2010.06.09 Prosecutors File for 911 Calls to Come into Trial

[LindseyLou]

On the second call Cynthia says, "I found out my granddaughter has been taken, she has been missing. My daughter finally admitted that she's been missing. ... My daughter finally admitted that the babysitter stole her. I need to find her."

"There's something wrong," Cynthia continues to tell the dispatcher in the second call. "I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."

The latter comments contradict what she told Eyewitness News after Casey Anthony's bond hearing on Tuesday.

"There was a bag of pizza for 12 days in a car full of maggots," Casey's mother Cynthia Anthony told reporters.
But after the calls were released early Thursday evening, Cynthia Anthony insisted to WFTV that she did not contradict herself.

"It smelled like something had died in the car. I smelled it. I thought something had died in the car. I didn't know what it was. It could have been a squirrel. It could have been anything. But when we opened the trunk and we saw the maggots in the trunk with all the pizza and stuff, it was a rancid smell," she said.

Casey Anthony, the mother of the missing girl, also spoke on one of the 911 calls and sounded much more calm than her mother.

"My daughter has been missing for the last 31 days. I know who has her. I tried to contact her. I did get to speak to my daughter for about a minute," Casey Anthony tells the dispatcher.

I looked back to the 7.24.2008 article - http://www.wftv.com/news/16981004/detail.html

This is a perfect example of her trying to retract her "excited utterance" in the 911 call...

 

[notthatsmart]

The car smelling in and of itself does not make it an excited utterance. The "We can't find my grandaughter AND there smells like there has been a dead body in the car!" does.

As others have pointed out. If you haven't already done so (I am assuming you haven't since you keep going around in circles about this) please listen to the tape. Don't just read it what a transcript says or what someone else claims was said. The tape is pretty much the text book definition of an exited utterance. From listening to it there can be no other conclusion.

I respectfully disagree . I am not going in circles at all. It is my opinion that you can't make old news new news.IMO If an excited utterance requires new news, then thats the law and I accept that. IMO

As far as listening to the tapes, are you kidding me? I have heard them over and over and over again.. I respectfully suggest you read the defense motion and all the case law that they applied. It is obvious that some are mistaken what a legal excited utterance is. IMO

 

[LindseyLou]

I respectfully disagree . I am not going in circles at all. It is my opinion that you can't make old news new news.IMO If an excited utterance requires new news, then thats the law and I accept that. IMO

As far as listening to the tapes, are you kidding me? I have heard them over and over and over again.. I respectfully suggest you read the defense motion and all the case law that they applied. It is obvious that some are mistaken what a legal excited utterance is. IMO

Aye yai yai...this is making my brain hurt...you all are making me think too much! :crazy: I LOVE it! IMO there are so many things to add into the equation and I think it will come down to how much of it Judge Perry will let the State use and how much the Defense will be able to throw out based on case law and whether he finds it relevant. In the end, I think Judge Perry is very fair and will do the right thing based on the facts and evidence. Now lets all cross our fingers that the jury is made up of mothers and grandmothers! HAHA

 

[RR0004]

You have that correct, you are just as your name implies, logical. It was not the car that got her excited, she tried to dismiss that in her mind. It was at the moment, literally that she overheard Casey tell brother that she had not seen Caylee in 31 days, and when despite her insisting to be taken to the baby,to even to see the baby to verify her safety,and even after being told no, not even Uncle Lee could do so, nor even a beloved, trusted family friend could do so...that is when she got "excited". There is no question about the level of urgency in her voice, no question at all. That woman was leveled to the floor!

You have it spot on as usual. It is Mr. Baez that has, once again, a very poor understanding of the Florida Rules of criminal procedure. Mrs. Burdick sets out relative case law in her response. It is a must read!
"These fabrications demonstrate consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant …"
"There's something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."

State's response
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23858915/detail.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodiwWf7fHw One does not need an expert to differentiate the tone of the phone calls and how Cindy emotes in the third call. She can barely even catch her breath! Listen again, there is no question, this news is an utter shock to her!!! Even Andrea admits much of what the defense does is simply perfunctory.The judge and she had a little exchange about it, he said something to the effect of, I know Ms. Lyon, you are laying a record, it is your job to do so, and you may indeed do so, for the record. Though we can hear it for ourselves, we have lawyers and experts who have assured us, indeed the call is coming into evidence!
The phone calls and texts are going to be the nail in her coffin! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX-0bfuneak
www.floridabar.org

Great job TWA!

