I recommend these posts – here, here and here for those interested (H/T HollysGmom)
-
Pages
Blogroll
- Appellatesquawk
- Crime & Federalism
- Defending People
- Findsen Law
- Grits for Breakfast
- Habeas Corpus Blog
- Jeff Gamso
- Judge Kopf's blog
- Marshall Project
- Max Keiser
- Michael Hudson
- Mish Shedlock
- Murica Derp
- Naked Capitalism
- Norm Pattis
- People v. State
- Popehat
- SCOTUS Blog
- Simple Justice
- Steve Keen's Debtwatch
- Truth in Justice
- Turley's Blog
- US Department of Fear
- vox day blog
- Zero Hedge
Top Posts & Pages
Recent Comments
JMRJ on Is the SVB Failure The Beginni… Tammy on Cop An Attitude (Update) kerdasi amaq on Eleven Years Later JMRJ on Eleven Years Later itsbarrett on Eleven Years Later Categories
Lawyers on Strike · Because the System is Broken
Lawyers on Strike 
In the first page, it’s not clear what the author is trying to imply by the list of phone calls made by Casey Anthony on 6/16/08. Yes, she talked with three of her friends. Does it mean she discussed Caylee’s death with them? If that were to be true, they had to have lied to the police, because none of them admitted to knowing anything about Caylee’s whereabouts. Is it more likely that Casey is lying about accidental drowning, or is it more likely that her friends have lied? That is an easy question to answer.
It’s the same deal with Cindy. If Casey discussed Caylee’s death with Cindy on 6/16 itself, then subsequent behavior by Cindy makes no sense. Cindy’s grief and anxiety look genuine.
If Casey didn’t discuss Caylee’s death in her phone calls, then why bother listing the calls as if they mean something?
The problem for Casey has been that for her to be not guilty, the other people must have been lying. And Casey is the one that is caught in countless lies. Even George comes through as sincere and credible in the jailhouse tapes. Casey calls George and Cindy the best parents and the best grandparents, and rolls her eyes at the ‘drowning accident’ theory. Unfortunately for her, she was trying to sell a different lie to the audience then.
LikeLike
Well, one significant thing is that the cell tower pings imply – do not conclusively show, but imply – that Casey did not leave her home at 1 PM as her father has indicated. Since the entire prosecution case begins with that, putting it in serious question opens up a lot of other questions that haven’t been addressed, let alone answered. The fact that there were other phone calls of a more or less social nature, regardless of their content which will never be conclusively proven, somewhat undercuts the idea that somewhere in that time frame Casey smothered her daughter. They don’t disprove it, but they undercut it. And bear in mind that phone records, unlike witness testimony, really cannot be wrong.
Another very interesting thing in those links is that it is indeed quite clear that Casey told the police that her father had molested her while she was being interrogated about her daughter’s disappearance. Whatever else you might say about Casey Anthony one thing is perfectly clear: she is psychologically complex. One thing you have to do with such individuals is listen to them. Really listen. Something they tell you might seem random or unconnected to the point at hand, but they are really telling you something in an oblique way that they may not be able or willing to tell you straight up. Looking at it in context, bringing that subject up was a very subtle way of implicating her father in her daughter’s disappearance. I’m sure the police, and anyone else for that matter, would prefer a more explicit and factual statement, but she might not be capable of that. You may be dealing with psychological dynamics that are ingrained over many years and you are unlikely to be able to blast through them in a high pressure and time constrained interrogation setting, but you work with what you’ve got.
The police were already very focused on her as a suspect at that point. In other words, they weren’t really listening, they were just trolling for information to implicate her, having already decided she was their man. This is a huge error. But common enough that it accounts for a lot of examples where the police get the wrong person, or misconstrue the situation and charge the wrong thing. The worst thing is that once they’ve done it they dig in their heels and insist no mistake has been made; and then the only hope is that the defense attorney will do his job. Because the prosecutor and they judge surely won’t do theirs.
LikeLike
[Well, one significant thing is that the cell tower pings imply – do not conclusively show, but imply – that Casey did not leave her home at 1 PM as her father has indicated. Since the entire prosecution case begins with that, putting it in serious question opens up a lot of other questions that haven’t been addressed, let alone answered. ]
I don’t believe that specific detail is central to prosecution’s case. George himself apparently left soon after 1 pm, so Casey could have hung around and come back in after he is gone. May be she felt home is convenient for she had in mind to do to Caylee (namely, murder, as per the prosecution theory).
[The fact that there were other phone calls of a more or less social nature, regardless of their content which will never be conclusively proven, somewhat undercuts the idea that somewhere in that time frame Casey smothered her daughter. ]
Then it also undercuts the idea that somewhere in that time frame, Caylee drowned. Bear in mind we are talking about a person that was dancing in night clubs and taking part in hot body contests, mere days after her daughter died, whichever way the death occurred.
[You may be dealing with psychological dynamics that are ingrained over many years and you are unlikely to be able to blast through them in a high pressure and time constrained interrogation setting, but you work with what you’ve got. ]
The only problem with this is that there is no evidence (other than her own weak hints, which could be lies for all anyone knows) that Casey is damaged goods. Excessive lying does not imply abuse. As I pointed out elsewhere, normal people fall prey to addictions and engage in excess all the time. For all anyone knows, Casey likes the control that lying gives her over people. She learned at a young age how she can easily manipulate people through lies. She has been doing it for years, and she is hooked on the high it gives her.
