First, please don’t shoot the messenger.
Second, I think Judge Perry made a rather large boo-boo…
Third, read Sparkman v. State, 902 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) to see why…
Sparkman and the Tape
First Comes the Tape, Next Comes the Objection
During trial, when the state offered the videotape of Sparkman’s statement to Brock, Sparkman objected […] Defense counsel admitted that the prosecutor had asked him to review the tape and provide his objections pre-trial, but he declined to do so.
The prosecutor also excised two portions on his own, which as an officer of the court he felt needed to be removed. The prosecutor explained that defense counsel knew that it would take a full day to edit the tape and that the court did not want the jury waiting that long.
Then comes the trial Judge’s response…
The trial court ruled that Sparkman’s contemporaneous objections were untimely because Sparkman should have filed a pre-trial motion pursuant to Rule 3.190 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: “Now the defense wants the court to hear in round numbers somewhat less than a hundred objections they have to the state’s two and a half hour taped statement when the grounds for these objections were known some fifteen months ago.” The court considered the objections waived and refused to address them on the merits.
Now comes the Appellate Court’s Take…
The first issue presented is a purely legal question — whether Sparkman’s objections to Brock’s statements had to be made pretrial.
While it is always good practice for counsel to raise known objections pretrial, and counsel may be compelled to do so by order of the court, Rule 3.190 does not require Sparkman to object pretrial to raise the instant issue.
Rule 3.190 addresses the necessity of pretrial objections for a “Motion to Suppress Evidence in Unlawful Search” and a “Motion to Suppress a Confession or Admission Illegally Obtained.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(h), (i). Nowhere in Rule 3.190 is a party required to object pretrial to the interviewing officer’s legally obtained statements, if such objections go to specific questions or answers within the statement.
Did Judge Perry Actually Enter an Order on the Issue?
So the question then is whether Judge Perry specifically stated that the parties were to make pretrial objections to statements of Casey Anthony’s that would be introduced, if the objections were to relevancy, hearsay, or some other purely evidentiary issue.
- Amended Proposed Order Setting Discovery Motion & Hearing Deadlines & Trial Date
- Order Setting Case Management Hearing
- Order Setting Motion Hearings
- Order Regarding Deposition Schedule
- Amended Order Setting Discovery, Motions & Hearing Deadlines & Trial Date
The only order entered by Judge Perry that addressed the issue, was a general statement in paragraph 5 of the Amended Order Setting Discovery, Motions & Hearing Deadlines & Trial Date.
But the question remains, will the appellate courts find that was sufficient notice, given that the primary focus of the order was on discovery, not evidentiary issues?
Whatever happened to Sparkman?
Oh, and how did the Appellate Court Rule?
In this case, the error was not harmless because Brock’s out-of-court comments as to what he believed happened and that he believed Sparkman killed Courtney were so prejudicial that the erroneous admission of the statements cannot be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1135. We therefore reverse Sparkman’s conviction and remand this case to the trial court.
The Ineffectiveness Assistance of Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, Et. Al.
My personal opinion is that Jose Baez is screwing up so bad, that even if this issue alone was not enough to warrant a reversal due to Judge Perry’s generic statement in Paragraph 6, the combination of errors will cause the case to be reversed no matter what Casey is convicted of (and if she is convicted of course).
I have a feeling that Judge Perry is going to end up allowing in Baez’s late witnesses and discovery come Saturday at the show cause hearing because this case is becoming one of those rare cases “where the incompetence and ineffectiveness of counsel is apparent on the face of the record and prejudice to the defendant is [so] obvious” that the “appellate courts will address [the ineffective assistance of counsel] issue on direct appeal.” Aversano v. State, 966 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Another fun read for those dreading a retrial one day is Johnson v. State, 796 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A reasonably effective criminal defense attorney must keep himself or herself informed of significant developments in the criminal law, including decisions of other district courts around Florida. […] The ineffectiveness thus appears on the face of the record”).
162 responses to “Did Judge Perry make a rather large boo-boo?”
Mr. H,
Thanks so much for this! (not that I really understand it) It is really wonderful and if there were more folks that would explain it like you are doing, the more kids that would be interested in the law. I know that because if this I am now.
You alluded to appeal issuers and correct me if I am wrong but those offenses are starting to add up aren’t they? I mean aren’t there several items that could be grounds for appeal? Ref. George and Cindy in the audience and some of the taped interviews that Mr. Baez has objected to in addition to some of the jury selection issues.
Also ANOTHER mistrial request today! What was that one about?
I just can’t get enough of this… Isn’t this like a lifetime experience trial for a counselor? I would think it is and could define a person for years to come.
What the heck is Cheney Mason doing while Baez fumbles this case in every possible way?
A related question: is the “participation” of Mason (and other DP qualified attorneys) any protection from ineffective counsel reversal?
Baez’ preparation and performance are worse than I could possibly have imagined.
Really good question. I just saw Schaeffer state that Mason, being “one of the top defense attorneys in the country”, would never have allowed Baez to go forward with the defense strategy (tossing George under the bus) had he seen these jailhouse video tapes. Schaeffer thinks Mason never saw the tapes.
Well, if Mason is one of the top defense attorneys in the country, wouldn’t he be making it his job to follow through and do things like view the tapes? I mean, it’s his reputation on the line as well. You’d think he would care enough to ensure the defense was going well. It’s like he isn’t involved at all. Maybe I just don’t understand his role.
Actually, I think it helps Jose, because it shows he actually made a pretrial objection on grounds that the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect.
I was hoping for a different answer, however, I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
But, Judge Perry disagreed with the probative/prejudicial argument.
jmo
Okay…I feel very silly that I don’t know the answer to this question, but what happens if Casey is convicted of 1st degree murder (or on lesser charges) and her case gets reversed on appeal? Does she get a new trial?
Ding, Ding, Ding! (Yes, she gets a new trial)
heh….thanks ***slinks off a little embarrassed***
LOL Erin..you sound like me..Im always afraid my question will sound silly to a professional haha
Sorry, wasn’t trying to poke fun.
Oh I know you weren’t!! No worries! :0)
Okay, I’m back. If overturned, what would happen to Casey while she is waiting for a new trial? Would she be free or would she have to go back to jail?
You know, this trial is on every national network, running full time local, it is on InSession and is basically everywhere. Someone tell me where we could POSSIBLY get a jury for a new trial?
What would be done about a jury if it went to another trial?
You have a point. This case is on every news cable channel now. I’m sure just about everyone in the state of Florida has heard of this case by now! My gosh, it’s back to back coverage on HLN dawn to dusk. Even Joy Behar (bleech) is covering this story!
Baez’s performance reminds me of lay-persons trying to represent themselves in fighting a speeding ticket. I witnessed one such event when I contested a ticket for producing an expired insurance card. The police officer went first and described the radar calibration he’d done that morning and produced documentation showing that the radar worked within specification. The defendant got up, shrugged and smirked, and asked if the officer calibrated the radar that day. The officer asked if he meant “today” or the day he pegged him going 93 in the 55 zone. “Yeah, the day you said I was speeding.” The officer said “Yeah, I just read the calibration report into the record two minutes ago.”
Traffic court was a hoot.
Didn’t Casey have to sign some sort of document prior to trial which was in effect a promise not to appeal based on incompetent/ineffective counsel because she was made aware prior to trial that Baez lacked the proper experience for the case? I keep hearing this and may have even read something about it here. Am I misremembering what I read due to trial overload of the brain?
Thanks!
No, she was not made to sign such a document. Regardless, that is not what the appellate courts would look to, as most defendants don’t know a good attorney if they were shackled to one. Rather, the appellate courts look to see if the attorney’s performance was objectively reasonable.
In this case, considering it is unanimous that Baez is ineffective, I think there is a high possibility that any conviction will be reversed.
Cracker jacks!
Not sure how FL apellate courts work. Do they just see transcripts of the trial like in TX or are they presented with another trial? (Paralegal student still learning)
All I keep thinking of is how this falls word by word under the post-conviction relief. Casey will file a motion for post-conviction relief stating that her ineffective counsel on a death penalty case was a violation of her sixth amendment rights…Not only do you have the right to an attorney, but the right to an EFFECTIVE attorney.
Did she not have 3 YEARS to find out if he was effective or not,what his success record is, and has he ever done a murder trial and what was the outcome?! What the heck was she doing in jail for 3 years? She had plenty of time to find out about Baez!
Why continue with the trial? Can’t it be stopped now (please) due to incompetent counsel?
well damn. looks like we will be doing this all over. This makes me sad. If only you would follow me on twitter I might recover.
And that invite is only for Mr. Hornsby. If the rest of you feel the need to follow someone on twitter you don’t know, might i suggest @Baezsays ?
which sadly is not me, but i am kicking myself in the ass for that.
Why would you want it stopped?! It will only start all over again!!!
Richard, is there no mitigation of Baez’ lack of competence with the presence of Mason and Sims? I mean, when considering the effectiveness of “counsel” – does the Appeals Court not consider ALL “counsel” the defendant had officially representing her?
We as Florida tax payer will be paying all of their salaries. The defense are getting top pay for poor experience. The fact that this case s out come will possible go to an appeals court. The bottom line for tax payees will be larger than the national debt. I like Judge Perry because he does have the weight of the cost of this trial on his plate also.
in laymen terms sir…do you see any possibility of this sub human walking free?? has there been any indication that as far as the trial is going there would be any way she could be set free because of errors…?? Thank you
Does the fact that there was a hearing objecting to these video visits being brought into the trial affect the potential for an appellate issue at all?
Yes, it makes the admission of the objectionable portions that more prejudicial.
And yet Baez has yet to even identify any parts he wanted redacted.
I thought the reason the tapes were let in was because Baez DID NOT object to them when he should have and in a timely fashion. All motions were supposed to have been put in by 12/31/10. AND right before they went to Pinellas County the judge asked if ANY of them had ANY motions they wanted to put it now before we go to select a jury. Baez said NOTHING!
He did object, but Judge Perry believes it was not a timely objection based on his pretrial order.
