LOVE AND PROTECT ALL CHILDREN


A discussion of children, their welfare, well being and lives. We must protect them, they are our future.
 
HomeRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 CASEY ANTHONY ~ MARCH ~ 2011

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
AuthorMessage
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Cindy Anthony's "Freudian Slip" Refers to Caylee As "Daughter" And Son Lee's Lawyer Similar "Slip"   Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:11 pm

Cindy Anthony’s “ Freudian Slip” Refers To Caylee As “Daughter” And Son Lee’s Lawyer Similiar “Slip”



When Cindy Anthony took the stand wearing sandlals with a white sweater, she seemed nervous as as she twiddled o her thumbs and spoke in a crackling voice .

Body language wise her thumb twiddling indicated self soothing and a calming of herself.
Then the real hostile often belligerangt and whiney sounding Cindy whom we all know came to light with her nasty toned “I’m trying to answer the question!” as she looked in the Judges’s the direction .
Cindy tried to take charge of the proceedings but soon saw it was the court she would never be in in charge.
But the most powerful discovery of observing her testimony was her or slip of the tongue.” Even though it may seem like an innocent mistake , calling one’s granddaughter one’s daughter, in this case I don’t see it as a mistake at all. I see it as what is really going on in a person’s mind.
Cindy said the the following ont he stand:
My husband and I were cooperating with the police department to find our DAUGHTER Granddaugher Caylee.”
Cindy immediately corrected herself by saying granddaughter. She very well may have doubt she has fancied herself as Caylee’s mother. Ever since Caylee was born Cindy she was the first to hold the baby the baby.
She also made it clear on the stand that she did not knowingly cooperate with law enforcement to help build a case against her daughter Casey. I believe that this is true since she went out of her way to thwart all efforts by law enforcement, even though she was the one who got them involved in the first place. Remember when Cindy gave law enforcement the wrong hairbrush Casey’s instead of Caylees brush?
I also believe that she made a point of saying “unknowingly” so that Casey would get the shout out.

Casey managed to give her mother a quick glance as we see above, Cindy tried to have some type of communication with Casey. Cindy is feelking subserviant to Casey here. Her back is hunched forward and rounded. Casey’s posture ont he other hand is more confident with squared shoulders. Body language wise it shows how Cindy appears to be Kow towing to Casey begging her for her aknowledgement in pleading for her daughter’s attention. Casey clearly has the upper hand as we see .

But then Casey quickly detaches from Cindy, She quickly averts her eyes as she is well aware that she is the one in control and love it. Sadistically Casey will not give Cindy the peace of mind to aknowlesdge her as she dismisses Cindy as her mom while her mom still keeps looking at Casey as she walks out of the courtroom. Casey is int he diver’s seat and loves it.
Cindy looks like a broken woman to me . She has gained weight either from antidepressants or other medication, stress eating, or both. But who can blame her after what she has been through with a lifetime of living with her sociopathic daughter that culminated in her granddaughter’s murder, which may very well have occurred at the hands of her daughter.
CINDY , HER ANGER AND BLAME AT EVERYONE BUT CASEY
No doubt that Cindy has gone through a lot. She had no idea that her initial 911 call to Law enforcement would essentially be the end of her life as she once knew it. We have seen her go through many phases during these past two and a half years. We have seen her anger, vitriol, lashing out at police and law enforcement, mean spirited, name calling, and ugly words as she degraded the real Zanaida Gonzalez by saying that she will never be a 10, which made Zanaida cry.
We have seen Cindy’s desperation to save Caylee by trying to throw others” under the bus” from a fictitious Zanida Gonzalez to Casey’s ex friend, Amy Huizinga to ex boyfriend , Jesse Grund.
We have seen delusional pleas where she repeatedly stated in the media that she believed Caylee was still alive even after Caylee’s little bones and skull were discovered and they were determined to be Caylee’s remains.
We have seen her inappropriate outbursts and witnessed even more inappropriate behaviors, where she rubbed her son Lees thigh during an initial interview one of the morning shows. We also witnessed her non- stop rubbing of Lee’s back during Caylee’s memorial service.
We have heard her defensive tones and hostile words as she blamed and lashed out at everyone from detectives to bounty hunter Leonard Padilla to members of the media, even referring to Orlando 9 reporter Kathy Bellich as “witchy poo” in one of her jailhouse letters to Casey. But Cindy always failed to lash out at the one she most likely knows in her heart killed Caylee -her own flesh and blood daughter Casey.
She did lash out at Casey initially by stating that the car smells like a dead body was in it which is perhaps the most honest thing that has come out of her mouth to day.
But then Cindy did everything in her power to backtrack and distance herself from what she knows really happened to Caylee.

CINDY ACTED AS CAYLEES REAL MOTHER
In my view Cindy’s aberrant behavior has a lot to do with her guilt over her relationship with Casey and with what happened to cause Casey to leave the home with Caylee in tow, only to be heard from 31 days later.
My take on the situation was that she and Casey had a miserable relationship from early on. Casey learned to lie and manipulate her mother as Cindy thought she had Casey under control.
When Casey was pregnant, Cindy was in complete denial and told her own brother that Casey was not pregnant since she was a virgin. Casey could not even feel comfortable confiding in her own mother that she was having a baby . She had to hide her pregnancy until she could hide it no longer.
As soon as Caylee was born Cindy grabbed the baby and was the first to hold her and bond with her. Cindy became Caylee’s mother, for all intensive purposes. which rendered Casey the jealous sibling.
We hear that jealousy in the jailhouse tapes when Cindy spoke of what Caylee like to eat- bagels . Casey blurts out What about me? I like bagels too.” That statement speaks volumes as does the one where Caylee said in her jailhouse tapes Caylee is me.
Cindy apparently displaced her out of control daughter Cayey with a brand new “daughter” she could easily control- an innocent baby version of her daughter Casey but in a new and improved form – little Caylee. That is why her slip of the tongue in calling Caylee her daughter instead of Casey happens to often. So does the confusion of their names.
Apparently Cindy may have had a role in naming Caylee. It appears to be a combination of the names of her two children , Lee and Casey. Hence, Caylee.
For all intensive purposes Cindy was the mother of Caylee in comparison to Caylee’s irresponsible biological mother Casey, who most likely wanted nothing to do with of the baby. In fact she may have resented the baby. Cindy paid for the baby’s expenses, insurance, medical bills, clothing and food. She even gave the baby her own room. She was rarely away from her new “daughter” Caylee.

In the analysis I did several months back when Casey was filming Caylee without speaking to the child and ignoring her need for interaction

and even filming Caylee’s crotch, we see a sadistic Casey who clearly was anything but a nurturing loving mother,

CINDY’S CONTROL , STUBBORNESS, AFTER ALLEGEDLY PUSHING CASEY OVER THE EDGE
So when there was no contact with Cindy’s “daughter” Caylee for 4 weeks the number one question is WHY? Why did Cindy not try and find Caylee, whom she had never been apart from for more than a few days? Why did she not try to locate Casey and get Caylee and take her home to sleep in her own little bed?
Why did she wait that long? Why didn’t she call all of Casey’s friends or hire a PI Dominic Casey after a week of her “daughter” Caylee being gone?
The reasons are simple to me. They are because of Cindy’s “ I’ll show Casey” attitude and her self pride, her anger at Casey, and finally, Cindy’s downright stubbornness. If she would have taken action when Caylee was away from her for a week, perhaps Caylee would have been alive today.
CASEY’S TRIGGER
While Casey and Cindy always went head to head according to brother Lee, Cindy allegedly had a huge fight with Casey the day she left with Caylee. Cindy said to Caylee ” I AM THROWING YOU OUT AND KEEPING CAYLEE” Apparently she said this to Casey after she learned that Casey took money from Cindy’s mother Shirley Plesea.
But this was not the thing to say to her disturbed daughter. These words Cindy allegedly spoke are what I believe pushed Casey over the edge.
While Casey was a low grade sociopath with lying and stealing in a cat and mouse game to evade and to “ get over” on her mother, I don’t believe she was ready to murder anyone until Cindy pushed her fatal button.
In fact there are reports from Casey’s friends that Casey was a “sweet girl”and a” nice girl” even though she was reported to have issues with the truth and lied constantly.
In fact I spoke to Casey’s ex boyfriend Jesse Grund’s minister father who reached out to me. I asked him what Casey was like. He said to me that Casey came from a troubled family, but that she adapted quite well into his family – the Grund family as everyone loved and accepted her.
After hearing that from Mr. Grund as well as the accounts of her friends, of which she had many, it confirms my thoughts that Cindy’s words and actions are what must have pushed Casey over the edge.

