Casey Anthony: Mom's 911 Calls To Come In At Trial

The hearing on July 15, lasted nearly four hours and, while it may not have produced fireworks, it provided an excellent preview of what we will see at trial in May, 2011. The hearing ended with all issues resolved and the issues which would have been covered in a status hearing July 20 were all discussed. Right now, one less hearing is a good thing!

TES DOCUMENTS

As the hearing opened, Judge Belvin Perry announced that the TES issue would be heard first. He stated that he had read all the motions and responses and was prepared to have Mr. Baez speak to the issue for five minutes to and then Mr. NeJame would have five minutes. It was obvious that the judge had just cut off what could be an extremely contentious and time-consuming confrontation at the pass!

With this statement Jose Baez requested a sidebar with NeJame and the State. It was lengthy discussion. When all parties returned to their places, Judge Perry stated that Mr. Baez was going to withdraw his motion and Mr. NeJame will file a motion dealing with bad faith. As for the judge himself, Perry stated that he would be entering an order that the defense could inspect the documents again and take notes. He said he would also appoint a special magistrate to supervise the process. He will also tab any documents to be copied and brought to the judge for consideration.

Mr. NeJame will be filing his bad faith motion by Thursday of next week.

For now, we will have to wait for the judge's orders to know if there are any specific details as to what sort of notes the defense can take. As for Mr. NeJame's motion, I am sure we will all be waiting to see what comes of it. As with any negotiated deal, it is probable that neither side is totally happy, but can live with the results.

The 911 Calls

The Anthony family attorney, Brad Conway had stated in earlier interviews that Cindy Anthony would tell the truth, and she did, when it came to the 911 calls she made.

Cindy Anthony was called to the stand by Jose Baez.

At that point, Lee Anthony was asked to leave the courtroom for the time his mother was on the stand. (My friend, Sedonia Sunset said, Jeez, Lee couldn't even be bothered to put on a decent shirt!
Sprocket even pointed out that, Mr. Sprocket went to court, He AT LEAST put on a white shirt and a jacket.)

Another witness for the defense, Deborah Polisano, had yet to arrive at the courthouse.

Once Lee left the courtroom, Baez led Cindy Anthony through the events of July 15, 2008. He began with the retrieval of the car from the Johnson Wrecker Service yard and ended with the making the third 911 call. He asked may questions to try and have Cindy tell him the precise time when her husband told her that the car smelled like a dead body. The best Cindy could do was say it was prior to 3 PM that day. Baez made it a point to have Cindy indicate that, after putting the smelly pants in the laundry she had gone back to work. George, just starting a new job, had left earlier.

When Baez asked Cindy if she mentioned the odor in the car to any of her co-workers, she couldn't remember exactly what she had said. Cindy also stated at this point that she didn't think there was any special reason to not go back to work!

In his further attempts to show that the final call was not an excited utterance, Baez made sure that Cindy testified that they did not call the police from the tow yard or when they got home, to make it seem that they did not think the situation was an emergency. He also elicited from Cindy that after she returned from work, she had been exposed to the smell as she went about walking the dogs, taking items out of the car and the pants from the dryer. (Mind you, she had said she was only in the garage for five minutes putting the pants in the laundry before she went to work! Quick wash cycle!)

When Baez questioned her about the call she made to Amy Huizenga, Baez asked if she mentioned the smell in the car and Cindy said she couldn't remember.

When asked if she had any discussion with Amy in the car on the way to pick up Amy, she said that she didn't quite remember the nature of the discussion.

When it comes trial time, I'm sure Amy will fill in those blanks and many more. Cindy told her many things, most not positive for Casey. (AMY HUIZENGA INTERVIEW) Cindy also made a point of pointing out how easily Amy found Tony's apartment and that she only allowed Casey to take her shoes with her. She also claimed she never stepped into the apartment. Well, that will be dealt with at trial time.

From that point in her testimony, Cindy went on to give a detailed account of her time with Casey up until the third 911 call.

Among other things, Baez brought out that she was smelling the car for the third time, and that she never discussed the car with Casey. He asked about the fact that George told her there had been a bag of garbage which tow yard manager had thrown away. (Wait, didn't George already tell her it smelled like a dead body before 3 PM?)

At that point, Lee had arrived and Cindy decided to let him talk to her before calling 911 for the second time. Baez asked if she'd said she wanted Casey arrested and had also reported Caylee missing. Cindy agreed. (The fact is, in that call, Cindy referred to a "possibly missing child".) Baez then led Cindy to state that she became increasingly frustrated that the police didn't arrive quickly enough and Cindy agreed. (Baez is attempting to make it sound like the third call was an act to get the police to the house more quickly.)

Cindy stated that she paced back and forth from the house to the street, smelling the car each time.

Some time later, when she returned to the house, Cindy said she heard Casey say she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. SHE WAS IN SHOCK, SHE COULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT SHE WAS HEARING! She was hysterical at that point. (This doesn't help Baez at all!)

She made the infamous third 911 call.

It is the first time the police learn that Caylee is truly "missing".

CA: (Crying.) I called a little bit ago. The Deputy Sheriff’s not here. I found out my granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her, her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing.

After showing Cindy a transcript of the call, Baez asked if she made the statement:

There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.

Cindy answered in the affirmative and then testified that didn't know why she made the statement. When asked if her statement on Good Morning America was true, she answered that it was "essentially" true, that the call wasn't premeditated.

When asked, if it was her husband George who told her the car smelled like a dead body, Cindy stated:

He told me that that was his first thought.

Again, we will have to wait for George to take the stand at trial to explain why he told LE in various interviews and his deposition, that he knew what the smell was and that it was that of decomposition.

As the direct examination came to an end, the discussion of familiarity with the smell of decomposition. Cindy stated that she had never smelled human decomposition in the trunk of a car.

Baez then led her through the facts of her experience with decomposition odor in the morgue during her nursing rotation there. She also mentioned she had smelled "rotting flesh" in the hospital.

Hello! I've only smelled the odor second-hand. Someone I knew was cleaning possessions out of the home of someone who had died two months before being found. She would come home at night reeking of that most unique odor. It was in her clothing and her hair. She barely noticed it because she had been in an environment reeking of that pungent odor all day. There's a good reason rooms in funeral homes are under-heated and the scent of flowers is overpowering. Even with that, there is the undertone of that very same odor. Slight odor in the morgue, but the same odor as in the trunk of the car.