What if this was Jose’s plan all along? Are there not ethics issues with this? Jose can’t be as inexperoenced and dumb as he plays out to be.
I doubt it was his plan, because all that a reversal or mistrial does is land you a second trial.
Would he be required to represent her during a 2nd trial or could she ditch him and get a new attorney?
Good question, I think the court would not allow him to represent her a second time if she alleged he was ineffective.
So are you basically saying that this woman could go free, not because she is innocent but because of legal haggling? Is this the beauty of the American justice system?
To the contrary, I am just saying we are likely in for a retrial.
Mr. Hornsby,
Baez wants a do-over so bad. Wasn’t Baez trying to argue that the video tapes are prejudicial because of the disparaging remarks about him and other misstatements of law and facts. But shouldn’t he or someone on his team have reviewed the tapes and made their objection prior to the video being shown? This was a video between brother and sister, with a lay person(Lee) making remarks about Baez. A brother who is trying find his neice with the help of law enforcement, who happens to feel his sister’s attorney is blocking her from helping. A brother that is trying to tell her she has other means to get information to him/family or even law enforcement to help find her daughter. He is trying to get her to believe that she doesn’t have to just sit in jail and do nothing.
Even though Casey has a lawyer, it is ultimately her decision as to whether she remains silent or asks to speak to law enforcement. It is her decision whether to confess, maintain her innocence or testify at trial.
She made a decision, hers and hers alone, when she chose to accept family jail visits that she knew were being recorded. If she happens to talk about anything she said to Baez, wouldn’t she ,in essence, have given up her attorney client privilege? Baez has had this case for 3 years, those tapes where early on, wouldn’t you think the tape with Lee would be on the top of his list of evidence he wanted to get suppressed? instead of doing hour long interviews prior to trial, maybe he should have spent his time more wisely preparing for this case.
Would you take her on in a second trial Richard?
My father had a saying: Money Talks and Bullshit Walks.
That’s why I have been hanging around here, you are a real person and not one of those that want to do and say everything to be politically correct. I like that!
If her case got overturned, would Casey have to wait in jail for her new trial, or would she be set free until her trial date? How does that work?
She would wait in jail.
Mr. Hornsby, this case will be in appeals no matter what as that is the procedural rights of all, but, sadly, Baez appears to be creating grounds for appeal at every turn here. I have to wonder, is the knight in shining armor actually throwing himself in the sword for her? I mean really?? Even a first year would know better then to do some of the things Baez has done, a first year would behave more appropriately and so on, so do you think it is possible he knew there really was no defense since he put both his big feet in his mouth on national television more than once (when you hear her story, you will all understand) ( We have a photo of the nanny etc) What do you think here?
Maybe he’s doing all of this to just get it over with and outta there? Every day it seems to get worse & worse for the defense. And WTH is Mason there for?? He’s NOT helping Baez that I can see – can he also be blamed/cited/investigated by the Bar/whatever you’d call it legally, lol, for ineffective counsel?
That is the problem with ineffective assistance of counsel cases, you can’t save someone from their ineffectiveness.
Did I miss something? Didn’t Linda Drane-Burdick inform the Court on Wednesday that she would be presenting these tapes and gave Baez the opportunity to raise his objections at that time? Even going so far as to suggest that he make his requests for redactions prior to her offering them into evidence?
It is not the fault of the prosecution or Judge Perry if Baez failed to do this–especially after he was given fair warning immediately prior to these videos being published.
Wouldn’t this protect the record and obliviate any openng for appeal (on these issues)?
That’s an excellent point. He can’t just have carte blanche to halt proceedings in the courtroom because he didn’t feel that it was convenient to review something the day before, especially since he had three years to raise the objectionsubsequently. With that in mind, I think it will hold up.
Sorry for the spacing error.
Oh well, I meant previously.
Forget pre-trial — he didn’t make a timely objection AT trial, before it was offered in evidence. Agree with this poster.
One of the local newspapers had a transcript of a hearing back in November where Judge Perry reminded both parties that motions to exclude needed to be filed by December. Can’t remember which paper, but I’m sure it’s part of the official record somewhere. So not only was the drop dead date announced originally, the judge also gave a heads up one month+ prior to the deadline and Baez, et al still missed it!
He seemed to be unaware of the content of the tapes, like he was shocked and offended at how he was portrayed by the Anthony’s because he hadn’t ever seen it before. Is that even possible? Good grief the average American housewife appears more familiar with the evidence in this case than her lead attorney. Dorothy Clay Sims was none too impressive, either. Her strategy appeared to be continuous interruption of the State’s direct through the ‘power of objection.’ There should be an ‘over-rule’ rule or something. If you keep making objections that are so inane or are clearly designed just to interrupt the flow of testimony, you should be held in contempt after a certain number are over-ruled.
Richard, what if any issues could arise if someone were to present the notions that after Strickland was recused from the Casey Anthony’s trial and in replacement Belvin Perry was brought in and he is know to be the first judge in Florida to execute a woman and actually attended the execution as well ( he wanted to SEE IT?)
Also, wonder about the Florida and Alabama LAW that allow for the JUDGE to rule against whatever the Juror’s punishment was to be. (ie)
Why would jurors be sequestered and spend 2 months away from home, leaving job, leaving employers to cover expense and the like as is well ascertained, when in the END the jurors opinion can be over ruled by the Judge?
Is that not a direct contradiction to what jurors are hearing a trial for, to rule as to guilt or innocence and the proper punishment? I have read of other civil cases where this is a problem too, such as am employer lawsuit, the jurors are not allowed to know there are caps on damages, so even if the jurors say the damages are 700, 000 dollars, the law says the CAP is 300.000 and so then it goes to appeal and more tax dollars and jurors time wasted for the damages to ultimately just be reduced according to the CAP.
WHY waste time and money, its a lie and fraud to have jurors thinking they are there for a purpose in actuality, they have no say.
As an Attorney I wish you could explain this to me, it makes no sense and seems it should be unlawful.
Perry was the prosecutor at the black-widow case and not the judge. I don’t know if Perry is personally pro or anti Death-Penalty; However, given that he is prosecuting in Florida, I would expect him to follow the law to its full extent thus giving the Jury the opportunity to decide on death. Having successfully obtained a Death-Penalty from a Jury then my belief is that is a necessary and professional thing to do to attend the actual execution.
I would if I was in his position.
Jury needs to convict of First Degree Murder first and then a majority would need to recommend a death sentence second; and I don’t think either is likely to ever happen.
I get tired of Baez always getting called on his stupidity, incompentance, obnoxiousness, etc.. (I could go on and on and fill up several pages), while Mumbles Mason sits back and people seem to give him a pass or maybe a nod at his horrible incompetancy. He is rude, doesn’t even give the court or anyone else the respect of standing at the microphone (when he of all people should know what it is like not to be able to hear), and no matter where he talks it is almost an impossibility to understand him anyway. He has sat in all the stupid decisions, the threats, etc.. If I was charged with murder or stealing an orange and he offered to represent me for the “fun” of it, I would not do it. Where did he get his great reputation???? From people who guessed what he said and decided he must be right???? I seriously can’t stand looking at Mason, Biaz, or Casey. Thank goodness most of the others left because they were almost……as bad. Afterall, a box of oranges may be good enough one day and the next day it’s not enough…. Seems to me one of those was a lie….Dishonesty seems to be an extremely contagious disease on the defense side-no matter where it sits.
In Florida, are prisoners given public defenders/free attorneys for appeal? For death sentence only or in all convictions? TIA
If they are indigent, for any direct appeal.
How about for collateral appeals? Is that only DR inmates?
I totally respect your opinion and who knows maybe your right but like my grammy always said it aint over until the fat lady sings. And we know this judge has only one case in his whole career thats been reversed. I think this judge knows the law and knows exactly what he is doing. So Im not ready to count my chickens before there hatched.
It would have been interesting to see how this case would have gone with a different attorney at the helm, but face it, she had a multitude of attorneys on her team, some coming and going through a revolving door. Others, like Linda Baden have remained as consultants. Will the court really find that her defense, including all of these different and high profile lawyers, was inadequate, or in favor of ineffective assistance of counsel? I mean, it wasn’t just Baez representing her. Does the court not take that into account?
And what if she is found guilty on only the lesser charges?
Richard, will you please just stop helping the defense – maybe they would spend time in prep instead of reading blogs for strategy tips. Seriously, take a deep breath and stop away. Let them do whatever they do without any help or helpful ideas. TIA
Richard, like another commenter asked, I’m wondering if the fact that Casey has several other very well-qualified attorneys on her team would in any way negate or diminish the ineffective assistance claim against Baez. Thanks!
I guess “well-qualified” is in the eye of the beholder, and all that I am beholding right now is Cheney Mason engage in the most ridiculous cross examination ever.
Could he be getting senile? Seems to me that not only has he lost his hearing, he’s lost some of his mental faculties as well.
Agreed! She wasn’t exactly a witness it was critical to discredit or demean. “I’m over here!” Good for her that she wasn’t intimidated by him and kept looking at the jury. That was just totally unnecessary — not just the snapping at her, but the tenor of the entire exam.
By well-qualified, I meant someone who had been around the block enough to (hopefully) know procedure and have some technique other than Baez’s Perry-Mason-wannabe style. Of course, after seeing that exam by Mason, the jury probably thinks he’s just a hateful old bastard, like the cranky neighbor who yells at everyone to stay off his lawn.
I guess what I want to know is *if* there is a competent atty on the team, does that diminish the issue on appeal…or is it all about what the lead atty says/does?
…he (Cheney Mason) snapped at a professional witness, who was very correctly addressing the jury, to ‘look at him’ — “I’m over here,” he snidely remarked. What in the hell is wrong with him?…and, I’m curious, who exactly is it — besides, Bill Sheaffer, that holds this man in high regard? I personally find that he’s rude and extremely unprofessional. He seems to think that he is the “smartest and fairest” in that court-room. I think he accomplishes little, other than to insult the intelligence of the folks sitting on that jury.
Now that Geo. & Cindy appear to be “in love” again, (accordinging to Dr. L. Glass) do you think they will still support Casey?