MY TAKE ON WHAT CASEY PROBABLY DID WITH CAYLEE AND WHY
In my view, Casey took Caylee and most likely put tape over Caylee’s mouth and chloroformed her so she would sleep and not make any noise in case she woke up after Casey stuffed her in the trunk while Casey went out partying. When Casey opened the trunk the following morning, Casey found that Caylee was dead. Instead of telling someone , Casey kept it to herself and concocted the Zanny story. This is my view.
Casey had absolutely no feelings for Caylee because she never bonded with the child. To Casey, Caylee was a” troublesome sibling” who got in her way of partying and her love life. When her latest boyfriend let Casey know that he didn’t want kids, Casey may have felt justified in her actions with Caylee, in order to keep her man.
Casey was desperate. She felt she needed her new man because after all he gave her a roof over her head now that Cindy finally kicked her out of the house for good.
Casey was no doubt feeling great that she had a man, a place to live, freedom to come and go without Cindy’s watchful critical eye, and best of all- no and burdensome Caylee to hold her back. Now she could have a Bella Vida- a beautiful free life.
Even better was that she knew her mother Cindy would be pissed when she discovered there would be no more Caylee . Sadistically it is my belief that Casey was thrilled about the pain and anguish she knew would lie ahead for Cindy when Cindy discovered that “ a nanny stole Caylee”.
There is no doubt that Casey thought she could get away with her concocted story. Why shouldn’t she? After all she got away with telling her mother so many concocted stories like she had a job and a babysitter for Cayleee when she had neither.
I believe there was no doubt in Casey’s mind that she could have her cake and eat it too. She felt she could have a new life with her boyfriend and that everyone would believe her fake story about what happened to Caylee.
Casey was so arrogant, entitled, and manipulative that she thought she could “get over” on law enforcement, just as she “got over” on her mother all these years. That is why she sent them on a wild goose chase and had no remorse whatsoever in doing that.
She stuck by her Zanny story and never wavered. Why shouldn’t she? She always got away with lies in the past, so why wouldn’t Casey think she could get away with this one?
But now she is beginning to see the walls begin to close in on her. The shock of her life was discovering during her brother Lee’s testimony that he was not the loyal brother she once thought. The person she never thought would betray her was apparently the first one in line to do his sister in. He played both sides of the fence trying to get information for law enforcement, while making his sister think that he was one hundred percent loyal to her.

LEE’S ATTORNEY’S FREUDIAN SLIP IN CALLING CAYLEE LEE’S “DAUGHTER”
Lee’s attorney also once publicly made a “slip of the tongue” as well when he referred to Caylee as Lee’s “ daughter” not his “niece.” Casey also made numerous accusations that Lee sexually molested her. Whether it is true or not we do not really know at this point .
Apparently it may have been revealed to the public that George and Lee are not the father of Caylee. But the question remains as to what type of testing was done to prove that point.
After tests were done to determine George and Lee’s paternity, only recently, according to a recent article in USA Today, discuss the reach that came out of Baylor College of Medicine regarding new and improved gene tests that can now reveal children born of incestwithout the need to test for either parent’s DNA, doctors have recently reported. Here is a link to the article in USA Today http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/sty/2011/02/DNA-tests-could-reveal-unknown-proof-of-incest/43577514/1
Having read this , it may very well be possible that the tests done on George and Lee may not have been as up to date or as sophisticated or accurate as this recent test which is now available.
I am NOT saying that George or Lee are the biological father of Caylee. I AM saying that there are now more sophisticated tests available to determine whether a child was born of an incestuous union than there were when George and Lee were tested a few years ago.
Since it has been recently discovered that one does not need the DNA from either parent any longer to determine if a child was produced by incest, I am simply asking if these new tests were conducted on George and Lee?
Was the child’s remains investigated with these new and improved genetic testing techniques? If not, perhaps it might be interesting to conduct such testing.
No matter what the result, suffice it to say that in my view, we are clealry seeing that the Anthony family members are extremely TOXIC. www.drlillianglass.com
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony's Inappropriate Courtroom Attire, Grooming and Flirting   Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:15 pm

Casey Anthony’s Inappropriate Courtroom Attire, Grooming and Flirting





Casey Anthony wore another tight-fitting pullover sweater with sleeves that were way too long for her on the fourth day of her court proceedings.

Just as her red V necked pullover was inappropriate courtroom attire last week, the same is true for for this week ’s light purple turtle neck pullover which was equally inappropriate. Since Cindy is no clotheshorse as we have seen throughout these past two and a half years, I would not be surprised if it is she who is bringing these sweaters and blouses and jackets to court in the mornings so that Casey does not have to show up in her jail outfit. The bottom line is that these sweaters are unacceptable.
The sweater deal didn’t work for the Menendzez brothers who were convicted of killing their parents. The brothers were usually seen at trial dressed in baby blue cashmere sweaters. It didn’t work for themn and it wont work for Casey either.

By now Casey is so used to her jail house attire that she acts like a fish out of water in her new sweaters. She continues to pull and tug at them as she grooms herself in her ritualistic manner. What is really poignant about this picture is her grooming at the neck are and pulling on her collar .
We
We especially have seen her do this this neck grooming behavior during these recent courtroom proceedings. While sociopaths can’t seem to show genuine emotion on their faces, it often leaks out in their body language. Did you ever hear the expression “getting hot under the collar?”
Well, here is an example of it and case in point, Physiologically when people feel uncomfortable – nervous, agitates or even angry their blood pressure rises as does their temperature and they literally feel “hotter” as their autonomic nervous system takes over. This is a huge tell in body language speak as to what is really going on with a person;s emotions. Even of they are not showing it on their face, they involuntarily show in on their neck.

Just as people can feel hot under the collar, they can also suddenly feel cold as the autonomic nervous systems reacts in a roller coaster type of way as they body may go to both extremes before it regulates itself. So when we often see people getting a sudden chill in the courtroom, it often correlates to some emotional reaction to what has occurred when hearing someone’s testimony.
As you can see in the photo above, Casey is trying to cover her hands with her way too long sweater sleeves in order to get some warmth. She has the option of rolling up the sleeves, but she doesn’t, Instead she covers herself. This may also be a form of self comforting and literally hiding her hands she most likely used perhaps killing Caylee in my view.

Having heard her mother’s testimony has only validated how Casey feels about Cindy. She can’t stand her. The same is true for her father and her brother Lee. Now that she heard that her beloved Lee betrayed her by lying to her in making her think he was on her team when in fact he was trying to get information for law enforcement because he was on his own team- the team of getting a PI job, Casey can never smile at her family again. She has in essence cut them off completely as far any reaction to them. Any future tears or semblance of emotion will be contrived as she has none towards any on them.
They are dead to her. As a result it will not be unusual to see this above dead eyed creepy cold stare whenever they appear. Lately, this dead eyed cold stare with most everyone who has testified seems to be prevalent as far as her facial language is concerned.

The only change in Casey’s demeanor when the dead eyed cold stare is not prevalent is when she is in flirting mode. Apparently as we have seen Casey can;t seem to relate to anyone unless she is flirting with them or being coquettish.
Her grabbing Jose Baez led under the table when she heard testimony that he wasn’t liked, was in my view a sexual flirtation in nature. Who in the word touches any person’s thigh or knee or leg or anything below the belt unless the communication is of an intimate nature. It was Casey’s sexually tinged way of comforting Baez when he heard the unflattering remark made about him.
It is reminiscent of what Cindy did when She and George and Lee were on one of the morning shows Cindy had her hand on Lee’s lap during the interview which raised a lot of eyebrows as it was highly inappropriate in my view. So was Cindy’s constant rubbing of Lee’s back at the Caylee memorial ceremony.
As I have said repeatedly” The apple does not fall far from the tree” when it comes to Cindy and Casey’s exhibiting similar behaviors.
We saw it in the courtroom when Casey surprising grabbed Cheney Mason’s shoulder. It appears that the only way she can relate to a man is physically. And what in the world is she doing by reaching out and touching her lawyers?
They can certainly touch her as a gesture of comfort or reassurance. In fact a jury would relate to that and may even find it a gesture of compassion. But when she touches them to me it is a gesture of power and control in an attempt to seduce. To a jury it will be perceived as flirtatious and provocative.
www.drlillianglass.com
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: The innocence team's trickery   Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:45 pm

the innocence team’s trickery


As a result of the recent release of discovery in the case against Casey Anthony, we learned the defense investigators resorted to trickery in an effort to recruit (fish for) people to turn into patsy’s.
Several of the Texas EquuSearch volunteers complained to the Orange County Sherriff’s Office about calls they received from defense investigators who allegedly attempted to pass themselves off as part of the State’s case. This group of defense investigators would say they were calling from the Orange County Courthouse in an effort to get people to talk to them!
It’s pure desperation. Too bad for the defense investigators that few people bought it (bit the hook).
The OSCO found no probable cause to pursue a case against this obvious trickery. It seems to me this was a deliberate group strategy, not a result of one rogue investigator desperate to find leads in the case.
When the whole team of investigators follows this prot0col, it is clearly a thought out and planned deceit.
Of course, anyone who has any knowledge of the Caylee Anthony case knows of the questionable maneuvering by the defense over the last two years and wants no part of it.
So, the Innocence Team must resort to trickery?
What ever happened to the truth?
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony week roundup 6-12 March 2011   Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:25 pm

Casey Anthony week roundup 6-12 March 2011


Filed under Casey Anthony
After the hearings on the 2-4 March, Monday we heard the final arguments. Mason, who went on to lie stating to the Judge that Casey Anthony is not a criminal, which was a total lie, she plead ‘GUILTY’ to Fraud charges on 25 January 25, 2010, plus still owes $381.00 for the court costs. So if she’s not a criminal, why plea guilty?
Final Arguments: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
The defense wants another $12,000 for their ‘misleading’ ‘harassing’ PI, Jeremy Lyons to investigate more discovery. I hope the Judge starts denying these motions. The defense should have it together already.
The results for the poll “How will the Judge decide on the ‘Agents’ motion”
Deny 86%
Grant 8%
Undecided 6%
We should hear the Judges decision at the end of this week!
The Document dump, was great! A few new things out there:
Mark Hawkins NCIS document
Emails from Melich
OCSO Computer report
FBI Evidence
Forensic Biology lab report slow loading
OCSO property form
TES Julie Davis paperwork
OCSO interview Julie Davis
Complaints against defense PI
Another inmate with info!
Bug Data
Emails between Pham and Edwards
OCSO Property form and Mark NeJames Subpoena
Forensic Entomology report
Forensic biology lab~13 pages
OCSO Property form and Questions for TES
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Caylee Anthony's Father Remains Unnamed   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:04 pm

Caylee Anthony's Father Remains Unnamed


Attorney: Anthonys Told Him Biological Father Died In Car Crash




POSTED: 6:14 pm EDT March 14, 2011
UPDATED: 7:41 pm EDT March 14, 2011



ORLANDO, Fla. -- Followers of the case against Casey Anthony said they still have questions about the identity of Caylee Anthony's biological father.