LikeLike
Well, again, everything you are saying is possible. You can draw the most adverse inferences imaginable and conclude that Casey is guilty of murder. And you can draw the most adverse inferences imaginable and conclude that George is guilty, perhaps even of murder. Which is it? I don’t know.
And, pinpointing the last time the victim was seen alive is always crucial to a circumstantial case. You build your case against the person who was in their company. It helps if the way you do that isn’t with the testimony of a person who is also a suspect.
LikeLike
Seems to me the state is saying she offed the kid so she could bang the boys with no interference. So why did she take the kid with her when she was banging the boys? Makes no sense. The guys did not seem to care. Hell the kid even slept with them. Nahh. State case is FISHY!
LikeLike
I just want to comment in reference cell tower pings imply – do not conclusively show, but imply – that Casey did not leave her home at 1 PM. That is wrong to imply since she could have very well been in the neighborhood. There is a mile radious and she could have still been in the general area and not neccesarily in the Anthony home.
LikeLike
Yes, well, that’s the difference between something that is implied and something that is conclusively shown. But you have to factor this in: the cell tower pings are extremely reliable, and at least imply that Casey had not left the house. The testimony of George, on the other hand, is highly questionable. If you balance something extremely reliable against something highly questionable, the nod goes to the extremely reliable, right?
Now there is the possibility that she had left the house but stayed in the area, within 1 mile. Where within that mile did she go? What did she do? There are no answers to those questions. Who had the burden of proof here?
The prosecution asks that you fill in the blanks entirely with inferences favorable to their contentions. But this is asking too much, when it is more than a permissible inference to conclude that George was not telling the truth about when Casey left the house, a conclusion which is after all supported by the extremely reliable cell tower pings.
LikeLike
Looking at the other pages, I think the author started following this case more recently. I remember hearing about claims of incest long ago. I searched for specifics and found this:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18155274/detail.html
[The investigation has brought out accusations Casey had been making against those closest to her, namely that her father George has abused her, and that her brother Lee made inappropriate sexual advances toward her once when she was in junior high. The documents show Casey said her mother Cindy did not believe that to be true.]
Notice how weak the allegations were, compared to now. George has abused her, which probably means he physically abused her, which is consistent with Tony L’s testimony . Her brother Lee made one inappropriate sexual advance toward her. In her jailhouse letter, she claimed Lee touched her inappropriately several times, and George probably did the same when she was younger. If this is true, which I doubt, it hardly sounds like the kind of thing that sends someone into the twilight zone. If she can’t even remember if something happened to her, it couldn’t have been that traumatic!
Then, there is this gem:
[Casey’s ex-fiance’, Jesse Grund, told investigators he has heard that Casey has been cooking up a story to frame him for Caylee’s murder, even though she insists Caylee is alive. Grund claims Casey tried to convince her lawyer, with her mother’s help, that Grund killed Caylee because of his “obsession” with her and planted evidence in the back of her (Casey’s) car.]
Looks like Ms. Anthony was looking to pin this on somebody or the other for some time.
LikeLike
What is a “weak” allegation? It is unclear what kind of abuse is being alleged, or when or where. These are all questions to be asked, but apparently nobody bothered. I’m not sure that makes the allegation weak; it may make the investigation weak, though.
Grund may have heard this or that. It doesn’t mean it happened. It is quite common, once a major criminal investigation is known to be hovering around you, that people suspect they are being falsely implicated by erstwhile companions who seem to be the targets. I mean, it could have happened. Casey is, after all, a mess. Nobody’s disputing that around here.
Actually, amnesia is one of the strongest indicators of both physical and psychological trauma.
LikeLike
[What is a “weak” allegation?]
George abused her. That is not characterized as a sexual abuse, and this is the same thing she told Lazzaro – George physically abused her. Lee’s abuse is identified as a sexual abuse.
[I mean, it could have happened. Casey is, after all, a mess. Nobody’s disputing that around here.]
Or, Casey is a liar who is looking for a good lie to tell to deflect the blame off her. She did with Grund earlier, which her lawyer apparently didn’t buy, for whatever reason. She is doing it with George now.
LikeLike
[Actually, amnesia is one of the strongest indicators of both physical and psychological trauma.]
Yeah, if you can believe that George touching her inappropriately was so traumatic that she forgot about it (though she didn’t quite forget it, did she?). Apparently, Lee touching her inappropriately didn’t cause her the trauma because she does remember it. She remembers they both touched her in the same manner, but one is traumatic and one is not. I am sure you can find a psychologist that can give us a theory to fit this situation. The tougher thing is to find people that think the psychologist is believable.
LikeLike
The implication here is that the abuse went far beyond mere “touching”. Abuse victims often only hint without coming right out and saying it. It’s inconvenient for us truth seekers, but that’s what makes it a hard job. Just be as generous with your inferences there as you are with the state’s evidence and I’m sure you’ll see the dilemma.
LikeLike
[ The implication here is that the abuse went far beyond mere “touching”. Abuse victims often only hint without coming right out and saying it. It’s inconvenient for us truth seekers, but that’s what makes it a hard job. Just be as generous with your inferences there as you are with the state’s evidence and I’m sure you’ll see the dilemma. ]
Right. We know Casey suffered from intense sexual abuse because she is not saying
that she did. This kind of bizarro reasoning is usually seen from conspiracy
theorists. When you point out that they have little or no evidence supporting
their suspicions, they claim it shows there is a massive cover up. And what
does cover up imply? Why, conspiracy, of course. There’s no bigger evidence
than not having any evidence!!
I am not being extra generous with prosecution’s theory. They actually have
something. They are not saying that not having something shows that
something is there.