Also, Leonard Padilla was on the Joy Behar Show 2 days ago, and he said that in his opinion that Casey would receive 5-10 years. Do u agree? Hope u
will answer this, several people want to know ur answer. Tks.!
Leonard Padilla is a moron. But aside from that, if convicted of either Second Degree Murder or Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, she is looking at 20 – 30 years DOC.
Good morning Richard. She has certainly already earned a conviction of the charges of lying to law enforcement, yes? Would the sentence(s) on those charges run concurrently or consecutively to whatever term she would be sentenced to if she’s convicted on one of the lesser charges?
It would be up to judge Perry whether they are concurrent or consecutive (although concurrent if he does not specify). Regardless, they are misdemeanors and she has time served for those already.
Thanks for saying that Leonard Padilla is a moron! I could not agree more! He always tries to make everyone think that he is in the “know”! He is only involved, or I should say was, because he was a fool enough to bail Casey out way back in the beginning of this case. He has had no involvement, that I know of, since then, so he really should stop acting like he knows so much about The Anthonys’ when he really DOES NOT!
Since it is apparent to all that Baez is not competent to defend this case – is there any way the judge can remove him? I know KC has been asked if she is satisfied with her counsel but this is getting worse every day.
Was a bail amount ever assigned to Casey? Just wondering if she would be granted bail should her trial and convictions be thrown out.
She has been sitting in jail for 3 years because her bail was set at $500,000!
Can the State ask for a Mistrial based upon the defendant’s ineffective counsel?
No, as double jeopardy would apply.
I don’t think the state wants to give Baez the benefit of a mistrial. Baez keeps requesting mistrial because he knows he messed up seriously with his opening statements and now wants a do over.
I could not agree more! He knows he is fighting a losing battle and wants it to be over!
This is troublesome, Mr. Hornsby. Richard. Not only might Casey require a new trial, but the process of jury selection would have to be done all over again, in the wake of a media explosion that would rival a major volcanic eruption, would it not? It was difficult enough to seat the jury we have, let alone try for another.
I’m assuming that her indigent status would have to again be decided, but what of her attorneys and all of the experts hired by the defense? Would she be allowed to keep present counsel if she chose to, or would she be appointed counsel through the public defender’s office, if no one offered to represent her pro bono (like any one would, but you never know) and would she/they be able to maintain the experts already hired by this defense? Are the experts obligated to see this case through to the end, or do their contracts end upon mistrial?
Does the prosecution/state have the budgetary constraints that the public defender’s office does, and how might that affect a new trial, considering the expenses the state has incurred thus far in prosecuting her? Perhaps it’s only in the movies that we see the state deciding not to retry an accused due to the costs involved in doing so. Is there any truth to that, and could that possibly happen with Casey Anthony?
Also, do try to overlook my ignorance if you will please, but regarding these videos the jury is seeing, is the prejudice contained within them limited only to those comments made about defense counsel or might prejudice be present in their entirety considering the fact that in each Casey maintains that Caylee is alive when in fact she was long since dead and according to defense opening statements, Casey knew that! In watching and listening to these videos and tapes how can the jury not become somewhat prejudice against her?
It seems to me that seeing Casey, first hand, spew her lies and express little concern for Caylee is far worse than hearing it said by any witness who’d take the stand. By that I mean, the jury knows that Casey knew Caylee was dead and yet she put on this long drawn out charade, and they have proof of that now from her own mouth, which has to have a greater impact coming from her than from someone else, I would think. All in all I guess I’m trying hard to understand why these videos are admissible, at all, so if you could please shed some on this it would be most appreciated.
One last thing and then I’ll leave you in peace. There are numerous other charges standing against her, such as child endangerment and lying to LE. Won’t she have to serve time for these offenses and for how long do you think? I ask because many are concerned that if a mistrial is declared she will be set free, but even if by some huge miracle she’s acquitted of first degree murder doesn’t she still have to do time for the other crimes she’s been charged with?
I thank you for your time and patience.
Richard,
Perhaps you can explain this, since the defense argued that George disposed of Caylee, why are they fighting the evidence in the trunk? Couldn’t George have used Casey’s car? In earlier cross, Baez made a big deal asking whether George noticed the smell of decomp becoming stronger as he neared the open trunk and then chastised George because, as a prior detective, he didn’t call police immediately. He raised this question 3 freaking times! This was the point where George was evasive. Will the jury not remember that? Are they fighting their own defense, or am I missing something?
I’m no legal scholar but it seems to me Judge Perry may have made a number of mistakes along the way here. Some possibly because of being placed in untennable postions by the ineptitude of the defence and not so serious.
I get you are not impressed by Mr. Mason’s performance but could it be that he is just trying to go along with Beaz’s (alledged) strategy? I recall in one of those depositions where Beaz was asking questions better left alone and Mason said aloud and it was transcribed that he couldn’t take it and was going back to his office and then a moment later as Beaz started up again Mason bellowed Jose in a failed effort to get him to stop. All of that occurred right at the beginning of that particular deposition.
If in a number of years from now, which I assume is when it would happen if she is convicted, Casey appeals on grounds of ineffective counsel do you think that the passage of time would make a second trial easier to conduct or would the same problems pop up all over again?
Another question, unfaithful responder: Casey has alleged a serious crime, for which I understand there is no statute of limitations. Shouldn’t the police be investigating that by going and obtaining a statement from her about the sexual abuse allegations against George, and attempting to gather evidence? Or is it not considered a real allegation because technically she didn’t utter the words directly? Should George be arrested, or at least questioned? What would be the standard protocol?
If she were to file an official criminal complaint I am sure law enforcement would minimally investigate it.
Thanks.
Mr. Hornsby,
IIRC, the prosecutors filed a motion alleging JB was not acting in KC’s best interest, it was HHJS presiding at that time and KC answered she was fine with JB being her counsel. How can she
complain now? I don’t understand how one would “force” KC to fire JB. Also, KC has CM, and DS now. She used to have bunch before they all abandoned the ship. That’s very confusing to me.
Actually, the hearing (03/35/2009) was only to see if Baez had a financial conflict.
Richard, ineffectiveness of counsel when she has no less than 5 attornies?
Seriously, FIVE attornies and ineffectiveness of counsel….she has Mason, so how can they think they can ever claim ineffectiveness of counsel if she makes the choice to put the inept, incredibly stupid Hose A out front?
5 attornies hardly = ineffectiveness of counsel in my book…..but what do i know, hence the reason for positing this to you. responses, comments, input appreciated by anyone with half a brain and hopefully by the obviously excellent legal brain of Richard’s. thanks! Lil
Richard: Your opinions on this case are very astute, great blog.
However, I’m a bit surprised that you honestly believe that premeditation cannot be proven and that aggravated manslaughter is more likely. Sounds like your defense attorney bias is showing through. 🙂
I believe that Linda Drane-Burdick will deliver the following points in her closing rebuttal which establish premeditation in a fairly persuasive manner:
1) The act of placing duct tape over the mouth and nose of a dead person is neither logical nor “reasonable” to assume. Also, it’s not “reasonable” to assume that a person would put duct tape over the mouth/nose of a living child for any reason other than killing them. Thus there’s no “reasonable doubt” regarding WHY that duct tape was placed over Caylee’s mouth. This fact alone shows a premeditated intent to kill and proves that a 1st degree murder took place (e.g. any attempt by Baez to argue otherwise would not be “reasonable” and thus would not eliminate “reasonable doubt” regarding premeditation).
2) The defense’s claim that George placed the duct tape over Caylee’s mouth (post mortem) in order to “set Casey up for jail” is not only laughable (e.g. unreasonable) but it also contradicts the original defense theory that George offered to help dispose of the body in order to “help Casey avoid jail for child neglect”. Talk about a total contradiction, LOL. Baez just can’t decide whether George is trying to HELP or HURT Casey. That explanation totally fails the “reasonable doubt” test.
3) The defense’s claim that George is responsible for dumping the body has been totally contradicted by the jail house videos which show George begging Casey to give him information to assist in finding his grand daughter (his emotions are notably real, hers are clearly fake). Also, those same videos show George trying to convince Casey to speak with an FBI Agent to help find Caylee (George would certainly never contact an FBI Agent to uncover the “truth” if HE dumped the body). Again, this defense theory fails the “reasonable” doubt test.
4) The fact that so many people smelled a dead body in Casey’s Trunk (Simon Birch, George, Cindy’s 911 Recording, Mr. Bloise) is not something the jury will ignore simply because 1 or 2 people recall smelling “trash”; because when you factor in the FBI hair analysis, Dr. Vass’ testimony and the cadaver dogs it’s no longer “reasonable” to assume it was just trash. Even though the FBI cannot say with 100% certainty what causes the “death band”, they did say with 100% certainty that the “death band” has NEVER been replicated on a non-decomposing body (e.g. the death band has only been detected on decomposing bodies, thus it’s more than reasonable to assume that a dead body was in that trunk). Also, it’s important to remember that the FBI did use “mitochondrial DNA testing” to match the hair to somebody within Caylee’s maternal family (they matched it to somebody within Caylee’s maternal family who has 9 inch brown hair consistent with Caylee yet inconsistent with Casey). Therefore, since Caylee is the only person within her maternal family who died during June 2008, it’s reasonable to assume that the dead body located in Casey’s trunk was in fact Caylee. If such an assumption is reasonable (and if any contrary assumptions are not reasonable) then by definition there’s no “reasonable doubt” as to this fact.
5) The presence of chloroform in Casey’s trunk (e.g. the same trunk where a dead body was located) coupled with the computer searches for “how to make chloroform” and “neck breaking” greatly strengthens the premeditation element. Asking the jury to believe that Cindy or George made those computer searches is simply not “reasonable” in light of all the other evidence inside Casey’s car. This shows premeditation, especially when coupled with the duct tape being placed over Caylee’s mouth and nose before her body was dumped just 15 houses away from Casey’s home. How can anybody view all of these things as “non-related coincidences” (e.g. reasonable doubt) rather than elements of premeditation? Drane-Burdick will hammer these points in her closing.