Linda Drane Burdick then began her cross examination of Cindy. (Sprocket and Kitty Malone were saying, "CROSS! Go get her!" and "Go Linda, GO!" They are big fans of lead prosecution attorney.)

Bill Sheaffer gave an interview for WFTV. In it, he had a wonderful description of the differing approaches. According to him, Baez used a saber and Linda Drane Burdick used a scalpel with finesse. He believed that Jose did a "good job" but Linda Drane Burdick did an "excellent job".

Drane Burdick asked Cindy a series of short-answer questions. She elicited from Cindy that at the time that she retrieved the car, she had not seen her daughter, granddaughter for 32 days, counting back to the 15th of June. On July 15, it was Cindy's impression that Casey and Caylee were together. Cindy agreed that prior to going to the tow yard, she had called Casey to tell her she found her car. When she had spoken with Casey, she had not yet smelled the car. Cindy agreed that George had told her that he had told the tow truck operator he hoped it wasn't daughter or granddaughter in the trunk much later, although she cannot remember when.

The questioning then went to what happened when she got home. Cindy stated that she only spent five minutes in the garage with the car after George went back to work.

Drane Burdick then reminded Cindy of her testimony about her experience with dead bodies at the end of Baez' questioning. Cindy agreed that when she made the third 911 call, the words she used to describe the smell was a "dead body".

There was then an extensive series of questions concerning her experience with the odor of dead bodies. Cindy then stated that it was only in the morgue. Drane Burdick reminded Cindy of discussions that she had had with LE at various times and had told them that she was acquainted with that odor, including from rotting flesh caused by an infection (pseudomonas). Cindy had told LE that it had taken days for the odor to clear from the air vents. In the end, Cindy admits it had a unique smell.

Fortunately, the Assistant State's Attorney has all the pertinent documents at the ready to refresh Mrs. Anthony's memory.

I had been to busy typing to notice this, but Sedonia Sunset mentioned that. "Jose is really working his jaw over LDB having Cindy refresh her memory as to what she said in a deposition." Kitty Malone thought that "Cheney and Baez look very, VERY, perturbed!" Sprocket said, "Look at Baez tapping his fingers nervously!"

There is an interesting back and forth next. Drane Burdick asked Cindy if she had said in her deposition last year that George did not tell her until later that it was his opinion that the trunk smelled like a dead body. Cindy waffled over the context, saying that she knew it wasn't immediately (at the tow yard). Drane Burdick showed Cindy a copy of the 2009 deposition to refresh her memory. Apparently, Cindy had used the word "pungent". She had also been asked if George had told her his opinion of the odor when they were first in the garage, and Cindy answered, "no".

Drane Burdick then gently led Cindy through the time line of the events and the odor in the car. When Cindy first smelled the odor in the tow yard, she did not know that Casey wasn't with Caylee. In addition, since they had not discussed the odor of the car prior to George's leaving for work, she had not heard his opinion until AFTER she had made the third 911 call as she had had no contact with George after he left for work!

BINGO!, that's the scalpel there. It's pure logic. If she and George didn't discuss the nature of the odor, Cindy would have had to make that connection herself!

During this, and other portions of her mother's testimony, Casey was write furiously and passing notes to her attorneys. Never once did she acknowledge her mother with even the smallest of smiles.

Drane Burdick then outlined the time from the the call to Amy Huizenga until the first 911 call. When she found Casey at Tony Lazzaro's apartment, Caylee wasn't with her and Casey explained she was with the nanny, Zanny. At that point, Cindy still did not know what had happened until the third 911 call. Therefore, until then, there was no reason for Cindy to connect the odor in the car with Caylee.

She then asked if Casey had been "stonewalling" her and that she then decided to get the police involved to help her get Casey to take her to her daughter. Casey heard the first call and could hear what she was saying. The first call was made at 8:09 PM. When asked if she had stated she had a "grand theft" sitting with her in the car, Cindy said that she had asked Casey to bring the car home two weeks prior. (I don't think I've ever read that.) Cindy claimed that that was where she "pulled that reference from". She did say that the theft of money was true. Due to jurisdictional issues, Cindy decided it would be "stupid" to wait on the side of the road. Drane Burdick asked it would have been more comfortable to wait at home in a non-emergency situation and Cindy agreed.

Drane Burdick then went on to the second call. It had been delayed by the arrival of Lee. Cindy gave him time to try and get information out of his sister. When Lee was not able to get Casey to tell the truth, she decided to make another call. Cindy did not remember exactly where she was in the house w hen she made that call.

Cindy then agreed when Drane Burdick said that she had no idea that Caylee was somewhere where Casey couldn't get to her. The only emergency at the time was a dispute with her daughter. Cindy said "a possible missing child". Cindy did not mean missing as in taken or kidnapped, it meant not at the home. Cindy agreed that this was not an emergency, that she needed law enforcement at the house to help find where Caylee was.

(I got goose bumps here as I saw Linda Drane Burdick deftly lead Cindy through not only the events of the evening, but the emotions and motivation behind each call.)

This second call was made at 8:44 PM, 45 minutes after the original call.

Cindy then testified about the last call, which took place at 9:41 PM. She said that she overheard Casey tell Lee that she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. Drane Burdick indicated that it came as a shock to her. Cindy agreed and added that, "she was crying". (Cindy seemed to go for some sympathy for her daughter here.) She also got Cindy to agree that she was panicked, couldn't think, and didn't know what to do. She realized that nobody could get Caylee for her that night.

Kitty Malone said, "I just had a brief moment of sympathy for Cindy. Jeez. Linda is getting to the nitty-gritty and it appears that Cindy is about to break down."

Drane Burdick added that Cindy was angry or frustrated because law enforcement was taking their time to get to the house, at that point she was devastated, that the only people who could now help were the police. Cindy again agreed with her. The problem now was not just a family emergency, but a true emergency.

During this time, the defense is passing notes and conferring, this is not following their agenda.
Cindy agreed that she was angry with her daughter and was yelling, trying to get answers from Casey in a "machine-gun" approach asking her questions over and over. Cindy says, however that she doesn't remember what she said, that she was just "upset". Drane Burdick replaced "upset" with "panicked" and Cindy agreed.

Drane Burdick again asked Cindy if the problem wasn't that the police hadn't arrived yet, but that she needed them now! Cindy buffered this by pointing out that it had seemed like over an hour since she had last called. Cindy admitted it was shocking news, her gut instinct.

Casey is writing furiously again.