LikeLike
Nobody around here is claiming to “know” that Casey Anthony was sexually abused.
A vague allegation of abuse, coupled with a person’s behavioral symptoms that are known to be consistent with serious abuse, justifies an inference that serious abuse occurred, although it is a stretch.
A toddler’s death that is concealed, coupled with a person’s behavioral symptoms that are known to be consistent with an intentional killing, justify an inference that the person intentionally killed the toddler, although it is a stretch.
Neither is more of a “conspiracy theory” than the other. Neither should be enough to convict anyone of anything. But convicting someone of the former is not on the table; convicting someone of the latter is. Not convicting is unsatisfying, but when you don’t know it’s the right thing to do.
LikeLike
The supposed link between excessive lying and sexual abuse is what strains credibility a lot. Normal people lie quite a bit too. There’s no doubt that Casey is accustomed to lying frequently, but her lie output before Caylee’s death pales in comparison to that after Caylee’s death. We don’t need to resort to existence of sexual abuse and make-believe mentality to explain Casey’s lies before Caylee’s death.
But even if we entertain the possibility, here’s what you are basically proposing. Casey was undergoing intense sexual abuse but she was in denial. She constructed a make-believe world where she wasn’t being sexually abused and things were normal. Her lies are just an extension of the same mentality.
But if she is living in this make-believe world where there is no sexual abuse, she shouldn’t have mentioned sexual abuse to police (and subsequently in her jailhouse letter). If she discarded her make-believe world by the time she talked to the police, she shouldn’t have continued to lie to the police.
We are also to believe that she became all better now, because she is facing the ‘truth’ head on now. She openly admits that her father sexually abused her. How did this remarkable transformation take place? Did she go through years of therapy? Nope. She just talked to her lawyers. What’s more likely to happen when you talk to your lawyers – you develop your defense for the trail, or you get cured of serious and long-standing psychological issues?
The truth is probably more along these lines. She may have suspected her brother inappropriately touched her when she was young. She tried this out on the police first, to see if it gets her their sympathy. (She apparently asked the bounty hunter’s assistant Tracy if she heard the rumor that Lee is Caylee’s father. Tracy felt that Casey is trying the story out on her to see her reaction.) She tried a slightly more refined version in her jailhouse letter. She appears to be preparing for her defense during those three years. Her meetings with her lawyers produced a concrete defense for her trial rather than curing her of her psychological problems (very serious problems if we are to believe your theory).
Whereas the prosecution depicts Casey as a rational person with understandable motives, you paint her as a ‘victim of sexual abuse’ that seems to have her own rules of conduct that are not rational and understandable. You need much more to sell your theory than prosecution needs to sell theirs.
LikeLike
Who knows. It is a real lame excuse. I still think the kid was chloroformed when no baby sitter could be found. that would make it high manslaughter or low murder. The state overcharged and bungled the case. That was to placate the Reptiles in the media. Judge Perry is up for re-election next year and needs a conviction so he will go along. The way out may be to grant the mistrial motion by Finney, then make a plea deal.
LikeLike
It’s very important to remember that the past sexual abuse is not an excuse for murder or manslaughter, and no one is suggesting that. The contention is that there was no murder or manslaughter, rather an accidental death by drowning in the pool. The alleged history of sexual abuse is to explain the aberrant behavior after the accidental death, and the failure to report it.
But another thing you bring up is also worth discussing, and that is, there are few situations in my experience in which babysitters were more readily available. Not to say that there weren’t small difficulties and inconveniences here and there, but overall the grandmother was pretty much available for that on a daily basis. It’s hard to imagine, although it is possible, that someone would be so impatient and impulsive that they would drug a toddler to put them to sleep when within a few hours there would generally be someone to take them off your hands.
Nevertheless, the accidental death scenario related to drugging the child is more plausible than an intentional murder scenario.
LikeLike
This is a very well thought through comment, but not error free.
The link is not so much between sexual abuse and “lying”, as it is between sexual abuse and a profound psychological disconnect from reality. It doesn’t strain credibility as much if you’ve ever observed it. It isn’t really the same as lying, although like lying it involves a lot of falsehoods. Reality is always threatening to intrude, so the fantasy world defends itself ever more aggressively, sometimes absurdly. In any case, the extremely strange partying and “hot body” contest and so on in the immediate aftermath of the death of her daughter is indicative of powerful pathological forces. One option is that she is a sociopathic murderess devoid of any conscience whatever. A true monster. But another is that she is very disturbed for some other reason, particularly suggestive of a history of sexual abuse. Looking at the whole picture, there is an almost complete absence of any indications of the former. There is no history of pathological cruelty. No history of hatred or violence directed at her daughter or anyone else. On the other hand, her explicitly sexually suggestive behaviors in the aftermath of her daughter’s death are consistent with the latter. It is counter-intuitive and even weird, but post traumatic promiscuous behavior is often seen in rape victims.
These behaviors look terrible, of course, from a moralistic point of view, which is culturally acute in all matters sexual. And criminal trials are, at their worst, primitive morality plays in which we identify the “guilty” among us in an ugly, intellectually sloppy and self satisfied way. Even in the absence of a serious criminal accusation, sorting through the various symptoms of sexual abuse requires a lot of understanding and patience; but almost no one is inclined to extend either once the wheels of the criminal justice system start grinding.
Also disagreeing with you here, I think one big problem the prosecution has is that they do not depict Casey as a rational person with understandable motives. And respectfully, you consistently miss this aspect of the case. The idea that a mother pretty much out of the blue offs her toddler because the baby interferes with her social life is a lurid, salacious and sensational allegation – borderline silly – that would be treated with extreme skepticism if it came from any source other than police and prosecutors. And even after their whole case in chief was presented, that allegation remained almost entirely without credible evidentiary support.
