It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Casey Anthony Case: Casey Anthony aka Zenaida Gonzalez

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:56 AM
There was a major document dump yesterday so I'm trying to get the timeline and evidence thread updated. But I needed to share something with you guys concerning the "zenaida" myspace that I firmly believe was created by KC. I've been checking it daily to see if it has been accessed since the 14th of October when KC was last placed in jail, it has not. But I also have been watching the age to see if it changes so I can determine what birthday it was set up with.

It just rolled over to 24 years old today. The birth date for this account is February 19th...KC's is March 19th.

Yesterday's screen cap:

Today's screen cap:

P.S. Florida DMV shows NO first name Zenaida with birthdate 02/19/85.

[edit on 2-19-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Valhall

OK, what was the birth date on her alleged fake ID? It would be interesting if this particular web page showed up on one of her computers. Did any of them predate that time period? Maybe she did this at a library etc. But accessing it on the one date would be important to find out from myspace also?

Something about What George Anthony said in his eulogy as if throwing Cayce a lifeline. It was about him and Caylee having some supposedly daily ritual of eating popcorn together with hers in a spongebob squarepants bowl. I noticed he also always seems to be chewing gum.

It made me wonder if Caylee may have been swallowing gum and eating popcorn had a blockage or similar and a ruptured or bleeding colon and infection. But with Cindy being a nurse, I would think she would have found this out watching her so close anyway.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by aleon1018]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:22 AM

Originally posted by aleon1018
reply to post by Valhall

OK, what was the birth date on her alleged fake ID? It would be interesting if this particular web page showed up on one of her computers. Did any of them predate that time period? Maybe she did this at a library etc. But accessing it on the one date would be important to find out from myspace also?

The birthdate on the ID associated with the "ZG22" case (the traffic violation) was 1/11/86.

The myspace page was created on June 16th 2008...the same day Caylee was last seen. That's why it's such a big thing to me. If you look back over the forensic report on the Anthony desktop activity and KC's laptop activity for June 16th, you will find that 1.) there was no user activity on KC's laptop ALL DAY, 2.) there was only activity on the Anthony desktop for a couple of hours before noon, and then some more activity from about 1 to 3 pm just before GA went to work. Since GA states KC left at about 1:50 pm that day, we reduce the time KC could have created this myspace to some time between about 10 am and 1:50 pm when she left. If KC made this webpage on the 16th before leaving with points at premeditation on the whole Zanny the Nanny story.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:26 AM
I would still be curious as to why she would need to access the account unless to add or delete something. Wouldn't myspace have these records and IP address?

[edit on 19-2-2009 by aleon1018]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:35 AM
One more thing concerning the ZG22 traffic case...on my original post I stated that today was the deadline for ZG22 to appear in court concerning her unpaid fine or her license would be suspended.

You can go here

and do a status check on G524980865110 and see today it is officially suspended.

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by aleon1018
I would still be curious as to why she would need to access the account unless to add or delete something. Wouldn't myspace have these records and IP address?

[edit on 19-2-2009 by aleon1018]

Yes, I would think they would. If she was accessing the account up until 10/14/08 (last log on and same day KC went to jail the last time), she was doing it from JB's office where she spent every day - all day.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:02 AM
Lee is giving his deposition this morning ( 2/27), in ZG's defamation suit against KC.......The media is not being allowed to televise the event, but there will be video documentation that we will hopefully, get to see later.

Wouldn't it be nice if they'd ask him about the possibility that KC is 'Zanny' ??

(edit to add this link to coverage on deposition)

[edit on 27-2-2009 by frayed1]

Newer link to news and video

[edit on 27-2-2009 by frayed1]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:41 AM
Unless Casey actually stole and used this same woman's identity, I doubt she'll get anything. She should have just filed for unemployment. I wouldn't doubt she could have even gotten a job at a daycare center. This woman may only prove that Casey used her name from some list of of applicants. Casey never had her face drawn or picked her out from a lineup. I would think the only way this woman ha made any money was from being a guest on someones program. Her case is weak as far as I can tell. If there's a book, made for TV movie or movie, most likely she also plans on getting something there as well. (typical)

It's interesting that nothing has been mentioend about Casey having and using a fake identity. The news media would have been all over it, even if it was just suggested. I guess they're saving it for another date.