Drane Burdick passed out copies of the third call and asked that it be added into evidence for the purpose of the hearing. Although she didn't remember where she made the call from, she did remember handing the phone to Casey in her room.

The next line of questioning went to the connection Cindy may have made between the smell in the car and Caylee. Cindy made an unusual statement about this... "if that's where my mind went to, yes..." She further said that she didn't understand how the mind worked when "you're" under stress. She said she couldn't analyze it. She added, "I said whatever I said".

Here, she is trying to waffle about the connection she obviously made in her mind and transmitted to the police by directly saying these two lines in sequence:

There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.

She hints here at an UNCONSCIOUS CONNECTION made by her mind without her realizing it.

Miss Kitty, "Holy Cow! Casey's eyes are DARTING all over the place during this line of questioning (the smell of the car and Cindy connecting it to Caylee being missing)."

In order to help Cindy remember what she thought at the time, Drane Burdick reminded Cindy of the interview with Scott Bolin on July 30, 2008. After refreshing her memory, Cindy said that she had said whatever she needed to say (to the 911 dispatcher). In that statement, Cindy made a clear connection between Caylee being missing and the car. Cindy told her that she had read the documents and that there were pieces missing! (Blame it on the FBI!)

Casey is again writing fast and furious, double underlining certain words.

After completing her questioning, there was a ten minute recess. When everyone returned to the courtroom, Baez began his questioning by stating that there were a "couple of things to clear up, there is a little bit of confusion".

First, Baez asked Cindy about the conversations she had with co-workers. He asked if during the conversation she had told co-workers that George told her it smelled like a dead body.
Cindy stated that she couldn't remember when George told her that. Baez then went on to ask her if when she said "later", it wasn't after July 15. Cindy answered, "no".

Next, he tried to soften her testimony on cross concerning her experience with the smell of decomposition. He asked her if, after smelling the car, she still believed Caylee was alive. Baez pointed out that at that time, she made statements to that effect. He also asked her if she believed that law enforcement believed Caylee was dead. He then asked her if she meant that, by telling them that she knew the smell of death, the smell in the car was different. Cindy answered with a firm, "yes, I guess".

Compare that weak statement with, "I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car." Which sounds stronger to you?

Baez then reminded Cindy that she wanted law enforcement to search for a live Caylee. Then, Cindy made this astounding statement:

I, I, I, still think Caylee is alive!

Baez next gets Cindy to say that she never lied to or tried to mislead law enforcement (she added the qualifier, "if I remember..."). He then asks if when she told them that this smell was different to that of her experience, she was being truthful.

The next portion of Cindy's testimony had her now backing off the identity of the smell. She indicated that since then, she had smelled other things in the car that smelled similarly.
(Were I on the jury, that answer would confuse me terribly. What in the world would Cindy, who is a clean-freak, have allowed to something to sit and rot in her car?)

Baez then reminded her of her July 29, 2009 deposition with Ms. Drane Burdick and reminded her of the statement that she had made there that she had made the infamous statement to get the police to her house faster. Baez then showed her a transcript. Cindy agreed that she had been maintaining that all along.

The interesting thing here is that both what she said to Linda Drane Burdick and Jose Baez were both true. She said those lines to get the police out there, but, according to what she said earlier, she could have subconsciously made the connection.

Baez then reminded Cindy of the items that belonged to Caylee that were in the car. He asked if those items of hers being there and Caylee NOT being there was what she meant when she made the call. Cindy said that it was "more so related to the items in the car".

Ok, then why didn't she tell the 911 dispatcher that the child's belonging were in the car and the child wasn't there? Why mention the odor and not the belongings?

I have editorialized quite a bit here. After following the case since July 16, 2008 and reading so many interviews, I do have some strong opinions! One element of Cindy's testimony which gave me a very hard time was the fact that she almost always agreed with both the defense and the prosecution, making it difficult to figure out what was going on. My friends all agreed with me on that.

At that point, Baez completed his cross examination and she left the stand. As Deborah Polisano had not arrived, the State put Lee Anthony on the stand.

Lee Anthony came to the stand and, as Linda Drane Burdick was asking him his name, he mouthed "I love you" to Casey who seemed to cry at the attention from her brother.

As he testified, Lee's demeanor was the same as we have seen in his Morgan&Morgan deposition. He has a tendency to ramble on and laugh at times, perhaps out of nervousness.

Lee testified that he had been asked to go to the house by his father. He met Casey and Cindy in driveway. He said "hi" to Casey and she cried. He said that at that time, he did not smell the car. He was at the house with Cindy and Casey for about two hours before law enforcement arrived.

Cindy and Casey were arguing about Caylee's location. Cindy was frustrated and asked him to talk to his sister, although she did not tell him what the problem was. He tried to reason with his mother and take her to Caylee. He was only aware of the two phone calls at the house at that time. He was not in the room with Casey the entire time. He said he was in the living room when Cindy came out and said she was going to call the police. He said that Cindy went either to the garage or her bedroom and he did not hear the initial call from the home. Casey was still in her room sitting on her bed. He then went back to Casey's room at that point to say that nothing she was saying wasn't making sense.

He engaged in role-playing with Casey as to what she would tell the police when they came to the house. Lee told her if she didn't tell mother where Caylee was, she would have to tell the police. It was during this role-playing that Casey broke down and told him she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. Lee said he was "dumbfounded" at the revelation. He said that Cindy then came into the room and said, "What's going on?" and Casey said she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. His mother's reaction was "a little different". She got very angry, clenched her fist and hit the bed and said, "What did you do? We could have found her 31 days ago".

Lee testified that he didn't hear the last 911 call Cindy made until months later.

Drane Burdick then referred to Lee's deposition on July 30, 2009, p. 126, line 23. She quotes Lee as having said that Cindy was in the living room and he heard the call in the background. He indicated he heard it and Casey also could have and that Cindy was very, very frantic.

With this information, Drane Burdick completed her examination.

Cheney Mason then got up and conducted a somewhat bizarre cross examination. He first asked Lee about what George said to him about the situation in the home when he called. Lee responded that George only told him that his mother needed him. Then, Mason asked if it was obvious that his parents had been talking. Lee replied that George had merely told him it was a "long story, but your mom needs you".

He then made mention of had his parents been talking when he got to the house. Lee pointed out that there was nobody home when he arrived.

I got a bit confused here. Did Mason think both Cindy and George were in the home when Lee arrived?