How much do I need to “sell” my “theory” when the competing theory is so feeble? When does the burden of proof come into play? It is not me that is asking people to find anyone guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
LikeLike
[ I think one big problem the prosecution has is that they do not depict Casey as a rational person with understandable motives. ]
Actually, they don’t actively try to depict Casey as one kind of person. They merely talk about Casey’s actions. They hint at Casey’s underlying motivation, leaving some of it for the jury’s imagination. The impression one gets of Casey from the Prosecution’s case is that she is not an impaired individual, and that she is a fully fledged human being capable of deliberate thought and action. They don’t say Casey is a psychopath. They may say she killed her child because she felt trapped in her current life and felt frustrated.
[ No history of hatred or violence directed at her daughter or anyone else. ]
You seem to expect a certain amount of consistency in people’s behavior. You want to be shown that Casey has been the kind of person that would end up killing someone. This is typical of a psychologist (or someone that believes in a psychologist’s world view). In practice, people are inconsitent in great many ways. The prosecution doesn’t engage in psychological clap trap, so they don’t have to worry about this. The defense, on the other hand, have taken upon the burden of presenting a coherent theory for Casey’s behavior. (They have taken upon that burden as soon they finished their opening statement.)
[ How much do I need to “sell” my “theory” when the competing theory is so feeble? ]
Ask yourself then why you (and the defense) felt compelled to propose the sexual-abuse-reality-disconnect theory. You know deep down that Casey’s lying, cover-up, and callous behavior are damning. Virtually no innocent mother acts the way she did. The defense has to explain it, or it will hurt Casey.
[ It doesn’t strain credibility as much if you’ve ever observed it. ]
I have seen enough life to know that there are no uniform rules of conduct for sexual abuse victims. There are as many behaviors as there are people. Regardless, if you want to argue that sexual abuse is the underlying reason for Casey’s weird behavior, you need to do more than say that her weird behavior is consistent with sexual abuse. People demand more proof whenever these impaired-person theories come up. The society operates under the basic premise that people are able to control their own actions. (There is also the pesky problem of being able to reliably detect a ‘mental illness’.)
I know Casey’s ‘mental illness’ is not used to explain her crime here, but consider an analogy. Let’s say a serial killer is being prosecuted. The accused pleads guilty by reason of mental disease. He then has to prove that he has ‘mental illness’, or had it when he killed. He can’t say my killing is consistent with mental illness. He can’t claim that he had to have mental illness or he wouldn’t have killed as many people as he did. I mean he can probably do that, but it’s not a good argument.
LikeLike
This is a succinct statement of the problem. We don’t, in theory, leave guilt to the jury’s “imagination”. Psychological “claptrap” might not be a very good argument, but it compares favorably with fantasy.
I have never said that it didn’t require an explanation, now that she is in the dock. Lots of things require an explanation once someone is accused of a crime. That is what defending yourself from accusations consists of. If in the very act of defending yourself you are implicating yourself, then no accusation can result in anything but a finding of guilt.
What is the prosecution doing other than arguing that her weird behavior is consistent with guilt? Why the double standard?
But not when these “evil person” theories come up. Evil person is somehow inherently more believable than impaired person. Why is that?
LikeLike
[ We don’t, in theory, leave guilt to the jury’s “imagination”. ]
Prosecution doesn’t have to prove motive. So long as the jury can see that Casey didn’t care for her baby very much (which they can easily see from Casey’s callous behavior), it may not bother about knowing exactly why she didn’t care for her.
[ I have never said that it didn’t require an explanation, now that she is in the dock. ]
Well, you were wondering why you needed to present a convincing case of sexual abuse being the reason for Casey’s lying. I just reminded you.
[ What is the prosecution doing other than arguing that her weird behavior is consistent with guilt? Why the double standard? ]
The Casey you glean from the prosecution’s theory is not an impaired person. She is fully in control of her behavior. She did what she did for normal reasons (such as selfishness or resentment). This is something people understand readily. (Actually, Casey’s behavior is not weird according to their theory. It is normal for a guilty person to act the way she did.)
The Casey you want to sell is an impaired person. She did what she did for obscure reasons. People demand more from you (or the defense) to believe this. Also, how do you go from habitual lying to some sort of mental illness? I can understand if we are talking about habitual violence that is apparently meaningless (e.g. against animals). People may have a hard time understanding why somebody engages in habitual violence. They don’t see what the person gets out of it. Lying, on the other hand, is something a lot of people engage in from time to time. It’s easy to see what lying gives Casey. Casey benefits every time Casey lies. She got a friend to babysit for free. She may have gotten somebody’s respect by posing as a college girl. And so on.
[ Evil person is somehow inherently more believable than impaired person. Why is that? ]
The prosecution is not talking about an ‘evil’ person. As far as I can tell, you are the one that is trying to present this evil-vs-sick false dichotomy.
LikeLike
Technically, perhaps not. But you can’t have a credible circumstantial case without it, it’s one of the key components: motive, opportunity, means. Also, at least where I am from, in a circumstantial case a jury is supposed to be instructed by the judge that they cannot find guilt unless every other scenario is ruled out “to a moral certainty”. If they don’t prove motive and the defense shows another party that has met all three requirements including motive, the jury shouldn’t even get to decide the case: there should be a judgment of acquittal by the judge.
