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

[JWG]

I enlarged Georgia PI's image of the center of the diary to illustrate where pages appear to be torn out. Looking closely there seems to be some red ink possibly still showing on one of the torn out pages... or possibly a blot from the current page.

I'd posted a while back having convinced myself that we were seeing shadows rather than the remnants of pages that had been torn from the binding. Now I am not so sure. The images I was working from were taken off myfoxorlando, where they had methodically reduced image quality to reduce bandwidth.

These images clearly show what I thought were shadows are not. Maybe the shadow area is a crease? I'm just not sure pages - at least not more than a couple - were torn out.

Sure wish one of the evidence property sheets had the diary or pages listed.

 

[trafficsUP66]

Sorry, I had my album set to "only Contacts and Mods can view".

I have now made them public.

I have difficulty with this diary entry having been written by CMA at age 17. IMO, it's the first I've seen of her writing that seems focused and real, specially compared with her LE statement. That document is a ridiculous self-serving :loser: piece of fiction whereas the journal entry comes from what could pass as a "heartfelt" musing.

 

[watcher9]

If a diary/journal is released under "Sunshine Law" to the media, does SA have to show each page, a sample page or just the whole book? Could this diary entry be just a way of releasing the diary?

If the FBI has evidence (pages, etc.) that could be used in trial, wouldn't that need to be turned over to LE/SA and therefore released to media beforehand?

What if the FBI has evidence but doesn't want it released? What do they have anyway?

 

[JWG]

Thanks to ecs5298 for pointing me to a high-res version of the diary images. I am comforted to know that OCSO took pictures with a very high-resolution camera and that the stuff we are seeing on the web is about as poor a quality rendition of the original as one can make without making the image unviewable.

Clearly now I can see that the vertical "stripe" I saw down the spine of the book is not a shadow as the poor-quality images led me to believe. The stripe looks to me now like the binding glue. And it also appears to me that all or nearly all but the first and last pages were torn from this book.

If LE has the book and possibly the missing pages, then I wonder how they were entered into evidence because I am not seeing them entered in what has been released to date.

 

[nyvictoria]

Thanks to ecs5298 for pointing me to a high-res version of the diary images. I am comforted to know that OCSO took pictures with a very high-resolution camera and that the stuff we are seeing on the web is about as poor a quality rendition of the original as one can make without making the image unviewable.

Clearly now I can see that the vertical "stripe" I saw down the spine of the book is not a shadow as the poor-quality images led me to believe. The stripe looks to me now like the binding glue. And it also appears to me that all or nearly all but the first and last pages were torn from this book.

If LE has the book and possibly the missing pages, then I wonder how they were entered into evidence because I am not seeing them entered in what has been released to date.

Could it be they're still out for handwriting analysis or other forensics? Can LE hold back documents and/or information about docs they're still investigating?

 

[Hot Dogs]

Thanks to ecs5298 for pointing me to a high-res version of the diary images. I am comforted to know that OCSO took pictures with a very high-resolution camera and that the stuff we are seeing on the web is about as poor a quality rendition of the original as one can make without making the image unviewable.

Clearly now I can see that the vertical "stripe" I saw down the spine of the book is not a shadow as the poor-quality images led me to believe. The stripe looks to me now like the binding glue. And it also appears to me that all or nearly all but the first and last pages were torn from this book.

If LE has the book and possibly the missing pages, then I wonder how they were entered into evidence because I am not seeing them entered in what has been released to date.

I'm not sure that we are seeing evidence of removed pages. It looks like sloppy glue binding on a cheap notebook. You can see the glue has been over-applied onto the '03 page, and even a bit onto the June 21 page. You wouldn't see anything like that on a quality notebook.

IMO, it is not obvious that pages have been removed.

 

[Ripley007]

There are techniques to read what has been happening on a stack of paper.

Even if the pages with writing have been removed, the lower pages will still hold the impressions of what was written.

I'd bet LE is getting pretty good at this, and could eventually decipher multiple pages of writing by mining the impressions.