6) Casey is the only person who acted HAPPY (e.g. like she was living on Cloud Nine) while her daughter was missing. While this may not be evidence of premeditation per se, it certainly helps to convince the jury that she was happy and joyous about her life IMMEDIATELY after her daughter’s death (thus it’s logical to conclude that she most likely planned her daughter’s death ahead of time, since it’s not “reasonable” to assume that a mother would be GRINNING FROM EAR TO EAR just days after her baby daughter was killed accidentally and dumped in the woods like a sack of garbage). There’s not a single bereavement expert who can logically argue otherwise, since to argue otherwise would be to suggest something which isn’t “reasonable” (e.g. would not raise reasonable doubt).
7) The few witnesses who testified to Casey’s “loving demeanor” toward Caylee do not really contradict any of the premeditation evidence, since the party photos showed precisely how Casey felt immediately after her daughter was dead (a picture says a thousand words). Also, her jail house videos show a heartless person who is not the least bit concerned with her daughter (in fact, they show a person who actually claims that SHE is the real victim). **Even Lacey Peterson’s family stood behind Scott and described him as a “loving husband” for many weeks after she went missing (even sociopaths can show a loving side); thus it doesn’t really matter that a few people saw Casey’s loving side toward her daughter. Drane-Burdick needs to hammer this point during closing arguments, though obviously she can’t mention any specific sociopaths.
Anyhow….I don’t see 12 jurors acquitting on 1st degree murder. Perhaps 1 or 2 lone kooks might deadlock the jury, but there’s no way they’ll acquit on 1st degree and convict on a lesser count. 🙂
We’ll see…
I consider myself fairly intelligent, and yet I feel that there can be another explanation for the chloroform levels, if that reading is accurate. I’m not convinced that she was a home chemist, and I have followed the case all along. She wasn’t much of a planner, that I am certain of. I’m not really buying the pool drowning scenario, but might have been more open to it if Baez had offered a better, less complicated account than the clusterf..k he presented with George Anthony’s and Roy Kronk’s involvement including Cindy Anthony’s negligence with the pool ladder, as a cherry on the top. Spectators to the trial, like myself, have never seen photos of the duct tape on the remains, so it is impossible to have a genuinely unbiased opinion about placement and intention, sans that critical element. However, with this scatter shot approach of assigning blame, all outside of Casey Anthony, Baez has accomplished the seemingly impossible. He has made Casey Anthony appear even less sympathetic, more socially deranged or antisocial, and ultimately, potentially more dangerous to society, in general, in the future.
Interested, Casey was quite the “event planner” don’t you know? Perhaps this repeated “self” proclamation, “I’m an event planner,” can be woven into the final argument, somehow? Call it her verbalized subconscious acknowledgment of guilt, perhaps?
Plan: To be rid of Caylee
Events: Computer searches, organization of information acquired and materials needed to carry out the task
Outcome: death
If Casey could have stolen chloroform from someone, I’d have an easier time believing that she used it. She was an opportunist and on the spot grifter, flying by the seat of her pants. Maybe she fantasized about killing someone, thought about it, but clearly, she is too disorganized to follow steps and not committed enough to anything outside of what feels good or works at the moment. She does demonstrate consistency and a solid commitment in the lies that she tells and, to me, that proves that she is lying with purpose, and not completely psychologically detached. However, lying doesn’t take all that much effort, or planning. She seemed to have a hair trigger temper, based on recordings, so if she murdered Caylee, I believe that happened in a moment of rage or passion, versus a methodical premeditated approach. On the other hand, I would more likely believe an accidental death where some pharmaceutical, or over the counter med, was given to put Caylee to sleep and it all went terribly wrong. Again, the pool drowning could be a possibility, but Baez lost credibility with the far fetched fantastical tale where everyone but Casey was responsible. The Kronk prologue is so absurd it would be comical, if it wasn’t so sad.
I meant epilogue. I guess I am less than fairly intelligent. blah.
You, less than fairly intelligent? Nonsense!
🙂
Interested, I’m sorry to have left such a brief comment earlier, due to time constraints, and would like to further address what you said even agreeing with you for the most part.
Might it be possible that Casey did steal chloroform from someone, or that she had a reason for brewing up the sleep inducing concoction for the sole purpose of putting Caylee to sleep, without intending to kill her?
I’d have to see a transcript of the testimony of Morales to quote him exactly, but he did say that Casey was cross with Caylee when she wouldn’t sleep. I got the impression this was a continuing problem and find it rather curious that the guy who mentioned it is the same guy who posted the graphic “Win her over with chloroform”.
It surprises me that he wasn’t a suspect, or at least a suggested accomplice, which would have made a whole lot more sense than Jesse and most certainly Roy Kronk! To further add to that, it seems even more odd that Caylee was wearing that infamous pink shirt, found at the crime scene, during her (Caylee’s) last visit to his apartment.
No, I’m not saying I believe he was involved. I don’t believe he was. But if there was a way that Casey could have sedated Caylee with little or no expense to herself I believe she would have, via the use of common household chemicals and a smidgeon of know how, she well could have mixed up a batch regardless of the effort involved, especially if she was most anxious to knock Caylee out for a couple of hours.
Personally, I don’t believe the chloroform, if in fact she made or otherwise got her hands on it, was the murder weapon, and not even an accidental one. I agree with you completely when you mention an act of rage, which might best explain the total state of denial Cindy has been in since the beginning of all of this.
I don’t believe that Caylee died the day of June 16. I believe she died on the 15th of June, late night, or during the early morning hours of the 16th. I don’t believe either George or Cindy saw Caylee on the 16th, but are mistaken on the dates, as they were about the 9th of June. I say this because their earlier stories conflict as to the events that occurred the morning of the 16th.
Several witnesses have mentioned the argument that took place between Casey and Cindy, on the evening of the 15th. One such witness, and forgive me for not recalling who it was, either Jesse or Lee perhaps, said that Cindy had hold of Casey by the neck having learned that Casey forged one of her grandfather’s checks(?) or something to that affect.
The moment this altercation was mentioned I could think of nothing and no one other than Caylee who would not only have been witness to this confrontation but who also looked to Cindy, not Casey, as her safe harbor and even so that she would have gravitated toward Cindy for comfort having been most frightened by the fight.
If what they say is true about Casey being envious of Caylee, and I believe she was, this would have infuriated Casey, not only toward Cindy but Caylee as well, and I have well envisioned Casey yanking her screaming child away from her mother and threatening, even as Cindy may have threatened her a time or two, that Cindy would not ever see Caylee again.
This, then, is my explanation for the duct tape, to silence a hysterically screaming, despised at the moment Caylee, who probably fought for her life, lost the battle and was hidden away in the back yard, at least for the night.
How Casey got her hands on the duct tape is no real mystery, it seems to me. She was looking to borrow some from Amy for the anything but clothes party. It makes sense to me that she could have had George’s but misplaced it, only to have later found it and so that it was handy when she couldn’t tolerate Caylee one moment longer.
As for the 16th, well, who can make any sense out of all of that? Cindy “heard” Casey and Caylee sleeping behind the closed door of Casey’s room? Heard them sleeping? She says she never saw either of them. George, in one of his interviews said that both he and Cindy had breakfast with Caylee that morning, while Casey slept. After Cindy left for work, he said, he and Caylee watched cartoons and otherwise played, until Casey got up. Do I believe either of them are deliberately lying? No. Under the circumstances I’m cutting them some slack. I can’t remember all of the events of day before yesterday, let alone 31 days prior. Can you? Can any one?
I could go on and on and say that Casey’s flurry of phone calls made on the 16th could have been to ascertain where George and Cindy were so that she wouldn’t be caught moving Caylee’s body. If she was moving Caylee’s body she had to feel as though even the clouds were watching.
As for the pool, I’ve given that some thought. She could have taped Caylee up and tossed her in. I don’t know that she’d do that though, knowing how much effort she’d have to put forth to pull a dead child from out of the water and down a ladder. For all we know Caylee could have bled, even profusely, and Casey used the pool to wash herself off. I don’t know if that would have shown up in the tests done on the pool water. Perhaps.
The chloroform makes no sense as a murder weapon. While it is possible to make at home, it is certainly a non-trivial process involving acetone and bleach and lots of ice. If I wanted to put a child to sleep then I can buy stuff off-the-shelf at Walgreens.
My belief is that the chloroform in the trunk is an unanticipated by-product of a very good cleaning exercise. Maybe some mixture of chemicals produced a chloroform after-effect?
I do believe caylee’s body was in the trunk for a while. I also believe it is plausible that the duct-tape was applied post-mortem to prevent leakage of fluids from the orifices of the body.
In a recent case of murder in Canada, Russell Williams admitted that after murdering one of his victims, he left her body in his house for several days so he could carry out his official duties in the airforce. Upon returning to dispose of the body, he wrapped the head in a towel and duct tape for exactly the reason shown above.
I agree, having searched it myself, at one point. Where does the state think she concocted it; at home, on the road? Since the measurements and steps are so precise (and potentially very dangerous to the ‘brewer’), are we to assume that she has a photographic memory? Spending a short time on a site, on one occasion (if I recall correctly), did she print out a copy, jot down directions, and was this evidence was recovered? If the answer is no, and I believe it is, then it’s a really hard sell. But Baez could have gotten more bang for his buck if he would have asked a few simple *polite* questions of Vass, maybe even flattered him a bit, and then sat down, instead of embarking on the pit bull routine. Is it possible for the inadvertent combination of cleaning or other household chemicals or agents to create chloroform? Did the body farm, or the state put limits on expenditures for the control goup? Yes, or no. Did you only have access to a small control group, 2 or 3 cars? Isn’t it possible that, if a larger sample was evaluated, the rate and level of chloroform detected in cars, overall, COULD be higher, depending on variations in manufacturing and the history of each individual car? How on earth could he say it would be categorically impossible? He might say it’s unlikely, but he can’t testify definitively against the unknown. Dr. Vass is an expert on human decomposition, and not car fumes. That’s enough reasonable doubt right there. Instead, Baez looked like he was maligning, torturing and not grasping a very likable, intelligent and credible witness which, by default, only makes his client look more guilty. Besides that, Baez had previously admitted that the child was dead at this point and alluded to George’s knowledge and association with the car, questioning him about the smell at the tow yard and not calling police. George had already testified that he was the official car cleaner for EVERYONE’S vehicle at the home. Put two and two together and you have the jurors believing George might have gone berserk, throwing chemical after chemical directly in the trunk, or a container in the trunk, in an attempt to destroy the odor. Now I think Baez, yet again, created a situation where he needs to put Casey Anthony on the stand, and for her to admit that SHE threw chemicals in the trunk, or a bag, etc. in an effort to quell the stench. Cindy’s Febreze admission no longer holds water as a potential culprit, since Vass obtained the MSDS on the product: why no one on the defense side bothered to do so is a mystery.