I seem to recall the question being something more along the lines of how convincing does the defense explanation have to be if the prosecution explanation isn’t very convincing. In terms of a criminal trial, that’s really more the question. Not so much whether you are convinced of innocence, but whether you are not convinced of guilt.
The prosecution seeks to label the defendant “guilty”, which is in every social sense the equivalent of calling them evil in the most real and dramatic way, complete with attending severe consequences up to and including death. I know that prosecutors often deny this aspect of their craft; but the denial is facile and disingenuous. “Guilt”, “Criminal” and “Evil” are functionally indistinguishable. Prosecutors should just admit that.
LikeLike
[ Technically, perhaps not. But you can’t have a credible circumstantial case without it, it’s one of the key components: motive, opportunity, means. ]
The way Casey went about spending the first 31 days after her daughter’s death in night clubs, dancing and participating in hot body contests, it’s not hard for anyone to see why Casey may have wanted Caylee out of her way.
[ I seem to recall the question being something more along the lines of how convincing does the defense explanation have to be if the prosecution explanation isn’t very convincing. ]
Prosecution’s explanation for her behavior (namely that Casey is guilty of her daughter’s murder) is very convincing, or you (and the defense) wouldn’t have felt compelled to introduce your own explanation for her behavior.
Baez wasn’t just content with saying the prosecution doesn’t have a case. He offered sexual abuse and the state of denial that it put Casey in. He seems to be trying to provide some evidence of the sexual abuse, mostly through innuendo. He doesn’t seem to be planning to put a psychologist on the stand to explain how sexual abuse causes the kind of behavior that we saw from Casey.
People are quick to conclude Casey is guilty not because the state indicted her, but because Casey lied, stonewalled and acted as if nothing happened. As Nancy Grace says, who is going to believe that somebody that was trying to evade a negligence charge will still fail to fold when the stakes rise to a murder one indictment? What innocent mother sits in jail for three years and then puts her life on the line in a murder one trial? It’s astonishing that a plea deal wasn’t made in the first couple of months.
[The prosecution seeks to label the defendant “guilty”, which is in every social sense the equivalent of calling them evil in the most real and dramatic way, complete with attending severe consequences up to and including death.]
This is your spin. But the state didn’t accuse Casey of being a bad person. It accused Casey of committing a criminal act.
The lynch mob is calling Casey evil. In my opinion, they didn’t start with “she is evil” and arrive at “she is guilty”. They started with “she is guilty”, then arrived at “she is evil”. They are, of course, wrong in calling her evil.
LikeLike
Well, it’s hard for me to connect those two things, although “may” fits. But it’s such a remote possibility, and it’s inconsistent to posit, on the one hand that she is an incredibly unusual murderous psychopath, yet on the other hand she is so transparent about it, incredibly unusual even among murderous psychopaths, that there are videos and photos everywhere, she abandons her “stench of death” car in a place where it is sure to be found. It’s just too easy. Like a script written by a not very sophisticated wannabe of some sort. Like a George Anthony, for instance.
Now April, this is a bit much. The prosecution brings the charges. You say “whats the basis for it?” They lay out their theory. You say it’s not convincing, and lay out a different theory on the same facts. You can’t claim that offering an alternative theory precisely to show that the prosecution’s is unconvincing is an admission that it is nevertheless convincing.
Yes. I’ve said many times, I think, that this is aberrant behavior that requires an explanation. I think the defense offered one with the “grief expert” but it fell well short of tying anything in with sexual abuse. I haven’t watched the trial, so I don’t know, but there could be evidence in there – even very convincing evidence – of sexual abuse by George. But the only way that’s going to be made clear at this point is in the closing argument.
This is an odd question, coming from someone that has evidently never been falsely accused. False accusations are very disorienting. Perhaps you meant to say “guilty” mother, for a guilty mother, conscious of guilt and the least bit rational, would indeed never do that. But innocent people do all kinds of strange things when they are falsely accused.
LikeLike
[Well, it’s hard for me to connect those two things, although “may” fits.]
My point is, as she went dancing and enjoying as soon as Caylee is no longer in the picture, it’s believable if it’s suggested that she eliminated Caylee because Caylee is a hindrance to her carefree life.
[But it’s such a remote possibility, and it’s inconsistent to posit, on the one hand that she is an incredibly unusual murderous psychopath, yet on the other hand she is so transparent about it, incredibly unusual even among murderous psychopaths, that there are videos and photos everywhere, she abandons her “stench of death” car in a place where it is sure to be found.]
“Unusual murderous psychopath” is, again, your phrase and your viewpoint. So this paradox is something you created. She probably expected her parents to get the car later, and fix the mess (may be like they always did for her). Cindy did clean up some evidence.
[ They lay out their theory. You say it’s not convincing, and lay out a different theory on the same facts. ]
Baez didn’t have to offer any theory at all. Neither did you, but you are writing a blog, whereas he is defending someone. Why couldn’t he content himself with saying the prosecution won’t be able to prove their case? He knows that Casey’s behavior is the most damning evidence against her. He even said no mother does what his client did – not report her child missing and go dancing instead. He knows he has to fix it. So he put something out there, though innuendo is the best he could do for evidence. (Probably, his idea is, if the jury is looking to acquit her based on other evidence, they have at least a plausible explanation to allay their suspicions about her behavior.)
[This is an odd question, coming from someone that has evidently never been falsely accused.]