There's another thread based on this alleged identity theft.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:38 PM
Originally posted by sdp333

"There's one thing about the whole the Zenaida/Casey connection that I can't reconcile. This point has also been discussed in other forums without a clear answer. in the world did she know a real, live Zenaida Gonzalez would be at Sawgrass Apartments on June 17th to view an apartment??!!"

Who knows, but that crazy coincidence might be one of the things that helps put her away.....

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by TUCKERM33

Somewhere in the Orange County court documents, I saw some entries for a Cynthia Anthony, black age about 28 as I remember. In fact, I think there was 1 page in one of the early document releases with this persons information and her photo. I think it is all just a clerical mixup and not related to this case at all.

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:02 AM
Maybe this is a simple-minded question, but shouldn't there be LE video of the ZG22 traffic stop or the subsequent court appearance of ZG22?

Even if the in-car video was overwritten (I don't know how those are set up), one would expect courthouse video to be archived on a DVR drive.

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

. . how in the world did she know a real, live Zenaida Gonzalez would be at Sawgrass Apartments on June 17th to view an apartment??!!" Who knows, but that crazy coincidence might be one of the things that helps put her away .....

Does anyone care that Nancy Grace has RUINED any chance for a FAIR trial for Ms. Casey Anthony? All accused persons are entitled to ceratin basic rights. This respect for law and order is what makes us different from the Somali pirates. If we loose that respect for law, then we are no better than the Janjaweed in Darfur.

You know the American litany. Right to a speedy trial by a jury of her peers. Right to know the charges against her. Right to confront her accusers. Right to call witnesses on her behalf. Right not to testify against herself. Right to have competent counsel. Where oh where in Florida can we find an untainted jury to try her?


Can it possibly be that Casey Anthony will “walk” because of Nancy Grace who has NO grace? Would that not be an ironic twist of justice? Should not CNN pay the extra cost of moving the trial away from Orlando? Like a million dollars a week.

[edit on 3/7/2009 by donwhite]

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:31 PM
I do think the Sunshine Laws and our continued interest help to spur the media on. At this point Baez should start considering a Manchurian Candidate defense because nothing about her makes sense.

I'm really intrigued by this theory though, Val! I was wondering if the ZG22 ID could have been an item that was passed around between friends or a group.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:32 PM
Have you seen this in the latest document releases ( Mar 5).....

Tony agrees to go undercover, is recorded in a meeting with Lee Anthony. We are only given a summary of the meeting....(oh, for a transcript!!)

During the meeting Lee tells Tony that Casey never said anything about a nanny, but he thought he recalled a Zenaida who hung out at the Anthony home...(Whaaa?) Doesn't that differ from his deposition??

( The part about Tony's recorded meeting with Lee begins on doc number 4300)

[edit on 11-3-2009 by frayed1]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:31 AM
reply to post by frayed1

Yep! Saw that. I've been working on a major update to the timeline and evidence thread since this latest document dump. I also have some updates for this thread. I'll probably get to update both this weekend.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:00 PM
Here's my update on issues concerning this topic:

First I did research on the question as to whether ZG22's driver's license would have been expired on 05/24/08 when the ZG22 "no valid driver's license" citation was issued. I had to do this because Florida laws have changed over the years. With ZG22's dob being 01/11/85 on the driver's license, she could have gotten her driver's license as early as July 2001 (15-1/2 learner's permit). clear up the issue I've reverted to 9/11

Look at this webpage:

About halfway down the page is a pic of Ahmed Al Haznawi's drivers licenses - he got duplicates made, but they are the same expiration date (i.e. if you lose your license and get a duplicate made it still expires on the same date). Note that his birthday is on 10/11. Note that he is getting both of these driver's licenses in 2001 (should be same year ZG22 would have got a learner's permit at 15-1/2). Note that the expiration date is six years FROM THE DATE OF BIRTH. So Haznawi's was going to expire on 10/11/07.

So, for ZG22, if the license was first issued mid-year 2001, the license would have expired on 01/11/2008 (i.e. birthdate coming up would have been 01/11/02 + 6 years = 01/11/08 expiration date). This would have placed the driver's license 13 days past the 4 month grace period written into the Florida Statues.

Also, I researched the property records on the address listed in ZG22's driver's license. The house was purchased by the couple in New York in January 2006. Prior to that (i.e. during 2001 when ZG22 would have gotten her driver's license) it was owned by a single woman who ran a real estate business out of her home. She bought the property in April 2001. Her name is not "Gonzalez", or even close to it.