I remember that they used this technique in the JonBenet investigation, to learn more about the pad that the ransom note was written on.

True, but "lotta good" that did JB...

Did I hear on cable news that previous pages had been both torn and cut out? I thought the spin showed torn out pages, but some "cut" too? As in scissors?

 

[ecs5298]

I'm going to pose a question to all of you to spur some thought.

Who is to say that this is the diary that the pages were torn out from? Maybe this is just one of a couple "diary's" that KC may have had. I certainly haven't found anything in the SW returns or evidence forms of this particular diary being taken into evidence. There are other "notebooks" listed as being seized on the evidence reports. Can we say definitively that the "diary" pages everyone is talking about are from this book in the picture?


Food for thought!

 

[Marina2]

I'm going to pose a question to all of you to spur some thought.

Who is to say that this is the diary that the pages were torn out from? Maybe this is just one of a couple "diary's" that KC may have had. I certainly haven't found anything in the SW returns or evidence forms of this particular diary being taken into evidence. There are other "notebooks" listed as being seized on the evidence reports. Can we say definitively that the "diary" pages everyone is talking about are from this book in the picture?


Food for thought!

I thought about this during NG last night. I think they may have taken a spiral notebook with pages torn out and impressions left behind.

 

[ecs5298]

I thought about this during NG last night. I think they may have taken a spiral notebook with pages torn out and impressions left behind.

That's kind of what I'm trying to float out there. We're so focused on this one book because there was a picture of it in the doc dump a while back. What is to say that this is the book? It could very well be a spiral notebook that KC may have ripped the pages out of. The FBI can do uncanny things with recovering indentations on the paper left behind. They did a special on the History or Discovery Channel a long time ago. I imagine the technology has improved a lot since then.

 

[Ripley007]

I'm going to pose a question to all of you to spur some thought.

Who is to say that this is the diary that the pages were torn out from? Maybe this is just one of a couple "diary's" that KC may have had. I certainly haven't found anything in the SW returns or evidence forms of this particular diary being taken into evidence. There are other "notebooks" listed as being seized on the evidence reports. Can we say definitively that the "diary" pages everyone is talking about are from this book in the picture?


Food for thought!

Yummy and Filling food indeed!

 

[fortytwo]

I'd posted a while back having convinced myself that we were seeing shadows rather than the remnants of pages that had been torn from the binding. Now I am not so sure. The images I was working from were taken off myfoxorlando, where they had methodically reduced image quality to reduce bandwidth.

These images clearly show what I thought were shadows are not. Maybe the shadow area is a crease? I'm just not sure pages - at least not more than a couple - were torn out.

Sure wish one of the evidence property sheets had the diary or pages listed.

(bold above by me)

I am considering the plausibility of LE taking photos of this diary page and subsequently releasing them as part of discovery without having taken the diary itself.

It just doesn't seem likely to me.

This leads naturally to the supposition that they are cherry picking their releases, which we knew, I guess, but more disturbingly that they constructed the listing of property taken into custody in such a fashion as to facilitate that.

The property lists give the appearance of being somewhat grouped by area, and would give the impression of being inclusive. If they structured the evidence collection report so that they could isolate certain specific items in a conscious, premeditated effort to control the scheduling of discovery release it would suggest that such items are of singular merit to their case.

We have all always figured that LE has lots of evidence that we haven't seen yet. We haven't yet (I don't think) had such a strong indication of certain specific items. This, of course, is dependent on the existence of "missing pages".

I know that's a lot of ''suppose's, and not just a bit paranoid. Any comments? What could we do to pursue this line of conjecture?

 

[fortytwo]

I'm going to pose a question to all of you to spur some thought.

Who is to say that this is the diary that the pages were torn out from? Maybe this is just one of a couple "diary's" that KC may have had. I certainly haven't found anything in the SW returns or evidence forms of this particular diary being taken into evidence. There are other "notebooks" listed as being seized on the evidence reports. Can we say definitively that the "diary" pages everyone is talking about are from this book in the picture?


Food for thought!

Excellent point.

I also wonder....

