Since there was no direct proof of – well – anything about the specifics surrounding the victim’s death, Judge Perry denied the defense motion for a TOD. The only possible basis for such a ruling is that inferences in favor of the prosecution’s case can be made from the proof that was offered.
When Baez asked Seubert whether she conducted a DNA paternity test on Lee Anthony, Casey Anthony’s brother, to see whether he was Caylee’s father, prosecutor Jeff Ashton objected, saying it implied that police had reqeusted such a test, which they did not. Outside the presence of the jury and after another heated exchange, Perry instructed Baez not to ask questions that may lead to inferences.
Emphasis supplied. Fair trial? Are you kidding?
Update and Correction: It appears that there may have been a misquote by CNN. In context, it is possible that Judge Perry was alluding to questions that might lead to the inference that either the brother or the father (George) were the victim’s father, when the fact is, apparently, that both were excluded.
In other words, Judge Perry was concerned that questions that might lead to inferences that were known to be false should not be asked. And that would be a proper concern, although I don’t know why that concern was present at that particular point.
I’m not watching the trial. Posting so much on it is all I can manage.
Update 2: It occurred to me in the time since that what the defense was getting at in asking questions about the paternity testing was that even the police had their doubts about the paternity of the victim and thought that she might have been the product of incest, which is why they did paternity tests. Now, that would be a permissible inference to draw, but I’m just not sure why that would be relevant. It’s kind of a gotcha, but it’s easily rebutted because the police have to investigate a lot of things that later turn out to be unfounded, just like anyone else who honestly investigates anything.
Now, if that’s all you’re gonna do on the incest and abuse thing, is say “well, they thought so, too, so it’s plausible”, that’s pretty weak and I hope the defense isn’t going to just leave it at that.