Interested – good write-up. I completely agree.
…I guess that Baez is trying to do his job by attempting to knock down every witness. However, they’ve already admitted there was a body! So what if the body rode around in the trunk for a few days or weeks? It has no bearing upon the events that ended Caylee’s life.
The prosecution is very weak….
1. There was a body in the car, therefore there must have been a murder.
2. There was duct tape on the body, therefore there must have been a murder by suffocation.
3. There was chloroform in the car, therefore there must have been a sedation by chloroform prior to the murder by suffocation.
These three premises and their extremely tenuous conclusions are not (read: should not) put someone to death. Nor should they support murder-1.
The prosecution is just betting on the fact that the Jury will dislike Casey enough to convict. If they do then maybe a good chance of seeing a reversal as a “wrong verdict” – Someone expert in Florida law will need to educate me on the options here.
Nick, I don’t know what cleaning products, combined, would leave such high levels of chloroform in the trunk of the car, but you’ve sparked my curiosity well enough to check it out.
Would you know if there’s been mention of the trunk liner being significantly discolored due to an overuse of bleach? Other than the stain where it’s been suggested Caylee lay, I don’t recall any major discoloration that wouldn’t normally be found in a trunk, and will try to find something on that in the docs as well. Not that it matters at this point. What’s done is done. Caylee is dead and we can’t bring her back.
It’s a common belief that Casey was drugging Casey with chloroform and tucking her away, sedated, in the trunk. Having gone over the docs, and the testimony, it seems to me that most nights Casey was out Caylee was accounted for as being either with her, as at the anything but clothes party, or with Cindy.
There was that one night when Caylee disappeared from the bed of one Casey’s boyfriends. There have been so many I don’t remember which. Casey told him that Cindy had called during the night and she took Caylee home, then returned to the bed of her lover. Does that make sense? If Casey ever “kept” Caylee in the trunk of the car it would have been that night, I’m guessing, because I can’t see Cindy allowing Casey to just drop Caylee off in the middle of the night then letting Casey go her merry way without a fight.
Caylee may have survived a couple of hours in the trunk, at night, but as the sun came up it would have been necessary to get her out of the trunk. I seem to recall that Casey was quite anxious to leave her lover that morning. Certain pieces of information and evidence have struck and stick to me, and are included in the brief notes I took at the time, meaning to go back to those areas but never did, so some of the exact details have escaped my memory. For all of the hairs that were found in the trunk, a live Caylee was in there at one point or another, however, or items that had Caylee’s hair on them, such as her backpack or towels that could have transferred her hair to the trunk.
You give Casey more credit than I do, in saying you think she taped Caylee’s airways closed to prevent further leakage. It’s possible. I just think that Casey is far too lazy and too pre-occupied with “self”, in particular, to have done so. It sickens me to watch her fuss with her hair, her clothes, her eye lashes in court, so constantly. I just can’t see her soiling herself with decomposition material. I can see her dropping Caylee’s lifeless body, airways taped, wrapped in the Winnie the Pooh blanket into the laundry bag and moving her about the back yard before putting her in the trunk of the car.
I think the plastic trash bags came into play after decomposition began to take place. I think Caylee leaked through the laundry bag leaving the stain in the trunk. Up to that point I think Casey was too busy with Tony to have given much thought to what she was going to do with Caylee. Had Caylee been bagged in the laundry bag and two heavy duty garbage bags, initially, I don’t think it’s possible that she would have leaked through creating the stain in the trunk. The odorous state of Casey’s slacks seem to support this theory. Leakage from Caylee that soaked the laundry bag may have also soaked the slacks Casey was wearing when she moved Caylee into the plastic bags. I know I put much emphasis on the laundry bag, but I just can’t see Casey carrying Caylee’s lifeless body out of, or away from the house but in the laundry bag. If seen she could have easily said she had so much laundry that she was going to the laundromat to wash it. Who would have questioned that?
Of course I have major problems with my own theories, such as if Casey killed Caylee inside the house or in the backyard why was Caylee’s backpack in the car? Wouldn’t it have been in the house? Or did she not take it out of the car on the 14th? Would Caylee not have had her doll with her? And what of the heart shaped sticker? The sheet would have been in the house.
It seems like the Chloroform evidence has become very shaky based upon this mornings testimony. The levels were not “high”. Definite reasonable doubt was introduced.
The chloroform web search is explainable simply by the prosecution evidence! Someone (a friend of Casey’s) posted the chloroform gag picture on MySpace. Casey – being not too smart – didn’t know what it was and then typed it into Google.
Old (-ish) farts like me know what chloroform is because it was a favorite weapon of TV/movie criminals during the 70’s and 80’s. My kids (18 and 14) had only heard about it from the Casey Anthony trial.
The prosecution has banked way too much on that evidence.
Amazing how people assume things they have seen on tv or read in the paper or on the internet are evidence. I have a hard time seeing who could have been responsible other than Casey but how did it happen? Was it an accident? Fit of rage? The one thing I really can’t understand is how this warrants the death penalty when they can’t do anything but specualte about how the child died and for that matter even when she died.
If anything this whole case should cause people to see that the legal system is so full of flaws that it is frightening. Still with all of the other children, sadly, being killed on a regular basis why the inordinate attention to this case?
I sure hope none of these jurors were lying about what they knew and putting that knowledge aside but some how I doubt it. Something really needs to be done to curtail the media coverage of these trials before they take place. Beaz should be disbarred for not taking advantage of a possible gag order early on in this fiasco, among other reasons. Of course a gag order would have prevented making his name a household word. If only Jose Beaz could understand that all he has done is expose all of his deficencies as a lawyer I bet he would choose a different strategy were he able to do it again. He seems to think he is doing a good job some how though.
I’ll bet a couple of months pay that the defence would like a do over on that whole having Judge Strickland recuse himself issue also.
Personally, I think that Baez is a total dumbass, but allow me to make an observation. I think that Baez will try to spipn the publicity as a minority willing to stand up agaisnt the establistment for minorities.
You will notice that FAMU Law school hired Baez as a Professor back in 2009. As an African American, nothing appals me more than to have inept and unqualified characters paraded as champions. I shudder to thnk of this guy teaching our young students.
There was a Hispanic gentleman who manageged to run afoul of the law about a year ago. To my amazement, we learned that his attorney was Jose Baez.
Therein lies the tradegy about this whole national exposure thing is the case will likely net a 50/50 split. The dumabasses will go out and hire him because of his false perception, but the other 50% will run the other way.
The person who hired baez was a co-worker and seemed fairly inmtelligent. This is what baffes me, that seemingly intelligent people are flocking to him– presumably due to the racial connection. Sorry i did not make that clear in my earlier post.
Robert,
Enjoyed your post. Do you know if Baez is still teaching at F.A.M.U.? I had once heard that he had his students doing a lot of his work. Do you know how his students felt about him? I can’t imagine having an instructor like him! It might make me want to change my major actually!
Erin,
I checked the FAMU website and Baez is no longer on it. Interesting.
Thanks, Robert! Very, very, interesting indeed!
Robert, you may not like the way that Baez is approaching the trial, but its a real stretch to call him a “dumbass”.
Let’s remember that it really takes an above average intelligence plus a large financial and time commitment to get where he has got.
I really believe he hasn’t done a good job but the reality is he’s earned his shot at this trial and whatever the outcome he’ll be making a lot of money from TV appearances in the future.
Ambitious: “Yes”; Dumb: “No”
Sorry I’ll go for dumb. Baez should have doctor shopped and gone the mental health defense or at least attempted to have some dialog with the prosecution. But he waited, abandoned the stranger abduction defense, (probably after the jailhouse letters emerged) and is going with this fantastic convoluted defense, which amazingly is very much like a mental health defense sans the doctors.
Nick,
What if I were to call him an incompetent bufoon?. I have no doubt that anyone who completes law school is at least of average intelligence. I am no attorney but it really does look like this could have been plead out years ago.
Try not to take things so literally as I was speaking tongue in cheek more or less.
BILLY: You asked……Did she kill Caylee in an unexpected FIT OF RAGE?
Do you think Casey flipped out in a fit of rage, then said, “hold on Caylee, mommy needs to go to the garage to get some duct tape to place on your mouth and nose……so please stay right here until mommy returns to resume her fit of rage”?
Again, how can you kill in a “fit of rage” by CAREFULLY placing duct tape over the mouth and nose of your baby daughter? The act of placing duct tape over her mouth and nose requires FORETHOUGHT and PREMEDITATION, it can’t be done in a fit of rage.
BILLY: You asked……Was Caylee killed in an accident?
Without sounding like a broken record……If that were true there’d be no duct tape on her mouth and nose. No amount of ignoring this FACT will make it go away. There’s no REASONABLE explanation regarding the duct tape placed over her mouth/nose, since it’s not LOGICAL to assume a drowning victim would need duct tape placed on her mouth and nose AFTER DEATH.
Casey’s team has claimed that George put the duct tape on her face to “set Casey up for Jail” (incriminate her), but if you bother to examine Baez’s opening statement more closely you’ll see that this theory DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Baez’s earlier statement that George offered to dispose of the body to HELP CASEY AVOID JAIL. 🙂
Baez first says that George was trying to help Casey avoid jail (by disposing of the body) but then he claims that George placed duct tape on Caylee’s face to incriminate Casey and send her to jail. LOL. It’s funny how people can view these contradictory statements (and wild theories) as “reasonable” doubt.
