child. Statements made by Cindy Anthony that immediately precede Casey Anthony's statements are relevant to show Casey's state of mind when making her statements to her mother or to the police. The fact of the calls as well as the content of the calls give context to the defendant's responses and set forth the circumstances in which the defendant "created" the kidnapping story after denying there was any problem locating Caylee Marie Anthony. These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant, guilt being the ultimate material issue."

 

[beach]

Because I was curious as to exactly what the definition of "hearsay" was....I looked it up on Wikipedia. I think the 911 call is more than hearsay in this instance because Cindy personally smelled the car and her "excited" impression was that it smelled like a dead body. I'm not sure how the other statements made by her in the 911 call (e.g., Casey finally admitted...) will hold up, but this one is for sure not hearsay! I am almost sure that Judge Perry will find it relevant, even if there is a case law the defense can manage to pull out.

Cindy's exclamation, "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!" during the 3rd 911 call is considered an "excited utterance". Therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule, pursuant to section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes 2004.


The following is not from the FL statute...(in a hurry so no time to search, but this is a general explanation from a NY site). Will try to find the exact FL definition when I get a spare few minutes. It is just a good general definition that is pretty universal, from my experience.

One hearsay exception that has been examined of late is the "excited utterance" rule. Among the types of statements offered under this exception are communications to medical personnel, to a police officer arriving at a crime scene, and tapes of 911 phone calls. An excited utterance is one "made under stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication."

BBM

 

[LindseyLou]

The main support for Cindy's 911 calls seems to be that Casey, the defendant, was PRESENT when 911 calls one and three were made! The 911 calls are being used by the Prosecution to show Casey's (not Cindy's) state of mind, and to show Casey's consciousness of guilt, in that she felt compelled to make up lies about where Caylee was, after Cindy threatened to get law enforcement involved.

Excerpt from Prosecutor LDB's statements in the State's filing:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html

LDB wrote: "The truth of the matters asserted by Cindy Anthony in any of her 911 calls is not the issue. Cindy Anthony's insisting that she was getting law enforcement involved to locate Caylee, gave the defendant motive to fabricate alternate theories for the location of the child. Statements made by Cindy Anthony that immediately precede Casey Anthony's statements are relevant to show Casey's state of mind when making her statements to her mother or to the police. The fact of the calls as well as the content of the calls give context to the defendant's responses and set forth the circumstances in which the defendant "created" the kidnapping story after denying there was any problem locating Caylee Marie Anthony. These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant, guilt being the ultimate material issue."

Sorry if I'm a little slow to comprehend this...LOL So what you're saying is that the statements made by Cindy in the calls are irrelevant (or her opinion) and that the emphasis is on what we can hear Casey saying in the background?

 

[Aedrys]

Okay, so according to what you posted from that NY article about hearsay, Beach, an excited utterance is one "made under stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication."

So this means the only argument the defense has here is that Cindy knew Caylee was missing before that call, but decided to wait until she "reflected" on the "non-fabricated" story that Casey told her about what happened to Caylee for awhile (could be a few days, could be 31 days, who knows how long), and then decided a missing 2 year old who was kidnappped was an emergency, so she called 911.

*pause to consider the absurdity of that argument*

Wow. Just...Wow. I cannot wait to see the defense argue this at the next hearing in front of HHJP and the SA. I have the feeling HHJP is going to call SA in chambers just so they can laugh their butts off at such a bad and nonsensical argument. I look at this argument and think, OMG, you have GOT to be kidding me! And it's no joke, unfortunately. You seriously can't make this stuff UP!

I am going to actually work now because my brain is hurting so bad from trying to make any sense of this defense.

