Not verbatim, but close!
Linda Drane Burdick: A brief investigation conducted last week. Apparently a citizen called the OCSO, left some information about an inmate who may have had some contact with Miss Anthony at a point when the inmate was in the Orange County jail. That matter was investigated Thursday or Friday; a report was generated, a statement was taken over the phone from this witness, the transcript was produced and I received the transcript yesterday. The witness was April Whelan. Apparently her child died in a swimming pool and was found by the child's grandfather who immediately administered CPR and called 911. Miss Whelan was in an adjacent cell to Miss Anthony for a very brief period of time. Miss Whelan indicates to LE that she did NOT talk to Casey Anthony; however, she doesn't remember if she talked to other inmates. So at the present time, it's being explored whether there was indirect contact. As soon as I received reports verifying that Miss Whelan's son did pass away in a drowning incident as well as the reports from LE of the followup on the information obtained by a concerned citizen, that was provided to Mr Baez in the event that it does become relevant in relation to the investigation that continues.
The fact that OCSO were investigating this was communicated to me last Thursday or Friday, or perhaps Saturday; written reports were given to me yesterday afternoon and I gave them to Defense.
JBP: Do you plan to utilize Miss April Whelan? (Did he write that name down, or just remember? He's GOOD!)
Burdick: Based on her statement, I would say no. However, as that information is investigated, there may be something from it that would be suitable for a rebuttal case. But at this juncture, as I told Mr Baez, that would be "no". The court may not know...we continue to get phone call after phone call after phone call after email from concerned citizens, as I'm sure they do; we have to cull through that information to determine what are just fashion (?) suggestions, or prosecution suggestions, or what are actual fact or Brady (?) material and we have been doing that on a regular basis. This is one of those items that was investigated; if it turns out to be something relevant at this juncture, I would say no, but it could before the end of the case.
No comments from Baez on this now. JBP does not find this a discovery violation...the state has a continuing duty to disclose information that becomes available to them.