"That's the one thing that's so heart wrenching -- where the father was," defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
After Caylee's disappearance, new documents show that an FBI agent requested a rush paternity test on Casey Anthony's brother, Lee Anthony, in 2008.
According to court papers, the FBI agent said Casey Anthony gave him the impression the father could be her brother.
But sources said paternity tests for both Lee Anthony and Casey Anthony's ex-fiancee Jesse Grund's came out negative.
Hornsby said the tests helped remove a cloud of questions about both men.
"This is going to be good for the trial, especially when (Lee Anthony and Grund) are testifying and everybody's thinking that maybe he's the actual father and is just trying to cover it up," Hornsby said.
According to newly released depositions, Caylee Anthony's biological father signed a waiver surrendering his parental rights.
Attorney Paul Anthony Kelley said George and Cindy Anthony, Casey Anthony's parents, came to him for some legal advice.
Kelley said the couple told him that their granddaughter's father "had basically taken off and was out of the picture."
Kelley said he could not recall the biological father's name, but that the Anthonys produced an obituary showing Caylee Anthony's father died in an out-of-state car crash.


Copyright 2011 by WESH.COM
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Anthony Defense Pathologist Disputes Homicide Finding   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Anthony Defense Pathologist Disputes Homicide Finding


Werner Spitz: No Scientific Evidence How Caylee Died




POSTED: 7:45 pm EDT March 14, 2011
UPDATED: 7:53 pm EDT March 14, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Casey Anthony's defense team's forensic pathologist, Werner Spitz, is disputing medical examiner Jan Garavaglia's finding that Caylee Anthony died of homicide.


In a letter dated March 10, Spitz said that after conducting a second autopsy, there is no scientific evidence of how she died and the cause of death is undetermined.
Garavaglia said the circumstances of how Caylee's body appeared to be duct-taped and then disposed of like garbage support her finding of foul play.


Copyright 2011 by WESH.COM.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: New Depostions Released In Anthony Case   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:16 pm

New Depositions Released In Anthony Case


Kronk's Son Raises Questions About Father




POSTED: 3:13 pm EDT March 14, 2011
UPDATED: 4:55 pm EDT March 14, 2011



ORLANDO, Fla. -- In newly filed depositions in the case against Casey Anthony on Monday, Roy Kronk's son gave mixed signals about whether his father is a hero for finding Caylee Anthony's remains or someone police should have considered a suspect in the investigation.




Kronk's adult son, Brandon Sparks, was listed by Anthony's defense to argue Kronk should have been at least investigated as a suspect. Looking at Sparks deposition taken in November, some may have wondered whether Sparks considered his father a hero or a villain.
According to the new documents, Sparks said Kronk considered himself a martyr for finding Caylee's remains.
Sparks told prosecutors he was proud of Kronk and congratulated him for doing a great deed. But Sparks also indicated in the deposition that he could not rule out his father as a suspect.
"You can see there's an axe to grind there somewhere," Defense Attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Hornsby said there's obviously some lingering bad blood between Kronk and his estranged family members, but it will do Anthony's defense no good because Judge Belvin Perry ruled testimony about Kronk's alleged bad acts in the past won't be allowed.
"At the end of the day, it's not going to have any relevance in the trial," Hornsby said. "(The) defense not going to be able to get into any character issues."
Hornsby said the only way Kronk's son may be used is to establish a timeline of the discovery of Caylee's remains, but not to speculate on whether his father is a possible suspect.
"The son can't be called to attack his father's character," Hornsby said.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Documents Raises Questions About Evidence In Casey Case   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:19 pm

Document Raises Questions About Evidence In Casey Case


Posted: 6:41 pm EDT March 14, 2011




ORLANDO, Fla. -- A document WFTV obtained Monday (read it) raises some questions about the evidence found on Caylee Anthony's body.



READ: Defense Dr. On Caylee Autopsy



The Orange County medical examiner initially said there was duct tape found near the bones that looked like it was placed over Caylee's mouth.
However, a new forensic scientist hired by Casey's attorneys, Werner Spitz, said there is no DNA evidence that tape was ever on Caylee's body.

REPORTS: FBI WIRED FRIEND DURING TALKS WITH CASEY
New documents were released in the case against Casey Anthony Friday. The documents reveal new information about one of Casey's friends who wore a wire for the FBI, during a conversation with her.
It's another bombshell dropped in the case against Casey, almost three years after it started.



ORDER: Memorializing Motions
DOCUMENTS: Examination Report | Lab Report
READ TRANSCRIPT: EquuSearch Volunteer
VIDEO REPORT: Documents Released In Casey Case






Mark Hawkins


Mark Hawkins told the FBI that Casey called him around the time that Caylee Anthony disappeared and said she was upset, that something had happened "a long time ago."
Hawkins also said that Casey had told her mother and brother about it and they were angry and frustrated, but she couldn't talk about it over the phone.
Casey and Hawkins met at Colonial High School and had remained close friends.
Hawkins told investigators that when Casey texted him, Caylee had been missing for 31 days. He said he called her and asked why she hadn't told anyone until then.
Hawkins also said Casey told him "she was worried for Caylee's safety and that she conducted her own investigation." Hawkins also said he got a text from her two months later, saying she missed him and wanted to see him.
So in October 2008, Hawkins, who worked with the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service, or NCIS, agreed to come to Orlando, put on a wire and visit Casey.
The first time, he rode with Cindy to pick up Casey from attorney Jose Baez's office. The second time, when he wore the recording device, he visited with Casey at her house.
The documents also show when he asked Casey what she couldn't tell him over the phone, she said her brother Lee knew most of the story about what had happened to Caylee and she would tell him all about it "some day."
The NCIS report says Casey never made any admissions to Hawkins about Caylee's death or knowing where Caylee was.
Hawkins said he called her house and in the document he stated, "She had no idea where Caylee was. She said the last time she saw her was when she dropped her off at the babysitter's. Casey told me when she tried to call the babysitter's phone it was turned off."
Hawkins also told investigators when Casey would argue with her parents she would frequently go away for some time with Caylee.
The new documents also show defense experts question the validity of testing done on Casey's car trunk. Defense experts said the air tests that found chloroform and other compounds of human decomposition are experimental, and that bugs found in Casey's trunk could have been attracted by the trash. The defense said they are not proof Caylee's body was there.
During questioning, chief medical examiner doctor Gary Utz was asked if he found any trauma to Caylee's body to prove she was murdered.
He replied there wasn't, but that most of the body was gone by the time they discovered it. Utz also said he didn't find any toxic chemicals during the autopsy, like the chloroform found in the trunk of Casey's car.
Also Friday, WFTV obtained some of the evidence the defense has gathered and shared with prosecutors, showing there was no DNA found on the laundry bag and on Caylee's shorts, which were found with her remains.
In the documents, WFTV found a transcript of a phone interview with EquuSearch volunteer Linda Ann Davis, conducted by the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
Davis said she searched the heavily-wooded area behind the Anthony home on Suburban Drive. She was asked to describe the surroundings and who assisted in the search for Caylee Anthony.
Casey has pleaded not guilty in the death of her daughter. She goes to trial on May 9.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony: Who Will The Defense Blame?   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Monday, March 14, 2011


Casey Anthony: Who Will The Defense Blame?




What will the defense do? Who gets blamed? By now, we may have expected to have heard some inkling of an idea of who Casey Anthony planned on blaming, but thus far, no one has really stuck out as a possible target. Baez targeted everyone, including searchers, but nothing stuck.
In another move by the defense, a deposition filed showed what strategy the defense may take in blaming Roy Kronk. Although Jose Baez said, almost 3 years ago, that Casey had "good and compelling" reasons for not calling the police for 31 days, we continue to wait for what, exactly, the defense will claim that reason was.


What will the defense strategy be?


After almost 3 years, we still don't know.


What do you think?
[b]

Who Will The Defense Blame?
Zanny the Nanny
Roy Kronk
Jesse Grund
George Anthony
Stranger Abduction
pollcode.com free polls










ORLANDO, Fla. -- [/b]In newly filed depositions in the case against Casey Anthony on Monday, Roy Kronk's son gave mixed signals about whether his father is a hero for finding Caylee Anthony's remains or someone police should have considered a suspect in the investigation.




Kronk's adult son, Brandon Sparks, was listed by Anthony's defense to argue Kronk should have been at least investigated as a suspect. Looking at Sparks deposition taken in November, some may have wondered whether Sparks considered his father a hero or a villain.

According to the new documents, Sparks said Kronk considered himself a martyr for finding Caylee's remains.

Sparks told prosecutors he was proud of Kronk and congratulated him for doing a great deed. But Sparks also indicated in the deposition that he could not rule out his father as a suspect.

"You can see there's an axe to grind there somewhere," Defense Attorney Richard Hornsby said.