I may not have made myself clear. If you are innocent of murder, why would you not come clean and try to make a plea deal (for the much smaller crime you really did commit), so you can avoid sitting in jail waiting for a trial? How many years would someone typically get for a negligence charge? Casey had no trouble spending 3 years in jail, but she couldn’t make a plea deal for negligence and take on a similar jail term? The defense did not even attempt to get a plea deal. They had some leverage before Caylee’s body was found.
She sits in jail for 3 years, and she is risking her life, all to evade a negligence charge? You have to believe she didn’t want that body found before it was found.
LikeLike
April, please. I don’t “create” these things. There’s a problem of perspective here. We forget, when the government puts someone on trial for murder, how rare and unusual murder is. We shouldn’t. Death happens to everyone. Death by murder happens to virtually no one. The distance from a dead person to a murdered person is a nearly unbridgeable chasm. Absent a high degree of certainty a murder explanation should never be accepted.
But that’s what he did, precisely by offering alternative explanations for the same conduct. That’s how you show people that the prosecution’s conclusions are unwarranted, and it might be the best way to do so.
The most damning, and indeed irrefutable evidence against Casey is that she is Caylee’s mother, Caylee was a toddler, and Caylee is dead. From there, the prosecution reasons: 1) the death was not reported and that means murder; 2) the mother’s behavior was dishonest and not normal and that means she is the murderer. The other empirical support to this reasoning is: duct tape, “death smells”, and internet searches.
Again, perspective. This is a very weak case to overcome the extreme unlikelihood of murder. The best way to show how weak is by offering far more likely – still not common, but far more likely – explanations. That’s what the defense did. It should be good enough, but probably won’t be, and the reason for that is that a government accusation turns an extremely unlikely scenario into a foregone conclusion in the minds of many people.
What does the prosecution have, other than racy photos, duct tape and the “innuendo” that flows from that? Why do words like “innuendo” get applied only to the defense, never to the prosecution?
It seems to me you retain this fundamental bias, either in favor of government prosecutions or against Casey Anthony. You’re more than smart enough to perceive weaknesses in arguments, but for some reason your critical faculties break down when it comes to the prosecution’s assertions here. You are even able to construct alternative explanations to the prosecution’s yourself – you have done it in your own comments, something a lot of people cannot effectively do – but you reject the implications your own mind furnishes for you.
LikeLike
[ We forget, when the government puts someone on trial for murder, how rare and unusual murder is. ]
First of all, far too many murders take place and get prosecuted for murder to be as unusual as you claim. We have it within us humans to kill. Second, the state is talking about Casey’s actions. You want to talk about what kind of a person Casey is or is not. You are making a subtle attempt to increase the burden of proof – now you want it proven that Casey is an “unusual murderous psychopath”.
[ The most damning, and indeed irrefutable evidence against Casey is that she is Caylee’s mother, Caylee was a toddler, and Caylee is dead. From there, the prosecution reasons: 1) the death was not reported and that means murder; 2) the mother’s behavior was dishonest and not normal and that means she is the murderer. The other empirical support to this reasoning is: duct tape, “death smells”, and internet searches. ]
It is a circumstantial evidence case, but if Baez doesn’t attempt to explain Casey’s behavior after her daughter’s death, he knows that’s all she wrote for Casey. Virtually no innocent person acts the way Casey acted.
It’s definitely not outside the realm of possibility that Casey didn’t kill her daughter but still acted the way she did. Baez tried the sexual abuse and the drowning accident theory. Unfortunately for Baez, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and he has little evidence. (Note that given Casey’s behavior, the extraordinary claim is not that she murdered her daughter. It’s that she didn’t murder her.)
Baez didn’t even make a good faith attempt to provide evidence of sexual abuse. Baez never asks Lee if he tried to grope Casey. Casey accuses Lee of molesting her, FBI does a DNA test for paternity, and Baez wants to portray that as evidence of sexual abuse. Look what the FBI suspected, he wants to claim, whereas FBI could merely be eliminating a possibility suggested by his own client, which is part of any normal investigation. It’s almost like he wants to get Casey’s testimony in without Casey taking the stand.
For the accident, he has the testimony of George’s alleged mistress. Though technically it’s not supposed to be taken as evidence of Caylee dying accidentally, Baez hopes he can sneak it through the backdoor. The ‘mistress’ can’t make up her mind if George believed there was an accident of if he knew it. She was saying yes to both the DA and Baez. On the flip side, we have George’s suicide letter to show he didn’t know what happened to Caylee. Cindy said she thought the ladder was down, but then the prosecution showed she didn’t really make any call to George after that.
[ It seems to me you retain this fundamental bias, either in favor of government prosecutions or against Casey Anthony. ]
The ‘bias’ is entirely put there by Casey’s actions. I think the bias here is yours – you appear to not comprehend how extraordinary Casey’s behavior really is. In cases where we don’t know every detail, there’s one or two things that compel one’s attention and force one to interpret everything else in that light. (This is why we have murder convictions even when there’s no dead body in evidence!) In my opinion, Casey’s behavior is that one thing in this case. We will know what the jury thinks soon enough.
LikeLike
Well, according to this, , the “homicide” rate in the US, which would include of course negligent and manslaughter type homicides, has been under 10 per 100K of population. By way of comparison , this statistical level of occurrence in a population would qualify homicide generally, to say nothing of murder, as a very rare disease.
In other words, you can’t really dispute that using your own criteria murder is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. But in this particular case you don’t apply that criteria and are willing to infer a murder from very scant proof. And it is not “increasing the burden of proof” for the prosecution to simply fairly characterize their position, which is that if what they are alleging is true then even among murderers Casey Anthony would be quite unusual.