Casey also seemed to be HAVING THE TIME OF HER LIFE and living on Cloud Nine after her daughter’s death, grinning from ear to ear in every photo taken (is it REASONABLE to assume that a loving mom could be so joyous after a sudden and tragic accident?). Is that a reasonable thought?
I believe that many people are employing a double standard when evaluating the Casey Anthony case, they’re attempting to RAISE THE EVIDENCE STANDARD higher than the law requires simply because Casey’s an attractive young female who looks as though she intentionally couldn’t hurt a fly. It’s the same double standard which is NOT employed in other circumstantial cases such as David Temple and Scott Peterson, who are not very sympathetic and thus do not warrant a raising of the evidence standard. 🙂
There are many murder convictions which happen based on FAR less evidence than this case.
Simply saying that you think something is theoretically possible (or not possible) merely because the prosecution cannot 100% prove your theory wrong (beyond the shadow of a doubt) DOES NOT create a “reasonable” doubt.
It’s great that you’d like the state to prove EXACTLY when and how Caylee died beyond ALL DOUBT, but frankly that’s not required.
For example, I’d be willing to bet that not many people here are actively worrying about Scott Peterson sitting on death row in California; yet nobody here can tell us PRECISELY how Laci Peterson was killed or PRECISELY WHEN she was killed, or PRECISELY WHERE she was killed with 100% certainty.
Was Lacey killed in a fit of rage on Christmas Eve after she found out about Scott’s affair with Amber? Was she Strangled? Drowned? Neck Broken? Did it happen in the home? In the truck? Somewhere else? Was there a terrible accident and Scott tried to cover it up? Did Laci find out about the affair and start a physical fight with Scott which ended in him killing her by accident? Did he kill her to be with Amber? Was it premeditated or just “heat of the moment” that night? He had lots of mistresses, so why would he kill for Amber only?
Even though Scott Peterson claims that he had nothing to do with the killing (Scott doesn’t claim it was an accident like Casey does), how do we KNOW for sure that it wasn’t an accident? (which he’s now trying to cover up by lying)
Also, remember that the media made Scott Peterson’s fishing location known to the whole country so therefore the “real” killers (IF she was killed by somebody else) could have conceivably dumped the body there. Can anybody here say that this scenario is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
The real issue is……does that doubt rise to the level of “reasonable doubt”? I submit that the answer is “NO” and that Scott Peterson is guilty as sin and deserves his punishment.
All we can do is speculate about Laci’s death based on circumstantial evidence presented against Scott Peterson during that time period, and I submit that there was FAR less evidence against Scott Peterson than there is against Casey Anthony.
Roger……… fantastic post. Thankyou
I’ve long since held the belief that the duct tape over Caylee’s face will result in Casey Anthony’s conviction for first degree murder. I just couldnt find the words to express it. You have done that extremely well.
btw I actually think Baez intends to claim Roy Kronk staged the duct tape, presumably after he found Caylee (insert appropriate gobsmacked smiley) Ofcourse Baez hasn’t worked out the practicalities, LOL like explaining to 12 jurors why Caylee’s tiny bones were scattered over a considerable area and were only recovered after extensive digging and sifting of soil and vegetation. He seems to have completely overlooked Dr John Schultz’s very extensive report on how Caylee’s body parts i.e bones ended up where they did and in the condition they did.
The duct tape can be explained reasonably as a method of sealing off the orifices to prevent purging of fluids during decomposition. I’m not saying that she didn’t murder her – but the duct tape is not the slam dunk that you predict unless the state can conclusively prove that is was applied before death – i guess we’re still waiting for that.
Nick, the problem is, the DT wants us to believe that George put the Duct Tape on Caylee & disposed of her body, not KC, so why would juror’s believe the duct tape was put on during decompostion, because Baez said so? LMAO! Dr. G has already told Mason in a depo that she has “seen a lot of drownings, but she has never seen an accidental drowning in which the orfices were covered by duct tape & dumped by the side of the road in trashbags/laundry bag.”
The juror’s might not know a lot about the case but even I know Dr. G has a nationally syndicated show & I live in La. The juror’s will probably know that too, Dr. G. will lend credibility to the State’s case & theory, Baez will continue to act like a yip dog and an asshole at every opportunity, his style of acting snarky to witnesses is embarassing & offensive, imo. If he has tried to elevate his intelligence by belittiling other’s, that has failed miserably too.
Geragos had very little defense for S Peterson, one being “roving gangs could have taken Lacy.” Juror’s are reasonable people, most defendent’s that are guilty are convicted, ridiculous theories in the face of evidence usually fails too no matter how high profile the attorney is such as Garagos, imo, Baez is failing miserably now, I can’t imagine it is going to get any better with Baez demanding to lead the defense despite his incompetence.
art tart, I’m beginning to wonder if Baez hasn’t completely lost his ever lovin’ mind!
I do not see Casey Anthony anticipating the decomposition process in full, or even considering, or knowing about, the fluids. George, reasonably, as a detective familiar with corpses, would be more knowledgeable. (However, for disclosure purposes, I’ll admit that I do not believe that George had anything to do with the disposal). At the same time, knowing how rapidly a body will decompose in the summer heat, which would also conceivably be part of a detective’s experience, why would George wait to discard the body and apply duct tape while waiting out the fluid purge stage? He would have gotten rid of evidence as soon as possible, as pointed out by Jeff Ashton. I have more of an inclination to believe that the duct tape alone, or with other restraint, chemical or mechanical was the cause of Caylee’s death. George is not going to testify that he placed duct tape over his grand daughter’s face, no way, no how. The only way to truly elicit this testimony that a kidnapping was staged using the tape, is to get Casey on the stand and admit that she did it, or accuse George of doing it. Of course we don’t actually know what the duct tape looked like, or where it was placed, so maybe jurors can be convinced that it wasn’t over her mouth and nose. If not, though, what the purpose was then?
The whole time-line of the body is fascinating to me. I accept it doesn’t look good for Casey (and I am certainly not defending her). But it’s at least worth a few hypothesis.
The weird part about the prosecution case is Chloroform + Duct Tape. With all of the varied and simple mechanisms to end a life (especially one so young that there would be no resistance), I do still feel uncomfortable with the concept that a immature, average-intelligence person like Casey would concoct such a bizarre mechanism of murder.
We all know we haven’t heard the whole story – maybe we never will.
I really want Casey to take the stand – just to hear the line of BS that she’ll spin over several days of questioning.
With the greatest respect Nick ,I think the word ‘reasonably’ does not jive with three pieces of duct tape and the fourth lesser discussed piece found with a 34 month old baby’s remains.
As far as the State’s contention that the tape was applied before death? I dont think that’s what they or the Coroner actually stated. IIRC Dr G stated the tape was applied prior to decomposition. I’m speculating ofcourse, but I reckon we will hear about the difficulty in getting the tape to adhere to a body that is already at the purging stage. But as you rightly say…..we will see.
Confused, your memory serves you correctly, so you aren’t so confused after all. 🙂
Also, if people want money from a reward offer, they are not going to wait until they have a bill to collect it, they will want the money NOW without taking the risk of stashing a body, moving it around, maybe getting caught with it and potentially being charged with murder. How would Roy Kronk have gotten his hands on the unique duct tape coincidentally found at the Anthony home? It’s all preposterous gobbledygook that sounds too much like a Casey Anthony fabricated fairy tale. Baez should have never woven Kronk into this version of events.
Here at the profiling unit, we love posts from “Roger Black” (yes – we know it’s the name of the court-room). Based upon the rantings of “Roger Black” we’ve built the following profile:
White, female, 45-55 years old, republican, southern states location. TV permanently watching Fox news of Nancy Grace. Probably lives in a trailer-park or low-rent apartment complex. Possibly of short stature with high likelihood of gender chromosomal issues. Seems to be a “breast hater” probably due to lack of own assets. Very high likelihood of religious excess; most probably a Southern Baptist. Probably a virgin or of very limited sexual experience; potentially molested by a nun or great-dane before the age of 21. Has trouble relating to others due to inability to use “Emoticons” outside of the internet. Works in a library or IRS office. Has little power at work driving magnification of power complex in the anonymous internet situation.
We will continue to post updates as we build our profile.
Roger, thanks for reminding me that I need not dig so deep or try so hard to prove Casey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The law doesn’t require each and every teeny little detail, nor should I be driving myself nuts trying to hammer more nails into that coffin than are required to hold the lid down.
CONFUSED: Nice post. I agree that Baez will try to sully Roy Kronk and make him a part of his conspiracy theories, but when the jurors deliberate they will undoubtedly apply Occam’s Razor to Baez’s arguments (e.g. they’ll ask themselves which ‘theory’ is more likely….a COMPLEX multi-villain conspiracy theory told by a lawyer who has a pathological liar for a client; or the SIMPLE and compelling story-line told by the prosecutors which is supported by evidence and jail house videos showing that George is not part of that conspiracy).
So I’m not real concerned about Baez’s misdirection and conspiracies during jury deliberations.
NICK: No offense sir, but your explanation of the duct tape is not only UNreasonable and LAUGHABLE, but it defies common sense and logic. There is NO chance (zero chance) the jury will conclude that Casey put duct tape over the mouth and nose AFTER DEATH in order to seal the body from leaking fluids during decomposition (LOL).
You have fallen into the alternate universe of defense attorneys; a realm invented by defense attorneys where you spend your days concocting explanations which are merely THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE but not in any way “reasonable”.
There are many reasons for this, but here are 3:
1) Those are not the only orifices of the body.
2) If she was concerned about leaking liquids getting in her trunk then wrapping the ENTIRE body in plastic bags (or some other water resistant material) would have been the ONLY logical solution to prevent that.
3) There’s a simpler and more logical interpretation of the duct tape, known as Occam’s Razor (e.g. she suffocated her daughter before dumping her in the woods near her home, so she could be free to live the carefree life of a party girl while grinning from ear to ear).
