Clerical errors and typos in the Documents and Reports

[butwhatif?]

I have read this thread and I can't see any need for it. What is the purpose? For instance---what difference does it make that a name or address is wrong? How can any of this be used at trial? Guess I'm a "never sweat the small stuff" kind of person nor do I read the small print. LMFFAO

Its an issue because the evidence could possibly be thrown out depending on the judges rulings.
It can also be used by JB to show sloppy work on LE's part.

And it's an issue because innocent people have been shot at after LE entered the wrong address that was printed on a warrant.(different cases)

Mistakes will always happen but in a case like this silly errors could be the difference between KC getting life or walking free.

Heres one that I came across that is highly suspect, and appears to have been doctored.....
Its from the very first dump,and is a copy of ZG's guest card from sawgrass apts. There appears to be no mention of the added 'Z' that could explain it innocently.
The first one appears on p45 of the docs and the name is listed as GONZALE (no z)

The second one, listed as GONZALEZ appears on page 49.

They are clearly the same piece of paper, since they are identical in every other way. It doesnt appear that the 'z' could have been lost in the printing, since the 1st is actually darker than the second.
The employees at sawgrass make no mention of altering the details on the document, so who did?
Does anyone know who did this, when it was done, and why? (i think I know exactly why, and its not an innocent explanation...just hope someone can offer up an alternative that doesnt make it look so dodgy)

And then we have the narrative that states that on the database ZG's visit was on APRIL 17th, whereas the guestcard says June 17th. I would like to see a print out from the database to clear this up.

JMO

 

[christee]

I have an idea :idea::
Many times when I've filled out forms, I would write my last name first then my 1st name, only to notice 30 mins later I was supposed to write 1st name 1st. Is it possible that this is what ZG started to do wrote "G" and instead of marking G out just wrote her 1st name then her last (on post #41 above).
Course I'm sure this idea has already been mentioned somewhere on WS but thought I'd share!

 

[Themis]

I have an idea :idea::
Many times when I've filled out forms, I would write my last name first then my 1st name, only to notice 30 mins later I was supposed to write 1st name 1st. Is it possible that this is what ZG started to do wrote "G" and instead of marking G out just wrote her 1st name then her last (on post #41 above).
Course I'm sure this idea has already been mentioned somewhere on WS but thought I'd share!

ZG didn't fill out the form. The Sawgrass employee filled it out.

 

[christee]

ZG didn't fill out the form. The Sawgrass employee filled it out.

Hhmm...Ok, then, the Sawgrass 'filler-outer' started to write ZGs last name instead of her 1st name.
The longer I look at "C -" the more it looks like a "G" but the writer didn't connect the "dash" mark to the body of the "G".

IDK-JAT

:twocents:

 

[JWG]

Hhmm...Ok, then, the Sawgrass 'filler-outer' started to write ZGs last name instead of her 1st name.
The longer I look at "C -" the more it looks like a "G" but the writer didn't connect the "dash" mark to the body of the "G".

IDK-JAT

:twocents:

Hi christee :wave:

I agree with your assessment. We [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3637265&postcount=984"]discussed[/ame] this some back in April. Because it is a witness error, not sure if we want to record it here though. :waitasec:

 

[Reagan]

Its an issue because the evidence could possibly be thrown out depending on the judges rulings.
It can also be used by JB to show sloppy work on LE's part.

Snipped

Thanks for bringing this up. I was actually wondering about this yesterday, after reading through DCs website, but I spaced it out.
He lists the original sawgrass document and then lists the next one as 'altared', which clearly it is.

I too find this change, which has yet to be mentioned throughout docs, very suspect.

 

[LambChop]

Snipped

Thanks for bringing this up. I was actually wondering about this yesterday, after reading through DCs website, but I spaced it out.
He lists the original sawgrass document and then lists the next one as 'altared', which clearly it is.

I too find this change, which has yet to be mentioned throughout docs, very suspect.

The error was made at Sawgrass, admitted by the manager of Sawgrass and has been discussed many, many times. Not an LE error.

 

[butwhatif?]

Hi christee :wave:

I agree with your assessment. We discussed this some back in April. Because it is a witness error, not sure if we want to record it here though. :waitasec:

The missing Z was mentioned in the post you linked to. Not the fact that it later appears with an added Z.

Theres no issue with the name being spelled incorrectly. No big deal.

The issue is that sometime between when LE recieved the guest card, and when they sent out the dump, someone has added a 'Z' to gonzale (as it originally appears). Its right there in black and white.

Are you following now? LOL after having posted such huge pics,and such a detailed explanation I didnt think there could be any confusion.

The c/g in front of 'zenaida' is also a non issue......Just the added 'Z' at the end of Gonzale to change it to Gonzalez.

Even though the witness spelled it incorrectly, LE cannot go and alter the name because of his error....and if they did, or if they got the sawgrass employee to change it then it should have been initialled by said witness and a note of it should have been made in the narrative, or his witness statement. But there is no excplanation of why there is suddenly an added Z to Gonzale the second and third time it appears in the docs on the very same piece of paper.

