Casey Anthony Case: Weird Coincidence? (Update)(x2)

I hope this isn’t just shoddy reporting:

Anthony’s car was found, apparently abandoned, in a financial-services company parking lot on June 24.

It was towed by a wrecker service to an impound lot on June 30 and remained there for about two weeks, the wrecker service’s operations manager, Simon Birch, told jurors.

Later in the same article:

The car also figured in testimony Thursday, when George Anthony testified about an argument he had with his daughter over two missing gas cans from the storage shed at his house.

On June 24, George Anthony called police to report the break-in and report the gas cans missing. He testified that he saw his daughter later in the day and argued with her about the missing cans. He had a hunch she had them, he testified, as she had taken them before.

George Anthony said that when he went to get them out of his daughter’s car, she bristled, brushed past him, quickly opened the trunk and retrieved the gas cans. Then she threw them down and told him, “Here’s your f—ing gas cans.”

As we lawyers say, emphasis supplied.

So, George Anthony called police to report the so-called break-in on the same day – June 24th – that the car was “found” in a financial service company’s parking lot, “apparently abandoned”? If George Anthony’s testimony is true the car would have been at his house at some point that very day.  Would it be characterized as “apparently abandoned” after less than a day in a parking lot?

Something’s not right here.  The problem is, the date of the call to report the “break-in” and the date the car was found in the parking lot would be independently documented, so it’s hard to see how those dates – which turn out to be the same date – could be incorrect.  If the reporting is not shoddy, the only thing that could be incorrect is the substance of George Anthony’s testimony regarding the confrontation with his daughter.  That, or they conclude that cars are “abandoned” very readily in Florida.

Update:  Maybe it was shoddy reporting.  From Steve Woods at

On June 27 of 2008, Casey’s white Pontiac was parked in the lot in front of Amscot Financial, by a dumpster, where it stayed for 3 days, until district manager Catherine Sanchez called to have it towed. Sanchez testified that she noted a foul odor around the car; however, it was parked next to a dumpster that typically smelled of trash, and assumed that was the cause.

Emphasis supplied.

So perhaps it wasn’t quite the coincidence I thought.  The car was spotted in the parking lot on the 27th, not the 24th.

Still, what’s the prosecution’s thesis here?  That the defendant abandoned a car, known to be her car, that was destined to be found and lead investigators to believe it had held the body of her daughter?

Then this, from the same article, discussing a few weeks later when George and Cindy Anthony, Casey’s parents, went to retrieve the car from the impound lot where a man named Birch worked:

According to Birch, while walking to the vehicle George apologized to him for Cindy Anthony’s earlier outbursts, then told Birch that he had been worried about his granddaughter Caylee “having been missing for a lot of time, and that his daughter wouldn’t tell him where she was.”

But then George testified later on cross examination about the same day at the impound lot:

Things began to heat up quickly, as Baez began accusing Casey Anthony’s father of orchestrating the event, in telling Birch that his granddaughter was missing, in asking Birch to accompany him to open the trunk, in order to distance himself from being associated with the evidence. George adamantly denied this charge, saying “I know what you are trying to do. You’re not going to trip me up.”

“I did not know at that time that my granddaughter was missing or my daughter was unable to be found. Was I trying to distance myself? No. If there was something wrong, I would’ve taken care of it. If I thought there was something wrong,” said George.

Emphasis supplied.
Well, which is it?  Birch testifies that George told him he was worried about his granddaughter being missing but then George testifies that he didn’t know “at that time” that his granddaughter was missing.
Also, this is typical cop tactical testimony – accusing the opposing lawyer of trying to “trip you up”, because, you know, those sneaky lawyers.  They always do that in front of the jury, trying to tap into that layman’s distrust of lawyers.  Your granddaughter is dead, your daughter is on trial for her life, and you’re flexing your ego trying to one-up her attorney while you help make the prosecution’s case?  Isn’t that more than a little odd, unless….?
The media haven’t noticed, but George is quite possibly inadvertently revealing himself through these little – or not so little – discrepancies.

And it may not be pretty.


You know what he did as a cop?  He investigated homicides. You think he might know something about how to frame a person for a homicide?

Leave a comment

Filed under wrongful convictions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s