I mean, look, you have a dead body and suspicious circumstances. As I have said many times, there are reasons to be suspicious. But that’s way short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and even with the judge pulling out all the stops to help them the prosecution didn’t make it. I realize they are under pressure to bring a case when there is a dead little girl – remember Jon Benet Ramsay? – but these people are supposed to be professional and better than that, not succumbing to the braying mob. There’s no statute of limitations on murder. You can afford to be patient. What you cannot afford to do and should never do is just pick the easiest target and see if you can get a conviction by “dirtying them up”. And that’s precisely what they did here. And tragically they may get away with it.
George’s “suicide” letter shows no such thing. The state has argued that it does. That doesn’t make it true. Your inclination towards suspicion seems quite selective – highly suspicious behavior by George gets a pass whereas Casey’s suspicious conduct always means she killed her daughter, no matter how many other explanations there may be.
LikeLike
[ In other words, you can’t really dispute that using your own criteria murder is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. ]
Murder is still not as unusual as you claim. There is no requirement that you have to be an ‘unusual murdering psychopath’. Ordinary people get prosecuted and convicted for murder all the time. Killing is a perfectly human trait.
[ But in this particular case you don’t apply that criteria and are willing to infer a murder from very scant proof. ]
Casey’s behavior after Caylee’s death is not scant proof. It is a devastating indictment against Casey. As prosecution has so ably shown, each Casey lie was designed to get Casey out of the jam that Casey was in at the time. These are not imaginary friends and silly lies from a sick person. This is purposeful behavior aimed at thwarting her parents first, and the police investigation next.
You have tried, and the defense has tried, to present an alternative explanation, but in my opinion, neither was successful. There is no evidence of sexual abuse by the father. There is no good explanation for why anyone would want to cover up an accident and make it look like murder. The defense never explained George’s motives for going from “conspiring with Casey to cover up the accident” (one silly supposition) to “framing Casey” (another silly supposition). To me, George comes across as much more credible than Casey throughout.
[ George’s “suicide” letter shows no such thing. The state has argued that it does. That doesn’t make it true. ]
The letter asks why Caylee’s body was found where it was found. That cannot come from soneone that placed the body there, unless George is faking it. Again, without some explanation for his motives, the defense can’t get the jury to disbelieve George. In this specific case, actually, the defense made a complete mess of it, and Baez made a fool of himself and lost some credibility. At first, Baez suggested George made a suicide attempt and expressed some guilt in his letter. He wanted to imply that George did something wrong (like dumping Caylee’s body). When the whole letter came into evidence, Baez changed his tune and argued this is not really a suicide attempt. There are things in that letter that damage his case, so he would like it if the whole thing is a fake.
[ Your inclination towards suspicion seems quite selective – highly suspicious behavior by George gets a pass whereas Casey’s suspicious conduct always means she killed her daughter, no matter how many other explanations there may be. ]
With what we saw from George so far, you can’t call his behavior ‘highly suspicious’ unless you are caught in Casey’s vortex. If Caylee were to disappear when she was in George’s care, and if George were to tell a string of lies explaining her disappearnce, and if Caylee’s death were to make a big positive difference to George’s life, then I’m sure the police would have gone after him, and I’d have thought the worst of him too.
LikeLike
I don’t know what I can do but give you the statistics showing that murder is rarer than the rarest diseases, as I did. How do you define “all the time”? In very busy urban courts there are only a few murder prosecutions every year out of thousands of criminal cases that are brought. It is a fact that human beings sometimes commit murder, but it is a very rare event by any meaningful standard of the term, and the quantum of proof in support of such an accusation should be substantial before anyone would find it convincing.
Casey’s behavior after Caylee’s death was the same as it was before Caylee’s death. The imaginary job, the imaginary nanny, the elaborate fabrications all predated any crime at all. Fairly assessed this behavior accordingly has not just little bearing, but no bearing at all on whether she killed her child.
My assessment of George is that he is not credible in the slightest, and in fact he gives me the creeps. And since I never heard from Casey on these issues, I don’t have an assessment of her credibility. I am aware that she lies a lot, but people lie and tell the truth, too. In fact probably everyone lies here and there. If that disqualified them from ever being believed, we wouldn’t be able to believe anyone, including all the other witnesses who testified for the prosecution.
I can’t say that you’re an unreasonable or unintelligent person, but I think you have reasons, other than evidence, for declining to direct your suspicions towards George when you are so willing to direct them towards Casey. I don’t know what those reasons are, but they are basically impervious. If our discussions have been any indication we are probably looking at a hung jury.
LikeLike
[ I don’t know what I can do but give you the statistics showing that murder is rarer than the rarest diseases, as I did. ]
I am objecting to the implication that it takes a special kind of person to commit murder. The fact that you are talking about diseases here is itself a big red sign. You have been trying to imply that people that commit murder have some sort of special ‘nature’.
[ My assessment of George is that he is not credible in the slightest, and in fact he gives me the creeps. And since I never heard from Casey on these issues, I don’t have an assessment of her credibility. ]
If by ‘these issues’, you mean sexual abuse or the ‘new truth’ (namely accidental drowning and cover up), then you are right. We haven’t heard from Casey on these. She chose not to say anytying. We heard from Baez, and he didn’t do a stellar job. It looked like he wanted to blame anyone he could to deflect attention away from his client, but he had no coherent theory of what happened. If he wanted to tell a good story that explained George’s motives and helped people understand George’s behavior, he should have put Casey on the stand.