 

[butwhatif?]

Snipped

Thanks for bringing this up. I was actually wondering about this yesterday, after reading through DCs website, but I spaced it out.
He lists the original sawgrass document and then lists the next one as 'altared', which clearly it is.

I too find this change, which has yet to be mentioned throughout docs, very suspect.

LOl...you seem to be the only one that read my post and understood the added "Z" issue when others missed the point entirely.

 

[christee]

:doh: forgot to include JWGs post
Sure JWG, no prob-I'm pleading ignorance abt the discussion in April though, I missed that!

Without inviting more discussion, me being more of a "what if" kinda gal, I thought I had hit on something BIG :highfive: thinking the "C-" was written instead of a "G" by whomever-by ZG or Sawgrass employee or mysterious little gremlins! You guys are much better than I at keeping track of all the details and where they fit in with each other!

:thumb:

BTW, I'll check out that previous discussion

 

[Patty G]

ZG didn't fill out the form. The Sawgrass employee filled it out.

Exactly, it is policy that the complex fills out the guest card in front of the visitor.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1080375/0825-Casey-Anthony-Documents-released-part-1 Page 59

• 
  Now, we all need to move forward from Sawgrass guest card as this is not an error based on LE, clerical error etc.

 

[Reagan]

LOl...you seem to be the only one that read my post and understood the added "Z" issue when others missed the point entirely.

Yes, thank you. If it has been discussed, I obviously missed it entirely. *shrug*

Who changed it is what i'm wondering?

 

[Reagan]

Ooops, sorry Patty.. I just saw your post.
Can someone please PM me then, as not to derail this thread anymore. Thanks in advance.

 

[chckmate22]

can someone help me find the link to the original missing person report on Caylee. There is a typo on that where they have her listed as a male. Thanks

 

[Tuffy]

can someone help me find the link to the original missing person report on Caylee. There is a typo on that where they have her listed as a male. Thanks

Is this the original missing person report:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1080375/0825-Casey-Anthony-Documents-released-part-1

This report lists Caylee as female, so maybe there is an earlier one that has the sex listed incorrectly.

 

[butwhatif?]

Exactly, it is policy that the complex fills out the guest card in front of the visitor.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1080375/0825-Casey-Anthony-Documents-released-part-1 Page 59

• 
  Now, we all need to move forward from Sawgrass guest card as this is not an error based on LE, clerical error etc.

Well is it LE policy to correct errors that sawgrass employees make on the guest card?
It looks like some sort of 'clerical error' (discrepancy) to me when the first time it appears it is mis-spelt by SG employee and then magically appears spelt correctly on the same document just a few pages later.

 

[Patty G]

Well is it LE policy to correct errors that sawgrass employees make on the guest card?
It looks like some sort of 'clerical error' (discrepancy) to me when the first time it appears it is mis-spelt by SG employee and then magically appears spelt correctly on the same document just a few pages later.

LE included both guest cards in the original document release, one on page 45 and the other on page 49. If LE was trying to hide something, or alter something they wouldn't have released both cards within pages of one another.

There are two cards submitted for evidence for a reason. For all we know, Sawgrass may have kept a copy of the guest card they gave to LE and added the "z" once this case came to life.

WSers did a lot of discussion about the guest card here: [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3637265#post3637265"]Zani Timeline- Other ZannyThoughts- Zanny Searches on Caseys computer - Page 40 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[christee]

LOl...you seem to be the only one that read my post and understood the added "Z" issue when others missed the point entirely.

Lol,I did read your post and I did understand it-I just don't have an answer for it-I wish I did!

:banghead:

Oops-sorry Patty G I'm done

 

[butwhatif?]

LE included both guest cards in the original document release, one on page 45 and the other on page 49. If LE was trying to hide something, or alter something they wouldn't have released both cards within pages of one another.

There are two cards submitted for evidence for a reason. For all we know, Sawgrass may have kept a copy of the guest card they gave to LE and added the "z" once this case came to life.
WSers did a lot of discussion about the guest card here: Zani Timeline- Other ZannyThoughts- Zanny Searches on Caseys computer - Page 40 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

~my bold~
That scenario seems kinda logical. I'm just wondering why it wasnt mentioned in the narrative or statements.(i was hoping it was, and someone could point me in that direction).
Even if SG employees later changed it, the fact still remains that the original guest card was spelt Gonzale, and it should not have been altered by anyone.
Only the original document should be allowed to be used at trial IMO.
LOl....now I'm ready to move on. :wink:

 

[Gma Kat]

Yes, thank you. If it has been discussed, I obviously missed it entirely. *shrug*

Who changed it is what i'm wondering?

I can imagine the apartment manager filling out the card in front of ZFG and her correcting him as he made the mistakes....no my name starts with a Z, then the manager leaves the last letter off because that name can end a number of ways and perhaps he was intending to let her clarify it.....