He then asked if there was any "screaming or running around" when he arrived.

Lee again replied that no one was at the house when he arrived.

Mason then asked how long he was there before he heard the first mention of calling the police? Lee responded that it was about an hour. Mason then asked "Who talked about calling the police first?". Lee said it was his mom and that she was the only one focused on that. When asked. The next question was quite complicated and Lee couldn't answer.

Mason apparently wanted Lee to say what combination of people had discussed calling the police.

Lee then said he went to Casey's room to discuss what she would say should the police come. Lee then went back over the discovery that Caylee was missing and how, once Casey said he was missing, he became sort of a bystander.

They then went through the progression of the 911 calls and again, it was a bit confusing. For some reason I don't think Mr. Mason had a complete scenario of the events of the evening clear in his head. I couldn't quite figure out what call was being referred to and became even more confused when Mason discussed if Lee had talked to George about them. Lee again pointed out that George wasn't in the home when the calls were made.

Mason elicits that during his time at the house, he had time for private conversation with his sister. The only "interruption" they had was during the 911 call, which he and his sister did not focus on.

And that was it! Linda Drane Burdick asked no further questions.

The final witness of the hearing was Deborah Polisano, Cindy Anthony's supervisor at Gentiva.

In answering Cheney Mason's questions, Polisano testified that when Cindy got the phone call from her husband, she was in her office, she told Cindy she needed to go home and pick up the car. Cindy came back to work in an hour or so and they had a conversation then. Cindy had told her about the car being in the impound lot and that she couldn't get a hold of Casey. She indicated that Caylee's car seat, backpack, and doll were in the car. She also said there was a terrible odor in the car. When Polisano asked if they had opened the trunk, Cindy didn't answer, but said it smelled like a dead body in the car. Cindy also indicated that she and George were both aware of the odor, but stressed that they both knew that. Polisano told her to go home because she was so upset.

Polisano did not remember what time Cindy left the office. Mason tried to get her to pinpoint the time, but she couldn't remember. She also told Cindy she should call the police.

After a brief pause, Mason asked if she had had to "exercise persuasion" to get Cindy to go home. Polisano then asked him to rephrase the question and he came back with the same question. She said she had to get her supervisor to tell her to go home.

Linda Drane Burdick asked no questions.

Each side made their closing arguments. Mason spoke for the defense. They essentially reiterated the information in their motions and responses. Mason did mention Hutcheson that the tapes were heresay and tapes can't be cross examined. He wanted sections redacted, including the theft and Casey's comments. He also made some very gross references which made me ill.

Linda Drane Burdick brought up the fact that Hutcheson had been overturned. Cindy Anthony will be able to testify at the trial. She also made a strong argument for Cindy Anthony's status as a person who knew the odor of a dead body.

At this point, Judge Perry had another ten minute break and then came back with his decision. Siting extensive case law, Perry allowed all the tapes in. Specifically the third call was admitted as an excited utterance.

Motion to Seal Evidence Lists

When the discussion of this motion began, Judge Perry brought up "work product" and, having no motion filed in opposition, he granted the motion.

With the agenda of the hearing complete, the judge then asked if both parties would be willing to continue on and have the Status Hearing scheduled for July 20. They all agreed and continued on.

The links to the live streams kept dropping left and right. It was hard to follow and I, already totally exhausted from the events, decided to wait for the video to e posted. I will be writing another article about that portion when I am rested and have had a chance to view the entire proceedings. Hang in there!

References:

Raw Hearing

Part 1 TES
Part 2 Cindy Anthony
Part 3 Cindy Anthony
Part 4 Cindy Anthony
Part 5 Cindy Anthony/Lee Anthony
Part 6 Lee Anthony/Deborah Polisano/Mason summation
Part 7 LDB summation/Perry ruling on 911 tapes

Part 8 Perry Ruling on 911 tapes (cont'd)/Motion to Seal Evidence Lists/Status Hearing
Part 9 Status Hearing

The Hinky Meter Searchable Database

Casey Anthony Pleads Guilty To Check Fraud

When Casey Anthony was escorted to the courtroom during the hearing on January 25, noticeably absent was the jingle-jangle sound of her shackles which usually accompany such appearances. Anthony, dressed in a freshly pressed, light blue shirt and gray pants, walked in with a smile for her attorneys.

According to Jose Baez, in an interview with Jane Velez-Mitchell on HLN later in the evening, Casey was going to get her wish. Baez told Velez-Mitchell that

Well, she always wanted to plead to this case. It was always a concern of hers. She was always very sorry for what she did to Amy.

I have to wonder if that is truly the case here. The fact is, Casey waited for well over a year to reach that point. In the meantime, her defense had filed a number of motions in the fraud trial. There was a motion for change of venue, to submit prospective jurors to an extensive questionnaire, and individually sequestered voir dire. There were other motions for other various and sundry exclusions from the trial, including barring the admission of evidence relevant to the murder trial and evidence of Casey's prior bad acts. Now, those motions go into the "major waste of paper" section of my stack of motions for the case, never to see light of day again.

The hearing began with Casey's plea to the Court. Casey, accompanied by her attorneys, Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon, came to the podium. Baez spoke first, stating that his client would be entering a plea to the Court in the check fraud case. Judge Strickland then looked over the plea form. Casey was sworn in and asked the usual questions prior to entering her plea.

At this point, I noticed that her yes/no responses were very short and clipped, almost choked off at the end. This morning, I found one of my favorite sources for body language, Lillian Glass. Her article on the hearing is very interesting and, in many ways, reaffirmed my own reaction to the proceedings. Her article is a must-read!

After questioning Casey, Assistant State's Attorney Frank George briefly presented the basic facts of the case, including each check, its number and amount, and place where it was cashed.

Jose Baez stipulated to the facts as cited by Mr. George.

The judge then told Casey that she seemed alert and intelligent and that he would accept her plea.

Judge Strickland then asked Jose Baez to speak to what sentencing he would expect. Instead of simply stating that he wished to have all charges not be adjudicated and his client sentenced to one year's probation, he went into quite a diatribe against the State.

He went on, in his faltering manner, to state that he felt that Casey had been discriminated against because she was "unpopular". He even listed "unpopular" as a type of discrimination way up there with race and gender. He also said that the State could not find, even if they did extensive searches through the entire public records, where a first-time offender, such as Casey, would only be offered an unacceptable five year sentence. He also carped on the fact that his client had been over-charged and that the five years offered by the State was not "fair". He likened the situation to being in "a muck of justice".