As it stands, it makes no sense why Casey and George would try to cover up an accident; it’s not clear why George would then turn around and frame Casey; and it’s a mystery why Casey chose to stick to her lies all this time when her life is at stake. If some sort of cover up was attempted, I’d think Casey would have folded in the first week or so of the police interrogation.
[ Casey’s behavior after Caylee’s death was the same as it was before Caylee’s death. The imaginary job, the imaginary nanny, the elaborate fabrications all predated any crime at all. ]
Casey’s lies were always purposeful – they were always designed to get Casey what she wanted. After Caylee’s death, the lies were meant to keep people in the dark about Caylee’s whereabouts. The fact that Casey lied about Caylee’s whereabouts and kept on lying is the most damning evidence against her. The fact that she apparently was enjoying herself partying in those 31 days suggests she didn’t care much for her child and makes the inference of murder believable. It also shows why Casey may have wanted to eliminate Caylee.
[ I can’t say that you’re an unreasonable or unintelligent person, but I think you have reasons, other than evidence, for declining to direct your suspicions towards George when you are so willing to direct them towards Casey. ]
I think I conveyed why. There’s simply no good explanation for why Casey acted the way she did.
LikeLike
Well, April I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Does the jury’s verdict cause you to re-evaluate, or do you just think they got it wrong?
Take your time. I think you did a better job making the prosecution’s case than the prosecution did. At least I think you held your opinions more honestly. Towards the end it seemed like you just couldn’t come to grips with the conflicting implications of the evidence, but that’s not your fault. You didn’t have enough to work with.
LikeLike
What if you are innocent not only of the big crime but of the little one? Many times innocent people cannot fully grasp the idea that they are at risk of being found guilty even if they are innocent. They have the same child-like belief in the police and the system that jurors do. Once again, your question is more oriented towards the thought process of, say, an experienced criminal who is guilty of something like what he is charged with and who does a risk-benefit analysis in deciding whether to accept a plea offer. Indeed this is what the system is most comfortable with. But it must be remembered that at the time this all started, I don’t believe Casey had any record. There’s always a reluctance to plead guilty to a serious crime when it’s the first one. And that’s appropriate. It’s a big step to become a convicted felon.
LikeLike
[ What if you are innocent not only of the big crime but of the little one? ]
I asked the question based on defense’s theory that Casey tried to cover up the accident to avoid a negligence charge. If she is not even guilty of that, then it makes even less sense that she tried to cover up.
[ Many times innocent people cannot fully grasp the idea that they are at risk of being found guilty even if they are innocent. ]
To me, this doesn’t explain why the defense didn’t attempt to make a plea deal after Casey got Baez as her attorney. He couldn’t have been that naive even if she is. There’s no sit down, no off-the-record talk, nothing.
Throughout those six months, Casey stuck to her kidnapping Nanny story. Not only was Caylee taken by the Nanny, the whole Anthony family was in grave danger. They couldn’t even talk about anything openly.
When the remains were found, and everybody saw that the blanket (and some other stuff) came from the Anthony household, the kidnapping story became untenable. That’s why the defense theory is what it is today – Casey v4.0.
The defense claims Casey is used to shutting reality out because of the alleged sexual abuse. But for her to go to Blockbuster with her boyfriend in the evening after her daughter died in an accident on the same day is extraordinary. She doesn’t miss a beat, doesn’t take a day off after what has to be a very traumatic event.
Now, if Casey had been thinking of getting rid of Caylee, and she did end Caylee’s life on the 16th, then her daughter’s death was not a shock to her. She caused it, and she had been living with the idea for some time. It’s more believable that she can act like nothing happened.
LikeLike
The fact she would not accept the plea bargain. I think that is bearing. Most criminals will accept it. To risk death row? A unanimous Jury? Most do not understand the trial. It was not to get “Justice for Caylee”.
LikeLike
I believe it was premediated since she dissociated from her daughter the moment she started to use the “Nanny” lie. Dissociation is a partial or complete disruption of the normal integration of a person’s conscious or psychological functioning. After watching the raw jail video’s I am convinced this was planned out in her mind. There is absolutely no other reasonable explanation. Her MO will get her.
LikeLike
But all the evidence, every shred of it, was presented by the prosecution. Every unknown the prosecution filled up with it’s theory, ie;
– smell in trunk = Caylee’s decomposing body
– Chloroform search = search and substance used to kill Caylee
– Duct Tape at scene = stretched out across childs nose and mouth to suffucate her after use of chloroform.
-slutty disposition = no remorse, guilty, guilty, and more guilty
For you, everything worked. For the jury, it did not work. How could 12 people, most of whom had known something about Casey Anthony, find her not guilty? You know why? Because the jury got it right and the prosecution got it wrong. Once both sides presented their cases, it still left unanswered all of the questions that were EXTREMELY important in determining Casey Anthony murdered her child. Like who killed the child? Why did this person kill the child. When did the person kill the child? Where did this person kill the child? How did the person kill the child? and so on. You know, the really important ones, not the emotional questions like ” how could she ….for 31 days!.
I think the author of this blog said a great jury is one that likes a good who dunnit story-or something like that. I think this jury was that kind of jury.
It was the best trial I ever saw.
LikeLike
But Casey had been using the nanny lie for years. And while it is true that dissociation could occur as a result of conduct that a person isn’t willing to accept in themselves, it can occur for other reasons as well. Dissociation can be habitual in sexual abuse victims; in other words, it becomes a standard response to psychological trauma. I think the evidence leaves little doubt that Casey Anthony dissociated; whether that was the result of the scenario of the prosecution or the defense, other things being equal, is basically an even bet. But if you ask me, other things were not equal.
LikeLike