Hornsby said there's obviously some lingering bad blood between Kronk and his estranged family members, but it will do Anthony's defense no good because Judge Belvin Perry ruled testimony about Kronk's alleged bad acts in the past won't be allowed.

"At the end of the day, it's not going to have any relevance in the trial," Hornsby said. "(The) defense not going to be able to get into any character issues."

Hornsby said the only way Kronk's son may be used is to establish a timeline of the discovery of Caylee's remains, but not to speculate on whether his father is a possible suspect.

"The son can't be called to attack his father's character," Hornsby said.


Posted by Seamus O Riley at 3:12 PM
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Dear Dr. Spitssssssss   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:27 pm

Dear Dr. Spitssssssss


Spitz makes me want to spit.
Dr. Werner Spitz’s report on autopsy findings in the case against Casey Anthony, were made public today, though the document itself has not been released through the media. The Orlando Sentinel has the full story here.
Casey Anthony, as we know, is the mother who is awaiting trial for the murder of her daughter, Caylee Anthony. Dr. Werner Spitz is the defense team’s forensic pathologist hired to dispute any claims made by Dr. Jan Garavaglia, Medical Examiner for the State’s case.
Even though it’s the defense team’s job to create reasonable doubt using any means they can, the “reasonable doubt” in the opinions of Dr. Spitz are hardly reasonable. (They are a little wacko, if you want my opinion!)
Caylee Anthony is double bagged, duct tape is placed on her mouth area, she’s tossed in the woods, and Dr. Spitz cannot and will not agree it was a homicide?
Give me a break while I get my spit balls lined up, Dr. Spitz!!
Dr. Spitz concludes:

The manner of death is also undetermined because there is no scientific information available that the death was at the hands of another.

Dear Dr. Spitz:

So, no homicide? Okay, then tell me, whose hands put Caylee in TWO garbage bags? Whose hands affixed the duct tape? Whose hands tossed Caylee in the woods?

Did Caylee toss herself in the woods, Dr. Spitz?

I understand you are probably mincing words here, right? You’re just using semantics when you say there is no “scientific” evidence of a homicide? How then does science conclude homicide? Does science reason like you or I, Dr. Spitz?

Okay Dr. Spitz, I’ll give you your piece about the scientific stuff, because I am sure not a scientist. But I gotta tell ya, you can be scientific, sure, but don’t you also have to be “reasonable” Doctor?

I hardly think you are using reason when you conclude that because Caylee’s DNA was not found on the duct tape, it brings into question whether the duct tape was affixed before decomposition?

Your reason tells you the duct tape was put there after decomposition, and the duct tape could not have kept the mandible in place? You say:


…the lack of entomological evidence found on the duct tape is also inconsistent with the duct tape being placed over any orifice that would have attached to the duct tape during decomposition (skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape).

Well, common sense tells me, Dr. Spitz, that since the poor body was in the water for all those months, and given the harsh elements, couldn’t the DNA decompose too?

But, I keep coming back to your most confusing conclusion. If Caylee’s death did not happen at the hands of another (i.e. homicide) who put the duct tape there? It’s one thing to conclude that a three year old may have placed her self in a bag in an effort to commit suicide, it’s a whole ‘nother thing to suggest that “no hands of another” placed the duct tape on her skeleton.

Dr. Spitz, you may want to reconsider your conclusions because, ah, you sound a bit confused.

Good Doctor, I’m disappointed in you.

I have no more questions.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony defense expert challenges Dr. G's autopsy of Caylee Marie   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:37 pm

Casey Anthony defense expert challenges Dr. G's autopsy of Caylee Marie







Casey Anthony defense team expert and noted forensic pathologist Werner Spitz is challenging the findings of the Orange-Osceola Medical Examiner's autopsy done on the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony, according to a new report the defense filed with the prosecution.



Spitz, based in Michigan, conducted a second autopsy on the child's remains in late 2008.

He challenges the earlier findings of Orange-Osceola Chief Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia. He particularly takes issue with Garavaglia's saying: "Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair. This duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible [jaw] in place."
In his report dated March 10, Spitz states Garavaglia's statement is "flawed" because of evidence about the movement of the remains he discovered in his second autopsy and because "DNA results of the duct tape yielded no DNA from the deceased."
In addition, Spitz found "the lack of entomological evidence found on the duct tape is also inconsistent with the duct tape being placed over any orifice that would have attached to the duct tape during decomposition (skin would be expected to adhere to duct tape)."


The evidence discussed in three areas, Spitz said, "seriously call into question the statement 'clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible in place.'"
Casey Anthony, 24, is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony in the summer of 2008. Her trial is slated to begin in May.
The Spitz report was due on Friday under a court-ordered deadline for the defense to provide the state with the expert witness's findings. The defense team met that deadline last week, according to the prosecution.
The Spitz findings take on an essential piece of the state's case: Garavaglia's conclusion that Caylee's death was a homicide.
Spitz said the cause of death is undetermined, which is the same conclusion Garavaglia reached.
However, she concluded that the child's death was a homicide, while Spitz said, "The manner of death is also undetermined because there is no scientific information available that the death was at the hands of another."
During Garavaglia's deposition, recently released in transcript form, she dismissed notions that the child might have died by drowning or suffocating, specifically noting that in such cases the victims are not normally found dumped in a bag with "duct tape on their face."
In his report, Spitz mentioned the "salient points" of his second autopsy conducted Dec. 23-34, 2008.
"The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains," Spitz wrote. "Since the skull had not been previously opened, this indicates that the interior of the skull had not been previously examined."
He found a "cake of dark brown residue" on the left side of the skull.
"The location of the residue indicates that the left side of the skull was down during most by far of the decomposition process, causing sediment to precipitate to that area."
The initial autopsy and photos show that the duct tape found on the remains was stuck to the hair and not the mandible bone.
"Therefore if the skull was once lying on its left side, as clearly evidenced by the location of the sediment, it is highly unlikely that both the skull and the mandible, which would have been disarticulated during decomposition, would roll back to an almost perfect anatomical position," Spitz noted.
Because of his conclusions based on the movement of the remains and the lack of DNA evidence on the tape, Spitz called into question and found flaws with Dr. Garavaglia's statement.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Expert Contests Caylee's Initial Autopsy   Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:45 pm

Expert Contests Caylee's Initial Autopsy


Forensics Expert For Defense Says Medical Examiner's Autopsy Is Wrong

POSTED: Monday, March 14, 2011
UPDATED: 7:29 pm EDT March 14, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- An expert for Casey Anthony's defense team is calling into question the opinion of the medical examiner who decided that Caylee Anthony was a homicide victim.

AUTOPSIES: Medical Examiner | Defense Expert

Orange County Medical Examiner Dr. Jan Garivaglia will testify for the state during Casey Anthony's murder trial. She performed the autopsy on Caylee's remains after they were found in a wooded area in Orange County in December 2008.
The defense's expert, Dr. Werner Spitz, is a renowned forensic pathologist from Michigan. In his report, he says Garavaglia's autopsy is wrong.
Spitz was among the first defense experts called to the scene where Caylee's body was found and he conducted a second autopsy on the remains two weeks later, but he did not issue his findings until last week.
Spitz said Garavaglia was wrong when she said Caylee's manner of death was homicide. He said it is undetermined. The two agreed that there is no scientific evidence that Caylee's death was at the hands of another, which is the definition of homicide.
Spitz also questioned if Garavaglia really knows where the duct tape was placed on Caylee's skull. Garavaglia noted in her report that the lower jaw was kept in place by duct tape that was attached to Caylee's hair, but Spitz said that is highly unlikely.
Spitz is also supporting the defense's suggestion that the photo of Caylee's skull with duct tape on it was staged. He said he found evidence that the skull laid on its side before it was found, which he said would have separated the jaw bone.
The prosecution just received Spitz's two-page report last week and will now have an opportunity to depose the doctor.
Caylee was 2 years old when she was reported missing in July 2008 after being missing for a month.
Anthony, 24, is charged with first-degree murder in her daughter's death. Her trial is scheduled to begin May 9.

**ClickOrlando
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Family Friend describes "distraught' George Anthony   Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:39 pm

Family Friend describes 'distraught' George Anthony



Recent depositions filed in the Casey Anthony case continue to show the vast number of potential witnesses in the case and unique roles these individuals play in the tragic, nearly three-year-old saga.

The deposition of attorney Paul Anthony Kelley, a friend of George and Cindy Anthony, offers a different take on the chaotic start of the case in July 2008 and the frantic search for missing 2-year-old Caylee Marie Anthony.

Kelley described sitting with a "distraught" George Anthony in his home as cadaver dogs sniffed around the backyard of the Anthony home.

"They did not want to believe that anything had happened to Caylee…that she was dead," Kelley said of the Anthonys.

As investigators scoured the home and the yard, Kelley said George Anthony told him, "My daughter wouldn't do this." When asked what he said she wouldn't do, Kelley said, "hurt or kill her child."

George Anthony told him, "I can't believe they think she's killed her or think she's dead or whatever they're trying to get at with this," said Kelley, who tried to console the grandparents.

The scene Kelley describes illustrates law enforcement's early suspicions about Casey Anthony, 24, who was later charged with first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her daughter. The trial is scheduled to start in May. Anthony faces a possible death sentence if convicted.

Kelley also said George Anthony noticed – and was asked about -- a ladder to the above-ground pool in the yard that had been left down, but he emphasized that the ladder was usually left in position meant to prevent Caylee from climbing up and falling in the pool.