Personally, I think his comments were all "in a muck" and very painful to listen to. He ended asking the judge to see that Casey receive "equal justice under the law as is written above you"and to not adjudicate any of the charges and impose parole of "about" a year. As a closing, Baez reminded Strickland that Casey had no prior record and had made full restitution. Lastly, he objected to the costs that the State was asking for. Baez stated that the $5,517.75 cost of investigation was excessive considering that the theft was only $600.54. He mentioned again the "armada" of police cars sent to arrest Casey.

Judge Strickland indicated that he had to impose the costs and that they could be argued over later.

If you remember, at the December 11 hearing, Judge Strickland had given Baez & Company an ultimatum: January 25 was THE date for either a jury trial, a bench trial, or a plea. The judge had also indicated clearly to Baez what his decision would probably be for any first-time offender in Casey's situation. While the judge was not in a position to broker a deal with Casey, he made it very clear (wink-wink) that she would probably get time served and that while she would be found guilty of all 13 counts, her punishment would not reflect 13 felonies. In a sense, Baez was "speaking to the choir" here with his back against the wall in terms of ending the case.

I can only assume that this speech by Baez was mainly to attack the State's Attorneys and do some gratuitous grandstanding. I have to wonder if this was a wise decision, considering the much more serious trial to come.

Mr. George briefly responded and indicated that he didn't know how long Mr. Baez had practiced law in Orange and Osceola Counties, but that the charging situation was not uncommon. In fact, Judge Strickland had made the exact same comment at the December 11 hearing. George stated that he did not want to get into a competition of words and simply indicated that Casey had plead guilty to all 13 counts and that punishment would be the Court's decision. He also stated that that she had already been incarcerated for over a year-and-a-half and that the actual cost of the restitution that had been paid was $654.25. George continued by stating that the State would object to adjudication and parole and would prefer adjudication and a straight jail sentence.

George then brought up a prickly situation that exists. It would not be possible for her to be put on probation as she is incarcerated and already under 24 hour supervision. Casey would still be incarcerated for the foreseeable future and possibly for the rest of her life.

Upon saying that, the camera went to the podium and Casey's face tensed and she gave a big gulp. I am sure she wasn't comfortable hearing this from Mr. George.

Baez responded briefly, telling Judge Strickland that the State was "putting the cart before the horse" in assuming that Casey would spend the rest of her life in jail. He said that they were working hard to acquit Casey and it was "bold" of the State to make such assumptions.

It was then Judge Strickland's time to render justice. He ended up adjudicating Casey on 6 charges, one each for the writing of the four checks, one for one of four counts of using Amy Huizenga's identity, and one for grand theft, as the total was over $300. Each charge was given time served, 412 days (as the judge had hinted at the prior hearing). He did not adjudicate on the remaining 7 charges and sentenced Casey to one year of probation. She is not to have any contact with Huizenga. Strickland stated that “I withheld in seven. I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is. I just couldn’t think of a better, more appropriate way to do it.”

Almost as an afterthought, it was mentioned that Amy Huizenga was not present in court and did not wish to make a statement. Then, it was Casey's turn to make a brief apology to her friend.

“I just wanted to let everyone know that I’m sorry for what I did. I take complete and full responsibility for my actions. And I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

In her blog this morning, Lillian Glass had this to say about that little speech:

As Casey was reciting her lines of bullshit, Jose Baez’s eyes did not leave Casey’s face. He looked like a proud papa at a grade school play, making sure that his kid didn’t flub her lines. Casey may have memorized her lines and not flubbed them verbally, but she sure flubbed them vocally and body language wise.

The probation situation is problematic. In order to be adjudicated, probation must be served and then the charges essentially "go away" for the most part. Since Casey is in jail already, probation, or public supervision is not possible at this point. It was suggested by Mr. George that she serve the probation in jail. Strickland pointed out that that particular remedy was difficult since he can only sentence a person to jail for up to one year. In the end, the probation issue and the financial issue were left for another time. Jose Baez cracked a not-so-funny joke: "We could solve this with a reasonable bond..." As Baez smirked at his own wit, nobody laughed.

When all was said and done, Casey Anthony ended up as a convicted felon. What this will mean for the future remains to be seen. Experts disagree and Baez didn't seem to mind about that. In an interview with reporters as he was leaving court, Baez stated that "adjudication didn't mean a "whole lot".

Once the plea was dealt with, the hearing returned to motions in the murder case.

The first motion discussed was the defense MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY. Kerley is the ex-wife of Roy Kronk who was interviewed by a defense PI and essentially said she thought Roy could have done it. She is ill with non-Hodgekins lymphoma and is unable to travel to Orlando due to her illness. Andrea Lyon indicated that they are working towards resolving the issues. She indicated that Linda Drane Burdick wants the opportunity to do an evidence deposition first. This was agreed to by both parties and interviews will take place based on Ms. Kerley's chemotherapy schedule. Ms. Burdick did not waive the right of the State to call the witness to the stand during the actual trial, health allowing.

Judge Strickland approved the motion.

The only concern Ms. Drane Burdick had was with the costs of traveling to the "mini-trial proceeding." While she was willing for the State to pay for the expenses to travel to Tennessee for the discovery process. Some time later in the hearing, Andrea Lyon made a brief comment that perhaps Casey could be declared indigent for these particular purposes. For now, financial discussions are premature and will be discussed when and if it is necessary.

In his interview after the hearing, Baez also commented on the "Kronk" situation. He stated that they are "not pointing the finger at Mr. Kronk" and they are not "making any disparaging remarks about Mr. Kronk". Baez claimed that he is only looking for material with which to impeach Kronk. He also called the police investigation into Kronk, "shoddy work". Any other information concerning Kronk would come out at trial.

This whole Kronk issue should be going on for quite a while. The Court hasn't even discussed the main motion, DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY M. KRONK. I have a feeling it will be another circus-within-a-circus.

The next motion that was discussed brought up some very lively discussion. Linda Drane Burdick stated that the purpose for the STATE OF FLORIDA'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY and MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SCHEDULE was to move the case along.

Judge Strickland started the discussion of the motion by indicating that he expected both sides to submit discovery schedules and that he would either make one of his own or choose one of the two submitted.