I could go on and on with other reasons if I wanted to…
Nick, it sounds like you’re really seeking 100% IRREFUTABLE and PHYSICAL proof that the duct tape was placed pre-death (such as a video tape recording of Casey taping her daughter pre-death or a confession from a witness who saw her taping the child)……but that’s not required since as long as it’s REASONABLE to assume that the duct tape was placed pre-death then the jury may convict on that, assuming no other “reasonable” explanations exist. It’s all about REASONABLE doubt, it’s not about proof beyond ALL DOUBT as you’re trying to insinuate.
Can you IRREFUTABLY prove that Laci Peterson did not die in an accident while fighting with Scott and that he panicked and covered it up? Can you IRREFUTABLY prove that he didn’t kill her in the heat of the moment without premeditation after she discovered his affair? Can you IRREFUTABLY prove that somebody else didn’t murder Laci and then dump the body in Scott’s fishing location which was broadcast to the world? The word “IRREFUTABLE” literally means IMPOSSIBLE to disprove, so I think not sir.
Therefore, does that mean Scott Peterson can’t be convicted of 1st degree murder just because you and I can think of THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE scenarios (like the ones shown above) where he didn’t kill her with premeditation? Of course not. 🙂
As I said before, just because you can think up THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE SCENARIOS (to explain away evidence) which the prosecution cannot 100% prove wrong, that does NOT create a reasonable doubt. This is true because if the explanations are not REASONABLE and LOGICAL (e.g. if they’re merely POSSIBLE) then by definition you have not created doubt which is REASONABLE.
Wow – long reply complete with SHOUTING and histrionics. You obviously feel strongly about the subject and that’s just fine by me.
Re: Duct Tape. Last time I looked no evidence has been presented either for the prosecution or defense on this issue. The prosecution says they have proof or premortem application, and I’m interested to see what this is. At that point I’ll make my judgement.
This is why we have trial by Jury. They’ll always be people that have made their mind up based upon opinion, Nancy Grace and tendency toward zealotry. Then there are those people that will hear the evidence as presented and make a reasonable assessment of guilt or innocence at the appointed time. Hopefully there are one or two of the latter category on the Jury.
BTW, I particularly enjoyed the way you put the word “Irrefutable” in my mouth and then spewed out several paragraphs attacking me for a word I didn’t use including a dictionary definition. Looks like you don’t need me in this conversation.
Who is Laci Peterson?
Go get em Nick…no one needs a border-line Troll
ermmm. “I could go on and on with other reasons if I wanted to”… and then you do!!!
You seem to have some inner turmoil. Please let me know if I can help with any psychological issues. Do you hear voices in your head? Does god tell you to kill women? Does he reward you with bright lights and music in your mind?
I heard a brilliant idea stated by Mr. Hornsby the other day, on a radio show I think (somebody else mentioned it to me, I didn’t hear it directly).
He apparently suggested that the prosecution can introduce video tape footage showing Casey and Baez talking to the media over the past few years (such as back in 2008) in order to demonstrate that the defense has constantly changed their theories of the case (e.g. to show how they keep “floating new theories” in the media to see if any of them can gain traction).
I mean, if the jury can see Jose Baez (back in the summer of 2008) claiming the Caylee was still alive right from his own mouth; then suddenly shifting gears 12 months later while attempting to pin the whole murder on Roy Kronk and sloppy police work; then suddenly shifting gears again towards George Anthony…..then it will highlight for the jury that Baez is simply creating fictional stories similar to a children’s book author.
Anyway, I think that Mr. Hornsby’s idea is brilliant.
objection – hearsay
I don’t know if you remember this, art (heart) but back in 2008 Jose’s name was mistakenly placed on the list of prosecution witnesses. Now there’s a thought. Though he couldn’t testify against Casey, why couldn’t he be called to testify against himself? Richard?
Hornsby is brilliant, but I don’t think that msm video would be allowed in. It isn’t directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. If it was admitted, the defense would probably argue, in response, that she only had a recent psychological break through, to tell her ‘real’ story, etc. I think Casey has had more than one ‘come to Jesus’ moment with her various defense team members, and this version of events was the most they could get her to concede to, after the jailhouse letters. I’d imagine Lyon would have run the accident/panic scenario, or psychological PTSD earlier, and then quit when the money ran out and the defendant remained rigid in her stance. At least she is quiet. Baden-Kenny is perpetually on TV running her cheerleader routine, which is beginning to annoy the crap out of me, since she would be more effective in court, instead of courting the public. I guess she assumes that she is influencing potential jurors in the event of an appeal. Also, she probably gave, or gives, Baez the direction or actual questions, for cross, in the scientific portion of the case. Hence it is ‘her baby’. That’s also likely why she is so invested in promoting the legitimacy of it all, it’s her brainchild and ego at stake for at least part of the defense direction and narration.
By the way, although I didn’t watch all of it, Baez seemed to do a good job yesterday.
I’ll switch gears today…
Jose Baez has had a few moments (here and there) of good cross examination, but he’s losing this case because he’s adopted a “Scorched Earth” posture towards all witnesses and all facts (the word “ALL” is the operative word here). This “Scorched Earth” policy is leaving the jury with the impression that the defense is asserting that EVERYBODY in this case is either incompetent, lying, body snatchers, child molesters, drunks, and totally unqualified in their jobs…….while at the same time Baez is asserting that he and Casey (a pathological liar) are the only truth tellers in the room (LOL).
He’s hoping for an OJ Simpson jury, but that was a once in a lifetime jury which had race issues to deal with.
Baez should only be attacking the FEW witnesses which can tip things in his favor, but he just doesn’t know when to let go of certain facts which have been established TOO strongly by the state. For example, George Anthony, Cindy Anthony, Bloise, Dr. Vass and the Dog Handler are all people who have smelled dead bodies before in their professional careers; and they have ALL said that her trunk smelled like a dead body. On top of that, Dr. Vass has air samples to back it up and the cadaver dogs also alerted to the scent of a dead body in the trunk, plus the FBI hair analyst too. These MANY witnesses, in their TOTALITY (“totality” being the operative word here), have established that a dead body was in Casey’s trunk and Baez should simply have conceded this point in his opening statements because the jury will NEVER believe that ALL of these witnesses are either liars, unqualified or mistaken (since that would be too big of a COINCIDENCE for any reasonable person to believe).
That’s the power of a circumstantial case which many “Casey fans” are not seeing. The prosecution has chosen to win by adding layers and layers of circumstantial evidence (totality of evidence) rather than by using a single “knockout blow”.
“Casey fans” are clinging onto the belief that she’ll be exonerated of murder as long as the state never provides that single “Knockout Blow” (e.g. single witness who proves single handedly that Casey committed murder). But circumstantial cases don’t work that way.
Baez should have conceded that a dead body was in that car and claimed that Casey dumped the body after Caylee drowned, since that’s far more believable than adopting a “scorched Earth policy” and claiming that EVERYBODY is a liar or totally unqualified. Obviously he’d still have the problem of the duct tape, but at least his credibility wouldn’t be laughed at by the jurors.
Even certain jurors are reportedly rolling their eyes, chuckling and shaking their heads when Baez goes into attack mode against many witnesses who really don’t need to be attacked. The jurors are seeing that Baez’s entire defense strategy is to label EVERYBODY in the world as “unqualified” and “liars” — then to “rinse and repeat” this process every day.
A good defense attorney knows when to attack and when NOT to attack, in order to retain his CREDIBILITY with the jury. He needs to fight the fights he can win and concede the points which he cannot win
Obviously nobody knows what a jury will do, but Baez is digging his own client’s grave by using his “Scorched Earth” policy.
Roger,
You have made many great observations but I disagree with your implication that the OJ verdict was race based. I believe that the OJ case was that of sloppy police work and prosecution mistakes. There was the issue of contaminated DNA, the issue or Furhman jumping over the wall without a warrant ( when he simply could have phone a judge to obtain a warrant). This same Furhman has to admit in open court that he lied during a despoition and lets not forget the infamous glove. I think all too often, the silient implication is that jury was Black and therefore less intelligent. There have been all white juries that have made some acquitalls of white officers that have made my head spin. As to Casey, you astutely observed that the defense in this case has raised the bar of reasonable doubt ,such as the suggestion of early abuse. Maybe Richard may be able to answer this, but I do not believe that juries tend to buy that type of defense with minority defendants.
Richard
ABC News article that refers to you!!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-trial-defense-attorney-jose-baez/story?id=13784113
Wow!
Linda Drane Burdick totally SETUP Baez and knocked him to the ground in her final re-direct of the computer man.
She got him to state that the chloroform web site was visited 84 times, and the jury really perked up and took notice when she said this.
The trial is pretty much over at this point, it’s basically one side slaughtering the other except that no “slaughter rule” is in effect (as it is in little league baseball games). LOL. 🙂
The only real question left is: Will the state decide to set the electric chair to a setting of: “well done” or “extra crispy” (just a joke, I realize the chair is not used anymore). 🙂
By the way, IF the jury does the unthinkable and convicts Casey of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child & Aggravated Child Abuse, she’ll likely get 30-60 years (consecutive sentences are in order) due to the heinous nature of her crimes and her constant lying to law enforcement during the search for her daughter and afterward, and her lack of remorse (her prior convictions won’t give her first time offender status either, so she won’t get any leniency for being a first time offender).
Other defendants have been sentenced to similar sentences in Orange County for these crimes. In fact, even a lady who simply let her boyfriend have access to a child (at which point he beat the child to death) was given 30 years in prison just for giving her boyfriend access to the child; even though she didn’t know that he would beat the child to death. She was convicted of Aggravated Manslaughter of a child (not sure who the judge was in this case).
Anyhow……Belvin Perry is one of the harsher judges who is not shy when handing out penalties (especially for defendants who lie and show no remorse). He gave out 38 years for a 2nd degree murder conviction when a 22 year old kid got in a fight with a homeless person over a property dispute; and killed him without premeditation. He also sentenced a woman to die and attended her execution in person. I find it hard to believe that he’ll show any leniency toward Casey if she’s convicted, since she’s the poster child for no leniency. 🙂
Anyway, even if the jury acquits of murder (which I don’t think is possible) Casey will still get a penalty MUCH longer than a 10-20 year sentence (which may have been possible if she plead guilty years ago).
