Casey Anthony Judge Perry: Prosecution Is Entitled To “Inferences”; Defense Is Not (Update/Correction)(x2)

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.

But the defense doesn’t get to even elicit evidence from which inferences can be made:

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.



Filed under wrongful convictions

4 responses to “Casey Anthony Judge Perry: Prosecution Is Entitled To “Inferences”; Defense Is Not (Update/Correction)(x2)

  1. Barbara

    Who did order Lee and George Anthony’s paternity tests–and why?


  2. (pg 61 & 62)

    The STR typing results of specimin K-9 (LEE ANTHONY) …..

    Based on the STR typing results the DNA obtained from specimin Q-18-1 (Caylee Anthony) could not have resulted from a biological offspring of the indivicual represented by specimin K-9 (Lee Anthony)

    No STR typing for anyone else mentioned in fact it states “No other DNA examinations were conducted”.

    With that last statement within the report I’d really like someone, anyone to tell me how it is possiblethat George Anthony was tested for paternity when the report clearly states no other DNA testing wasa done. It has been suggested that the paternity issue was deduced using Casey & George’s DNA profiles against Caylee’s but if so why wouldn’t the official report state that? Especially since Seuburt KNEW she would be testifying in court about it?


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