Duct Tape

I think I’ll leave the subject after this unless and until something new comes up, but this issue has bothered me in more ways than one.

Let us give the Casey Anthony prosecutors the benefit of the doubt and summarize the evidence and the inferences from the evidence favorable to them and ignoring, for now, the George Anthony problem:

1.  The child was last seen alive with her mother.

2.  The next time the child was seen was when her body was found, and the body had duct tape attached to the skull.  The child had been dead since roughly the time that she was last seen with her mother.

Now, this evidence would permit an inference that the mother killed the child, on purpose or accidentally.  It would not compel this inference, but it would permit it.

I find it very difficult to understand why the prosecution would go further and say that it wanted the jury to find that the mother killed the child by using the duct tape to smother her.  She may have smothered her without duct tape, and applied the duct tape post-mortem. It was unnecessary, then, even in the intentional murder scenario, to categorically claim that the duct tape was used to smother the child.

Yet I saw an interview with prosecutor Jeff Ashton (that I can’t find now) in which he claimed that the duct tape as weapon scenario was obvious; indeed, it is what convinced him that this was an intentional murder case.  There is no valid line of reasoning that supports this.  He might be convinced that this was an intentional murder case for any number of reasons, but duct tape found on the body could not rationally be one of them.  It is a non-sequitur.

I think he also said in that interview that he had prosecuted dozens of death penalty murder cases.  I’m sure most of them were successful.  If not all of them.

This is quite frightening.  How many individuals did he send to death row, and yet he cannot put two and two together?

I’ll admit that it makes for a more shocking and lurid tale when you can dramatically identify the very specific mechanism by which a murder occurred.  And that is probably a part of nearly every murder case:  you want to show the jury the murder weapon.  It gets the evidence tag.  It is paraded about the courtroom before the jury so that they can feel the menacing quality of it and imagine it being employed by the defendant.  I can understand that.

Of course, when you have a gun shot wound and you have recovered a bullet you want to place the gun that fired the bullet into the hands of the defendant.  But things are different when you have no cause of death and no demonstrable wounds.  You can infer that the usual way a mother would kill her child is by smothering or drowning, maybe produce an expert witness who runs through a series of mother-murderers and shows the prevalence in such cases of smothering as the preferred method of killing.

I’m sure Judge Perry would have permitted that testimony.

Why lock yourself in to a non-sequitur?

I don’t think he worried about it.  He’s so used to having his way, as indeed all prosecutors are, that he became mentally lazy enough to hinge the highest profile case of his career on an invalid line of reasoning.

And if he did that in the Casey Anthony case, how many other cases did he do that in where the outcome was not an acquittal but a conviction, even followed perhaps by an execution?

The sloppy reasoning, bred by the experience of being so favored,  is further demonstrated by the failure to recognize the problem that would be posed by the defense casting suspicion upon George Anthony.  Without George’s testimony, they could not even place the toddler alone with her mother at the time she was last seen alive.  You have to prepare for the possibility that the jury might reject George’s testimony – any defense lawyer would do that for a critical witness – and have some evidence to bolster either the witness’ credibility or his account of events.

And here’s a curious thing about the George problem.  Not only did the prosecution not have any evidence with which to do that, some very reliable evidence – phone pings on cell towers – placed Casey Anthony at home for hours after George said she had left on the fateful day, undermining rather strongly the testimony – the crucial, sole testimony that begins the whole narrative of “Casey killed Caylee” – that Caylee Anthony was last seen alive with her mother.

This gaping hole, this chasm – and really, you couldn’t have a much more serious proof problem than that the very basis of your story, the very first event in it, is highly questionable – went entirely unnoticed by the prosecution, but not by the defense.  And not by the jury.

There was a comment by the alternate juror along the lines that he didn’t believe anything George Anthony said.  That would explain the jury verdict on entirely legitimate and rational grounds all by itself.



Filed under wrongful convictions

25 responses to “Duct Tape

  1. Country Lawyer

    I can’t agree more. Jeff Ashton is, like a lot of prosecutors, a big bully who is used to getting his way and daddy (Judge Perry) always taking up for him.

    The duct tape was a problem. The dead body smell or no smell (depending who testified) was a problem. The apparently falsified 84 computer searches were a problem. George’s girlfriend was a problem. The sniffer machine was a problem. The wiped down gas can was a problem. The lack of DNA on duct tape that was supposadly left on a body while it decomposed was a problem. The lack of DNA in the trunk where a body supposadly decomposed was a problem. The lack of blowflies in the trunk was a problem. The lack of evidence that the body decomposed further at the dump scene was a problem.