"We never leave that ladder down," Kelley recalled George Anthony telling him.

In the following days, Kelley helped set up a trust account for the Anthonys after the child's disappearance, but he said that a Texas EquuSearch volunteer "did not like Cindy at all" and made allegations that tens of thousands of dollars funneled into the account were "being mishandled and misused."

At that point, Kelley said he and a law partner decided with all the publicity, "We need to pass this on."

Kelley, who knew the Anthonys before the case erupted in July 2008, also said he drafted documents to help the Anthonys have Caylee's father sign over his parental rights. He did not know if those documents were ever filed, but was later told that the father signed the paperwork before he died, Kelley said during his October deposition.

He was also asked repeatedly whether George and Cindy Anthony sought custody of the child.

"Cindy never talked to me about custody of Caylee until after these circumstance happened," Kelley said. "Casey…it was my understanding that she was the primary caretaker."

Asked if he ever saw any jealousy by the family members over the child, Kelley said, "It didn't seem like there was any confrontation or anything. That girl had enough love for everybody. She was an awesome little girl."

Another witness deposed in October was Patrick Paul King, a young Kissimmee man, who did a brief search for the missing child in mid-2008 with friends. When he was told about the location where Caylee's remains were found in December of that year, King said, "I was like: Dude, that's impossible."

When asked why he thought it was impossible that the child's body could be at the site during the previous summer, King said, "Because there's no birds [vultures]. You couldn't smell nothing, you know?"

He acknowledged this was an opinion he was offering the attorneys questioning him.

"If the bag [with Caylee's body] was there, you know, animals would have got into it and scattered everything," King said.

When one of the prosecutors told him "They did," King said, "Oh."

acolarossi@tribune.com or 407-420-5447.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony's attorneys grill fired corrections officer   Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:54 pm

Casey Anthony's attorneys grill fired corrections officer


Sylvia Hernandez was fired after she was accused of passing letters back and forth between Casey and another jail inmate.
By Adam Longo, Anchor/Reporter
Last Updated: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:51 PM


Defense attorneys finally got the chance to grill a former Orange County corrections officer under oath.

Sylvia Hernandez was fired after she was accused of passing letters back and forth between Casey and another jail inmate.

Besides her lawyers, Casey Anthony probably had more interaction with Hernandez than anyone else.






Hernandez was fired from the Orange County Jail last July after an investigation revealed she let Casey Anthony chat with another inmate, Robyn Adams.

Prisoners in protective custody aren't allowed to talk to each other.

Hernandez also allegedly let Anthony cut Adams’ hair.
Monday’s deposition was the very first opportunity for Anthony's attorneys to talk with Hernandez.

Presumably, the defense would like to show that Adams was an agent of the state, working with law enforcement to get incriminating statements out of Anthony so she could get a reduced sentence or some sort of benefit down the road.

Neither Jose Baez or Cheney Mason would discuss the 45 minute deposition.
Hernandez does have a new job.

At the most recent court hearing, defense attorneys told the court Hernandez was hired as a police officer in Groveland, and they were having trouble serving her with a subpoena for the deposition.

In fact, the defense private investigator says he was told to "leave town and never come back" when he tried to serve the subpoena.

It’s still unknown Adams or Hernandez will testify at the upcoming trial.

**CFNews13
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Caylee Anthony case: Dr. Logan's report   Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:43 am

Caylee Anthony case: Dr. Logan’s report

Posted on March 15, 2011 by Valhall

Dr. Barry Logan has be retained by the defense to render his expert opinion concerning Dr. Vass’s work at Oak Ridge. More specifically, Dr. Logan is to speak toward Dr. Vass’s work with testing air samples taken from the trunk and then comparing the results of those tests to the “decomposition gas database” Dr. Vass and colleagues have developed. Dr. Logan’s report was included in the latest document dump. This is a review of that report.

Dr. Logan has done no testing in regards to the Anthony case, not as far as can be established by his report. Instead, Dr. Logan has reviewed the case notes and reports, including the autopsy report and the notes and reports from Oak Ridge National Laboratory concerning the air testing for the trunk. He has also reviewed the depositions of Vass, Rickenbach, Wise, and Martin. He has also reviewed a report written by Dr. Kenneth Furton who is another expert retained by the defense team. As far as has been revealed in discovery to date, Dr. Furton has performed no testing for this case either. So Dr. Logan’s review of Dr. Furton’s work can be seen as a “review of a review” of reports and records from the case. This is probably a very important point when viewing Dr. Logan and Dr. Furton’s intended role for the defense. They will not be presenting data that contradicts the State’s expert witnesses, they will be proffering opinions on the work done by those witnesses.
Dr. Logan’s report centers on finding the flaws that would go toward an argument that Dr. Vass’s work with the decompositional database, and the application of that database to air samples from the trunk to determine if a human decomposition event could have happened, is “novel” and unproven, or rather not validated by the scientific community. Dr. Logan argues that it is not “sufficiently reliable to be considered sound validated science”. But, Dr. Logan, continues, even if it is, his opinion is that the tests were not conducted in an organized and well-documented manner with “minimal standards of quality control” applied. Now these assertions I cannot say yay or nay to, since I have not read the deposition of Dr. Vass or the other scientists from Oak Ridge. I have no idea if there is information available that would back Dr. Logan’s claims that the test were conducted in a manner that would be viewed “unacceptable”.
BUT, I do take issue with some of the reasons he states he is basing that opinion on. One of his reasons is that Oak Ridge is a “research lab” instead of a forensics lab and therefore does not necessarily operate under the same controls as an ASCLD-LAB accredited forensic laboratory. He states Dr. Vass has acknowledged that the Oak Ridge laboratory has not taken the steps necessary to comply with “appropriate forensic practice” concerning the evidence (i.e. test samples) in this case. As stated previously, this may be an accurate statement on Dr. Logan’s part, but I would want to read Dr. Vass’s deposition first to see exactly what Dr. Vass was asked and how he responded before taking Dr. Logan’s word for it.
Dr. Logan lists a number of observations he makes concerning Dr. Vass’s results that he classifies in his conclusion as “irregularities”. I’ll list these with some comments concerning them:

  • Dr. Logan claims Oak Ridge has no standard operating procedures (SOPs) for these tests…or at least they didn’t when the tests were performed. I will await the depositions of the Oak Ridge scientists on this one.
  • Dr. Logan claims references only two publications for Dr. Vass’s work and states the technique is “not fully characterized”, nor are there SOPs published for conducting the tests. As was discussed in this article, Dr. Vass’s work has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals dating back to the early 90′s. I do not know if Dr. Logan is speaking to specific information concerning Dr. Vass’s work, or if this a matter of semantics (i.e. word games). While the lack of SOPs may be something Dr. Logan can present to cast doubt on Dr. Vass’s work before the jury, a lack of SOPs in some established “form” for forensic labs does not necessarily disqualify Dr. Vass’s work. The litmus test is whether some can reproduce the testing and the results based on the information provided. We do not know the additional information they may have been provided by Dr. Vass, but based on the information in the Oak Ridge report on air testing, these tests are reproducible for the purpose of checking the results. As noted previously, neither Dr. Logan nor Dr. Furton did so.
  • Dr. Logan then goes about attacking Dr. Vass’s work by focusing on what is not there. For instance, he claims the database is based on 4 buried cadavers but there is no “determination” that the database can be applied to a body decomposing under different circumstances (i.e. not buried).
  • The Anthony case samples produced distinct “peaks” while the standards from Vass’s work establishing the database had broader peaks…Dr. Logan thinks this to be an irregularity because the difference has not been investigated.
  • Dr. Logan insinuates that because “expected” decomposition gases in the database were not detected (Logan states 90% of the database gases), the results should be viewed as dubious because the lacking gases have not been investigated or an explanation offered as to why they were not there. This is a bit of skewing about the results. The entire database consists of decomposition gases detected at various stages of decomposition. Dr. Vass’s contention is that the gases present in the trunk are consistent with early stage decomposition.
  • He then states that because the Montana positive control case (little child found dead in trunk) did not have all of the gases contained in the Anthony trunk, AND because the report does not list what other gases were detected in the Montana case, but might be absent in the Anthony case, this raises “questions” about Oak Ridge’s results/report. A comparison of the results of these two cases can be reviewed in this article. This argument is similar to the “90%” statement above. Dr. Logan is trying to argue that if ALL the gases present in a comparative case are not present in the Anthony case then unless the absence of the other compounds is explained, it should be viewed as dubious. First we would have to know if there was more decomposition gases in the Montana case that were not in the Anthony case (we don’t know that based on what we have)…however, we can say based on what we have that there are decomposition gases present in the Anthony case that were not detected in the Montana case. Based on Logan’s logic, we would have conclude that a human decomposition event might not have occurred in the Montana car trunk…even though the baby was found dead in the trunk.
  • Logan states that there is no criteria given for what specific compounds must be present to reach a conclusion that a human decomposition event has occurred. This is true, but the point is that Dr. Vass has not concluded that a human decomposition event has occurred. Dr. Vass has concluded the gases present are “consistent with a decompositional even that could be of human origin”. He has provided information on why he has concluded that. It is that “a portion of the total odor signature” of the Anthony trunk air is consistent with that possibility. Dr. Vass can be cross-examined on the stand and asked, “Is there anything in your work that proves a human decomposition event took place in the trunk of that car?” He will have to answer, “No.”
  • The last point Dr. Logan makes that I would like to address is a statement made about the elevated chloroform levels (that Dr. Vass points out is even higher than expected for a human decomposition event). Dr. Logan states Dr. Vass’s report “fails to state” that chloroform is found in Orlando tap water and chlorinated swimming pool water. But Dr. Vass doesn’t have to state that in his report, it can be brought out in court. There are two former articles here at The Hinky Meter I’d like to direct you to concerning the chloroform levels in the trunk. One was written by me, and the other by JWG. In both of these articles, we point out that the chloroform level detected in the trunk is 1000′s of times more than that of the Orlando drinking water (which is around 80 ppm), and JWG points out that the chloroform level is around 1 million times greater than that expected from an adult human decomposing body. Also, as has been reviewed for 2-1/2 years now, the Anthonys do not use chlorine-based pool products and Casey’s story does not include going to a public swimming pool for a dip before dropping Caylee off with “Zanny” between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. sometime between June 9th and June 16th, 2008. So those two sources combined cannot explain the chloroform levels in the trunk liner.