84 computer searches for chloroform. Seems to me she may have been skimming through information found looking for an easy recipe?
Oh Great Unfaithful Responder:
Did you catch Lippman on Vinnie Politan’s show, last night? He said that the accusations from Casey Anthony, against George Anthony, were *different* 6-7 weeks ago. I’m paraphrasing here, but the allegations have since ‘evolved’ from when the family was informed of the defense’s direction. He didn’t break attorney client privilege by specifically stating differences, but he seemed to be alluding to some less dramatic statements, or perhaps something different entirely against George. Could Lippman be called as a witness for the state, since he has no privilege obligation in regard to Casey Anthony, (if this is granted by the Anthony’s)? Surely, they should not be opposed to clearing up the muck made of their names, by their daughter, if there is no truth to her allegations. Could Brad Conway be called, since the Anthonys informed him of this direction, after the attorney client privilege no longer applied?
If jail records demonstrate no intensive meetings with a therapist, how are we to accept this breakthrough to *the truth* for Casey in this very short time frame, in fact, a little over *31 days* when it is coincidentally most convenient for her trial?
I just realized that there is no attorney client privilege. Baez being there cancels out the privilege between Lippman and the Anthonys. Likewise, Lippman and C Anthony cancel out the privilege between Baez and Casey Anthony. Anything said during this meeting is not privileged, correct?
I apologize for conversing with myself all afternoon, but it just dawned on me that the information coming from Jose Baez would be considered hearsay.
Question- Casey’s performance is getting quite dramatic. Are defendents allowed to act in whatever way they want? Crying/sobbing or looking nauseous or huddling down and hiding herself away in her sweater? Didn’t JP admonish those who could not control their emotional reactions to leave the courtroom? I understand Casey would not be expected to leave and she needs to face the facts of the case, but why isn’t she expected to maintain some level of composure herself?
There are no psychological experts testifying for the defense in the guilt/ innocence phase. Dr G drove home the point again: 31 days went by and no one called 911. Casey was largely happy during that time frame according to all accounts. She partied and didn’t break down hearing Caylee’s name when others inquired where she was. Casey only broke down in jail recordings when she felt sorry for herself. Regardless of whether she was sexually assaulted, why was she ‘ugly coping’ back then and not now? Where are the experts to present evidence that she is miraculously cured of this detachment, or that it even existed before?
This new display of emotion could work against her in that the jury might view her as highly manipulative. Or, if the purpose of this emoting was to garner sympathy from her parents to ‘persuade’ their testimony, had they been paying attention, they would have seen her watching the duct tape animation on screen with the jury out of the room, becoming infuriated and then later feigning ‘the delicate flower’ by pretending that she couldn’t look at it upon the jury’s return. If her parents didn’t know before, they should know now how truly calculating she is.
Uhhh hello…maybe because she’s looking at her childs remains. How would you feel seeing your child in this state? You sound like Nancy Grace..I’m sick and tired of her saying Casey has the dry heaves..
I think the judge is biased and that alone should be a perfect reaon for an appeal. It seems every time Baez stands up, the judge over rules even before he can open his mouth. If I were on that jury there would be a problem. So far they still haven’t proven that asey murdered her child. Before I put anyone on death row or behindbars for life I want physical proof they murdered the person, not circumstantial evidence.
Richard,
Where are you? I’ve been salivating for a new blog post from you for days! LOL! I would love to hear your take on what you think about Judge Perry letting the animation into evidence today? Do you think it will come back later to haunt him?
Thanks!
Erin
P.S. I hope you are doing well!
I wonder why they didn’t subpoena the most current photo for mathematical/scientific accuracy.
I don’t know, but that’s a good question!
I don’t think we should wait 31 days before we report Richard MIA!
June 10th 2011, “This disgusting superimposition is nothing more than a fantasy,” lead defense attorney Jose Baez said while arguing against it. “…They’re throwing things against the wall and seeing if it sticks.”
Fancy that.
For real. The thing is – is that NOBODY is disputing that that was Caylee’s remains found in the woods. Everybody knows at this point that Caylee was triple bagged and dumped in the woods off Suburban (whether Casey is responsible for Caylee’s death or not), so I don’t know why the defense got their panties in a bunch over the animation. Hello! Decomposition is what happens when a body is left out in the elements! The defense is contending that Mr. Kronk got rid of the body so why were they so upset about the animation?
Hi, Erin! imho, there can’t be but one reason the defense is so upset about this animation and that’s because, I believe, the tape has been connected to the Anthony home where Casey would have had access to it and used it as the murder weapon. The animation shows how it could have been used to kill Caylee.
At this point, imho, the defense can’t really attach George to the tape found on Caylee because of all of the jail vidoes shown to the jury that clearly indicate George had no idea where Caylee was or what had happened to her. He merely suspected something had as is evidenced in his interviews with LE and perhaps the Grand Jury. This will be further supported by the testimony of Tim Miller and George’s friend who will testify to George’s actions during the night George went into Casey’s room and tried to get her to point out on a map where search and rescue/recovery teams were to start looking for Caylee. Cindy put a stop to that, didn’t she?
There’s no way Cindy was going to be made to believe that her daughter killed Caylee! No way! Cindy worked very hard at maintaining an image that was about to be shattered and she wouldn’t stand for it. imo
To further the point of that, there will be, I hope, George’s friend who will testify as to what George said that night, “There’s only ONE person who knows what happened to Caylee and SHE’S sitting in that room!” Or something to that effect.
The defense has no defense and no choice but to throw whatever nonsense they can dream up, up against the wall and hope something sticks, and the Henkel does that pretty darn well, but not on behalf of the defense.
I sure hope we hear, at some point, exactly how the defense connects all of this to Kronk. I mean, what the heck? George pulls Caylee out of the pool and yells at her, “Look what you’ve done! Your mother will never forgive you!” at which point Casey takes Caylee from George and just stands there crying. No one, not the former cop, who had to know CPR by the way, nor this desperate mother whose dead baby dripped in her arms, ran to call 911. They both just stood there? Then what? Did Kronk just happed along to read their meter and did Casey thrust Caylee at him saying something like,
“Please Mr. Meter Reader Man! My mother will never forgive me! Can you please take my dead baby and hide her somewhere for me? Oh and, here’s some duct tape so you can make it look like a kidnapping, just in case someone finds her! Can you do that for me please? I’ll be your BFF! I’ll even post a reward so you can find her and collect on it in 6 months or so if you like. Please, oh please! Mr. Meter Reader Man, say you’ll do it before my mother gets home!”
Makes a whole lot of nonsense, doesn’t it?
I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, Erin! 🙂
I really should have stopped after the first paragraph, huh?
Hi Autumn!
No, you shouldn’t have stopped after the first paragraph! LOL! I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts as well!
I seem to be the only person who is concerned, that all Dr G had to offer was her opinion. I don’t believe this jury is going to convict her on any degree of murder without a concrete cause of death.
This is the great and wise Judge Belvin Perry in action? The possible error you are referring to pales in comparison to allowing this animation which, if the news reports are showing it correctly, contains an image of the defendant smiling widely and appearing to be looking over the animation. How is this evidence? It isn’t something that happened, it’s an animation of what some think might have happened. The clown admitted he used photoshop in the making of it so he could easily have removed Casey Anthony from the picture they “grabbed from the internet”. What a farce.
In my opinion that is not the only thing this judge has done that is questionable to say the least. One thing about Judge Perry that is very clear is his prosecution bias.
Watching this trial and the stuff that passes for evidence surely helps explain all of the wrongful convictions. I’m no Casey Anthony fan but at least give her a fair trial especially if you want to put her to death. It’s no better to convict her with bull like a phoney animation of an imaginary event than it is for anyone to kill another especially a child.
What do you think of some of the alledged evidence that has been admitted Mr. Hornsby? Of course undterstanding that you may have to appear before Perry.
I know you’re probably busy with your own cases, but I wish you’d write more here. You haven’t given an opinion lately.
I certainly hope Mr. Hornsby offers his comments on what happened in court today with the Power Point presentation of hair evidence. I’m getting a little bit nervous here.
Casey Anthony is not going to be convicted of first degree murder, but I don’t think that she will be acquitted either; however, I can’t be certain. What I do believe strongly is that she will NEVER be sentenced to death, even if convicted of first degree murder. Jurors loathe the death penalty when it comes to women. They will more often view them as broken, victims, or mentally ill. Sometimes they are victims, but sometimes they aren’t. It’s easier to buy into that for one gender versus the other, it seems. Here is one instance where cultural bias actually works in a defendant’s favor.
Imagine this trial with a young man (single father) sitting in her place, instead.
I echoed your sentiments at first but there was something about the way that Baez opened that bothered me. The cold manner that she has conducted herself throughout the trial, coupled with how the threw her father under the bus while potentially exposing him to criminal charges paint a picture of a calculating murderer who could care less about anyone or anything AND who sincerely believes she can outsmart the system. I am death penalty neutral but under the circumstances, could vote for a death sentence for this woman.
Interested and Robert, you both make excellent points.
As a retired lawyer(45 Yeaes) and a sitting judge (21 years) I started watching the Anthony trial expecting to see the best of Fla. Instead, I observed sloppy in- court trial practice One of the worst I have ever seen i.e. Leading Qs, compound Qs, impeachment of one’s own witnesses etc. etc. What is going on? Is this just Fla. or just this case? Defense got buy “with murder”. But the worst part were these Prosecutors These experienced “trial lawyers” let so much go WITHOUT objection. If this case would have been tried in a Fla. U.S. Federal court, Baez would have been limited by proper and timely objectons and –who knows about the results. Please tell me why such a trial can exist in Orange Co? For 3 weeks I kept telling everyone it was a “sloppy trial”. (Please only experinced trial lawyers answer) The judge.