    I could keep going, but the sheeple who will follow Jeff Ashton until there is no constitution will never get it. You can’t beat it into them. I bet if this case affected them they would get it. I almost say they don’t deserve a constitution, but even people who are to ignorant to support constitutional rights deserve them.


    • Did you see that video over at Crime & Federalism with the old guy screaming at the television that he wanted Casey Anthony to “fry”?

      There was a movie in the 1960’s called “The Chase” with an all star cast including Marlon Brando and Jane Fonda and Robert Redford where this little town gets all whupped up about a local escaped convict. The sheriff played by Brando tries to bring him in peacefully but the townspeople manage to kill him anyway.

      Seeing that mentality in real life is so, I don’t know, depressing. Makes one despair of the human race almost.


  2. bluebird

    The whipped up crowd keep screaming: What about the duct tape and chloroform? They are blind and deaf to the defense evidence showing the duct tape and chloroform does not work–or that the prosecution in presenting these items made a guess. As Geraldo Rivera said, the prosecution should have gone with an easier method of murder like suffocating the child with a pillow. How easily the public bought that chloroform is easy to make as if this is an everyday thing people can make. They never even questioned the lack of evidence that supported the “making” of the compound. And neither did the media.

    The prosecution never rehabilited George Anthony, never understood the impact of his behavior under examination by the defense. Worse, they went after Cindy, but left George alone. Then, they revered him in closing. The prosecution was sold on their story and could not see the forest from the trees. Not before the charges, not during the investigation when they had to hire the sniff guy, not during the trial, not after hearing the jury’s verdicts, not even now on national television.


    • Bluebird: You know what else? The alleged mistress testified that George had told her that Caylee was dead before the body was found, even as he was telling the world that she was missing. Apparently, other than an attempt to smear this woman by George, the prosecution didn’t even address this.

      I’m going into this because you’re a lawyer and you need to know.

      Isn’t that incredible, that after all the endless prosecution smearing of the defendant because of her lies about her child’s “disappearance”, the fact that their most important witness lied very publicly about the very same thing simply didn’t register with the prosecution? And because of that it didn’t register with the media either, which barely reported this astonishing fact, that was further corroborated by George’s statements to the FBI. And because neither the prosecution nor the media took note, neither did the vast majority of the public.

      But the jury did.

      The media is still oblivious to suspicions about George Anthony, just like the prosecution was. The prosecution is so used to their witnesses being believed when there is a conflict of evidence that they no longer notice even the most glaring problem with their own witnesses. It’s a weakness that can be exploited, as Baez has shown you, but please remember: that is not easy. You have to do it just so. You can’t overplay it.

      And notice another thing, though I think I have posted on this before: when there is a wrongful conviction no one blames the prosecutor or the judge or the jury. They frequently blame the defense lawyer. When there is what might be termed, or what people feel is, a “wrongful acquittal”, they still don’t blame the prosecutor or the judge. They still blame the defense lawyer. But in contrast, they always blame the jury, usually viciously.

      The lesson for juries is: always convict. You will never be blamed for voting a conviction, but you might receive death threats for acquitting. How scary is that?

      Baez is a hero of this story. But so are the jurors.


  3. I’m not a lawyer but i did watch the trial. I think it depends on who you believe. I did believe the State’s witnesses. I thought most of the defence witnesses were faulty. and since i have no one else to ask….If George’s alledged girlfreind sold her story to the national inquirer for $4,000, if she were to get up on the stand and say if was false then doesn’t she open the door for National Inquirer to sue her for selling them a false story?


    • Thanks for the comment. It brings up an important point.

      Whether to believe or disbelieve anyone can be a largely subjective determination. I found George Anthony completely unbelievable as an impression, although by the time I saw any of his testimony I already figured he was a logical suspect. So that may have colored my impression.

      Your subjective impression was the opposite. So far, so good.