Can you tell me what family friend you're referring to?

TIA

 

[RR0004]

Well I guess the reason I thought that was on topic is because it describes what she already knew.IMO She already knew for hours that the car smelled,IMO she had already made a 911 call before that and didn't mention the smell.IMO So that is definately on topic to what she knew when she made her statement.IMO It was not an excited utterance in that sense. IMO It was not new information. IMO

I agree that this is about the admissablility of the 911 recordings, but we must go back to what she knew to find out if it was an excited utterance. IMO

I am not saying this information should not come in, I am saying it should come in as an interview and hearsay removed by law. That is my opinion.

Cindy's level of "functioning" during the course of the day is irrelevant to determining Casey's consciousness of guilt. JMHO
The judge will rule on the calls and the calls alone.
Let the defense bring in whatever nonsense they want. It's not hearsay (as they think should be excluded) and the calls will stand. IMHO

PS- I'm not getting it...911 calls aren't often excluded...especially when the defendent is present...what makes this special? Just not seeing it.

 

[The World According]

Great job TWA!

Can you tell me what family friend you're referring to?

TIA

Yes, friend, let me find the name for you. Lee's room-mate and long time best friend, it was a gentleman, his name escapes me. Lee was offering up suggestions trying to effectuate what he hoped would be the happy medium between mom ( Cindy) nervously walking the floor all night and Casey insisting the toddler was sleeping and should not be disturbed. He said what if I go, just to lay my eyes on her, I can let mom know, sweetheart Caylee is alive and well, that got shot down, alrighty then what if______ our best friend goes....Casey refused that option as well.This is when the put up or shut up came to fruition.
update: I listened to Lee again..he does not say the acutal name. He says a dear friend of mine, a dear friend of ours. So it was someone they all knew and trusted.

 

[Leila]

I think in order not to keep going in circles that this may clear things up.

While yes, CA knew that KC and Caylee had been out of the home for those 31 days.....she did not know Caylee was officially missing. As far as CA's "knowing" something was wrong during that time......I think it is safe to assume that Caylee not being home and with her mother in an undisclosed location with limited contact qualifies as something wrong but not an automatic assumption of the worst possible scenario.

An excited utterance is one made when you don't have time to plan your statement out....when you react...when instinct takes over. Jose Baez wants to get this utterance thrown out becasue it does not bode well for his client. He had to make an argument to reasoning so his explanation was CA knew for 31 days that they were not home so that time should negate the statement as an excited utterance.

CA cleaning the car happened BEFORE KC's statement that Caylee was missing. SO while the wheels were turning in CA's head....she had likely not put 2 and 2 together. If she did perhaps that is why she was so anxious to go get KC later using the surprise visit to TL's apt.

THe defense is between a rock and a hard place.........they have to argue it wasn't an excited utterance due to the 31 days....and the car cleaning exercise...but statements made by the Anthony family show they were trying to see KC and Caylee during that initial time. He can't push it too far because it may open a door for hurting KC more than helping.

The utterance was made after KC's story of Caylee missing for 31 days. THis has been backed up with LA's official statements. The ONLY direction the defense can go is to argue the delay in the utterance AFTER the discovery of the smell. Why else do you think they have thrown pizza around so much. SO they can distance themselves from the dead body statement.

As far as going round robin about if the car cleaning is relevent..........it is likely an argument that the defense will use and thus discussion is open. Just keep it to a dull roar and see both sides.

I've always felt that ever since their fight on June 15th, CA was focused on one thing - Casey was purposely withholding Caylee from her to punish her. There's evidence of this in CA's MySpace page of July 3rd, where she states that her Caylee is missing from her life, due to jealousy.

I think that up until the moment that CA overheard Casey telling Lee that the nanny kidnapped Caylee, CA's central focus was on the ongoing battle between Casey and herself. She dwelled on that ongoing battle as the reason Casey would not lead her to Caylee at that very moment. She had tried to coerce Casey with threats of calling the police earlier in the evening.