If someone chose to remove incriminating pages, then why leave that one? Why not just take them all out?

 

[BondJamesBond]

(bold above by me)

I am considering the plausibility of LE taking photos of this diary page and subsequently releasing them as part of discovery without having taken the diary itself.

It just doesn't seem likely to me.

This leads naturally to the supposition that they are cherry picking their releases, which we knew, I guess, but more disturbingly that they constructed the listing of property taken into custody in such a fashion as to facilitate that.

The property lists give the appearance of being somewhat grouped by area, and would give the impression of being inclusive. If they structured the evidence collection report so that they could isolate certain specific items in a conscious, premeditated effort to control the scheduling of discovery release it would suggest that such items are of singular merit to their case.

We have all always figured that LE has lots of evidence that we haven't seen yet. We haven't yet (I don't think) had such a strong indication of certain specific items. This, of course, is dependent on the existence of "missing pages".

I know that's a lot of ''suppose's, and not just a bit paranoid. Any comments? What could we do to pursue this line of conjecture?

Well put, 42. By time of this search warrant, 12/08, the stage was well-set...the dynamics of the case were well established. I'm certain the general method for collecting evidence of this nature is s.o.p. IOW...its part of the job to do this well.

SA and LE are def'n "cherry picking" for release, which is made soooo easy for them by a defense that knows their client is guilty...and can only try to stem the tide.

 

[JWG]

I'm not sure that we are seeing evidence of removed pages. It looks like sloppy glue binding on a cheap notebook. You can see the glue has been over-applied onto the '03 page, and even a bit onto the June 21 page. You wouldn't see anything like that on a quality notebook.

IMO, it is not obvious that pages have been removed.

I hear you, but looking at the top image in particular the glue band or whatever it is on the left is much wider than the stippling in the center or to the right. I would expect that if there was an over-application of glue that it would affect facing pages in a similar way as they were pressed together.

That being said, I am not convinced either that pages were removed. If evidence is released one way or the other, I won't be completely surprised.

 

[JWG]

(bold above by me)

I am considering the plausibility of LE taking photos of this diary page and subsequently releasing them as part of discovery without having taken the diary itself.

It just doesn't seem likely to me.

This leads naturally to the supposition that they are cherry picking their releases, which we knew, I guess, but more disturbingly that they constructed the listing of property taken into custody in such a fashion as to facilitate that.

The property lists give the appearance of being somewhat grouped by area, and would give the impression of being inclusive. If they structured the evidence collection report so that they could isolate certain specific items in a conscious, premeditated effort to control the scheduling of discovery release it would suggest that such items are of singular merit to their case.

We have all always figured that LE has lots of evidence that we haven't seen yet. We haven't yet (I don't think) had such a strong indication of certain specific items. This, of course, is dependent on the existence of "missing pages".

I know that's a lot of ''suppose's, and not just a bit paranoid. Any comments? What could we do to pursue this line of conjecture?

Photographing items but not collecting them is a standard practice. In one of Yuri's recently released investigative reports he shows photographs of a child development book and discusses some marked pages, but notes that the book was not collected. It was only photographed for documentation purposes (p. 3379). These photos were taken during execution of the Dec. 11 search warrant.

The photos of the diary seems to have been taken during execution of the Dec. 20 search warrant. I say this because the photos were in with the photographs of stickers.

Neither of the two search warrants asked to collect books or journals, so I think that is why they were not collected. Instead, they were photographed to show that they existed, and if there comes a future reason to execute a search at the Anthony's, perhaps they would have grounds at that time to collect the journal and the book.

I should also point out that none of the investigative narratives mention the journal. I can only see two reasons for this: They did not want to draw attention to it for some unknown reason, or they did not feel it is important.

All that being said...after the Dec. 11 search the Anthony home was turned over to James Hoover. On Dec. 18 at 8:40 PM the following evidence was collected from Mr. Hoover (p. 3643):

• Mini DV video tape
• Photographs
• 7 Pages papers w/ photographs

Wonder what those 7 pages were all about? :waitasec:

 

[lawlady84]

(bold above by me)

I am considering the plausibility of LE taking photos of this diary page and subsequently releasing them as part of discovery without having taken the diary itself.