      However, what is not subjective is the existence of reliably proven facts that form a reasonable basis for disbelieving him, so that even if you personally and subjectively find him believable, you have to concede that there are good reasons for people to think the opposite. For one thing, those cell phone tower pings. This is extremely reliable evidence proving that some of George’s testimony – critical testimony for the prosecution – was not true. From there, as one commenter here has pointed out, his supposed recall of so many details of the last time he saw his granddaughter, down to specific clothing, was suspicious. With that, there is certainly a sound basis to disbelieve his denials about carrying on the affair. His conduct on the witness stand, trying to smear his alleged mistress, inappropriately sparring with the defense attorney provides another basis for suspicion, especially when coupled with the other things.

      None of this is what we lawyers call “conclusive”; but it is more than enough for an objective observer to question George Anthony’s testimony in its entirety. And there would certainly be nothing unreasonable about concluding that it was so unreliable that it should be entirely rejected.

      From there, as to the case as a whole, an acquittal on homicide charges would be virtually compulsory.

      I’d be interested to know if you can offer any objective reasons for deciding that you believed the state’s witnesses and not the defense’s; and maybe concede that while you found the state’s witnesses believable, it was not unreasonable for someone else to think otherwise.


      • bluebird

        Yes, that is a very interesting and significant in understanding of how effective the defense really was with George Anthony. What is facinating is the way the jury disliked him. George actually rehabilitated Casey as the more credible! It was truly wonderful. I thought the connection between the duct tape and the past history of 5-8 pets was brilliant. What a bullseye with that one. Explained everything the defense was saying. Course the media say “the defense ended on a whimper.”


  4. I did think the prosecution slipped up on some things. i know something about enviormental biology so i did not hold it againsst the state that finger prints were not found on the duct tape. for the defense…..if the duct tape was put there by a person after the bones were dicovered then there should have been at least a little DNA from that too…or a finger print. the duct tape thing works both ways. Kronk was a harry man…if he was out there working then he was sweety too. yet no DNA from him either?
    i miss some of the trial though…..i could not bring myself to keep listening to that bush/tree lady…….that was just painfully boring….
    Casey’s behavor had a certain rythem to it…..i thought an FBI profiler should have been brought in.


  5. Country Lawyer

    Can a criminal profiler testify?


  6. I think Casey can and should have been profiled.
    Just what exactly do yall think George did?


    • Country Lawyer

      No, I am pretty sure that profiling testimony is not allowed in most courts. Too unpredictable and is really irrelevant. Profiling is not a science and I think most law enforcement use it as a tool like a lie detector, but not as evidence. I am not a Fla. lawyer, but I am licensed in 3 states and have never heard of it being used. I can’t imagine how it would have been helpful in this case. It is normally used to try to pick out a perp. in a rape or mass murder type case.
      As far as George, what he did or didn’t do really does not matter. The defense didn’t have to prove he did anything. They did show that there were plausible alternative explanations like the child drown in the pool while George was watching her. More to the point about George was to impeach his testimony with the girlfriend and to try to figure out why George would call the cops over a gas can and not the smell of a dead body in the trunk of a car he owned.


  7. Marin

    I heard on TV that the mouths and noses of those who have passed were sometimes covered to prevent debris from falling out, and that sounds like something someone in law enforcement might of known. (G.A.) Also, I saw right through that innocent parent act. C.A.’s ex-boyfriend gave an interview on the Dr. Drew Show in which he said C.A. was treated very poorly in that household. I still maintain that the jury turned when Mr. Ashton laughed at Jose Baez’s closing. It made him look like he thought he had it in the bag and had become grossly complacent and entitled. His closing, to me, had a rote feel to it, unlike Mr. Baez’s creative, impassioned and meticulous closing. Regarding the frothing hoards, it is very scary. I hope they don’t scare off future jurors from doing the right thing. We need more coverage about how brave they were to uphold our constitution!


    • Actually, I don’t want to light into Ashton too much. In one interview I saw he was stressing that the prosecution presented all the evidence they had as best they could, and that they could not “manufacture” evidence.

      Very important that he gets that. It is very easy for police and prosecutors to actually “manufacture” evidence, mostly by implicitly or explicitly threatening or intimidating witnesses. No matter how much advantage he otherwise took or takes, it seemed as if Ashton was conscientious about sticking to testimony that was not pressured or ambiguous on that score. And he should get credit for that.

      Also, it always seemed to be that the duct tape would more likely be a post-mortem thing. I mentioned to another commenter that if a person dies with their mouth open it can be difficult to close it or make it close. It’s a very disconcerting thing to see, like when a person dies and their eyes remain open. That was another reason I thought the weaponized duct tape theory was both unnecessary and a bit silly.