 

[The World According]

My good friends, you are all brilliant and what amazing memories. I am going to detail all of your various and sundry examples of the times Cindy made it clear that there were no red flags, she had no idea that Caylee was missing etc. The civil depo example is brilliant. That is replete with her saying that!!!
I know that Mrs. Drane Burdick has got this, blindfolded, with both hands tied behind her back, but I like to compile the examples just to refer to when the trial begins. You all are very, very sharp people and combined you make quite the legal team , imo!!!!!!!
I sure wouldn't want to play on any team against you:dance:!!!

minute 9:11 priceless
She says she does not even have the strength and energy to even talk, she is so upset ( that hardly is a woman who didn't see this as an emergent situation) [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kVn9832YMw[/ame]

Here, , [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go564cjeat8[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgC0jodXXbs[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS6jlWogQR0[/ame] Mrs. Anthony is indeed detailing just how horribly upset she was at the time she was videotaped by the police in questioning, that she was an emotional wreck having just learned her grand daughter was missing, that it was the worst time in her entire life and in her opinion it was cruel that they would tape her in that state. You just can't negate that. Those are HER words!!!! ( By the way..this is where she admits that Zany may have been a real person, at one time, but since then she thinks Casey switched to using that name for whoever was watching Caylee, it could be Jesse or Amy .) What a classic!!!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0pN0pALg5E[/ame]
If Mrs. Anthony should deviate from her SWORN statements under oath here, it will be a disaster of biblical proportions, it would allow the prosecutors to press play to some of the civil depo's greatest hits. If the jury sees these outrageous, colorful stories coming out of Casey's mother, while she was under oath, it will suggest even to the weakest link, that Mrs. Anthony is wholly biased and not being truthful or forthcoming and that is , in the words of Mr. Nejame, "Being overly generous in my characterization!"

 

[beach]

Okay, just had a couple of seconds to follow up and provide verbatim exceptions from the Fl Statute 90.803 - (BBM)

Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.--The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.--A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.--A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

Simply stated, an 'excited utterance' is made under stress and before one has time to even considering fabricating a lie or concocting a story. IOW, this is the one time you can actually believe everything that CA said.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0090/sec803.htm

Okay, so according to what you posted from that NY article about hearsay, Beach, an excited utterance is one "made under stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication."

So this means the only argument the defense has here is that Cindy knew Caylee was missing before that call, but decided to wait until she "reflected" on the "non-fabricated" story that Casey told her about what happened to Caylee for awhile (could be a few days, could be 31 days, who knows how long), and then decided a missing 2 year old who was kidnappped was an emergency, so she called 911.

*pause to consider the absurdity of that argument*

Wow. Just...Wow. I cannot wait to see the defense argue this at the next hearing in front of HHJP and the SA. I have the feeling HHJP is going to call SA in chambers just so they can laugh their butts off at such a bad and nonsensical argument. I look at this argument and think, OMG, you have GOT to be kidding me! And it's no joke, unfortunately. You seriously can't make this stuff UP!

I am going to actually work now because my brain is hurting so bad from trying to make any sense of this defense.

IMO, IF Cindy was not an RN, - say she was an interior designer, a waitress, flight attendant or something - the defense might have a decent chance at keeping it out by arguing that she would not have any idea for the basis of her assertation that "it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car!". Problem is, SHE IS AN RN and it can be reasonably inferred that she would be familiar with the odor. (fwiw, same goes for GA with his statement to Simon Birch, since he was a former LE who worked some homicide cases and has admitted he is familiar with the odor)

I really don't know how the defense plans to argue this - I'm guessing they are going to go the "too prejudcial" route. I don't think it will work, but we'll be finding out soon enough.

 

[tlcya]

"too prejudicial"

The idea that something is too prejudicial has always been funny to me.

"Your honor - We cannot allow the jury to know that 20 young women have met an untimely demise while in teh company of this man as it is too prejudicial"

or in this case "we cannot allow the jury to hear the 911 tapes because they will know that even her own mother thinks she has harmed her child"

 

[RR0004]

I am astounded too, Marspiter. It seems like the defense keeps defying logic and common sense in their argument and then are surprised when that doesn't work. They keep pushing against logic and common sense like this, they won't have a chance in front of a jury. People are not going to leave their brain at the door; they are going to use actual earth logic and common sense when deciding Casey's fate. I wish they would realize that instead of continuing to hope for a non-logical, throw your common sense out the door, Perry Mason moment (that doesn't even sound right for Perry Mason, but that's what it feels like they want to happen). Wake up defense! IT DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN THAT WAY ON TV OR THE MOVIES! The jury is not going to suspend their disbelief to the point of absurdity!

They have nothing else. I guess they gotta look busy IMO.