When CA overheard Casey telling Lee about Caylee being kidnapped by the nanny, in that moment the light bulb came on and CA realized that Caylee was gone......not just being withheld from her, but gone!

Cindy's third, and most important 911 call, was made almost immediately after that moment of realization. Anyone who's listened to that call knows that CA's frame of mind has changed dramatically........she's now in a panic!

 

[The World According]

Cindy's level of "functioning" during the course of the day is irrelevant to determining Casey's consciousness of guilt. JMHO
The judge will rule on the calls and the calls alone.
Let the defense bring in whatever nonsense they want. It's not hearsay (as they think should be excluded) and the calls will stand. IMHO

PS- I'm not getting it...911 calls aren't often excluded...especially when the defendent is present...what makes this special? Just not seeing it.

You just have to consider the source
this is the defense team that
ask to intrude on an active crime scene while the FBI and CSI had not even completed clearing it;
asked for the defendant to allowed to get out of jail to review some sites;
asked for the defendant to be allowed to have a funeral in the jail;
asked for her phone calls and visits to be excluded from the sunshine laws that every other prisoner must abide by;
ask to not have to have their client attend the hearings;
ask for the prosecutors to be removed from the case;
asked for many of her charges to be dropped;
asked for the state to fund the remainder of the defense after they sold photos of the victim and squandered three hundred thousand dollars; and be offended at the inquiry into how the money was spent;
allowed a member of the defense team to contribute 70K to the defense which (in my understanding ) is outside of the rules unless the client is indigent at the time;
hired an investigator and refused to pay him;
three times they asked for Attorney Mark Nejame to be found on the record as having a conflict of interest with representing the TES when he once represented mom and pop, although on all three times Mr. Conway stepped up to assure the court that is not true, there is no conflict;
asked the investigator not to call 911 if he were to come upon the murdered baby's remains;
make a deal with bounty hunter and bail bondsman for them to put up 50 K to get their client out of jail, then changed the whole deal the minute she walks out of jail;
set out to disparage and direct LE interest in a innocent young man that was once engaged to their client;
try to dig up dirt and throw suspicion on the hero that found the baby's body;
asked for the prosecutors to be sanctioned for bringing charges for impermissible motives;
asked for a judge to be removed;........
why wouldn't they ask for some 911 tape to be excluded;
they have asked for everything else under the sun, including to have Casey released on a "reasonable amount of bond" and
asked for thirteen counts of deferred adjudication on thirteen fraud counts;

my personal favorite, they asked to send The Presentation Group,a copy company, to copy TES documents they were ordered NOT TO COPY.

Just because they ask for it , does not mean it needs to be entertained as serious.:snooty:
We couldn't script a Saturday Night Live skit this ridiculous. Why? You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

 

[The World According]

Great job TWA!

Can you tell me what family friend you're referring to?

TIA

Hi there. Thank you friend. Here is Lee, start about the four minute mark
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZHO2EnZRw[/ame]
Lee continues on here detailing the events of the evening. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru70AmTNHaQ[/ame]

 

[logicalgirl]

You just have to consider the source
this is the defense team that
ask to intrude on an active crime scene while the FBI and SCI had not even completed clearing it,
asked for the defendant to allowed to get out of jail to review some sites;
asked for the defendant to be allowed to have a funeral in the jail;
asked for her phone calls and visits to be excluded from the sunshine laws that every other prisoner must abide by;
ask to not have to have their client attend the hearings;
ask for the prosecutors to be removed from the case;
asked for many of her charges to be dropped;
asked for the state to fund the remainder of the defense after they sold photos of the victim and squandered three hundred thousand dollars; and be offended at the inquiry into how the money was spent;
allowed a member of the defense team to contribute 70K to the defense which (in my understanding ) is outside of the rules unless the client is indigent at the time;
hired an investigator and refused to pay him;
three times they asked for Attorney Mark Nejame to be found on the record as having a conflict of interest with representing the TES when he once represented mom and pop, although on all three times Mr. Conway stepped up to assure the court that is not true, there is no conflict,
asked the investigator not to call 911 if he were to come upon the murdered baby's remains,
make a deal with bounty hunter and bail bondsman for them to put up 50 K to get your client out of jail, then changed the whole deal the minute she walks out of jail,
set out to disparage and direct LE interest in a innocent young man that was once engaged to their client,
try to dig up dirt and throw suspicion on the hero that found the baby's body,
asked for the prosecutors to be sanctioned for bringing charges for impermissible motives,
asked for a judge to be removed,........
why wouldn't they ask for some 911 tape to be excluded,
they have asked for everything else under the sun, including to have Casey released on a "reasonable amount of bond" and
asked for thirteen counts of deferred adjudication on thirteen fraud counts; my personal favorite, they
asked to send The Presentation Group,a copy company, to copy documents they were ordered NOT TO COPY,
Just because they ask for it , does not mean it needs to be entertained as serious.:snooty:
We couldn't script a Saturday Night Live skit this ridiculous. Why? You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