      • Marin

        I agree, he should get credit for that. I noticed a more human side to him in the interviews that I saw too. I was just afraid that the defendant wasn’t getting a fair trial. GA’s mistress said in an interview that the prosecution was hiding texts from her, did they also know that the 84 searches for chloroform were the result of that software malfunction and if so was that hidden by the prosecution?


  8. I had to miss some of the trial because or work but i did see parts of Cindys testimony. she said Caylee could clim the pool ladder and the court was shown a pic of caylee with cindy standing behind of for support. was a video shown also. because from the pic you can only say caylee could stand on ladder with adult support. not that she could climb it.
    btw….George Anthony is a very broken man. So broken in spirit that it is hard to tell if he was lying or not. People that are extreamly destroyed from circumstances beyond there control can appear to be things they are not.


    • George Anthony is a very broken man. So broken in spirit that it is hard to tell if he was lying or not. People that are extreamly destroyed from circumstances beyond there control can appear to be things they are not.

      This may be true. But the question on the table was not whether George was going to get the death penalty, but whether his daughter was. The allegation George sexually abused her, while of course at this point unproven, did not come out of nowhere. His daughter’s strange behavior was consistent with the allegation. George also participated in the “search for Caylee” charade when he allegedly knew she was already dead, and George’s obvious and repeated efforts to implicate his own daughter to law enforcement, added to everything else, makes him look extremely suspicious, not to mention a better suspect than his daughter ever was.

      This is one of the big problems with standard police operating procedure. They are over-inclined to side with people that appear to be cooperating with them, and to retaliate against people that appear to be doing the opposite. It seems not to occur to them that they might be getting played. When they interviewed CA early on she told them her father abused her but they didn’t listen. She had pissed them off by lying to them about other things, and they decided George was their man, without ever really asking any hard questions. I mean, here was a guy essentially going out of his way to cast suspicion on his daughter, not just reluctantly answering questions. Alarm bells should go off, but they didn’t because these investigators just weren’t very smart or very diligent.

      When CA made those allegations they have women officers on tap, or psychology experts, who can analyze the abuse claim, but these people were never called in. Now, it may be that the police suspect abuse, but do not feel there is enough to conclude. And what they have to understand is that that is perfectly all right. It is perfectly all right to decide that you don’t know one way or the other, and not prosecute anyone. That is what the Jon Benet Ramsay police and prosecutors did.

      But if you start pandering to the mob you don’t know how far that is going to go. The mob can grow into a sort of insatiable blood lust that gets away from you.

      All of these factors were dramatically and obviously present throughout this prosecution, and one thing I hope people remember is that so many so-called “checks” in the system failed. The police were mentally lazy; so were the prosecutors. The judge was extremely biased and also mentally lazy. When all that happens you’re going to have a jury trial, and jury trials are crap-shoots for all concerned. Not to mention they can be lurid and sensational and do a lot of damage to a lot of people that can never be undone, no matter what the outcome.

      The only “check” that worked was the defense attorney, by far and away the weakest and most underfunded and least likely to actually work. Every facet of the system prior to him failed miserably. He saved not only CA’s life, but the system itself. And of course thank God for a jury that actually did its job.


      • Marion

        OK, this is gonna be long. Just as the jury, most of you guys are not connecting the dots of this MURDER. If I were a juror on this case, this scenario is the ONLY way it could have happened IF you figure in ALL of the evidence. Caylee was last seen with Casey on June 16th. They left the house (according to George) at around 1:00 pm with Casey pretending to go to work. Casey stayed in the area with Caylee and waited until George went to work at around 2:00-2:15. Between 2:30 and 4:00 she chlorophormed Caylee at the house and either duct taped her then or a couple days later (I’ll explain later) BUT either way, she killed Caylee then. She then double bagged her and threw her into the trunk on the 16th. She was at Blockbuster at around 6:00 pm that day with her boyfriend without a care in the world (Tony said she was acting completely normal and happy) She told him Caylee was with Zanny.