Drane Burdick indicated that no trial date could be set until the defence took depositions of witnesses. She said that the defense had filed a motion entitled OBJECTION which blamed the lack of progress on the State. She indicated understanding of the scientific information status, but stated that there were other, non-scientific aspects of the case on which they could move forward. She said that the defense has any number of LE and civilian witnesses they could depose. In addition, the defense has received 90% of the discovery in the case has already been turned over to the defense. While she was not casting blame on the defense, she felt that the court now needed to get involved in the discovery process. Finally, she said that, based on the current pace, that the trial would probably not be able to be scheduled for the summer. She was also concerned that, as the trial date approached, that the defense would "dump" 50 or 60 witnesses on them, forcing the trial even further back in time. Drane Burdick mentioned that the State would not like to see the trial take place 3, 4, or even 5 years after the incident.

Strickland mentioned that the main items asked for included names and addresses of witnesses. Drane-Burdick said that the defense had begun to supply them to her recently and that that particular issue was moot at this point.

Jose Baez spoke to the motion next. He began by saying that there was no disagreement among the parties. He said they wanted to see the case move along as well. However, he said that they were "not going to have the rug taken from under us" and that they were "gonna be thorough...". He then said that, "We call this motion the pot calling the kettle black".

Before Baez could continue with more of this sort of legal argument, Judge Strickland interrupted him to say, "let's not go there".

Baez then said, "How many times have we filed motions to compel...".

Strickland responded, "You're doing it again, anyway".

Strickland pointed out that he was aware that due to the "tough" nature of the case, people got hot under the collar. He essentially told Baez that this was not the time for finger-pointing; it was time to make progress in the case. Next, the judge indicated that it was time for each party to present a discovery schedule. He then pressed both sides as to whether or not they wanted to set a trial date, even though it is difficult to do in this case.

Baez then went on to state that they had still not received all the empirical scientific data they had asked for.

This situation has been going on since December 11, 2008, the day Caylee's remains were discovered. The next day, the defense wanted all the photographs, maps, etc. This was followed up numerous times throughout 2009. Not the least of the information the defense wants is just about every piece of information about testing, the lab, the technicians, the scientists that exists. It goes far beyond the information that is normally given out. We heard about the fact that the judge has no jurisdiction over these entities and neither does the State's Attorneys' Office.

Baez said that the Oak Ridge Lab would give them everything that they requested above and beyond what had been supplied to the State.

When Baez said that it wasn't about pointing fingers, the judge interrupted him again to say that that was where he was heading. Judge Strickland then brought the discussion back to setting a trial date. The judge asked Baez if he would like to discuss this with Ms. Lyon (the lead attorney on the case). Strickland quickly pointed out that they would establish deadlines for discovery. As he was saying this, Ms. Lyon approached the podium and Baez went on talking for a bit telling the judge that they would be meeting with the defense that afternoon to discuss these issues. Then, the judge again recommended he consult with Lyon, and he did, briefly.

Jeff Ashton got up to speak to the issue. He said that the State had all the information that the Oak Ridge lab was willing to provide and that all that information had been turned over to the defense. If the defense wanted anything else from the lab, it was an issue the defense would have to deal with directly with the lab.

The judge told the defense that they would have to file something and then have the lab's counsel come in to deal with the situation. Essentially, the State is "incidental" to the issue, according to Strickland.

The judge went back to the point at hand. He now asked if he should set a trial date and work backwards from there, or would they prefer not to have a trial date and set the discovery schedule.

Ashton said that the defense and prosecution would meet together to make a discovery schedule. Strickland set a deadline of 10-15 days for this. Once he had set the schedule, a trial date could then be selected.

Ashton went on to ask if the only problem was with the Oak Ridge lab. Baez stated that there was also a problem with the FBI. Ashton then said that he believed there were some "latent print-related items that are not in the discovery" that he has been able to find.

Needless to say, that line has brought up a great deal of discussion on the Internet!

He then said that, other than that, the defense had everything the FBI lab was willing to provide.

Baez then went on to complain about how the State was providing them with discovery. He said that there is a strong percentage of the forensic evidence they do not have.

Strickland made it clear, one last time, that the defense has everything the labs will provide and that the situation now demands that attorneys for Oak Ridge and the FBI lab now be involved in the process.

Ashton did request that Linda Kenney-Baden, who is the "science" attorney in the case, get directly in touch with him rather than go through the chain of Baden-Baez-Drane Burdick-Ashton to improve communication on the issues.

With this, the hearing came to a close.

If you would like to watch the entire hearing, here are the links:

Part 1
Part 2

According to WESH, later Monday, Strickland denied the defense's motion to stop jail visits from being videotaped. The motion had been filed January 19.

Earlier this week, Tim Miller's attorney, Mark NeJame asked for a continuation and the TES motion was not heard as expected.

I am so pleased with Judge Strickland. Today, he managed to keep the defense from running on and on and on and kept the hearing on track.

What's next to look forward to? Well, we are fast approaching the February 1 deadline set for the defense to provide the witness list which will prove that Caylee's body was placed in its final location while Casey Anthony was in jail!

Stay tuned to T&T!

Will Casey Anthony Cop a Plea?

Update #3!

Tuesday, January 19

This just in from the Orlando Sentinel

It's official – the fraud case against Casey Anthony will not start on Monday but a status hearing is scheduled.

Court officials announced the change this morning.

Orange Circuit Court Judge Stan Strickland will address two motions at the 1:30 p.m. hearing. It's unclear yet which motions he will hear.

Stay tuned for further updates.

Update #2!

Monday, February 18

WFTV has provided updated information.

This week's status hearing for Casey Anthony’s murder trial has been delayed until Monday January 25, the day her check fraud trial is scheduled to start.

The defense had asked for a change of venue for that trial and there are reports that, since no hearings have been held on that issue, the defense also wants the check fraud trial to be put off.

Since court is closed today, these reports can't be based on any official announcements. To find out what is really going on, we'll have to wait to hear what Judge Strickland says. Check back tomorrow. Hopefully, we'll have the official word on what is going on.


Update #1!

Monday, February 18

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that the fraud case will not be heard next week.

There's a slew of motions that haven't been addressed by the court, such as whether the defense can get a change of venue due to the media coverage. And, the defense has not interviewed the victim, Amy Huizenga, under oath yet.

Prosecutors and Anthony's defense team will appear at a pre-trial hearing Thursday to address some of these issues.

Other sources are indicating that the hearing on Thursday will not take place.

Stop by for any further updates.



It's been a quiet holiday season on the Casey Anthony front.