It will be interesting to watch the Frye hearing concerning Dr. Vass’s work. It will come down to presentation skills….and Judge Perry’s understanding of case law.
Valhall.
References:
Oak Ridge air test report
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Caylee Anthony case: Dr. Logan's report   Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:40 pm

Caylee Anthony case: Dr. Logan’s report

Posted on March 15, 2011 by Valhall

Dr. Barry Logan has be retained by the defense to render his expert opinion concerning Dr. Vass’s work at Oak Ridge. More specifically, Dr. Logan is to speak toward Dr. Vass’s work with testing air samples taken from the trunk and then comparing the results of those tests to the “decomposition gas database” Dr. Vass and colleagues have developed. Dr. Logan’s report was included in the latest document dump. This is a review of that report.

Dr. Logan has done no testing in regards to the Anthony case, not as far as can be established by his report. Instead, Dr. Logan has reviewed the case notes and reports, including the autopsy report and the notes and reports from Oak Ridge National Laboratory concerning the air testing for the trunk. He has also reviewed the depositions of Vass, Rickenbach, Wise, and Martin. He has also reviewed a report written by Dr. Kenneth Furton who is another expert retained by the defense team. As far as has been revealed in discovery to date, Dr. Furton has performed no testing for this case either. So Dr. Logan’s review of Dr. Furton’s work can be seen as a “review of a review” of reports and records from the case. This is probably a very important point when viewing Dr. Logan and Dr. Furton’s intended role for the defense. They will not be presenting data that contradicts the State’s expert witnesses, they will be proffering opinions on the work done by those witnesses.
Dr. Logan’s report centers on finding the flaws that would go toward an argument that Dr. Vass’s work with the decompositional database, and the application of that database to air samples from the trunk to determine if a human decomposition event could have happened, is “novel” and unproven, or rather not validated by the scientific community. Dr. Logan argues that it is not “sufficiently reliable to be considered sound validated science”. But, Dr. Logan, continues, even if it is, his opinion is that the tests were not conducted in an organized and well-documented manner with “minimal standards of quality control” applied. Now these assertions I cannot say yay or nay to, since I have not read the deposition of Dr. Vass or the other scientists from Oak Ridge. I have no idea if there is information available that would back Dr. Logan’s claims that the test were conducted in a manner that would be viewed “unacceptable”.
BUT, I do take issue with some of the reasons he states he is basing that opinion on. One of his reasons is that Oak Ridge is a “research lab” instead of a forensics lab and therefore does not necessarily operate under the same controls as an ASCLD-LAB accredited forensic laboratory. He states Dr. Vass has acknowledged that the Oak Ridge laboratory has not taken the steps necessary to comply with “appropriate forensic practice” concerning the evidence (i.e. test samples) in this case. As stated previously, this may be an accurate statement on Dr. Logan’s part, but I would want to read Dr. Vass’s deposition first to see exactly what Dr. Vass was asked and how he responded before taking Dr. Logan’s word for it.
Dr. Logan lists a number of observations he makes concerning Dr. Vass’s results that he classifies in his conclusion as “irregularities”. I’ll list these with some comments concerning them:

  • Dr. Logan claims Oak Ridge has no standard operating procedures (SOPs) for these tests…or at least they didn’t when the tests were performed. I will await the depositions of the Oak Ridge scientists on this one.
  • Dr. Logan claims references only two publications for Dr. Vass’s work and states the technique is “not fully characterized”, nor are there SOPs published for conducting the tests. As was discussed in this article, Dr. Vass’s work has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals dating back to the early 90′s. I do not know if Dr. Logan is speaking to specific information concerning Dr. Vass’s work, or if this a matter of semantics (i.e. word games). While the lack of SOPs may be something Dr. Logan can present to cast doubt on Dr. Vass’s work before the jury, a lack of SOPs in some established “form” for forensic labs does not necessarily disqualify Dr. Vass’s work. The litmus test is whether some can reproduce the testing and the results based on the information provided. We do not know the additional information they may have been provided by Dr. Vass, but based on the information in the Oak Ridge report on air testing, these tests are reproducible for the purpose of checking the results. As noted previously, neither Dr. Logan nor Dr. Furton did so.
  • Dr. Logan then goes about attacking Dr. Vass’s work by focusing on what is not there. For instance, he claims the database is based on 4 buried cadavers but there is no “determination” that the database can be applied to a body decomposing under different circumstances (i.e. not buried).
  • The Anthony case samples produced distinct “peaks” while the standards from Vass’s work establishing the database had broader peaks…Dr. Logan thinks this to be an irregularity because the difference has not been investigated.
  • Dr. Logan insinuates that because “expected” decomposition gases in the database were not detected (Logan states 90% of the database gases), the results should be viewed as dubious because the lacking gases have not been investigated or an explanation offered as to why they were not there. This is a bit of skewing about the results. The entire database consists of decomposition gases detected at various stages of decomposition. Dr. Vass’s contention is that the gases present in the trunk are consistent with early stage decomposition.
  • He then states that because the Montana positive control case (little child found dead in trunk) did not have all of the gases contained in the Anthony trunk, AND because the report does not list what other gases were detected in the Montana case, but might be absent in the Anthony case, this raises “questions” about Oak Ridge’s results/report. A comparison of the results of these two cases can be reviewed in this article. This argument is similar to the “90%” statement above. Dr. Logan is trying to argue that if ALL the gases present in a comparative case are not present in the Anthony case then unless the absence of the other compounds is explained, it should be viewed as dubious. First we would have to know if there was more decomposition gases in the Montana case that were not in the Anthony case (we don’t know that based on what we have)…however, we can say based on what we have that there are decomposition gases present in the Anthony case that were not detected in the Montana case. Based on Logan’s logic, we would have conclude that a human decomposition event might not have occurred in the Montana car trunk…even though the baby was found dead in the trunk.
  • Logan states that there is no criteria given for what specific compounds must be present to reach a conclusion that a human decomposition event has occurred. This is true, but the point is that Dr. Vass has not concluded that a human decomposition event has occurred. Dr. Vass has concluded the gases present are “consistent with a decompositional even that could be of human origin”. He has provided information on why he has concluded that. It is that “a portion of the total odor signature” of the Anthony trunk air is consistent with that possibility. Dr. Vass can be cross-examined on the stand and asked, “Is there anything in your work that proves a human decomposition event took place in the trunk of that car?” He will have to answer, “No.”
  • The last point Dr. Logan makes that I would like to address is a statement made about the elevated chloroform levels (that Dr. Vass points out is even higher than expected for a human decomposition event). Dr. Logan states Dr. Vass’s report “fails to state” that chloroform is found in Orlando tap water and chlorinated swimming pool water. But Dr. Vass doesn’t have to state that in his report, it can be brought out in court. There are two former articles here at The Hinky Meter I’d like to direct you to concerning the chloroform levels in the trunk. One was written by me, and the other by JWG. In both of these articles, we point out that the chloroform level detected in the trunk is 1000′s of times more than that of the Orlando drinking water (which is around 80 ppm), and JWG points out that the chloroform level is around 1 million times greater than that expected from an adult human decomposing body. Also, as has been reviewed for 2-1/2 years now, the Anthonys do not use chlorine-based pool products and Casey’s story does not include going to a public swimming pool for a dip before dropping Caylee off with “Zanny” between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. sometime between June 9th and June 16th, 2008. So those two sources combined cannot explain the chloroform levels in the trunk liner.