        The next day (or the day after) she is SEEN by the neighbor backing her car into the garage (which he had NEVER seen her do before) then borrowing a shovel from him for 45 minutes. She laid Caylee’s body by the playhouse and thought about burying her in the backyard (just like the pets), realized that was VERY BAD idea and returned the shovel. Here is where she possibly puts the duct tape on Caylee when she knows she is going to use this “Zanny the Nanny” kidnapping story to make it look like a kidnapping/murder. She puts her “motherly touch” on the duct tape then triple bags her with canvas bag and puts her in the trunk. She remains in the trunk from what BOTH the prosecution and defense expert bug witnesses said for 2-6 days (although the defense guy said it wasn’t necessarily the trunk of the car, but she was somewhere where those early flies couldn’t get to her)

        I suspect she panicked one early morning or late night because of the smell that was starting to come from the trunk and tossed her at the first place she could think of. REMEMBER she had NO GAS OR GAS MONEY to probably get rid of the body where she probably would have wanted to. She then goes about her business, partying, fucking, tattooing and stealing money from her best friend. It AMUSES me that 12 people thought it was “reasonable” that George, being a cop for 10 years, would get rid of a body in a such ridiculous way and place. If George had ANYTHING to do with this “coverup”, BELIEVE ME, Caylee would STILL be a missing little girl or she would have been found at the bottom of a river 50 miles away.

        On June 24th, George reports a break-in and gas cans missing. I have little doubt he knew who did it and was sick and tired of her shit, especially with her not talking to him or Cindy for a week or bringing Caylee over. Jose Baez’s spin on the gas cans was HILARIOUS and I can see why Ashton couldn’t keep a smile off of his face for that part of his closing argument. To think that George is trying to “frame” his daughter by reporting a break-in and theft of gas cans that happens to have the duct tape on one of them, to link her to her daughters body that wasn’t even found yet…. Give me a break, SO stupid. George said when he went to get the cans out of his daughter’s car, she bristled, brushed past him, quickly opened the trunk and retrieved the cans, throwing them down and telling him, “Here’s your fucking gas cans.” George said he doesn’t remember smelling anything at that point and I believe him. Actually I believe all of the people that say they don’t remember smelling anything…..here’s a BRIGHT IDEA: IT WASN’T SMELLY UNTIL SHE DUMPED THE BODY.

        A couple of days later she abandons the car at the Amscot and parks near a trash bin. She throws a garbage bag in there as a cover for the smell. When George picks up the car on July 15th he smells what he thinks is human decomposition. So many people have given him heat for not calling the cops right then and there but when they opened the trunk and saw the gross trash bag with maggots and NOT Casey or Caylee, he was relieved and I’m sure he believed at least for a few hours that it WAS INDEED THE TRASH. Even the Tow guy said, ” Here’s your smell right here.” referring to the trash. It wasn’t until that night when the cops were already at the house because of Cindy’s 911 calls that he started putting it all together because Casey was there BUT Caylee wasn’t.

        Casey had this Zanny story planned but with too many holes. To think she thought that everyone was going to buy what she was selling leaves you shaking your head just like with her latest pool story, which probably has more holes than the zanny one. That mandible was held IN PLACE through out decomposition ONLY by that duct tape and FOR 6 MONTHS out in the elements somehow kept in place as the voice of Caylee SCREAMING to those jurors I WAS MURDERED!! They didn’t listen to her and now her murderer walks free in a week. I challenge anyone to come up with an accident theory that works with ALL THE EVIDENCE. But it won’t happen because it can’t. Can you imagine the incredible ODDS of an innocent person’s car suddenly smelling like a dead body at around the same time that person’s child goes missing?? Factor in the odds of that combined with a hair from Caylee w/ the death band band in the trunk, chloroform of ANY level there, chemicals in the air of the trunk that Dr. Vass (who has studied dead body’s for 20 years!!!) said could only have come from a dead body, and book-end all of that with a cadaver dog hit in the trunk??? The odds of all that happening to an innocent person is probably 1 in a trillion. Apparently those odds are “reasonable” to this jury. REMEMBER: Baez fought ALL of the trunk evidence because it blows the whole “George Anthony dumped the body theory” out of the water. Plus if anyone thinks a narcissistic bitch like Casey would rot away in jail for 3 freaking years over an accident, you’re living in a different galaxy.

        On a side note that I think is amusing, I act for a living and my theatrical agency happens to be the L.A. division of Paradigm. I guess Jose Baez signed with them, then was dropped a couple hours later. My agent there said it was “politics”. haha

        If you don’t feel like writing a whole alternate theory, then just point out where you think mine has “holes” for reasonable doubt or where mine doesn’t make any sense. If I was on that jury, it would have been “12 angry men” in reverse. I would have talked 11 into a conviction or hung that baby up. I can’t believe she’s walking, I really can’t.