It just doesn't seem likely to me.

This leads naturally to the supposition that they are cherry picking their releases, which we knew, I guess, but more disturbingly that they constructed the listing of property taken into custody in such a fashion as to facilitate that.

The property lists give the appearance of being somewhat grouped by area, and would give the impression of being inclusive. If they structured the evidence collection report so that they could isolate certain specific items in a conscious, premeditated effort to control the scheduling of discovery release it would suggest that such items are of singular merit to their case.

We have all always figured that LE has lots of evidence that we haven't seen yet. We haven't yet (I don't think) had such a strong indication of certain specific items. This, of course, is dependent on the existence of "missing pages".

I know that's a lot of ''suppose's, and not just a bit paranoid. Any comments? What could we do to pursue this line of conjecture?

I don't think they would photograph something like this and not take it- the date "June 21" at the top is just too relevant. I would think they would take it to at least run the UPC to see when this item was offered for sale, and to test the pages for indents or the ink for dating.

I don't remember, but I know the warrant included art supplies- did they say they took art supplies or books? If so, this could be "included" in that - technically, diaries are often sold in art supplies stores.

IF there are missing pages, LE could be doing extensive testing to determine exactly when they were written- this wouldn't have to be released to the defense until all of the tests were completed.

My stronger hunch is that someone who was in the house- Traci M. or AD- saw the book and stole it, and handed it over to LE. It would explain why it isn't included in evidence, and why both of those people have lawyered up. TM and AD might not have known that stealing a book can result in having that evidence excluded as illegally obtained, and opens a whole can of worms about how much if any can be used. Then again, say AD did take it when she was at the A house. AD could say KC gave it to her- who could disprove that? KC would have to deny that she gave it to AD, and say it was stolen. But who is more credible- AD or KC?

Playing it out more, the defense could argue there is no rational reason for KC to give it to AD, so AD must have stolen it. But AD could say KC trusted her and asked her to destroy it, but AD had a change of heart and couldn't do that. IN FACT- maybe KC gave it to AD during the sleepover, and AD originally agreed to destroy it. Couldn't do it, and kept it for a while- then realized she had evidence of a crime, and finally spoke to LE. That could explain the lawyer because she didn't want to be accused of aiding and abetting. (THIS IS JUST AN IDEA, I HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT I'M JUST BRAINSTORMING).

I think if it exists and is relevant, this whole thing is being kept quiet until LE/SA figure out a way to make sure it is admissible. Why give JB 9 months to concoct some way to "prove" the evidence was illegally obtained?

 

[Gma Kat]

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?

This was my question too AdoraBlue. IIRC on CSI Miami (don't laugh) they said that up to 5 pages can be pulled from a tablet/book etc., but then again if this was CSI Miami case would be airtight and over by now with really cool music and visuals....

 

[Gma Kat]

Wouldn't it be easy for LE to pull the bar code off the notebook, find out how many pages the book is sold with, and then if pages are missing do identation work like my previous post stated? This notebook/diary seems too wierd to me. I hope it is what SA thinks it is...the age of the book would only be relevant if it wasn't sold until after '03 obviously, but if it were purchased prior to '03 then perhaps the ink would indicate age of entry. I don't understand where the pages with the chloroform etc., references come from besides NG's statement about them.....

 

[panthera]

Wouldn't it be easy for LE to pull the bar code off the notebook, find out how many pages the book is sold with, and then if pages are missing do identation work like my previous post stated? This notebook/diary seems too wierd to me. I hope it is what SA thinks it is...the age of the book would only be relevant if it wasn't sold until after '03 obviously, but if it were purchased prior to '03 then perhaps the ink would indicate age of entry. I don't understand where the pages with the chloroform etc., references come from besides NG's statement about them.....

You're right, it should be very easy to find out just how many pages were originally in the book and go from there. The bar code on the book would tell a lot.