It will be interesting to watch the Frye hearing concerning Dr. Vass’s work. It will come down to presentation skills….and Judge Perry’s understanding of case law.
Valhall.
References:
Oak Ridge air test report
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony's defense team attacks duct tape theory   Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:55 pm

Casey Anthony's defense team attacks duct tape theory

Posted: 10:19 AM ET









Orlando, FL – “When did you first become aware of Caylee Anthony?”
“First become aware of her?”
“Let me give you a clue, news media.”
It was an early exchange between Defense Attorney Cheney Mason and Orange County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia, and it set the tone for what was a lengthy interaction.
In Session has acquired defense depositions of some key state witnesses that show what Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, Dorothy Clay Sims, and Ann Finnell may have in mind, for a strategy, to protect their client from a guilty verdict and a possible death penalty.
Dr. Garavaglia a.k.a. “Dr. G” is the medical examiner who ruled Caylee Anthony’s death a homicide. Her deposition is conducted by Mason and Sims. After Sims asks a few questions about Garavaglia’s background in the field of forensics, Mason takes over and begins, almost immediately, to question Garavaglia’s handling of the case.
Mason wants to know why she took over the case from Dr. Gary Utz, who conducted Caylee’s autopsy. Garavaglia responds that while Utz continued to stay active in the case, he was new to the office and she felt it would be better for her to take the lead.
Mason also questions the various experts Garavaglia consulted during the course of her investigation including a bone expert and a toxicologist.
“Once I saw that there was absolutely no soft tissue on the bones, I knew that we were going to have to do some unconventional tests,” Garavaglia says.
Garavaglia had the inside of the skull tested for a routine toxicology test which includes chloroform and valium. She says the tests came back negative but stressed that a negative result means they could not find the residue of the drugs, not that it wasn’t ever there.
The most contentious part of the deposition came when Mason asked Garavaglia how she defines homicide and rules something to be a homicide versus an accidental death.
Mason asks Garavaglia how she would rule on a case similar to Caylee’s in which a child is playing with a dry cleaner bag and suffocates.
Garavaglia says that doesn’t refer to the definition of homicide but rather manner of death.
“The manner of death, as you know, is an opinion. The manner of death is based on circumstances surrounding the death,” Garavaglia says. “The story is this person played with a plastic bag and is dead, but then this person isn’t reported immediately to the hospital or to law enforcement to try to resuscitate…and this personal is found still with duct tape on the face, I would say I would still call that a homicide.”
Mason fires back at this and says Garavaglia called it a homicide because she learned from police and media that the child had not been reported missing for 30 days.
Garavaglia says she would not take anything from media as part of her determination and everything in that determination is from law enforcement and is outlined in her findings.
“Let’s take it another way. Suppose this child drowned in the family swimming pool?” Mason asks.
“We get many cases like that where people are drowned and they always report them because they want them to survive. There’s a chance you could resuscitate that person,” Garavaglia answers. “And so EMS is called and none of those people have duct tape on their face or are dumped in plastic bags in a field.”
Tension seemingly mounts at this point when Mason interjects and asks Garavaglia, “there is no scientific evidence as to the cause of death in this case, true or false?”
Garavaglia refuses to answer the question the way Mason wants, and repeatedly says the cause of death is listed as undetermined.
“This is not my first rodeo. I want a yes or no answer,” Mason pushes.
“No, I don’t answer yes or no,” Garavaglia responds.
Mason starts a line of questioning pertaining as to whether an accidental drowning could have been the cause of Caylee’s death.
“Is there any evidence that tells you this child did not drown?” Mason asks.
“…Based on the fact that I have never seen a drowning nor do I see the reason why a drowning would have duct tape on the lower half of the face, I would say that is evidence itself that there’s no indication that this child would drown and there’s no reason why a child that’s drowned is put in a plastic bag and dumped on the side of the road,” Garavaglia explains.
It’s at this point that Mason segues into asking about the skull when it was found and asks some of the most telling questions – questions that allude to a possible defense theory that evidence may have been mishandling.
After confirming that Garavaglia only examined X-rays and photos of the duct tape on the skull and not the actual duct tape itself, he asks her about those photos. “You don’t think there was any staging of that photograph in your autopsy room after Kronk listed the skull with a stick in the left orbital socket?”
Garavaglia says she does not believe there is any evidence in the photos to suggest that.
Mason’s cross–examination comes to an end and his final question conveys the great deal of doubt the defense has about the investigation of Caylee’s remains by law enforcement and this witness.
“Have you looked at the photographs taken at the scene before the remains were moved?” Mason asks.
“Oh, yes,” Garavaglia assures him.
“Did you not notice that the duct tape in [the] two photographs was in substantially different positions?” Mason asks.
“No, I didn’t notice that…I’ve looked at many photographs at the scene. I didn’t notice that it was appreciably different.”

-Swetha Iyengar, In Session Associate Producer
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Dispute Over How Caylee Died Grows   Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:18 pm

Dispute Over How Caylee Died Grows


Experts Disagree Over Whether Death Was Homicide


POSTED: 4:59 pm EDT March 15, 2011
UPDATED: 5:31 pm EDT March 15, 2011


ORLANDO, Fla. -- When Casey Anthony's murder trial begins in May, both sides in the case will try to paint a different picture as to how exactly Anthony's daughter died.

Caylee Anthony's body was found dumped in the woods off of Suburban Drive in December 2008.


Prosecutors claim Caylee was murdered, but an expert for Anthony's defense team paints a very different picture, which could leave room for reasonable doubt.


Veteran attorney and prosecutor Jeff Deen told WESH 2 News the jury could believe either side, based on the evidence that is presented in court. If jurors find both opinions credible, it's a window for reasonable doubt, Deen said. Deen is not connected with the case.


In a report dated March 10, defense expert Dr. Warner Spitz said scientific evidence does not support a finding by Orange County Medial Examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia that Caylee's cause of death was homicide by undetermined means. Spitz performed a second autopsy on Caylee's remains.


"At the end of the day, that's a push back from the defendant because she's charged with first-degree murder," Deen said.


In the report, Spitz goes on to dispute each finding made by Garavaglia, who is known as Dr. G.

"When two qualified experts disagree on the same point that's reasonable doubt," said Deen.

In a newly filed deposition, Garavaglia agreed that there is no scientific evidence, but argued that it is well within her right to consider the circumstances of the duct tape near Caylee's mouth and the fact that the body was dumped.


"She's saying the child didn’t kill herself. That isn't how normal people die and how normal people are handled once they're dead," Deen said.


Deen said the defense tactic is very common in criminal cases. Early on, the state's case gets much of the attention, he said, and as the trial approaches, reports like the Spitz report surface, which make the defense strategy clearer.


The case heads back to court next Wednesday for three days of hearings. The hearings have to do with what scientific evidence will be allowed at the trial. WESH.com will stream the hearings live.


Jury selection in Anthony's murder trial is scheduled to begin May 9.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony: Are Dr. G's circumstances the right conclusion?   Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:23 pm

Casey Anthony: Are Dr. G’s circumstances the right conclusion?
Caylee and Casey Anthony, Dr. Jan Garavaglia, Orlando, WESH, WFTV, WKMG — posted by halboedeker on March, 15 2011 7:12 PM



Dr. Jan Garavaglia at a news conference earlier this month. Photo credit: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel
What’s the reaction to Dr. Werner Spitz’s view that Dr. Jan Garavaglia botched the autopsy of Caylee Anthony?

WESH-Channel 2’s Bob Kealing turned to veteran attorney Jeff Deen for analysis.
Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the death of daughter Caylee. Spitz is an expert working for the defense team.
Deen saw value in Spitz’s report, which attacks the Orange County medical examiner’s findings, for raising reasonable doubt. Deen’s interpretation of Spitz’s comments: “You’re saying homicide means another human being killed this child and you can’t say that.”
In a newly filed deposition, Garavaglia said she based her findings on the circumstances: The toddler was found with duct tape alongside a road.
“She’s right to do that but it doesn’t mean because she does it that it has any value,” Deen said.
Of course, the jury will decide what has value, as Kealing noted in his report.
WFTV-Channel 9 legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the defense is implying “that the body was placed there after Casey was in jail and that the duct tape was placed on Caylee after Casey was in jail.”
Spitz claims he found none of Caylee’s DNA on the duct tape that was supposed to be attached to her hair, WFTV anchor Vanessa Echols added.
On Monday, WKMG-Channel 6’s Tony Pipitone predicted a face-off between Garavaglia — TV’s Dr. G — and Spitz.
“He says Dr. G was wrong when she said the manner of death was homicide,” Pipitone said. “He says it’s undetermined. They agree there’s no scientific evidence that the death was at the hands of another, which is the definition of homicide.”
Pipitone noted that Spitz’s findings were just two pages long and they were turned in last week right before the deadline.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: "Well, by George!"   Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:52 pm

“Well, by George!”

Posted on March 12, 2011 by mainstreamfair


George Anthony Police Interview
Let’s hope the following are played at the trial
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
And for your info…..
With a great big thank you to Websleuths:
RAW INTERVIEW: George Anthony Questioned By Sheriff’s Office Investigators
Listen to George Anthony’s interview conducted at the Orange County Sheriff’s Office on July 24, 2008. (11/07/08)
Posted in Casey Anthony
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: "If I had a hammer"   Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:57 pm

“If I had a hammer”

Posted on March 12, 2011 by mainstreamfair


Cindy says, “Casey had to have had help, no matter what you think the scenario might be.”
In August of 2008, with Casey out on bail, Cindy grabs a hammer and a few ‘no trespassing’ signs. She then proceeds into her front yard, and conducts nothing short of a hammer wielding rant with the media.
She makes many interesting statements during this ten minute rampage, Cindy In Front Yard, August 2008, but the one I shall focus on is at about 7:35 minutes: Quote: “There’s a person that – that was suspect. With a car. All the criteria.” At about 7:50 minutes, she demands: “Why don’t you find out why there wasn’t an Amber alert?”
Now, I need to add here, that many are suggesting that we need to have sympathy for the Anthony’s. Okay. So, here we are just entering the last phase of August, 2008. Mrs. Anthony supposedly had no idea, not the slightest hint, as to her granddaughter’s whereabouts—for the last two months. Right? Alright. Why then, if you were extremely fraught with anxiety over your missing 34 month old granddaughter—why would you take a hammer and conduct an interview with the media?
At that very moment her granddaughter could have been being brutally molested by a sex offender; some maniac could have been burning her with a cigarette—was Mrs. Anthony showing any concerns of this nature? Nope. None. She was more interested in forcefully explaining to the media, that just because her daughter was a liar—it did not mean she was a murderer. (At about 7:18 of above link.)
However, I want to point out Mrs. Anthony on the witness stand on March 2, 2011. Cindy Anthony, 03/02/11. At about 13:08 minutes in, after swearing to tell the truth, she manages to insert into her testimony that law enforcement never issued at Amber alert for Caylee.
Why is this Amber alert so important to Mr. & Mrs. Anthony? Why after almost three full years are these grandparents still seething over the fact that law enforcement would not issue an Amber alert at their request? Well, I refer you back to the first video in August of 2008, where Cindy, in spite of her extreme distress over her missing granddaughter, manages to explain that all criteria for an Amber alert was met. A missing person, a suspect, and a car; she says. She has checked. (See at about 7:32 of ‘hammer’ video.)
Because, imho, if the Anthony’s had managed to convince law enforcement to issue an Amber alert for Caylee Marie Anthony, the facts of this case would have been greatly changed. All Casey Anthony’s statements regarding the ‘Zani nanny’ would have been thrown out. All of them—because the Amber alert would indicate that there was another suspect. Law enforcement, of course, would not play—so, the Anthony’s, to this day, seethe.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Oh Brother!!!   Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:59 pm

Oh Brother!!