I guess the important point here is, whether ZG22 is KC or not, is that ZG22 does not appear to have ever existed as a real person. That is the part that is interesting about this whole ZG22 business. The address she listed on her driver's license, at the time the driver's license was issued, was occupied by a newly divorced woman and her daughter. The daughter is about 4 years older than KC. I don't believe the daughter would have been a running buddy with KC at the time, but is there a connection between the daughter and Lee? Could the daughter of this woman been dating Lee at the time?

When doing a search for Zenaida Gonzalez, birthdate 01/11/86, as listed on her Florida driver's license, there is no way to connect her to that address...nor is there any evidence of her existing out in the world other than that driver's license. There's no hit against her on any people search engines available. She simply occurs as a point in time - the driver's license. With no evidence to back that record.

If ZG22 is not KC's alias, she's somebody else's. And that's why there's been no show on the traffic case...the new laws in place prevent the license from being renewed. It's just real odd that it's all concurrent with KC landing in jail.

What are the odds that the most important "name" in this murder trial appears to be a now 23 year old woman who never lived at the address given on her driver's license, has never lived anywhere else that would put her on utility bill list, updated DMV record, alumni list, ANYTHING, but some how was running around in Orlando just a few months ago and now has fallen off the face of the earth. What are the odds that at this time that this woman who has been for all intents and purposes nonexistent since getting her driver's license has now disappeared...and decided she really doesn't need a driver's license.


Zenaida Gonzalez - dob 01/11/86 did not live at 422 Regal Downs Circle in 2001.
Zenaida Gonzalez - dob 01/11/86 does not appear to have lived anywhere else
Zenaida Gonzalez - dob 01/11/86 has never had her SSN verified in the Florida DMV database
Zenaida Gonzalez - dob 01/11/86 has made it to the age of 23 without making any list of any kind (utility bill, classmates, addresses, etc.)
Someone stating they were "Zenaida Gonzalez" - dob 01/11/86 - got stopped on 05/24/08 and couldn't produce a valid driver's license....they got fingerprinted.
Zenaida Gonzalez - dob 01/11/86 has not reappeared relative to the citation since some time after 8/15/08

[edit on 3-14-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:07 PM
So then I contacted Orange County court clerk to inquire on everything I could find out about the 05/24/08 ZG22 NVDL citation:

Citation was given at 10:45 a.m. on 05/24/08
Location of citation intersection of Regal Point Blvd and Regal Downs Circle (right by the address on the driver's license that ZG22 doesn't live at!)
Vehicle description on citation "1995 Chevy Green Utility Vehicle"
Tag #J223GT

I don't know if we will ultimately find out ZG22 has NO connection to the Anthony case or not...but there sure are a lot of unanswered questions.

It belongs to a Maroon 1997 Ford 4 door vehicle. VIN 1FALP6536VK102001. I won't give owner information on the 1997 Ford because they don't appear to be attached to this case at all...but bizarrely WE NOW STILL DON'T KNOW WHOSE VEHICLE ZG22 was driving because it had a tag on it that belonged to another car! O_O

Title was issued for the 97 Ford in August 2007 and the registration was up to date in May 2008. The registration was due to expire November 2008. The records do NOT show it has been renewed, but some times there is a lag in information being updated.

So then I found the actual disposition for the 06/11/08 ZG22 arraignment on the NVDL citation:

What this shows us is that ZG22 did not appear with counsel, and once again she did not produce a driver's license at the time of the arraignment.

So what we have now is a otherwise non-existent ZG22, who has an address on her driver's license that can't be tied to her, and who has been stopped in a vehicle we cannot trace back to an owner because the tags that were on it when she got stopped do not belong to the vehicle the officer stopped.


[edit on 3-14-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:47 PM
Wow, again missed your calling, and the CIA is missing one tenacious blood hound!! ( Or are they?

You say this mysterious woman was fingerprinted?? How nice would it be if someone would compare that one to Casey's prints?!

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Valhall

I've been working on a major update to the time line and evidence thread since this latest document dump. I also have some updates for this thread. I'll probably get to update both this weekend.

There is no doubt in my mind that Valhall has done a service to this board that I doubt even the prosecutor or defense team have on hand! He or she has earned the ATS DSM - Distinguished Service Medal - for real! Just as the sports people like to pick a game’s MVP, so this board has its MVP - Most Valuable Poster - in Valhall! My thanks and admiration go out to you Valhall!

My observations.

1) Based on what is out there now, the state cannot make a case against Casey Anthony. That is, unless the prosecutor has a “smoking gun” he has not disclosed. The Rules of Criminal Procedure require the prosecutor to reveal his witnesses and evidence, AND to include all EXCULPATORY evidence. Courtroom surprises are not allowed.

2) Any trial that a judge allows to go forward will last between 2 and 3 months. No jury can be kept free of outside influence nor will a jury in such a long trial adhere to the rule of not discoursing the case between themselves, unless it is sequestered. That is altogether TOO long for any murder trial to go on. There should be a law that if the prosecutor cannot make his case in 14 days, then there is NO case.

3) As for Nancy Grace, the force behind the force, she is an egomaniac who would not know a fair trial if she saw one. I doubt she can spell exculpatory. IMO. She is CNN's answer to the FOX News Hannity and Colmes mad-dog team. I've got my fingers crossed she follows Glen Beck over to FOX. 2 of a kind! The less they know, the louder they get.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by donwhite]

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by donwhite

A Google Mistrial?

This case happened in a Federal District Court in Florida. It involved a high profile drug case, and it happened when the trial was 6 weeks on. A juror admitted to the judge that he had been researching the case on the internet. Shocked at what he heard because he had instructed (warned) the jurors not to do that, the judge asked and found eight (8) other jurors admitted to looking at the internet relative to the case. He had to declare a mistrial. All that time for everyone was wasted!

This is happening with greater frequency all over the country in both state and federal courts. It is a very serious cause of concern. Jurors who violate these rules can be imprisoned. Better to leave your cell phone at home. You can borrow the bailiff's in case of emergency.

In criminal cases the law requires the highest standard. The jury must find unanimously and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to convict the accused. That is 12 out of 12 or 6 out of 6, should a smaller jury be agreed to. Each juror is to be guided by the same standard in reaching his or her own decision, independently. Although jurors may discuss or debate the case only AFTER the judge allows, in the final analysis, each juror must reach his or her own decision.

The side carrying the burden of proof - plaintiff in a civil case, prosecutor in a criminal case - offers evidence or testimony for the jury to consider and the party defending shows the inadequacy of impropriety of the offer, either to the judge outside the hearing of the jury, or to the jury. In this way, the evidence that is finally allowed into court has been VETTED by both sides in a controlled environment.

Purposely, the law moves slowly. This also means the LAW is PREDICABLE and is known as the RULE of LAW as contrasted to arbitrary rules put in effect by sheer force, which is called the RULE of MAN. And could also be called MOB Rule in many cases.

Here follows my exert from the West Virginia Judge’s Charge to the Jury which is basically similar to all judge's charges.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: At this point in the trial, I am required to inform you as to the law governing this case to guide you in your deliberations. This statement by the Judge as to the law of the case is known as a Charge; it is also called instructions.

It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case.

You, as jurors, are to decide the facts. But in determining what actually happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law that I am now in the process of defining for you.

You must not change the law or apply your own idea of what you think the law should be. Both you and I are bound by the law as stated in this charge.

You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole. Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me.

Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law is or ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any view of the law other than that given in the instructions of the Court, just as it would be a violation of your sworn duty, as finders of the facts, to base a verdict upon anything other than the evidence in the case.

This is a criminal prosecution, and the rule as to the amount of proof in this case is different from that in civil cases. A mere preponderance of the evidence does not warrant the jury in finding the Defendant guilty. Before the Defendant can be convicted, you must be satisfied of his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The law presumes a Defendant to be innocent of crime. Thus a Defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a "clean slate" - with no evidence against him/her.

This presumption of innocence stays with the Defendant through every stage of the trial, unless and until the State proves his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant is never required to prove that he/she is not guilty.

The law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a Defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant's guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case.

The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a Defendant; for the law never imposes upon a Defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.

It is not required that the State prove guilt beyond any possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.
See for the full charge by the Judge to the jury.

Story from the article “Jurors Google, Judges Grimace” by John Schwartz, on page 12, NY Times Large Print Edition for March 23-29, 2009.

[edit on 3/28/2009 by donwhite]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in