The only bits of "news" out there include Andrea Lyon's appearance on the Today Show and an audio clip of her on the Steve Malzberg radio program on WOR710 out of New York. (The radio program is rather raucous and you have to listen through the first segment to get to Lyon's part.) In these segments, she compares Casey Anthony to a victim of the Salem Witch Trials. Then, she goes on to tout her new book.

Then, George Anthony went to Fox 35 to read his letter about "Living Under a Microscope" and what his life has been like since his daughter was arrested and later charged with the murder of his granddaughter, Caylee Marie.

The final bit of "news" was that a "JD" had sent a letter to Judge Stan Strickland in late December which fully exonerates Casey Anthony!

What is real news in the case is the upcoming hearing on Thursday, January 21 for the fraud trial.

A while back, I was talking with Sprocket about the hearing. I opined that Casey might cop a plea at the hearing rather than letting it go on to trial on January 25. Sprocket did a little poll on the matter, and most people thought that Casey would never take a plea. I would think, however, that her defense team is pushing her to take a plea for a number of reasons.

First of all, Judge Strickland made a statement at the December 16 hearing, after listening to Jose Baez argue his motion to dismiss many of the fraud charges. He said that:

This case is going to get resolved either by trial or plea before the capital case and, if and when it gets resolved, she is going to be treated the same way by me (as) anybody else would.

Strickland also mentioned that charges that were brought by the State are not unusual and that they could possibly be merged into a higher sentence, depending on if and when somebody takes a plea. He indicated that while Casey Anthony is presumed innocent at this point and she could possibly end up with concurrent sentences if found guilty or if she took a plea.

So, at this point, the defense has lost the battle to postpone the fraud trial until after the murder trial. That being said, it would be in Casey's best interest to get the best deal possible through a plea deal. I can't imagine that the defense would want Casey to appear in a televised trial before a jury prior to the murder case.

As was seen at the last hearing, Casey is not ready for prime time as a defendant. She has difficulty behaving in a "neutral" way and lets her anger show. I can only imagine how many people would love to analyze her body language while listening to her former friend as she testifies against her.

I would also imagine that the defense would have a difficult time putting up an affirmative defense. In her statements to police and to her family, her "motive" or "mitigating factor" was that she would "lie, cheat, and steal" in order to find her child. That is something the defense would not want to say, nor would they want anyone else to testify to what she said.

As can be seen in the picture, Casey was rather brazen in her use of Amy Huizenga's checks. On July 15, 2008, she presented herself to a branch office of the Bank of America to clean out the last of Amy's savings. There are also videos of her cashing bogus checks at Target. In a video visitation with her parents in August, 2008, she tells her mother to apologize to Amy for the theft. Finally, Jose Baez sent a check for the stolen amount to the Bank of America. This evidence makes for an extremely strong case.

If Casey doesn't take a plea, the hearing will be another round of motions.

The defense is asking that various pieces of information not come out in a trial. These are the motions:

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED PRIOR BAD ACTS

In the motion, the defense points out that in Officer Wilson's "alleged affidavit" Amy Huizenga "found out that Miss Anthony was a "liar". "Additionally, Miss Huizenga states testimony referring to Miss Anthony's alleged drug activity."

One curious paragraph in the motion explains that "The only purpose of evidence of these, and potentially other, alleged prior bad acts of Miss Anthony is to attempt to show that Ms. Anthony had the propensity to not properly supervise its students." Go figure what that could be!

DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO MISS ANTHONY'S MURDER CASE

This is a motion one would expect in this trial. The nagging problem about this is that, as I mentioned earlier, Casey's defense to this has been, since day 1, was that she needed money to fund her search for her kidnapped daughter. This defense simply can't be used at all. In their own motion, the defense clearly states that:

Any evidence mentioning Miss Anthony's child Caylee Anthony, the homicide charges and other charges she faces regarding her daughter, accusations of child neglect, abuse, or any other such evidence relating to Miss Anthony's pending homicide case is irrelevant.

Clearly, Casey has no defense. It would be better to take a plea deal.

The remainder of the motions deal with change of venue and jury selection. Judge Strickland mentioned on December 16 that he would meet with the attorneys concerning jury selection. At this point, we will have to wait for the hearing to see what has been negotiated between the parties.

Here are the links to all the motions concerning these issues.

Motion For Venue Change (Document is 124 pages and is slow to load)
Motion For Jury Questionnaire
Motion For Sequestered Voir Dire
Sample Juror Questionnaire

At this point, the fraud trial is scheduled for Monday, January 25.

I'd love to hear if you think Casey Anthony will be convinced to plead guilty to the charges in this case!

Casey Anthony to go on trial for check fraud

Judge Stan Strickland has ruled that the fraud trial for Casey Anthony will be scheduled for sometime in the near future. In a ruling released this morning, Strickland stated:

After considering all of the factors and argument of counsel, this Court feels that the best resolution is to set the matter for trial in the near future. In terms of legal skill and analysis, this case is rather simple. Few witnesses will be called, and, excluding jury selection, should not take more than a day or two. The Defendant argued that the real problem in this matter will be the jury selection which may be protracted. While this Court agrees, that is not a sufficient reason to delay this matter until after the murder trial. Further, the State has offered to go "non-jury", with a simple bench trial.

In the ruling, Judge Strickland seemed to be strongly influenced by the difficulties Amy Huizenga has gone through due to the case.

The issues involved in the hearing on the 21st are now all resolved. We can expect to be hearing more from the defense after Labor Day, when Andrea Lyon will be submitting motions concerning the death penalty.

Read the judge's ORDER

Casey Anthony: Another Hearing Coming, Part 3

When Casey Anthony spoke with detectives last July, she told them that she worked for Universal Studios. She even took them there to show them her office. Fact was, she hadn't had a job since her daughter Caylee was born. She lived with her parents who supported her and covered for her thieving ways. From reading the interviews, we learned that she had taken money from her parents, her brother, and her grandparents. One friend described her as a "mooch" in one of the interviews.

After June 16, 2008, Casey must have been short of cash. Her daughter had "disappeared" and she wasn't able to go home without her. She was hiding out with her current fling, Tony Lazarro, a young man unknown to her parents.

Fortunately for Casey, her friend, Amy Huizenga, left her checkbook in her car. Since Casey's car was... pick one: a.) out of gas, b.) broken down and in the shop, or c.) abandoned and hopefully stolen from the Amscot parking lot due to the putrid odor, her friend had graciously lent her the car she had recently acquired after an accident while she was on vacation in Puerto Rico.

At that point, Casey took the checkbook and spent the money in it by forging checks at Target, the AT&T store, and the Bank of America.

In between her charges for felony child abuse and lying to police and her indictment for the murder of her daughter, Casey was arrested for bank fraud a couple of times.

Originally, the defense asked that the fraud trial be postponed until after the murder trial. Judge Strickland agreed twice. The original trial was scheduled for January, 2009. When the death penalty was reinstated in April of this year, Casey had to get a new lead attorney who was qualified to try the case. The murder trial is now scheduled for sometime in 2010.

On June 19, the prosecution filed a Motion For Determination Of New Trial Date. The State maintains that they and by extension, the victim of the crime have a right to a speedy trial. The motion also states that they were prepared for trial on November 17, 2008 and that to let this less complex trial "languish another year" was unreasonable.

In response, the defense filed a motion entitled Miss Anthony's Response to Motion For Determination of New Trial Date. While Casey's attorneys Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon agree that the State has a right to a speedy trial, they state that the

... complexity of the capital case necessitates a delay in the check forgery case in order for the defendant's right to be served. The right to due process includes the right to a fair and impartial jury trial. To find an impartial jury even for this charge would require a change of venue due to the media storm surrounding this case and influencing potential jurors. (para 2)

My goodness! Orlando must have a large jury pool. I'm sure they could find twelve people to hear a relatively simple bank fraud case. It's not quite a murder trial and there is an awful lot of great evidence here. Just take a look at the picture up top of Casey cashing one of Amy's checks at the Bank of America just hours before her parents discovered her smelly car a the towing lot and found out Caylee was missing.

Baez and Lyon also indicate in the motion that the State was responsible for the delays and that Casey's criminal trial requires all their time and attention since the consequences are so much greater. They point out that the evidence in this case will not disappear.

My favorite part of the motion is paragraph 8:

Additionally, while the state attempts to use the victim's rights as a reason to set this case, Miss Anthony has already served more time that a person would normally be sentenced for a first-time offense of this nature and the complaining witness in this case, Miss Amy Huizenga, has already been made whole by the Bank of America. Thus, there is no urgent need to resolve the alleged check forgery case. The bank was also recompensed...

What they are saying here is that Casey has already "done her time" while in jail without bond pending her trial for murder. Bank of America had to pay Amy the money for the forged checks. Then, somehow, Casey has managed to send the bank the 600 plus dollars! As many others have pointed out, the repayment to the bank is a tacit admission of guilt!

Many people were daunted by the amount of paperwork the latest motions have generated. I've gone through them all and can tell you that, if you want a more detailed explanation of the contents of the motions, they are there in sublime detail. There are also appendices added with additional documentation.

Personally, I don't understand why Casey didn't take a plea deal in this case. I suppose she's going to provide her attorneys with tons of information why what she did wasn't a crime.

As to whether or not the case will be postponed until after the criminal trial, I haven't a clue. I will be interesting to hear what Judge Strickland has to say about this.

Tony Lazarro, the Unfortunate Boyfriend

I have so much sympathy for those friends of Casey Anthony who have had their young lives blighted by this murder case. To add to their misery, they have had to hire attorneys to represent their interests. Casey seems to be the friend who "keeps on taking."

Tony Lazarro is one of those people. There he was, a young man studying for a career and working as a promoter for Fusion. Then, he happened upon a cute gal on Facebook and met her in person for the first time on May 24, 2008. In less than two months he found himself to be a "critical witness" in a capital murder case.

At a hearing on May 28, 2009, Jose Baez requested extensive phone records from many witnesses in the case. T&T link to the report on this hearing. Some of the witnesses were represented by counsel who spoke to limit the scope of the information. Judge Strickland asked those parties to try to come to a private resolution in the matter. A couple of witnesses' requested a continuance. Those who did not have representation at that time were granted by the judge. Tony Lazarro was one of those people.

On June 16, WESH reported that

Tony Lazarro, Anthony's former boyfriend, was the latest key state witness to come forward and file court papers Monday asking to be shielded from a subpoena. Baez is seeking to find out who Lazarro talked to and when.

Lazarro has cooperated with investigators and provided phone records to detectives. But, Baez wants to go back more than a year of phone records and Lazarro argued that would be an invasion of his privacy.

The actual motion was never put on-line, but I would imagine it is similar to all the rest. It was also reported on July 6 that Lazarro had hired an attorney, Attorney William R. Jay, to represent him in both trials.

Today, Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon filed their latest motion. The Amended Motion addresses only Tony Lazarro and his phone records. To show the "materiality" to the defense case, Baez and Lyon state in paragraph 5, complete with misspellings and grammatical errors...

a. Mr. Lazzaro was the Ms. Anthony's boyfriend.

b. The State of Florida has listed him as a category A witness.

c. The Defense and the State of Florida consider Mr. Lazarro a critical witness to this case.

d. The State has already requested Mr. Lazzaro's phone records. Nonetheless, said records are incomplete.

e. Law Enforcement has invested a significant amount of resources investigating the time period between June 16th to July 15th 2008. Much of that time, Mr. Lazzaro was either in the presence of, or in direct communication with Ms. Anthony.

f. In addition to having been interviewed as a witness, law enforcement had Mr. Lazzaro take a polygraph and went so far as to have his vehicle examined by cadaver dogs.

g. The witness telephone calls and records are of particular importance especially since for a specific time period he became an agent for the State by allowing law enforcement to monitor his telephone calls. As evidenced by the Consent by Cooperating individual form, dated July 22nd, 2008.

h. On or about July 29 2008, Mr.Lazzaro51, 255);"> also acted in the capacity of a confidential informant by allowing Law Enforcement to video record a conversation between himself and Lee Anthony

i. Mr. has refused to cooperate with the Defense's investigation and has given multiple statements to law enforcement

j. The Defense has narrowed it's request to June 2008 to January 2009.

I know, that was a long quote, but I had to copy it here. Does anyone else have the feeling that the defense isn't very happy with Tony's level of cooperation with Law Enforcement?

I'm sure the judge will get this motion taken care of.

As with the TES volunteers who fear their personal information could get out into the general public, I think it would be wrong for the defense to receive information on every single phone number in his records. Undoubtedly, his friends and acquaintances would appreciate their privacy and well as Tony.

See you in court on Friday, August 21, 9:30 AM. It's going to be QUITE a hearing!