Posted on March 15, 2011 by mainstreamfair






Original Police Interview-Lee-Part 1of 9
Lee-Part 2 of 9
Lee-Part 3 of 9
Lee-Part 4 of 9
Lee-Part 5 of 9
Lee-Part 6 of 9
Lee-Part 7 of 9
Lee-Part 8 of 9
Lee-Part 9 of 9
Feb 27th, 2009 Lee Anthony Deposition- testifies in civil case Zenaida Gonzales vs Casey Anthony
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part Eight
Part Nine
Part Ten
Part Eleven
Part Twelve
Part Thirteen
Part Fourteen
Part Fifteen
Part Sixteen
Part Seventeen
Part Eighteen
Posted in Casey Anthony
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Breaking news!!!! Bombshell future transcript   Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:04 am

breaking news! bombshell future transcript!


Just yesterday we got wind of how the defense team, in the case against Casey Anthony, is going to position its theory regarding how Caylee Marie Anthony died.
In short, the defense is flat out denying Caylee’s death was a homicide.
It’s true.
We saw the report of a defense medical examiner who will testify that there was no scientific evidence that Caylee died at the hands of another.
Many of us are troubled by this. It’s nonsensical and maddening, to say the least. However, here’s the good news! I was able to steal obtain part of the transcript from Dr. Wacklo Pits’ upcoming trial testimony! Thank goodness, I was able to grab this transcript from the future because Dr. Wacklo P. seems pretty lame when the State has it’s turn to cross examine. Not such a formidable witness!
Here is the testimony of the good doctor, as seen in the future:
State: Dr. Pits, you wrote there was no scientific proof that Caylee died at the hands of another, right?”
Pits: Uh, that’s what I, uh, wrote. Yes.
State: Explain to the jury then, Dr. Tips, how did Caylee end up in a garbage bag, duct-taped, and tossed like trash in the woods?
Pits: Uh, my name is Dr. Pits. I will explain to the jury that I wouldn’t have an answer to that. There is no scientific proof that anyone’s hands were on that child to cause her death.
State: Dr. Peps, are you telling this jury that you cannot determine if Caylee died at the hands of another?
Pits: Yes. You see, there is no scientific proof that anyone’s hands were on that child to cause her death. And it’s Pits.
State: Dr. Spits, you would agree, would you not, that someone’s hands put the child in a bag, with duct tape attached to her mouth and nose area?
Pits: It’s Pits. And, no. I would not agree with that. As I said before, there is no scientific proof that the child died at the hands of another.
State: Dr. Stips, did the child put herself in the bag?
Pits: Ah. Pits. No. I would have to conclude no, she did not. There is no scientific evidence that the child died by her own hands.
State: Therefore, Dr. Step, if there were no hands involved, are you saying the child died naturally?
Pits: It’s Pits. And, possibly, but there is no scientific ev….
State: …idence that the child died naturally! Yes, you keep saying that, Dr. Pops!
Pits: Precisely. Then you agree.
State: NO!
Pits: Pits.
State: (angry) If it were your child wouldn’t you conclude some set of hands killed her? Are you a freaking father Dr. Pepper?
Baez: Objection! Relevance
Judge: State’s reply?
State: I know! It’s Pits. I’ll restate Judge.
Judge: Proceed.
State: You arrogant, self-centered monster, are you saying someone with no hands bagged this child and tossed her in the woods?
Pits: There is no scientific….
State: SHUT UP!
Baez: OBJECTION! CONTEMPT CHARGES NOW, JUDGE!
Judge: Over ruled.
State: You’re making me mad, Dr. Spite.
Pits: It’s Dr. Sips, I mean, it’s Dr. Spit, er, Stips, I MEAN, my NAME is Dr. Pist!!!
State: That’s what I thought, thank you.
Pits: NO! (crying) I mean….!!!
State: No further questions for Dr. Pist your honor.
Pits: (really sobbing now) My (sob) name (sob) is (sob) NOT PIST!
Judge: Redirect Mr. Bozo?
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Heated arguments, insults hurled in Case against Casey   Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:12 am

Heated arguments, insults hurled in Case against Casey


Defense attorneys J. Cheney Mason (left) and Jose Baez with Casey Anthony at a hearing with Judge Belvin Perry.
By Adam Longo, Reporter
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:59 PM


CASE AGAINST CASEY



Transcript of arguments during deposition

Latest Headlines

Key Players

Casey Anthony Case Timeline



ORLANDO --
Heated arguments and personal insults were flying in the Case against Casey.
News 13 uncovered arguments between attorneys that happened during a deposition -- and it was all on the record.
It happened in front of the court reporter and the expert witness.
One exchange happened as a deposition was wrapping up with one of the state's expert witnesses.
The 40 minute Q&A session went like most of the others, uneventful, until the very end.
Assistant State Attorney Linda Drain-Burdick: Either he has questions or he doesn't.
Judge Belvin Perry: Please refresh your memory of the decorum rules.
The attorneys on both sides of the Casey Anthony case were called out by Perry at the most recent court hearing.
The sniping between both sides is nothing new, and the judge took a firm tone in this hearing.
Perry: I'm just going to tell you now, I will not do it.
But in September, both sides traveled to Gainesville to take the deposition of University of Florida scientist Dr. James Jawitz.
The deposition was uneventful until the very end when something set off Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton.
Whatever did happen, we don't know what it was. The court reporter doesn't make reference to it.
Things started to spiral out of control when Ashton says to defense attorney Cheney Mason, "Do you have something to say? I would appreciate it if you would keep your comments, thoughts, feelings to yourself because it is extremely disrespectful of me as a lawyer what you just did."
There was more back and forth and Baez asks Ashton why he is raising his voice.
Baez: Why must you scream in front of everyone, including the witness, who...
Ashton: Because you keep talking over me.
Baez: No one is talking over you. You just screamed. You screamed like a little girl.
Perry: You are all seasoned attorneys and I will not have the back and forth.
The judge clearly illustrated he won't tolerate that happening in his courtroom. Again, though, this deposition was five months ago.
Baez: Sometimes a lawyers' advocacy takes over for his professional judgement.
And this hearing was less than two weeks ago, when Baez tried to clear the air with his counterpart.
Baez: I apologize directly to Mr. Ashton for any personal attacks, personal or private.
And at the end of the Jawitz deposition, Baez said, "I apologize to you for this display of behavior."
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 106248
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Judge: Witnesses can't suggest Casey is a Liar   Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 am

Judge: Witnesses can't suggest Casey is a liar



Updated: Monday, 14 Mar 2011, 10:58 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 14 Mar 2011, 10:58 PM EDT


ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - A judge in the Casey Anthony murder trial on Monday issued rulings on some motions which were argued in court earlier this month.

Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. ruled that witnesses will not be allowed to give their opinion on Anthony's guilt or innocence, and they can not say or suggest that Casey is a liar. In addition, the judge will not allow testimony regarding accusations that staff at the Orange County Sheriff's Office purposely moved Anthony to a room where cameras recorded her reaction to news that her daughter's body was found. That tape will not be played in court.

Anthony, 24, is charged with first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. She has pleaded not guilty, claiming a babysitter kidnapped her toddler. Caylee was last seen in June of 2008, but she was not reported missing until a month later. Her remains were found in woods near the family's home in December 2008. Anthony's death penalty trial starts in May.
Complete Casey Anthony coverage on MyFoxOrlando.com >>>

SIGN UP FOR ANTHONY TEXTS ALERTS >>>
Letters to Casey from parents, family, Set One >>>
Letters to Casey from parents, family, Set Two >>>
Letters to Casey from strangers, Set One >>>
Letters to Casey from strangers, Set Two >>>
Letters to Casey from strangers, Set Three>>>
Letters to Casey from strangers, Set Four >>>
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: CASEY ANTHONY ~ MARCH ~ 2011   

Back to top Go down
 
CASEY ANTHONY ~ MARCH ~ 2011
Back to top 
Page 5 of 11Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Casey Anthony Trial Day 10: FBI agent Karen Lowe Testifies about Death Band Hair
» Casey Anthony verdict shocks Central Florida
» casey anthony is now free
» Casey Anthony defense team files expert witness list
» POLL - Would You Buy Casey Anthony's Book? Please Vote

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
LOVE AND PROTECT ALL CHILDREN :: CASEY ANTHONY-
Jump to: