Part I: Caylee Anthony Insights

Note: When I finished writing this post, I realized that it was too long. As a result, below is part one and I’ll post parts two and three later.

I have not been a follower of the high profile Caylee Anthony missing person/homicide case (I have researched and thought more on three other cases: Ray Gricar, Brianna Maitland, and Beau Ramsey), but I have read some of the articles related to the investigation. I was sorry that her remains were recovered last week hidden in a bag from a wooded area, less than a half-mile from her grandparent’s residence. Four aspects of the case were particularly puzzling and/or of interest to me:

1. Police Response to the Tipster’s Calls: The circumstances surrounding the city water department employee whose call to police led them to the child’s body hidden in a bag are odd. In his media statement he said that he had called police on three other occasions about the suspicious bag in a wooded area, but the body was not recovered until he made the fourth call. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office is investigating what happened on the” tipster’s” three previous calls.

From the published reports, the tipster called police directly and then indirectly through an information hotline. For the calls to 911 or the police non-emergency line, most likely, a patrol officer would have been dispatched to investigate the suspicious bag. Speaking in probabilities, the officer would have wanted to talk to the person providing the information—so that he could tell him or even show him where the suspicious object was located. The one report stated that the officer could not find the object, and was also unable to locate the tipster.

Unless the information came in anonymously (which I did not get that impression), calls such as this from city employers are given more credence—a water department employee who is frequents a neighborhood is more likely to know what is suspicious and what is not. I am sure that the police were swamped with calls wanting locations checked, but again a city employee describing a bag in a wooded area would be an easy tip to check-out.

I saw one report that trained dogs had been used to search the area based on the report but found nothing. On a second call, a uniformed officer reportedly looked there, but again did not find anything. If the information about the two searches (especially the one using dogs) is true, we are not being provided the whole story. Going back to the tipster’s calls, I cannot imagine searching a wooded area with trained dogs in which the citizen source of the information was not interviewed or not even asked to lead searchers to the suspicious bag.

2. The Tipster’s Actions: If you had enough curiosity to phone the police three times about a suspicious bag, would you not have opened it? I think he did open the bag on the fourth call, but that strikes me as strange—why not on the previous occasions? If police did not have an interest in the item, why not return to the area on your non-working hours to examine the bag’s contents?

Contiuing this line of questions: was the bag clearly visible from the road? If so, why did police not find it on the initial three calls? If it was hidden in the brush, it seems it would be awful tempting to retreive the object yourself--especially if you had concluded that police had searched the area and were not interested in the suspicious bag.

After posting, I found additional information on the tipster's actions and police response. The article states that dogs had been used to search the area previously, and an investigator initially dismissed the water department employee's tip. I am sure additional information will be forthcoming.