So the Casey Anthony saga continues this morning, with the prosecution reverting to its playbook, producing two “witnesses”, friends of the defendant’s boyfriend, who claim that the defendant was acting “normal” during the time her toddler daughter had gone “missing”.
The implied “argument” is that any decent mother would be frantically searching for her missing daughter.
The problem, which seems to escape the minds of the prosecutors, and therefore also the USA Today authors and editors, is that the defense has already offered that the child was not in fact missing, but dead, and that the mother knew it. You might also argue, I suppose, that the defendant wasn’t acting like a grieving mother should act. But how is a grieving mother supposed to act?
This is the sort of impervious, block-headed group think that attends a government prosecution. Competing versions are not given a fair hearing? They are not even acknowledged. They cannot possibly exist.
Want more proof? From the same article:
The contrasting explanations about how Caylee died were offered to the jury in part because an autopsy was never able to conclude a cause of death. Prosecutors believe they have enough circumstantial evidence to prove Casey killed her daughter during the summer of 2008.
The idea that “contrasting explanations” might be “offered to the jury” and that one of them is true and one of them is false is out of bounds. The autopsy permits differing explanations because it was “never able to conclude a cause of death”. The implication is that the defense is simply exploiting this “weakness” in the prosecution’s case – which is presumptively the true version, of course.
Want even more? From the same article:
Anthony waited a month before telling her mother Caylee had disappeared, and that was only after her parents, George and Cindy Anthony, had recovered a foul-smelling car Casey Anthony had been driving, prosecutors said. The vehicle was picked up from a towing lot.
If the defense version is correct, even if Anthony did tell her mother that Caylee had “disappeared”, that was not true, and at least George – her father – knew it.
And then this:
During the month Caylee was missing, Casey Anthony went shopping, visited friends and hung out with her boyfriend.
I mean, for God’s sake. If the defense version is true, Caylee was never “missing”. How does one get through to these people?
Even if she is acquitted, Casey Anthony will never be “exonerated”.
Update: Chicago Sun Times in a headline from a story published after 2 PM EDT:
“Testimony: Casey Anthony partied while daughter was missing.”
The media is unbelievably dim.