Awesome presentation!:bow::bow::bow::bow:

 

[sleutherontheside]

You just have to consider the source
this is the defense team that
ask to intrude on an active crime scene while the FBI and CSI had not even completed clearing it;
asked for the defendant to allowed to get out of jail to review some sites;
asked for the defendant to be allowed to have a funeral in the jail;
asked for her phone calls and visits to be excluded from the sunshine laws that every other prisoner must abide by;
ask to not have to have their client attend the hearings;
ask for the prosecutors to be removed from the case;
asked for many of her charges to be dropped;
asked for the state to fund the remainder of the defense after they sold photos of the victim and squandered three hundred thousand dollars; and be offended at the inquiry into how the money was spent;
allowed a member of the defense team to contribute 70K to the defense which (in my understanding ) is outside of the rules unless the client is indigent at the time;
hired an investigator and refused to pay him;
three times they asked for Attorney Mark Nejame to be found on the record as having a conflict of interest with representing the TES when he once represented mom and pop, although on all three times Mr. Conway stepped up to assure the court that is not true, there is no conflict;
asked the investigator not to call 911 if he were to come upon the murdered baby's remains;
make a deal with bounty hunter and bail bondsman for them to put up 50 K to get your client out of jail, then changed the whole deal the minute she walks out of jail;
set out to disparage and direct LE interest in a innocent young man that was once engaged to their client;
try to dig up dirt and throw suspicion on the hero that found the baby's body;
asked for the prosecutors to be sanctioned for bringing charges for impermissible motives;
asked for a judge to be removed;........
why wouldn't they ask for some 911 tape to be excluded;
they have asked for everything else under the sun, including to have Casey released on a "reasonable amount of bond" and
asked for thirteen counts of deferred adjudication on thirteen fraud counts;
[U]my personal favorite, they asked to send The Presentation Group,a copy company, to copy TES documents they were ordered NOT TO COPY[/U],
Just because they ask for it , does not mean it needs to be entertained as serious.:snooty:
We couldn't script a Saturday Night Live skit this ridiculous. Why? You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

This is a perfect example of how to explain a POV. :dance:

 

[notthatsmart]

Cindy's level of "functioning" during the course of the day is irrelevant to determining Casey's consciousness of guilt. JMHO
The judge will rule on the calls and the calls alone.
Let the defense bring in whatever nonsense they want. It's not hearsay (as they think should be excluded) and the calls will stand. IMHO

PS- I'm not getting it...911 calls aren't often excluded...especially when the defendent is present...what makes this special? Just not seeing it.

Its after the fact, not during it. IMO That is what makes it special. IMO

 

[elementary]

Its after the fact, not during it. IMO That is what makes it special. IMO

There is no fact that was "after". Unless you know of a fact before?

 

[MD MOMMY]

Its after the fact, not during it. IMO That is what makes it special. IMO

Okay I'm reading the statute. Where exactly does it define that an excited utterance has a time table? I'm seeing the below.

(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.


Thus, courts have recognized that there is no bright-line test for how much time can pass before a statement can no longer be considered an excited utterance. Jano, 524 So. 2d at 663.

 

[cyberborg]

I've always felt that ever since their fight on June 15th, CA was focused on one thing - Casey was purposely withholding Caylee from her to punish her. There's evidence of this in CA's MySpace page of July 3rd, where she states that her Caylee is missing from her life, due to jealousy.

I think that up until the moment that CA overheard Casey telling Lee that the nanny kidnapped Caylee, CA's central focus was on the ongoing battle between Casey and herself. She dwelled on that ongoing battle as the reason Casey would not lead her to Caylee at that very moment. She had tried to coerce Casey with threats of calling the police earlier in the evening.

When CA overheard Casey telling Lee about Caylee being kidnapped by the nanny, in that moment the light bulb came on and CA realized that Caylee was gone......not just being withheld from her, but gone!

Cindy's third, and most important 911 call, was made almost immediately after that moment of realization. Anyone who's listened to that call knows that CA's frame of mind has changed dramatically........she's now in a panic!

:clap::clap: Exactly!! :clap::clap:

 

[miss plum]

I've made a few excited utterances of my own while reading this thread.

 

[Aedrys]

You just have to consider the source
this is the defense team that
ask to intrude on an active crime scene while the FBI and CSI had not even completed clearing it;
asked for the defendant to allowed to get out of jail to review some sites;
asked for the defendant to be allowed to have a funeral in the jail;
asked for her phone calls and visits to be excluded from the sunshine laws that every other prisoner must abide by;
ask to not have to have their client attend the hearings;
ask for the prosecutors to be removed from the case;
asked for many of her charges to be dropped;
asked for the state to fund the remainder of the defense after they sold photos of the victim and squandered three hundred thousand dollars; and be offended at the inquiry into how the money was spent;
allowed a member of the defense team to contribute 70K to the defense which (in my understanding ) is outside of the rules unless the client is indigent at the time;
hired an investigator and refused to pay him;
three times they asked for Attorney Mark Nejame to be found on the record as having a conflict of interest with representing the TES when he once represented mom and pop, although on all three times Mr. Conway stepped up to assure the court that is not true, there is no conflict;
asked the investigator not to call 911 if he were to come upon the murdered baby's remains;
make a deal with bounty hunter and bail bondsman for them to put up 50 K to get your client out of jail, then changed the whole deal the minute she walks out of jail;
set out to disparage and direct LE interest in a innocent young man that was once engaged to their client;
try to dig up dirt and throw suspicion on the hero that found the baby's body;
asked for the prosecutors to be sanctioned for bringing charges for impermissible motives;
asked for a judge to be removed;........
why wouldn't they ask for some 911 tape to be excluded;
they have asked for everything else under the sun, including to have Casey released on a "reasonable amount of bond" and
asked for thirteen counts of deferred adjudication on thirteen fraud counts;
[U]my personal favorite, they asked to send The Presentation Group,a copy company, to copy TES documents they were ordered NOT TO COPY[/u],
Just because they ask for it , does not mean it needs to be entertained as serious.:snooty:
We couldn't script a Saturday Night Live skit this ridiculous. Why? You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

Have I told you lately how awesome you are, TWA? We are not worthy of your awesomeness!!!! BRAVO!!!! The thanks button just wasn't enough.

 

[RainyGirl]

Well I guess the reason I thought that was on topic is because it describes what she already knew.IMO She already knew for hours that the car smelled,IMO she had already made a 911 call before that and didn't mention the smell.IMO So that is definately on topic to what she knew when she made her statement.IMO It was not an excited utterance in that sense. IMO It was not new information. IMO

I agree that this is about the admissablility of the 911 recordings, but we must go back to what she knew to find out if it was an excited utterance. IMO

I am not saying this information should not come in, I am saying it should come in as an interview and hearsay removed by law. That is my opinion.

bbm
Just to clarify then, NTS, are you in fact stating that Cindy knew during the previous two 911 calls that Caylee had been "kidnapped by the Nanny"????
When Cindy states "I JUST FOUND OUT she HAS been taken (by the "Nanny")" are we to assume then that she already knew this crucial piece of information (but she did not mention it to the 911 operator)????? :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec: Completely illogical, IMO.