        • Marion, you map out a very plausible account of events, but it is still heavily dependent on credulity – some of it demonstrably unwarranted – with respect to George Anthony:

          It AMUSES me that 12 people thought it was “reasonable” that George, being a cop for 10 years, would get rid of a body in a such ridiculous way and place. If George had ANYTHING to do with this “coverup”, BELIEVE ME, Caylee would STILL be a missing little girl or she would have been found at the bottom of a river 50 miles away.

          This is just one example. If George was trying to frame his daughter instead of just covering something up, then he might very well want the body to be found, and at least part of the idea of the defense casting aspersions against meter reader Kronk was to suggest as much.

          If you wanted to construct an iron-clad scenario that is not subject to a reasonable doubt argument, you would have to, at the very least, begin by leaving George out of the equation entirely.


          • Marion

            But even a frame job doesn’t make any sense according to Jose’s opening statement. Jose said George said something like this to Casey after finding Caylee in the pool:
            “Look at what you’ve done! Your mother will never forgive and you’ll go to jail for child neglect for the rest of your life!”
            So then George “helps” Casey by framing her for 1st degree murder?? Why not just call 911 and tell them Casey wasn’t watching her and I would like to press charges on her for child neglect? Which probably wouldn’t happen anyway. Wow, if Cindy would never forgive her for “neglect” just imagine what capitol murder will do. How silly. Plus that still wouldn’t explain how she got in the back of the car.


        • Country Lawyer

          Reasonable doubt in this case can come from almost every area of the evidence. A jury does not have to come up with plausible alternate theories, but a plausible theory would be the child drown in the pool.

          As to evidence, first off, Dr. Vass is a research scientist and the FBI forensic scientist said that the chloroform levels were not high and that chloroform is natural in our environment like cleaning supplies, etc. For a bod pun, I smell reasonable doubt. This is not to mention the fact that I think Vass is a quack!

          The alleged 84 chloroform search evidence was made up! There was only 1 chloroform search and there was a plausible explanation for that search. I would have found her not guilty on the false evidence alone.

          There was plenty of common sense and scientific evidence that the duct tape was never put on Caylee. If that duct tape had been put on her, there would have been decomp DNA. Again, at a minimum, reasonable doubt.

          George said he smelled a dead body, but did not call the cops. I can guarantee you I will call the cops if I smell a dead body in my car. This is not to mention a lot of people didn’t smell that body! Again, reasonable doubt.

          As to George, his demeanor was not very good when being cross examined. He had a girfriend and told her it was an accident (at least a jury would be free to believe the girlffiend, which a number of them did). I don’t think that just saying she was a lyer trying to make money cuts through her story. You can’t tell a lot about a witness unless you see them in person squirm/or not squirm, but the jury thought she was credible and George “had something to hide.” Anyway, just a few reasons for not guilty.


  9. was there any evidence on duct tape to proove it was put there when the body was discovered. like finger prints and DNA from a stranger?


    • Country Lawyer

      No DNA at all on the duct tape. That was the problem b/c it was clear from Spitz and had the other DOD expert testified (I think Gonzalez was his name, but Judge Perry struck his testimony because of “discovery violations”) that if the duct tape had been put on a non-decomposed body, there would have been lots of Caylee’s DNA on it, which makes absolute sense. If tissue breaks down on a sticky substance it is going to leave a signature.


  10. berniecia

    I’m so glad to find a group of people that can think logically when it comes to looking at the facts in this case and see through the media hype!
    This girl was railroaded from the beginning. Reminds me a lot of Amanda Knox.
    I have from the very beginning questioned the way the police handled the case. For starters:
    Why wouldn’t they have taken the car into custody right away? George said he went to her car to get a wedge. Casey outran him to the car, got the key In, opened the trunk, grabbed the gas cans,shuts trunk and says here’s your fn gas cans. Why didn’t he have her open the trunk back so he could get the wedge? After getting the cans back did he ever call the police back and say “I found them, my daughter had borrowed them sorry for the trouble” nope. Why not?
    Posting Via blackberry so keeping it short.


    • the gajonka

      Let’s keep this discussion alive. Any chance new charges can be brought against george? Why wouldn’t casey testify if she’d been the victimized, innocent one.


  11. Law enforcement doesn’t change gears so easily. Once bitten twice shy.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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