And he explains why: he had no idea where his granddaughter was and was going to extort that information out of Casey Anthony’s friends. It never seems to occur to those who report the testimony that there might be a reason for this suspicious act other than the one offered by the actor himself. And the headline reflects the bias: “Looking for Answers, [George} bought a gun.", rather than just reporting the fact, e.g., "[George] bought a gun shortly after his granddaughter went missing.”
And in a bravura performance on the witness stand, George sobbed under friendly questioning, but not when he was being questioned by his daughter’s attorney, where he became combative. Not to mention the repeated use of “sir” when addressing the hostile attorney. That is standard prosecution witness preparation dogma. To a trained observer it looks forced and dishonest, but it often sells well with juries, who don’t know that the witness has been coached to say that.
Police officers like George Anthony are experienced witnesses in any event and lie very well on the witness stand if they’re of a mind to. Every defense attorney knows this. But others are overwhelmingly taken in.
Now, in the clips I saw I did not find George Anthony credible at all. And I think it is particularly incredible – indeed, possibly sinister – that he is orchestrating this sort of “Well, now that I’ve seen the evidence in the trial I think my daughter is guilty.” impression, which is being made to seem like some sort of dramatic development when in fact George Anthony has been pointing the finger at his daughter from the very beginning, all the while pretending to be nice to her.
George’s behavior and testimony, coupled and contrasted with known facts, are highly suspicious. But no one is suggesting that, other than defense attorney Baez who in fact brought out some of the oddities of this behavior, like the contrast between George’s interactions with police (where he used the occasions to focus them on his daughter) and the interactions with his daughter (where he communicated only affection and support. No one, other than me from what I can tell, is facetiously suggesting that George is a “good actor” when he blubbers on the stand; yet the defendant gets that accusation when she hasn’t even testified yet.
There was never a hint from Casey implicating her father in her daughter’s death until quite recently. Think of the treachery and perfidy of this man if the defense opening statement is true.
He who accuses first accuses best. The people in the system know that rule really well. Especially cops.
One last thing for today’s post: without even seeing the trial other than a few clips here and there, it is quite clear even from news reports that the judge has effectively sabotaged the defense’s case by cutting it up into an order different that the defense had planned on presenting, interrupting constantly, holding special sidebars every few minutes which are always made to seem like the defense created the problem and probably a million other little subtle things. The prosecution was not subjected to anything like that.
Now, an extraordinary jury or juror might be able to see through all the judge’s dishonesty and keep a healthy skepticism of the prosecution’s witnesses – especially George Anthony.
But they or he or she would have to be just that: extraordinary.