I believe the 3rd 911 call (frantic, emotional, upset Cindy) clearly contains "NEW TO CINDY" information. That is---Cindy just found out that Caylee has indeed been "taken/kidnapped" by the "Nanny". Her obvious upset tone of voice at reporting this NEW detail is then followed by the (EXCITED UTTERANCE) of "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car". Cindy was EMOTIONAL and the dead body smell comment came from a place of unchecked emotion. Just trying to clarify here! You are correct that the horrible smell in the car was not new info for Cindy, HOWEVER the fact she reported it as a "dead body smell" right after her NEW admission of Caylee's "kidnapping" makes it a classic, blurt-it-out-without-your-filter-in-place excited utterance. In fact, the "I just found out...." statement also qualifies as another excited utterance!!! Both statements (the entire call really) will be admitted into trial evidence. There is NO WAY that Cindy "knew" that Caylee was indeed "kidnapped" before the 3rd call. She says as much in her own words! The whole "my daughter JUST told me...." gives it away. Done deal. The jury will hear this, and the defense is very, very worried (as they should be). JMO....

ETA: I asked a bunch of folks about the 911 call issue down here at the Justice Center today (from "both sides") and it was a hands-down, 10 out of 10 result that YES---the 911 tapes will be admissable. This unofficial poll brought to you by Rainy who had too much time on her hands in between meetings this afternoon! LOL

 

[notthatsmart]

bbm
Just to clarify then, NTS, are you in fact stating that Cindy knew during the previous two 911 calls that Caylee had been "kidnapped by the Nanny"????
When Cindy states "I JUST FOUND OUT she HAS been taken (by the "Nanny")" are we to assume then that she already knew this crucial piece of information (but she did not mention it to the 911 operator)????? :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec: Completely illogical, IMO.

I believe the 3rd 911 call (frantic, emotional, upset Cindy) clearly contains "NEW TO CINDY" information. That is---Cindy just found out that Caylee has indeed been "taken/kidnapped" by the "Nanny". Her obvious upset tone of voice at reporting this NEW detail is then followed by the (EXCITED UTTERANCE) of "It smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car". Cindy was EMOTIONAL and the dead body smell comment came from a place of unchecked emotion. Just trying to clarify here! You are correct that the horrible smell in the car was not new info for Cindy, HOWEVER the fact she reported it as a "dead body smell" right after her NEW admission of Caylee's "kidnapping" makes it a classic, blurt-it-out-without-your-filter-in-place excited utterance. In fact, the "I just found out...." statement also qualifies as another excited utterance!!! Both statements (the entire call really) will be admitted into trial evidence. There is NO WAY that Cindy "knew" that Caylee was indeed "kidnapped" before the 3rd call. She says as much in her own words! The whole "my daughter JUST told me...." gives it away. Done deal. The jury will hear this, and the defense is very, very worried (as they should be). JMO....

ETA: I asked a bunch of folks about the 911 call issue down here at the Justice Center today (from "both sides") and it was a hands-down, 10 out of 10 result that YES---the 911 tapes will be admissable. This unofficial poll brought to you by Rainy who had too much time on her hands in between meetings this afternoon! LOL

No, the kidnap part is new, the part where she says she is with the nanny is old. So the part where she says she is with the nanny, is what Kc told her that she already knew. That is hearsay. The part where she says she has been kidnapped is new info.. If you put the two together, you get conciousness of guilt because she changed her story through hearsay. However, she did not change her story directly. That is the problem, using hearsay to create the conciousness of guilt. IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

No, the kidnap part is new, the part where she says she is with the nanny is old. So the part where she says she is with the nanny, is what Kc told her that she already knew. That is hearsay. The part where she says she has been kidnapped is new info.. If you put the two together, you get conciousness of guilt because she changed her story through hearsay. However, she did not change her story directly. That is the problem, using hearsay to create the conciousness of guilt. IMO

I have a question for you nts - reading what you've read above caused me to hmm with your statements - a :waitasec: moment. Can a lie be considered hearsay to create the consciousness of guilt? Or is the lie also consciousness of guilt? So you are saying we have two statements showing consciousness of guilt? Is the Defense saying this? I like it because I believe the 3rd 911 call will definitely be brought in - IMO.