October 14, 2011
A Kiss is Just a Kiss: How Amanda Knox Was Transformed By the Media into a Monster
Admit it. Most of us have a taste for the salacious. We may be horrified but if we weren't curious about murder and rape, there wouldn't be a seemingly endless number of books, films, TV shows, websites and discussions on social media on the subject. Our appetites are so insatiable there is more than one cable channel dedicated to real life crime mostly of the murderous kind.
There are many types of murder but motive is sometimes broken down into three categories: money, revenge and sex. Revenge can include murders meant to make political statements -- like those perpetrated by Ted Kaczinski, the Unabomber, but primarily are focused on personal revenge.
Sexual murders do not necessarily include sex and it is the murder itself which is sexually satisfying whereas other sex murders are primarily focused on rape and the murder is a necessary step so the perpetrator may avoid detecting. getting caught. These crimes are most often stranger murders where the perpetrator has no connection to the victim. They are beyond our ability to rationally understand and certainly to relate with or make sense of and thus there is a field of study dedicated to understanding these horrific crimes and the minds of those who commit them. & yet which we must learn to understand so they can be solved. The most common type of sex murder is committed by the serial rapist whose primary motivation is sexual in nature and the murder itself is committed to avoid detection. In either case, sex crimes have an understandably powerful impact on society and on individuals and cause all manner of passionate responses.
Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox's roommate, was the victim of a sex crime. She was raped and violently sexually attacked and she was murdered and left to die (or dead). She lived in an obscure area in a small town which suggests she may have been stalked and observed her for a while before the attack occurred. The brutality of the crime was excessive. She had multiple knife wounds, many more bruises and male DNA belonging to Rudy Guede was found inside her. 48 Hours (Amanda Knox: Update) reported that it took Meredith Kercher two hours to die. I have since been told that she likely died much more quickly so I'll have to research that further.
According to data gathered by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, a crime like this is nearly always committed by one person. That person is nearly always male (97% of the time) and that person nearly always has prior offenses, usually for peeping, stalking, molesting and rape (to name a few). A brutal murder, the kind of murder Meredith Kercher fell victim to, is not someone's "first" crime. Criminals of this type, sex criminals, work their way up to rape and murder. They nearly always get caught at something, nearly all have rap sheets.
Detectives experienced with murders like this don't need to call Quantico to know they are looking for a lone male. The idea that a 20-year-old female college student with no record, no mental illness, no history of violence or abuse (as victim or perpetrator) could get carried away by lust and suddenly partake in a violent murder, killing with her bare hands, is pretty much unheard of. Except maybe in the movies.
Prosecutor Guliano Mignini must watch a lot of movies. But there is also evidence is that Mignini himself possesses a rather twisted mind. How titillating, the idea of an orgy which included two beautiful girls. Watching beautiful coltish Amanda Knox kiss her young boyfriend sparked Mr. Mignini's imagination. His fantasies ran wild.
I believe what he saw in a Amanda Knox was a beautiful girl whom he wanted but knew he could never have. I believe he hated her for that "rejection", hated that his chance to stand where Raffaele stood was long past. I believe the coldness Mignini saw was simply the fact that Amanda Knox was unavailable to him. Knox's sweetness, her warmth, her youthful sexuality--these were turned off in his presence instinctively. And besides, who is "warm" after finding out her roommate was dead and she narrowly missed being murdered herself.
The crime scene did not suggest anything like an orgy had occurred. Rather, there was evidence of a single perpetrator. Only Rudy Guede's DNA was found at the scene. It was by all accounts the work of a lone criminal, of one man (a conclusion made by famed FBI profiler John Douglas, author of "Mind Hunter" in his interview with award-winning journalist Krista Errickson, WomanOnAWire.blogspot.com). So how did Amanda Knox get blamed. How did she get demonized? What made police decide, that girl is a monster?
She kissed her boyfriend in front of her apartment.
Let me repeat that. Looking as if she were in shock, Knox KISSED her boyfriend in front of the apartment in view of everyone. Oh sure, there was other "evidence" too: She was called "foxy knoxy" at school (meaning she must have been some kind of slut); oh, and she did a cartwheel while she was at the police station. No doubt after sitting for hours and hours in an interrogation room she was trying to shake off the stress. And being 20 and naive, she was unaware of the fact that doing cartwheels while in a police station is, as we know, "clear evidence" of guilt.
The most damning "evidence" of Knox's guilt was that she told the police her boss was involved in the crime.. That does seem suspicious. Of course what one doesn't hear is that this piece of info was the result of hours and hours of interrogation in which Amanda was in custody without a lawyer. She was cajoled, threatened, yelled at, called all manner of names. They demanded she confess or to tell them who did it. One or the other. Confess. Tell us who was with you. Were you meeting him? Was he there? Tell us the truth. For hours and hours. The last text she'd gotten before the crime was from her boss and her reply to that was "see ya." That must mean they were going to meet up later for the orgy that turned into a murder. Tell us he did it or you will sit her for another 40 hours. Over and over. So finally she did. Now why would Amanda Knox tell police her boss was involved in the crime when she knew for a fact he wasn't there? It might be enough to convince you of her guilt if you weren't familiar with the "coerced confession."
I used to think that I would never falsely confess and certainly wouldn't ever point the finger at someone else if I were wrongfully accused, but now I know differently. I've seen hours of videotapes of grueling interrogations in which suspects can't speak to anyone, are plied with soft drinks, not allowed bathroom breaks, left alone for hours, lied to, told they are LYING over and over and told things like, "just admit you were THERE and we will let you have a break", I understand the phenomenon better. If you refuse even that, the next tactic is to demand, intimidate, wheedle and cajole you into telling them who was there. So after many hours with interrogators tag-teaming Knox in a now-custodial situation, demanding she admit she was there, a new cop comes in and says, just tell us who was there then. It was your boss, wasn't it? We KNOW he was there but if you corroborate this we can move forward. Just tell us what we already know and you can leave. It's a kind of brainwashing. The weariness, the need to get out of the room, the belief they DO know something and the slow loss of any grip on reality, I see this might easily lead to a suspect giving false information. It's not quite "beating a confession out of someone like the old days" but it may be worse. And given that 25% of DNA exonerations involve false (coerced) "confessions", clearly it's not uncommon.
But WHY was it so easy to see Amanda Knox as a cold-blooded killer?
Why were 54 forensic errors made in the investigation?
Why didn't experienced detectives see the case more clearly?
How did Mignini sell this baseless story to the press and how did they sell it to us?
I can see Amanda Knox more clearly now. I too thought she might be guilty. As a result I feel
a duty to understand why a bunny looked just like a zebra to me and why I never once asked why a zebra didn't have stripes or hooves or a mane.
Think about this: Often when someone is arrested for heinous crimes (The Green River Killer
for example) neighbors &
acquaintances comment, "He seemed like such a nice guy" or "I never would have believed "Joe" was capable of that." It's so common to hear this it's cliche.
The reason you don't suspect your neighbor or co-worker of murder is you see them through a particular lens. You assume they are like you, good people at heart. You don't really know them but ascribe to them the same moral compass you possess. It's really just projection. Smoke and mirrors. We see them as we believe they MUST be.
No surprise that this can easily happen in reverse. Once you see someone led into court by guards, her image flashed on the screen next to the words "murder suspect," you start to see evil in a person's face. Given that we all have the capacity for evil, it's not really so odd. Once someone is arrested it's just hard to seem innocent. If you speak out loudly, and protest your innocence, you are "filled with anger." You protest too much. Or you are just another guilty liar.
If you don't deny your guilt emphatically cops say, if someone accused me I'd be mad. I'd tell the world I didn't do it.
If you hire a lawyer too quickly, it looks "suspicious." If you sit quietly in court while your name is sullied you are emotionless or must be guilty. If you cry, you are crying because you got caught and you are selfish. If you do not cry you are cold. Once you are accused,
every word, every gesture takes on an air of guilt. For example...
A KISS IS JUST A KISS.
What might have been an innocent comforting kiss by Amanda Knox's boyfriend, is interpreted by Prosecutor Guiliano Mignini as meaning Amanda is cold and callous. I believe he titillated as well, which led to fodder for his "orgy theory".
I admit, I too, started seeing the "kiss" or series of kisses as sinister. Especially as it was played over and over again. I also saw Amanda Knox casting blame on her boss as an indicator of guilt. Again- I did not have the facts. I believe I even held the silly nickname against her, hearing it reported over and over like it mattered at all.
One thing that was really held back was the absolute guilt of Rudy Guede, the fact that he ran, the fact that there was absolutely NO connection whatsoever that was ever found between Knox, Raffaele and Guede. Not a call, text, email, sighting, or anything else.
It was not public knowledge that Guede originally denied that Amanda and Raffaele were there and said he was the sole killer. And that once he realized that because they were on trial, saying the two helped with the crime would reduce his sentence from 30 years to 16. Clearly he had a motive.
I never felt convinced Amanda Knox was guilty but I take responsibility for accepting a media lynching at face value and not looking at it more closely.
I am now 100% convinced Amanda Knox is innocent. The forensics, Mignini's agenda, the psychology behind the crime and the DNA certainly make her innocence clear In the end it was listening to Amanda Knox speak about her innocence and having a chance to hear both from her and her family and friends who she is, that removed any doubt I could have had.
If one thing comes of this horrible case, it may be that more and more people will see how easy it really is to convict someone guilty. And that may well lead to less wrongful convictions. As awful as her experience was, I hope one day Amanda Knox will feel able to share her story with others. She may find meaning in that she never imagined she'd find. And though I don't know Amanda, after hearing her speak so passionately and eloquently on the topic of justice and her own innocence, I have a hunch that she will.
-Claudia Miles
http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf
August 25, 2011
Ray Krone: The Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction
Ray Krone spent ten years in an Arizona prison, four of them on death row, for a crime he did not commit. Shocking? Not really. He was the one hundredth person to have served time on death row and later to be exonerated by DNA evidence. To date, 227 people have been cleared of murder convictions due to DNA evidence thanks to Project Innocence.
What is shocking to me is that the so-called evidence used to convict Ray was so flimsy. Even worse, it was theory and hypothesis dressed up as "science." Due to what is being called the "CSI effect", people are more and more swayed by so-called "scientific evidence" and less by motive, character, logic and even alibi witnesses. The problem is, much of what passes as science is in fact so much sleight of hand. Barry Scheck aptly coined the term "junk forensics" to describe speculative theories that do not meet the standards actual science requires. Examples of junk forensics include bite mark "matches", tire track "matches" and shoe print "matches," all of which can be confirmed only by visual inspection. Unlike DNA & fingerprints which are matched with scientific certainty, visual inspection is subjective, and yet presented as fact. It then becomes a "battle of the experts"--if the defendant can afford to hire his own expert at all (and most can't). Jurors hears this evidence presented by scientists and forensic "experts", and given the impression these matches are based on science.
Paula Zahn ("On the Case with Paula Zahn," 1/23/11, Shadow of a Doubt) reported on the Ray Krone case in January of this year. You have to think that, were it not for shows like
this and reporters like Ms. Zahn, many less wrongfully convicted folks would be exonerated. Project Innocence estimates that at least 5% of people convicted for violent crimes in the
U.S. are innocent, which is tens of thousands of people
In Ray Krone's case, the story begins in 1991. Krone, an Air Force veteran and postal worker with no criminal record, was a regular at the CBS Lounge in Phoenix, Arizona where he liked to play darts. In December of '91, Kim Anacona, a bartender at the CBS Lounge and the mother of three, was brutally murdered. She was sexually assaulted and tortured and left on the floor of the men's room with a visible bite mark on her breast. It was a horrific murder, and the kind a community wants solved, and pronto! Detectives on the case looked at the bite mark on the victim's breast and thought it appeared "snaggle-toothed" and felt it would have come from someone with extremely crooked teeth. During the investigation, bar patrons remembered that bar regular Ray Krone had extremely crooked front teeth due to a car accident. Asked about any relationship between Krone and Anacona, several said they saw Krone give Kim Anacona a ride to a holiday party that many bar patrons attended. Some saw Ray Krone give Kim Anacona a kiss under the seasonally placed mistletoe. Investigators became eager to speak with Ray who was asked to come in to speak with them about a murder and who willingly cooperated.
When first questioned about Kim Anacona, Ray asked, "Who?" That was because he only knew the CBS bartender as Kim, and had never known her last name. Becoming suspicious, they asked again, "You don't know Kim Anacona from the CBS Lounge?" Once they mentioned the CBS lounge, Ray replied that he did in fact know the bartender there, a woman named Kim but hadn't known her last name. This made detectives even more suspicious. "You don't know your girlfriend's last name?" they demanded. Ray did not. And that, of course, is because Ray and Kim were not boyfriend and girlfriend which Ray explained. Their entire relationship outside the bar consisted of his giving Kim a ride to the party that night, and one kiss under the mistletoe.
Because the bite mark seemed like such an important clue, the DA asked a forensic dentist employed by the state to examine the bite marks. That dentist on a superficial exam said, yes, those bites are identical. This was the day after Anacona was murdered. All investigation stopped then. This, despite the fact that the lab had identified hairs left at the scene as Native American, and despite the fact that police received an anonymous note saying, "An Indian did it- I saw him behind the CBS bar. He was 6 foot and 200 lbs." The state forensic dentist changed his opinion about the bite mark match after he made a mold of Ray's teeth and examined the bite marks, further. The prosecution discharged their own expert from the case, and found another dentist who was willing to say it was a match. The information about the original dentist changing his mind was withheld from the defense.
There was blood at the scene that did not belong to the victim, but DNA was not yet sophisticated enough to match this blood to anyone, let alone Ray. Shoeprints were found at the scene, too. The shoes were never found and the prints were a full size smaller than what Ray wore, yet the jury was told the shoe prints were "close" to Ray's size. At the trial, the jury Ray's attorney did not call another expert to challenge the bite mark. This was probably Ray's attorney was unaware of the "junk"-like quality of this type of forensics. Barry Scheck's "Junk Forensics" had not yet been written. If only his lawyer had known that he could have found numerous forensic dentists who would contest the original analysis. In fact, when retrying the case, three independent forensic dentists stated they were 100% positive the bite marks were NOT Ray's. One of them was a longtime expert for the state. So if Ray's attorney didn't know how precarious this type of evidence was, certainly one could not expect the jury to have such information.
In presenting the bite mark, the prosecution used a fancy projection technique to show an overlay of Ray's teeth on a picture of the bite mark, and voila, it looked like a match. This type of showmanship is typical when "junk forensics" is used. This "evidence" (an expert saying the bite matched Ray), combined with the fact that several people testified that they had seen the two together and it looked very much like they were romantically involved, which Ray denied. Other evidence included that "close" shoe print match. (The shoe prints were actually smaller than his foot and he couldn't have gotten a shoe that size on his feet.) Also, experts said that a couple hairs were "similar" to Ray's (although in fact, they were dark straight hairs which most felt came from someone of Native American descent). All of this so-called "evidence" was enough to convict Ray. A faulty bite mark "match", a visual inspection of hair that wasn't tested for DNA and a "close" footprint size. Ray's lawyer did not challenge any of this "forensic evidence." Ray became known as the "snaggle-toothed killer and was sent to death row.
Ray had almost no family and no money. He was pretty much on his own. However, luckily for Ray, he had a curious cousin whom he had never met. Jim Rix learned from his mother that the man on death row, the snaggle-toothed killer, was actually related to him. It never occurred to him that Ray was innocent, but he became highly curious about how a member of his own family could have committed such a brutal crime. He decided to write to Ray and see what he had to say. Ray wrote back to Jim and told him he was innocent, explained his side of the story. After several letters were exchanged, Jim became curious enough that he wanted to meet Ray Krone. After a meeting with Ray, Jim Rix became very curious about the bite mark. He hired a forensic dentist himself and gave that dentist the molds and the pictures on which the match had been based. Lo and behold, the dentist told him that he was positive Ray was not the person who bit Kim Anacona.
The more he learned about the case, the more appalled he became, and Jim Rix hired a lawyer himself to represent his cousin at appeal. He worked with the attorney, and they uncovered so much exculpatory evidence they were beside themselves. Ray won an appeal for a new trial, although he was not allowed bail. At that trial, three forensic dental experts all testified that they were CERTAIN Ray's bite mark did NOT match the bite mark on Ms. Anacona. They explained that, while the jaw size might be similar, there were striking inconsistencies. One definitive inconsistency was that the "biter" had pronounced spaces between his lower teeth. That was clear. Ray had NO spaces in his lower teeth. NONE. Also, the DNA found at the scene had been identified, and it was determined it did NOT match Ray Krone. The footprints could NOT be Ray Krone's because they were a size SMALLER than his. (It might be possible to wear shoes larger than one's own size, but smaller? Clearly not.) The hair at the scene, which in the first trial was thought to possibly match Ray (from visual examination), was proven through DNA testing NOT to belong to Ray. So in this second trial it seemed that Ray would be exonerated. I was SHOCKED, then, when a jury convicted Ray a second time. So, too, was the judge, who said that this case "would haunt him the rest of his life" and added that he had serious doubts about the identity of the killer. However, for whatever reason, the judge did not overturn the jury verdict. And back to prison, though not death row, went Ray.
For many, that would be the end. But Ray's cousin, Jim Rix (author of Jingle Jangle) and his lawyer could NOT let this go. They knew Ray was innocent. And his attorney explained that in order to free Ray, they would, for all intents and purposes, have to catch the killer. So his attorney petitioned the court to test the DNA again, not just to exclude Ray (which they had), but to put the DNA through the DNA database and see if they could find who's it was. As Ray says, the court resisted this, saying it was "a wild goose chase, a waste of the court's time and money... " But what happened was, when put through the database, they got a match. The hair and saliva and other DNA samples matched a man who was a Native American and a convicted sex offender, and who was currently incarcerated. That man was Kenneth Phillips. Motions were filed to overturn the conviction based on this match, but the court refused because the DNA was not "new evidence." Ultimately, Ray's attorney had to send an investigator to meet with Kenneth Phillips and somehow extract a confession from him. The confession, however, was considered new evidence, and finally, Ray's attorney got the conviction overturned.
So finally, Ray Krone was set free. Ten years later. Ray actually got a settlement from the state, not that it made up for the lost ten years. As the prosecutor said, it's too bad this couldn't have been detected sooner... Talk about an understatement! However, I'm impressed he actually admitted that Ray was innocent. This rarely happens. He did not, however, acknowledge that he withheld the initial investigator's report saying he did not believe Ray Krone's bite to be a match to the bite on the victim.
When Ray Krone was released, there were cameras and journalists everywhere as he was the 100th person who had served time on death row to have his conviction overturned. When asked what he was feeling by the press, Ray Krone's first words were about Kim Anacona, the crime victim, and her family. He wanted her to be remembered. He also stated that he planned to look ahead, and not back. That he didn't want to waste any more time. He spoke with a grace and dignity that is unexpected after going through what he had. And since Ray's release in 2002, he has been a speaker all over the country on the topic of wrongful convictions, and an advocate for those wrongfully convicted.
Just a reminder folks- Our justice system may be the "best in the world" but still, is seriously flawed and we need to be aware of that. We have to know that everyone in prison is not necessarily guilty- that jury verdicts are not magical- that juries can be WRONG!
And maybe next time you are called for jury duty, don't try to get out of it. If those of us who know the system is flawed do not serve, you can see what happens. Thank you Paula Zahn. Thank you Ray Krone for the dignity with which you walked through this nightmare, and for the work you do now to educate others. Thank you Cousin Jim for your dogged determination. What a nightmare! Let's free the innocent who are locked up and allocate funds for DNA tests. Please!
To read more about this case, read Jim Rix's book about his and Ray's experience: "Jingle Jangle."
What is shocking to me is that the so-called evidence used to convict Ray was so flimsy. Even worse, it was theory and hypothesis dressed up as "science." Due to what is being called the "CSI effect", people are more and more swayed by so-called "scientific evidence" and less by motive, character, logic and even alibi witnesses. The problem is, much of what passes as science is in fact so much sleight of hand. Barry Scheck aptly coined the term "junk forensics" to describe speculative theories that do not meet the standards actual science requires. Examples of junk forensics include bite mark "matches", tire track "matches" and shoe print "matches," all of which can be confirmed only by visual inspection. Unlike DNA & fingerprints which are matched with scientific certainty, visual inspection is subjective, and yet presented as fact. It then becomes a "battle of the experts"--if the defendant can afford to hire his own expert at all (and most can't). Jurors hears this evidence presented by scientists and forensic "experts", and given the impression these matches are based on science.
Paula Zahn ("On the Case with Paula Zahn," 1/23/11, Shadow of a Doubt) reported on the Ray Krone case in January of this year. You have to think that, were it not for shows like
this and reporters like Ms. Zahn, many less wrongfully convicted folks would be exonerated. Project Innocence estimates that at least 5% of people convicted for violent crimes in the
U.S. are innocent, which is tens of thousands of people
In Ray Krone's case, the story begins in 1991. Krone, an Air Force veteran and postal worker with no criminal record, was a regular at the CBS Lounge in Phoenix, Arizona where he liked to play darts. In December of '91, Kim Anacona, a bartender at the CBS Lounge and the mother of three, was brutally murdered. She was sexually assaulted and tortured and left on the floor of the men's room with a visible bite mark on her breast. It was a horrific murder, and the kind a community wants solved, and pronto! Detectives on the case looked at the bite mark on the victim's breast and thought it appeared "snaggle-toothed" and felt it would have come from someone with extremely crooked teeth. During the investigation, bar patrons remembered that bar regular Ray Krone had extremely crooked front teeth due to a car accident. Asked about any relationship between Krone and Anacona, several said they saw Krone give Kim Anacona a ride to a holiday party that many bar patrons attended. Some saw Ray Krone give Kim Anacona a kiss under the seasonally placed mistletoe. Investigators became eager to speak with Ray who was asked to come in to speak with them about a murder and who willingly cooperated.
When first questioned about Kim Anacona, Ray asked, "Who?" That was because he only knew the CBS bartender as Kim, and had never known her last name. Becoming suspicious, they asked again, "You don't know Kim Anacona from the CBS Lounge?" Once they mentioned the CBS lounge, Ray replied that he did in fact know the bartender there, a woman named Kim but hadn't known her last name. This made detectives even more suspicious. "You don't know your girlfriend's last name?" they demanded. Ray did not. And that, of course, is because Ray and Kim were not boyfriend and girlfriend which Ray explained. Their entire relationship outside the bar consisted of his giving Kim a ride to the party that night, and one kiss under the mistletoe.
Because the bite mark seemed like such an important clue, the DA asked a forensic dentist employed by the state to examine the bite marks. That dentist on a superficial exam said, yes, those bites are identical. This was the day after Anacona was murdered. All investigation stopped then. This, despite the fact that the lab had identified hairs left at the scene as Native American, and despite the fact that police received an anonymous note saying, "An Indian did it- I saw him behind the CBS bar. He was 6 foot and 200 lbs." The state forensic dentist changed his opinion about the bite mark match after he made a mold of Ray's teeth and examined the bite marks, further. The prosecution discharged their own expert from the case, and found another dentist who was willing to say it was a match. The information about the original dentist changing his mind was withheld from the defense.
There was blood at the scene that did not belong to the victim, but DNA was not yet sophisticated enough to match this blood to anyone, let alone Ray. Shoeprints were found at the scene, too. The shoes were never found and the prints were a full size smaller than what Ray wore, yet the jury was told the shoe prints were "close" to Ray's size. At the trial, the jury Ray's attorney did not call another expert to challenge the bite mark. This was probably Ray's attorney was unaware of the "junk"-like quality of this type of forensics. Barry Scheck's "Junk Forensics" had not yet been written. If only his lawyer had known that he could have found numerous forensic dentists who would contest the original analysis. In fact, when retrying the case, three independent forensic dentists stated they were 100% positive the bite marks were NOT Ray's. One of them was a longtime expert for the state. So if Ray's attorney didn't know how precarious this type of evidence was, certainly one could not expect the jury to have such information.
In presenting the bite mark, the prosecution used a fancy projection technique to show an overlay of Ray's teeth on a picture of the bite mark, and voila, it looked like a match. This type of showmanship is typical when "junk forensics" is used. This "evidence" (an expert saying the bite matched Ray), combined with the fact that several people testified that they had seen the two together and it looked very much like they were romantically involved, which Ray denied. Other evidence included that "close" shoe print match. (The shoe prints were actually smaller than his foot and he couldn't have gotten a shoe that size on his feet.) Also, experts said that a couple hairs were "similar" to Ray's (although in fact, they were dark straight hairs which most felt came from someone of Native American descent). All of this so-called "evidence" was enough to convict Ray. A faulty bite mark "match", a visual inspection of hair that wasn't tested for DNA and a "close" footprint size. Ray's lawyer did not challenge any of this "forensic evidence." Ray became known as the "snaggle-toothed killer and was sent to death row.
Ray had almost no family and no money. He was pretty much on his own. However, luckily for Ray, he had a curious cousin whom he had never met. Jim Rix learned from his mother that the man on death row, the snaggle-toothed killer, was actually related to him. It never occurred to him that Ray was innocent, but he became highly curious about how a member of his own family could have committed such a brutal crime. He decided to write to Ray and see what he had to say. Ray wrote back to Jim and told him he was innocent, explained his side of the story. After several letters were exchanged, Jim became curious enough that he wanted to meet Ray Krone. After a meeting with Ray, Jim Rix became very curious about the bite mark. He hired a forensic dentist himself and gave that dentist the molds and the pictures on which the match had been based. Lo and behold, the dentist told him that he was positive Ray was not the person who bit Kim Anacona.
The more he learned about the case, the more appalled he became, and Jim Rix hired a lawyer himself to represent his cousin at appeal. He worked with the attorney, and they uncovered so much exculpatory evidence they were beside themselves. Ray won an appeal for a new trial, although he was not allowed bail. At that trial, three forensic dental experts all testified that they were CERTAIN Ray's bite mark did NOT match the bite mark on Ms. Anacona. They explained that, while the jaw size might be similar, there were striking inconsistencies. One definitive inconsistency was that the "biter" had pronounced spaces between his lower teeth. That was clear. Ray had NO spaces in his lower teeth. NONE. Also, the DNA found at the scene had been identified, and it was determined it did NOT match Ray Krone. The footprints could NOT be Ray Krone's because they were a size SMALLER than his. (It might be possible to wear shoes larger than one's own size, but smaller? Clearly not.) The hair at the scene, which in the first trial was thought to possibly match Ray (from visual examination), was proven through DNA testing NOT to belong to Ray. So in this second trial it seemed that Ray would be exonerated. I was SHOCKED, then, when a jury convicted Ray a second time. So, too, was the judge, who said that this case "would haunt him the rest of his life" and added that he had serious doubts about the identity of the killer. However, for whatever reason, the judge did not overturn the jury verdict. And back to prison, though not death row, went Ray.
For many, that would be the end. But Ray's cousin, Jim Rix (author of Jingle Jangle) and his lawyer could NOT let this go. They knew Ray was innocent. And his attorney explained that in order to free Ray, they would, for all intents and purposes, have to catch the killer. So his attorney petitioned the court to test the DNA again, not just to exclude Ray (which they had), but to put the DNA through the DNA database and see if they could find who's it was. As Ray says, the court resisted this, saying it was "a wild goose chase, a waste of the court's time and money... " But what happened was, when put through the database, they got a match. The hair and saliva and other DNA samples matched a man who was a Native American and a convicted sex offender, and who was currently incarcerated. That man was Kenneth Phillips. Motions were filed to overturn the conviction based on this match, but the court refused because the DNA was not "new evidence." Ultimately, Ray's attorney had to send an investigator to meet with Kenneth Phillips and somehow extract a confession from him. The confession, however, was considered new evidence, and finally, Ray's attorney got the conviction overturned.
So finally, Ray Krone was set free. Ten years later. Ray actually got a settlement from the state, not that it made up for the lost ten years. As the prosecutor said, it's too bad this couldn't have been detected sooner... Talk about an understatement! However, I'm impressed he actually admitted that Ray was innocent. This rarely happens. He did not, however, acknowledge that he withheld the initial investigator's report saying he did not believe Ray Krone's bite to be a match to the bite on the victim.
When Ray Krone was released, there were cameras and journalists everywhere as he was the 100th person who had served time on death row to have his conviction overturned. When asked what he was feeling by the press, Ray Krone's first words were about Kim Anacona, the crime victim, and her family. He wanted her to be remembered. He also stated that he planned to look ahead, and not back. That he didn't want to waste any more time. He spoke with a grace and dignity that is unexpected after going through what he had. And since Ray's release in 2002, he has been a speaker all over the country on the topic of wrongful convictions, and an advocate for those wrongfully convicted.
Just a reminder folks- Our justice system may be the "best in the world" but still, is seriously flawed and we need to be aware of that. We have to know that everyone in prison is not necessarily guilty- that jury verdicts are not magical- that juries can be WRONG!
And maybe next time you are called for jury duty, don't try to get out of it. If those of us who know the system is flawed do not serve, you can see what happens. Thank you Paula Zahn. Thank you Ray Krone for the dignity with which you walked through this nightmare, and for the work you do now to educate others. Thank you Cousin Jim for your dogged determination. What a nightmare! Let's free the innocent who are locked up and allocate funds for DNA tests. Please!
To read more about this case, read Jim Rix's book about his and Ray's experience: "Jingle Jangle."
August 20, 2011
Casey Anthony Verdict: Why the Jury Did the Right Thing
Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better for ten guilty to go free than for one innocent to suffer. That's why it isn't easy to convict someone even if it seems "obvious" they are guilty-or rather, it should not be. Once convicted, even proof of actual innocence can't always free the innocent. And despite all the checks on our system, there are tens of thousands of innocent people in prison. The looser the requirements to convict, the more innocent people go to prison (or are executed). That's why it's GOOD that our system demands a certain level of proof before convicting people of serious crimes.
As to the Casey Anthony verdict, the jury did not find her "innocent." They found her Not Guilty (by law). And they did so because there was a) no cause of death presented by the medical examiner, meaning, the state medical examiner could NOT rule out accidental death; b) no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that linked Casey to a murder weapon (i.e., evidence she bought ingredients to make chloroform, evidence she made chloroform); c) no connection between Casey and the body (the state perhaps effectively proved the odor of decomp was in the car; they did not prove beyond doubt it was Caylee); and d) in lieu of all the missing pieces, they didn't present evidence that Casey would like to be rid of Caylee or had any motive (as horrific as Casey's behavior, it does not prove she wanted Caylee dead prior to her death).
Many people compare this case with the O.J. case. Except for the large viewing audience, I see no comparison. O.J. was a popular celebrity, an African-American man on trial in an atmosphere of racial tensions and recent rioting. In the O.J. case, there was PLENTY of evidence. An embarrassment of riches, as they say. His DNA (blood) was at the crime scene, a bloody glove with his Nicole's blood (and Ron Goldman's blood) was found at his
house, he had a cut on his hand. He fled from the police with his passport and a large sum of cash in his car. He had a history of beating up Nicole, and she had a history of calling 9-1-1 and reporting it. He had a clear motive. She left him and he wanted her back. When she made it clear she wasn't going back that time, he, like many other abusive controlling spouses before him, made sure no one else was going to have her.
It's unheard of to have that much evidence in a murder case. And that was a clear case of jury nullification. The jury members were charmed by O.J. and did not want to send him to prison. In the Casey Anthony case, people are likely to want to punish someone for the death of a child. I think jurors no doubt WANTED to be able to convict her but couldn't.
Did she do something, whether murder her daughter or cause her death by neglect or cover up an accident? One of those scenarios seems probable. But I still couldn't say which one I thought it was. While the most casual observer can see that Casey Anthony is cold, narcissistic and perhaps truly evil, the exact nature of the crime she committed unfortunately was not proven.
When you have no official cause of death, no murder weapon, no timeline, no evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to how she did it, no motive beyond conjecture, I'm not sure a jury can say guilty AMD follow the law and keep their sworn oath.
There are cases where people are convicted without a body having been found. There are cases like this one where the corpse has decomposed to the point that no cause of death can be known, and the killer is convicted. But those cases are the exception. They tend
to have a lot more evidence than this case does. With no cause of death and no evidence (physical or circumstantial) linking Casey to the actual body, this case was a long shot. If it hadn't been covered to such an extent in the media, the verdict would have been no surprise.
People are upset because they believe they "know" Casey Anthony is guilty of murder--and I'm not saying she isn't. What I am saying is, the evidence in this case was lousy. And it turns out that the prosecution was aware before the trial began that there were NOT 86
searches for chloroform, but only one, and never turned that info over the defense. The prosecution is required to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense and not doing so is a serious violation. IF Casey Anthony had been convicted, she would have been granted a new trial. Judge Perry might even have done so immediately. This would have been equally devastating for all, if not worse.
When you follow as many wrongfully convicted criminal cases as I do, it's a relief to see a jury make a ruling not on emotion but on evidence. This verdict actually gave me hope there will be less wrongful convictions in the future. The fact that jurors are having to quit their jobs and go into hiding due to death threats is a whole new tragedy. I think it must have been truly hard and painful to do the right thing here. I do believe however that that's what these 12 did.
As to the Casey Anthony verdict, the jury did not find her "innocent." They found her Not Guilty (by law). And they did so because there was a) no cause of death presented by the medical examiner, meaning, the state medical examiner could NOT rule out accidental death; b) no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that linked Casey to a murder weapon (i.e., evidence she bought ingredients to make chloroform, evidence she made chloroform); c) no connection between Casey and the body (the state perhaps effectively proved the odor of decomp was in the car; they did not prove beyond doubt it was Caylee); and d) in lieu of all the missing pieces, they didn't present evidence that Casey would like to be rid of Caylee or had any motive (as horrific as Casey's behavior, it does not prove she wanted Caylee dead prior to her death).
Many people compare this case with the O.J. case. Except for the large viewing audience, I see no comparison. O.J. was a popular celebrity, an African-American man on trial in an atmosphere of racial tensions and recent rioting. In the O.J. case, there was PLENTY of evidence. An embarrassment of riches, as they say. His DNA (blood) was at the crime scene, a bloody glove with his Nicole's blood (and Ron Goldman's blood) was found at his
house, he had a cut on his hand. He fled from the police with his passport and a large sum of cash in his car. He had a history of beating up Nicole, and she had a history of calling 9-1-1 and reporting it. He had a clear motive. She left him and he wanted her back. When she made it clear she wasn't going back that time, he, like many other abusive controlling spouses before him, made sure no one else was going to have her.
It's unheard of to have that much evidence in a murder case. And that was a clear case of jury nullification. The jury members were charmed by O.J. and did not want to send him to prison. In the Casey Anthony case, people are likely to want to punish someone for the death of a child. I think jurors no doubt WANTED to be able to convict her but couldn't.
Did she do something, whether murder her daughter or cause her death by neglect or cover up an accident? One of those scenarios seems probable. But I still couldn't say which one I thought it was. While the most casual observer can see that Casey Anthony is cold, narcissistic and perhaps truly evil, the exact nature of the crime she committed unfortunately was not proven.
When you have no official cause of death, no murder weapon, no timeline, no evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to how she did it, no motive beyond conjecture, I'm not sure a jury can say guilty AMD follow the law and keep their sworn oath.
There are cases where people are convicted without a body having been found. There are cases like this one where the corpse has decomposed to the point that no cause of death can be known, and the killer is convicted. But those cases are the exception. They tend
to have a lot more evidence than this case does. With no cause of death and no evidence (physical or circumstantial) linking Casey to the actual body, this case was a long shot. If it hadn't been covered to such an extent in the media, the verdict would have been no surprise.
People are upset because they believe they "know" Casey Anthony is guilty of murder--and I'm not saying she isn't. What I am saying is, the evidence in this case was lousy. And it turns out that the prosecution was aware before the trial began that there were NOT 86
searches for chloroform, but only one, and never turned that info over the defense. The prosecution is required to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense and not doing so is a serious violation. IF Casey Anthony had been convicted, she would have been granted a new trial. Judge Perry might even have done so immediately. This would have been equally devastating for all, if not worse.
When you follow as many wrongfully convicted criminal cases as I do, it's a relief to see a jury make a ruling not on emotion but on evidence. This verdict actually gave me hope there will be less wrongful convictions in the future. The fact that jurors are having to quit their jobs and go into hiding due to death threats is a whole new tragedy. I think it must have been truly hard and painful to do the right thing here. I do believe however that that's what these 12 did.
July 5, 2011
Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty, Justice Denied for Caylee
The jury just announced that Casey Anthony has been found NOT GUILTY on all murder and manslaughter charges!!!
Is this real? Is this true? Is this just a bad dream???
I'd been watching Casey Anthony on trial for murdering her child for six weeks. I was hooked. A beautiful child turned to bones in a bag.. HOW had this happened? Is this pure evil?
Watching the trial every day, hearing almost every word the jurors heard, as the trial neared its end, I assumed most of the jurors were leaning toward 1st Degree Murder, possibly the death penalty. Although if they went with 1st degree murder not 2nd, I was pretty certain they'd give her Life in prison.
The other charges of note, Aggravated Manslaughter and Aggravated Child Abuse, didn't sound as "serious"...unless you knew, as the jury would, that finding Casey guilty on both those charges would mean a 1st Degree Felony Murder Charge. If the jury did not find multiple counts of child abuse, they could find her guilty of a single count of child abuse along with child manslaughter, which had a recommended sentence of five years, and a max of 20 years. I hoped Judge Perry would lean toward 20 years if that was what they chose.
The other four charges were misdemeanors. Lying to the police in various forms. Interfering with a police investigation. Interestingly, lying to the police in the course of an investigation is merely a misdemeanor, in contrast to lying on the witness stand (perjury), a felony, which carries a ten-year sentence. It seems to me lying to the police in a matter like this, i.e., the investigation of a missing child, should have a more serious penalty. But that hardly seemed to matter. The question here was, would she get life or death? Mostly for George and Cindy Anthony's sake, I hoped she'd get life. It seemed too much to have to watch George and Cindy deal with the impending execution of their daughter.
As I sit here now, I know I expected 1st Degree Murder, but assumed the jury would not sentence her to death. That was really all I could imagine.
On Day Two, just after the 10th hour of deliberation, the jury announced it had a verdict. This was quick, and quick usually means guilty. Usually. That could only mean one thing. The went with 1st Degree Murder. Would they be reasonable and not give her the death penalty? I hoped so.
When the jury began to deliberate, In Session put a "jury clock" on the right hand corner of the screen. It ticked away, one hour, two hours, three hours. Vinnie Politan, In Session commentator and former prosecutor, said that he usually estimated about one day for every week of trial, or one hour for every day of trial. That would mean four to six days. Florida juries, said several legal experts, like those in Texas, tended to come back much faster than those in other states, so two to three days was one estimate.
About noon on the second day of trial, I was watching In Session and that jury clock was gone. Instead, VERDICT REACHED was flashing across the screen. Verdict reached. I kept looking at the two words. Verdict Reached... VERDICT REACHED???? It took several minutes for this to sink in. I don't think I've ever felt the kind of anticipation I felt right then during a criminal trial. After all those days, all those videos of Caylee playing, singing, dancing, laughing... I was invested. I had "friends" on Twitter who were invested. It seems odd to explain how deeply I felt about this case of a young mom charged with killing her nearly three year old child. It was as if she were my neighbor, and the Anthony family too.
Verdict Reached. My heart was pounding. I took to Twitter and Facebook: Verdict reached. Announced in 45 minutes. Mobs surrounded the courthouse, with police keeping the crowd under control. People were making phone calls, texting, tweeting. It was unreal.
The judge looked at the verdict, handed it back to the bailiff. I'm not sure right now who read it, but I don't think it was the jury foreman. Maybe it was.
Deep breath. I could hear someone saying.. (maybe it was the foreperson..) "On the count of first degree murder, we find Casey Anthony... NOT GUILTY." Wait.. what? What? Not guilty...? This was HUGE. The jury had found Casey Anthony Not Guilty of First Degree Murder. It took a few moments to register that this meant she'd been found NOT GUILTY of 2nd Degree Murder too.
I guess they went with the Aggravated Child Abuse- Aggravated Manslaughter charges. Both were needed for a First Degree Felony Murder charge.
Next charge being read. "On the Count of Aggravated Child Abuse, the Jury Finds Casey Anthony Not Guilty." I was stunned. Stunned.
Next Charge: "On the Count of Aggravated Manslaughter, the Jury finds Casey Anthony Not Guilty."
Stunned silence filled the courtroom. I did not hear this right. I know I didn't. What was I missing...?
Charges continued to be read, the misdemeanors. I knew they'd find her guilty on those, as the defense admitted to those. She lied to everyone including the police. Surely they were going to say, The Jury Finds Casey Anthony Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. But only silence filled the courtroom.
George and Cindy Anthony did not smile. They did not embrace. They got up and exited the courtroom. George's name had been dragged through the mud, but no one would be reading a verdict clearing him. There would be no, George Anthony, NOT GUILTY of CHILD MOLESTATION. There would be NO, George Anthony, NOT GUILTYof covering up the death of his granddaughter. Those accusations would stand on the record, and he and his wife would have to live with that.
This was July 5, 2011. After 31 days of trial, six weeks. Three years of reading about this case. Months of reading about the search for Caylee... Here it was. OVER. Over. And Casey Anthony had gotten away with it. Maddeningly, no one-- except Casey Anthony-- knew exactly WHAT it was she had done. But we all knew she'd done something. And we all saw she was not being punished.
I knew then, in a moment, that not knowing what had happened... not knowing at ALL what had happened... that was what it was. That is why the jury didn't convict here. Before deliberations that never even occurred to me. But I knew now. With all there was, there wasn't a cause of death. It was, as someone from the prosecutor's office said, a "dry bones case." And "dry bones' cases," he said, are extremely tough to win.
It's now four days later... and that verdict still echoes in my head. I feel shaken to my core. Is it real? Is it a bad dream? I can't say. I can say that I now know how badly I wanted justice for Caylee Anthony, a child I didn't know, but feel I did. I've never known anyone who was murdered, and never knew anyone who's child had died that way. For the first time I know what it feels like..just a little...just a little.. to know of a child who was murdered...and to watch her murderer walk away scot free.
I think all of us who watched the trial in depth, we came to know Caylee, the subject of MANY many a home video. A child full of life, full of promise.. as children are... a child whose bones were found, in a bag, in a swamp, with duct tape over her face, or rather, the skeletal nose and mouth. Caylee Anthony, a child whose life touched so many, is a child whose death touched even more. She joins the ranks not just of murdered children, but of murdered children whose killers walk free.
Somehow George and Cindy Anthony must find a way to live with this. I'm not quite sure how they will. I'm not quite sure that they will.
Somehow the rest of us must find a way to make sense of it all. One of my fellow trial watchers Susan kept saying she just wanted to make sense of it all. But how? Without the guilty party punished, how can that happen? How will it? I'm not sure it will. Not sure at all.
But those of us saddened, shocked and outraged.. we must take that pain and must use it to do something good. In honor of Caylee Anthony. In honor of all murdered children. Help a child. Help a mom. Become a big sister or brother. Visit a children's hospital. Do something for a child. Do something good. It's the only way I know to make this matter.
Is this real? Is this true? Is this just a bad dream???
I'd been watching Casey Anthony on trial for murdering her child for six weeks. I was hooked. A beautiful child turned to bones in a bag.. HOW had this happened? Is this pure evil?
Watching the trial every day, hearing almost every word the jurors heard, as the trial neared its end, I assumed most of the jurors were leaning toward 1st Degree Murder, possibly the death penalty. Although if they went with 1st degree murder not 2nd, I was pretty certain they'd give her Life in prison.
The other charges of note, Aggravated Manslaughter and Aggravated Child Abuse, didn't sound as "serious"...unless you knew, as the jury would, that finding Casey guilty on both those charges would mean a 1st Degree Felony Murder Charge. If the jury did not find multiple counts of child abuse, they could find her guilty of a single count of child abuse along with child manslaughter, which had a recommended sentence of five years, and a max of 20 years. I hoped Judge Perry would lean toward 20 years if that was what they chose.
The other four charges were misdemeanors. Lying to the police in various forms. Interfering with a police investigation. Interestingly, lying to the police in the course of an investigation is merely a misdemeanor, in contrast to lying on the witness stand (perjury), a felony, which carries a ten-year sentence. It seems to me lying to the police in a matter like this, i.e., the investigation of a missing child, should have a more serious penalty. But that hardly seemed to matter. The question here was, would she get life or death? Mostly for George and Cindy Anthony's sake, I hoped she'd get life. It seemed too much to have to watch George and Cindy deal with the impending execution of their daughter.
As I sit here now, I know I expected 1st Degree Murder, but assumed the jury would not sentence her to death. That was really all I could imagine.
On Day Two, just after the 10th hour of deliberation, the jury announced it had a verdict. This was quick, and quick usually means guilty. Usually. That could only mean one thing. The went with 1st Degree Murder. Would they be reasonable and not give her the death penalty? I hoped so.
When the jury began to deliberate, In Session put a "jury clock" on the right hand corner of the screen. It ticked away, one hour, two hours, three hours. Vinnie Politan, In Session commentator and former prosecutor, said that he usually estimated about one day for every week of trial, or one hour for every day of trial. That would mean four to six days. Florida juries, said several legal experts, like those in Texas, tended to come back much faster than those in other states, so two to three days was one estimate.
About noon on the second day of trial, I was watching In Session and that jury clock was gone. Instead, VERDICT REACHED was flashing across the screen. Verdict reached. I kept looking at the two words. Verdict Reached... VERDICT REACHED???? It took several minutes for this to sink in. I don't think I've ever felt the kind of anticipation I felt right then during a criminal trial. After all those days, all those videos of Caylee playing, singing, dancing, laughing... I was invested. I had "friends" on Twitter who were invested. It seems odd to explain how deeply I felt about this case of a young mom charged with killing her nearly three year old child. It was as if she were my neighbor, and the Anthony family too.
Verdict Reached. My heart was pounding. I took to Twitter and Facebook: Verdict reached. Announced in 45 minutes. Mobs surrounded the courthouse, with police keeping the crowd under control. People were making phone calls, texting, tweeting. It was unreal.
The judge looked at the verdict, handed it back to the bailiff. I'm not sure right now who read it, but I don't think it was the jury foreman. Maybe it was.
Deep breath. I could hear someone saying.. (maybe it was the foreperson..) "On the count of first degree murder, we find Casey Anthony... NOT GUILTY." Wait.. what? What? Not guilty...? This was HUGE. The jury had found Casey Anthony Not Guilty of First Degree Murder. It took a few moments to register that this meant she'd been found NOT GUILTY of 2nd Degree Murder too.
I guess they went with the Aggravated Child Abuse- Aggravated Manslaughter charges. Both were needed for a First Degree Felony Murder charge.
Next charge being read. "On the Count of Aggravated Child Abuse, the Jury Finds Casey Anthony Not Guilty." I was stunned. Stunned.
Next Charge: "On the Count of Aggravated Manslaughter, the Jury finds Casey Anthony Not Guilty."
Stunned silence filled the courtroom. I did not hear this right. I know I didn't. What was I missing...?
Charges continued to be read, the misdemeanors. I knew they'd find her guilty on those, as the defense admitted to those. She lied to everyone including the police. Surely they were going to say, The Jury Finds Casey Anthony Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. But only silence filled the courtroom.
George and Cindy Anthony did not smile. They did not embrace. They got up and exited the courtroom. George's name had been dragged through the mud, but no one would be reading a verdict clearing him. There would be no, George Anthony, NOT GUILTY of CHILD MOLESTATION. There would be NO, George Anthony, NOT GUILTYof covering up the death of his granddaughter. Those accusations would stand on the record, and he and his wife would have to live with that.
This was July 5, 2011. After 31 days of trial, six weeks. Three years of reading about this case. Months of reading about the search for Caylee... Here it was. OVER. Over. And Casey Anthony had gotten away with it. Maddeningly, no one-- except Casey Anthony-- knew exactly WHAT it was she had done. But we all knew she'd done something. And we all saw she was not being punished.
I knew then, in a moment, that not knowing what had happened... not knowing at ALL what had happened... that was what it was. That is why the jury didn't convict here. Before deliberations that never even occurred to me. But I knew now. With all there was, there wasn't a cause of death. It was, as someone from the prosecutor's office said, a "dry bones case." And "dry bones' cases," he said, are extremely tough to win.
It's now four days later... and that verdict still echoes in my head. I feel shaken to my core. Is it real? Is it a bad dream? I can't say. I can say that I now know how badly I wanted justice for Caylee Anthony, a child I didn't know, but feel I did. I've never known anyone who was murdered, and never knew anyone who's child had died that way. For the first time I know what it feels like..just a little...just a little.. to know of a child who was murdered...and to watch her murderer walk away scot free.
I think all of us who watched the trial in depth, we came to know Caylee, the subject of MANY many a home video. A child full of life, full of promise.. as children are... a child whose bones were found, in a bag, in a swamp, with duct tape over her face, or rather, the skeletal nose and mouth. Caylee Anthony, a child whose life touched so many, is a child whose death touched even more. She joins the ranks not just of murdered children, but of murdered children whose killers walk free.
Somehow George and Cindy Anthony must find a way to live with this. I'm not quite sure how they will. I'm not quite sure that they will.
Somehow the rest of us must find a way to make sense of it all. One of my fellow trial watchers Susan kept saying she just wanted to make sense of it all. But how? Without the guilty party punished, how can that happen? How will it? I'm not sure it will. Not sure at all.
But those of us saddened, shocked and outraged.. we must take that pain and must use it to do something good. In honor of Caylee Anthony. In honor of all murdered children. Help a child. Help a mom. Become a big sister or brother. Visit a children's hospital. Do something for a child. Do something good. It's the only way I know to make this matter.
Jury is Back as of 1:45pm EST 7/5/11
The jury is back. It seems pretty quick. They may have had a verdict last night as they came in to court dressed up today, one man who'd never worn a tie, wearing a tie today.
Statistically, a fast verdict is not favorable to the defendant.
Statistically, a fast verdict is not favorable to the defendant.
Second Day of Jury Deliberations
The jury is deliberating on multiple charges against Casey Anthony including four counts of lying to police officers, aggravated child abuse, manslaughter of a child, 2nd degree murder, felony murder (1st and 2nd degree), 1st degree murder. Felony murder is very similar to aggravated child abuse leading to manslaughter, but has a very different penalty. Child abuse leading to a death (child manslaughter) has a recommended sentence of five years, although a judge may impose up to 20 years.
One can get to felony murder by determining Casey engaged in aggravated child abuse (i.e., she used chloroform on Caylee to keep her quiet) and in the course of doing so, Caylee died. Felony murder seems relatively easy to get to-- and first degree felony murder can be a life sentence (or 25 to life etc) with parole.
The defense didn't even dispute the four charges of lying to a police officer, which would be a total of four years. If the jury were to go with aggravated child abuse and manslaughter, she could get a sentence for that of five years. So nine years is the absolute minimum amount of time served.
It seems there is a verdict. It's 10:55 am PST - There is a verdict.
One can get to felony murder by determining Casey engaged in aggravated child abuse (i.e., she used chloroform on Caylee to keep her quiet) and in the course of doing so, Caylee died. Felony murder seems relatively easy to get to-- and first degree felony murder can be a life sentence (or 25 to life etc) with parole.
The defense didn't even dispute the four charges of lying to a police officer, which would be a total of four years. If the jury were to go with aggravated child abuse and manslaughter, she could get a sentence for that of five years. So nine years is the absolute minimum amount of time served.
It seems there is a verdict. It's 10:55 am PST - There is a verdict.
July 4, 2011
Wait.. One Search for Chloroform Not 84! (Jury Deliberating for 3 Hours)
I know I mentioned this in my discussion of Jose Baez's closing, but I don't think it really hit me. An enormous part of the State's case for premeditation had to do with those 84 searches for chloroform. In his closing, Jose Baez said it was only ONE search. It didn't hit me until today that the State does not allow him to present this evidence in his closing unless they have acknowledged and conceded the point. Otherwise it would be "assuming facts not in evidence"!
The reason the computer expert had said 84 searches had to do with keystrokes and/or visits to other websites (like My Space) during that same computer session. I have a feeling that if Mom hadn't perjured herself on this point, additional investigation might not have uncovered this. (Thanks Mom, Casey must be thinking.)
I have to say, I think this affects the State's credibility a LOT. I wondered WHY Prosecutor Jeff Ashton wasn't talking about chloroform in his closing. Is this not a BIG deal, hammering something home to the jury over and over, and turns out it's wrong! I've seen these things come out after a verdict in a case for wrongful conviction, but right before closing arguments..?? Think of ALL the time spent in court on chloroform..
I think this can tip the case away from premeditated murder. Of course, a 2nd Degree Murder charge can mean a Life sentence, but WITH parole. Casey could get out in 20 years and be 45, still have a life! I am kind of disappointed in the State here. They should have had independent experts evaluate evidence that directly leads to a First Degree Murder conviction, AND the "ultimate sanction." Shame on you, Florida!
I've
The reason the computer expert had said 84 searches had to do with keystrokes and/or visits to other websites (like My Space) during that same computer session. I have a feeling that if Mom hadn't perjured herself on this point, additional investigation might not have uncovered this. (Thanks Mom, Casey must be thinking.)
I have to say, I think this affects the State's credibility a LOT. I wondered WHY Prosecutor Jeff Ashton wasn't talking about chloroform in his closing. Is this not a BIG deal, hammering something home to the jury over and over, and turns out it's wrong! I've seen these things come out after a verdict in a case for wrongful conviction, but right before closing arguments..?? Think of ALL the time spent in court on chloroform..
I think this can tip the case away from premeditated murder. Of course, a 2nd Degree Murder charge can mean a Life sentence, but WITH parole. Casey could get out in 20 years and be 45, still have a life! I am kind of disappointed in the State here. They should have had independent experts evaluate evidence that directly leads to a First Degree Murder conviction, AND the "ultimate sanction." Shame on you, Florida!
I've
July 3, 2011
Jose Baez Calls Jeff Ashton "That Laughing Man"
Jose Baez was really on a roll. He was just in the midst of saying, "We're not talking about fantasy forensics anymore. We're talking about cold hard evidence that points to one person.." And that one person he is talking about is George Anthony. However right at that point, Jeff Ashton is laughing, covering up his mouth. And in fact he has a hard time controlling his facial expressions throughout Baez's closing, and is smirking, smiling and laughing quite a bit. This is beyond a spontaneous outburst or a single stifled laugh.
However Jose Baez interrupts his statement suddenly, and says "despite what that 'laughing man' might say.." Jeff Ashton OBJECTS.
Jose Baez was right that Ashton's behavior was completely unprofessional. According to Sunny Hostin of In Session (a former federal prosecutor), Ashton was engaging in these types of facial expressions from the very beginning of the trial.
However, if he had been able to control himself, stop and tell Judge Perry appropriately about Ashton's violation, he would have really won big. Instead, by losing it, he broke one of the rules of closing, and thus both he and Jeff Ashton were reprimanded.
However Jose Baez interrupts his statement suddenly, and says "despite what that 'laughing man' might say.." Jeff Ashton OBJECTS.
Jose Baez was right that Ashton's behavior was completely unprofessional. According to Sunny Hostin of In Session (a former federal prosecutor), Ashton was engaging in these types of facial expressions from the very beginning of the trial.
However, if he had been able to control himself, stop and tell Judge Perry appropriately about Ashton's violation, he would have really won big. Instead, by losing it, he broke one of the rules of closing, and thus both he and Jeff Ashton were reprimanded.
Yes, Way, Jose (Baez)!
I imagine he will go on too long, but Jose Baez is doing far better than expected. He is persuasive. If I were on the jury, I would by now be rethinking a first degree murder verdict.
Baez points out that Dr. Arpad Vas, the sole witness who stated that chloroform was present at very high level--shockingly high levels--is not a chemist. "No matter how much his friend Marcus Weiss would like him [Dr. Vas] to be a chemist, he is NOT a chemist. Sometimes I'd like to be a race car driver. And sometimes I drive pretty fast. But that does not make me a race car driver."
And he pointed out that a number of actual CHEMISTS disagreed with Dr. Vas. The FBI chemist said the levels of chloroform were low, and were consistent with the amount one would find from cleaning products.
He points out that the medical examiner could not determine a manner of death. And yet she (the M.E.) determined it a homicide. Jose Baez pointed out that the three reasons the ME stated that she called it an accident were as follows: 1) The death wasn't reported; 2) The body was buried in the woods; 3) Duct tape appeared to be be taped to the face. And Baez is correct that you don't have to be a doctor to state any of these things. And none of these things are actually proof that Caylee's death was a homicide. Excellent points.
Baez points out that the prosecution wants you to believe Cindy Anthony. She talks about many things that the prosecution needs you to believe. And yes, he says, the state went out of their way to prove Cindy Anthony a liar. They want you to believe whatever she says the supports the prosecution, he says, but disregard everything she says that supports the defense.
He further confirms that even if decomp does exist in the car, this is not proof of homicide. This fact is equally consistent with an accidental death.
Jose Baez is at his most convincing during his closing. He may in fact save her from a first degree murder conviction. I truly cannot believe this turnaround. It's almost as if he hid his ability before now only to surprise the prosecution with the power of this closing. I think he's doing really well.
Baez points out that Dr. Arpad Vas, the sole witness who stated that chloroform was present at very high level--shockingly high levels--is not a chemist. "No matter how much his friend Marcus Weiss would like him [Dr. Vas] to be a chemist, he is NOT a chemist. Sometimes I'd like to be a race car driver. And sometimes I drive pretty fast. But that does not make me a race car driver."
And he pointed out that a number of actual CHEMISTS disagreed with Dr. Vas. The FBI chemist said the levels of chloroform were low, and were consistent with the amount one would find from cleaning products.
He points out that the medical examiner could not determine a manner of death. And yet she (the M.E.) determined it a homicide. Jose Baez pointed out that the three reasons the ME stated that she called it an accident were as follows: 1) The death wasn't reported; 2) The body was buried in the woods; 3) Duct tape appeared to be be taped to the face. And Baez is correct that you don't have to be a doctor to state any of these things. And none of these things are actually proof that Caylee's death was a homicide. Excellent points.
Baez points out that the prosecution wants you to believe Cindy Anthony. She talks about many things that the prosecution needs you to believe. And yes, he says, the state went out of their way to prove Cindy Anthony a liar. They want you to believe whatever she says the supports the prosecution, he says, but disregard everything she says that supports the defense.
He further confirms that even if decomp does exist in the car, this is not proof of homicide. This fact is equally consistent with an accidental death.
Jose Baez is at his most convincing during his closing. He may in fact save her from a first degree murder conviction. I truly cannot believe this turnaround. It's almost as if he hid his ability before now only to surprise the prosecution with the power of this closing. I think he's doing really well.
Krystal Holloway. Witness for the Prosecution
Calling Krystal Holloway to the stand was one of the defense's many witnesses who ended up testifying for the prosecution. She had told the police that George had said to her, prior to Caylee's body being found, that "this was an accident that went terribly wrong," a statement that could suggest George had prior knowledge of Caylee's death. However, when put into context, and added to another statement George made, it was clear that he was saying, it "had to have been" an accident that went wrong.. and "my daughter is not a 'murderer'."
Both what he said, and what Krystal believed he meant, added up to George speculating about what happened, and confirmed that he had not known what happened. And that cut into the heart of the defense's argument that George was there when an "accident occurred" and that it was he who hid the body.
The other part of Krystal's testimony was about having an affair with George. She was believable when she said that she and George had had an affair. And George was not believable when he got on the stand and denied it. He in fact proved himself to be a pretty poor liar. When asked whether he had a romantic relationship with Krystal Holloway, he said, "No I did not." And that was more than enough. But George added, "I think that is pretty funny." And he repeated that answer when asked if and Krystal had ever been intimate. It seemed clear to all that George protested too much.
Commentators asked one another, could this make George seem like a liar? Could this cause jurors to discount all the testimony offered by George? Although it could, jurors very likely understand why George might lie about this detail, which had nothing to do with the death of Caylee. My guess is that George felt he had already lost too much. He's lost his precious granddaughter. He has lost his daughter. He has lost his former life. He was not going to admit to an affair and alienate his wife. Not even to save his daughter, a daughter he knows is guilty of quite a bit.
I wonder, though, what Cindy really thought. Commentators on every channel--the biggest George supporters--did believe George had had an affair. They did believe George lied on the stand. If they believed it, did Cindy believe it?
Today, the day of closing arguments, their lawyer sits between them in the gallery. I sincerely hope that doesn't mean the two of them aren't doing well together. I can't imagine how they will ever get through this if they do not have each other.
Both what he said, and what Krystal believed he meant, added up to George speculating about what happened, and confirmed that he had not known what happened. And that cut into the heart of the defense's argument that George was there when an "accident occurred" and that it was he who hid the body.
The other part of Krystal's testimony was about having an affair with George. She was believable when she said that she and George had had an affair. And George was not believable when he got on the stand and denied it. He in fact proved himself to be a pretty poor liar. When asked whether he had a romantic relationship with Krystal Holloway, he said, "No I did not." And that was more than enough. But George added, "I think that is pretty funny." And he repeated that answer when asked if and Krystal had ever been intimate. It seemed clear to all that George protested too much.
Commentators asked one another, could this make George seem like a liar? Could this cause jurors to discount all the testimony offered by George? Although it could, jurors very likely understand why George might lie about this detail, which had nothing to do with the death of Caylee. My guess is that George felt he had already lost too much. He's lost his precious granddaughter. He has lost his daughter. He has lost his former life. He was not going to admit to an affair and alienate his wife. Not even to save his daughter, a daughter he knows is guilty of quite a bit.
I wonder, though, what Cindy really thought. Commentators on every channel--the biggest George supporters--did believe George had had an affair. They did believe George lied on the stand. If they believed it, did Cindy believe it?
Today, the day of closing arguments, their lawyer sits between them in the gallery. I sincerely hope that doesn't mean the two of them aren't doing well together. I can't imagine how they will ever get through this if they do not have each other.
Closing Arguments: Masterful Closing by Jeff Ashton
Prosecutor Jeff Ashton made his closing remarks to the jury today, July 3, 2011. He used only an hour and 18 minutes of his allotted four hours, but used it most effectively.
Ashton offered a timeline of Casey's lies and Caylee's life. He challenged the idea that George Anthony would cover up Caylee's accidental death as being diametrically opposed to everything we know about George Anthony thus far and diametrically opposed to common sense.
Does it make sense that a grieving grandfather who is a former cop would dispose of the body of his beloved granddaughter in this way, Ashton asks? Does it make sense that a grieving grandfather would take more time to dispose of the bodies of the family pets whom he buried in the backyard than he would with the body of his own granddaughter who was tossed in a swamp? Ashton submits that, no, such behavior does not make sense. It's a bizarro world. "And this," says Jeff Ashton, "is the world the defense is asking you to occupy."
He asks rhetorically why Casey Anthony would choose this time in Caylee's life to murder her. Why then? And he concludes that "Casey's lies only work if Caylee doesn't talk." And Caylee was beginning to talk. Not just a word or phrase. But full sentences. Casey's lies were not going to work any longer, he suggests, and therefore Caylee had to go.
Why wouldn't Casey just leave her daughter with her parents? Why wouldn't she just walk away? Jeff Ashton submits that Cindy Anthony would not ALLOW Casey Anthony to just walk away. Cindy Anthony wanted her daughter to behave like a mother and to take responsibility as a mother. Cindy Anthony and George Anthony were supporting their daughter. Casey wasn't working, and had no source of income. She had a boyfriend she loved whom she did not want to lose. She could not walk away.
Finally, Jeff Ashton brought up, is the matter of the duct tape on Caylee's head. There is no reason whatsoever to place duct tape on a child's head, whether living or dead. No innocent reason. The explanation for the three pieces of tape was simple, said Ashton. To block her airway, her mouth, her nose. Three pieces of tape were required to cause the death of Caylee Anthony, and thus, three pieces of tape were found on her body.
Ashton offered a timeline of Casey's lies and Caylee's life. He challenged the idea that George Anthony would cover up Caylee's accidental death as being diametrically opposed to everything we know about George Anthony thus far and diametrically opposed to common sense.
Does it make sense that a grieving grandfather who is a former cop would dispose of the body of his beloved granddaughter in this way, Ashton asks? Does it make sense that a grieving grandfather would take more time to dispose of the bodies of the family pets whom he buried in the backyard than he would with the body of his own granddaughter who was tossed in a swamp? Ashton submits that, no, such behavior does not make sense. It's a bizarro world. "And this," says Jeff Ashton, "is the world the defense is asking you to occupy."
He asks rhetorically why Casey Anthony would choose this time in Caylee's life to murder her. Why then? And he concludes that "Casey's lies only work if Caylee doesn't talk." And Caylee was beginning to talk. Not just a word or phrase. But full sentences. Casey's lies were not going to work any longer, he suggests, and therefore Caylee had to go.
Why wouldn't Casey just leave her daughter with her parents? Why wouldn't she just walk away? Jeff Ashton submits that Cindy Anthony would not ALLOW Casey Anthony to just walk away. Cindy Anthony wanted her daughter to behave like a mother and to take responsibility as a mother. Cindy Anthony and George Anthony were supporting their daughter. Casey wasn't working, and had no source of income. She had a boyfriend she loved whom she did not want to lose. She could not walk away.
Finally, Jeff Ashton brought up, is the matter of the duct tape on Caylee's head. There is no reason whatsoever to place duct tape on a child's head, whether living or dead. No innocent reason. The explanation for the three pieces of tape was simple, said Ashton. To block her airway, her mouth, her nose. Three pieces of tape were required to cause the death of Caylee Anthony, and thus, three pieces of tape were found on her body.
Jeff Ashton hadn't talked much about motive during the trial. But in his closing, he did give the jury a glimpse into the workings of Casey Anthony's mind. This was very powerful. He made you see what Casey "saw", feel what Casey felt.
"The evidence in this case," said Ashton, "proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony decided on June 16th that something had to be sacrificed. The the conflict between the life she wanted and the life that was thrust upon her was simply irreconcilable."
July 2, 2011
Jose Baez: The Embodiment of Icarus
The Greek myth of Icarus tells of a young man with such hubris, he believed he could do anything, even fly. So he fashioned a pair of wings with feathers, but glued them together with wax. His hubris led him to imagine himself invincible and fly too close to the sun. As one can imagine, the wax holding the wings together melts, and Icarus takes a brutal fall, ultimately, a deadly one.
This myth might have been tailor-made for the story of Jose Baez, criminal defense attorney who, after a mere three years of trial of experience, took on one of the highest profile First Degree Murder cases in history, with the whole world watching. Like Icarus, who thought too highly of himself, Baez thought he was up to a task that would give the most seasoned defense attorney pause.
I've heard some In Session (TruTV) commentators say, Jose Baez has experience. He has 45 cases under his belt. Maybe so, but not 45 cases of this magnitude. Baez has tried five murder cases, and one capital case, cases which reportedly had nothing like the complexity of the Casey Anthony case. Jose Baez does not have the experience and background one would expect to lead a defense team in a complex high-profile capital murder case being watched by the world.
Jose Baez, as it turns out, has a rather checkered past, according to the Orlando Sentinel*. Baez was born in Puerto Rico in 1969, and grew up in the Bronx and South Florida, raised by his mom, a single parent. He dropped out of Homestead High in 9th grade. Following that, he married at 17 and shortly became a father. He then earned a GED in lieu of a high school diploma and joined the Navy.
According to his resume, Baez spent three years assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Norolk, Virginia, where he trained as an intelligence analyst with what he describes as "Cosmic Top Secret" security clearance. Upon discharge from the military, he attends Miami-Dade Community College and transfers to Florida State University, from which he graduates. Baez is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and competed with the karate, pistol and crime scene team from FS U's chapter of Lambda Alpha Epsilon, a fraternity of criminology majors.
Baez was accepted to St. Thomas University of Law in Miami and graduated in 1997. It is unclear when he takes the Bar, however passing the Bar exam is not the only qualification for becoming a lawyer. One must be accepted by the State Bar. In 1998, after his graduation from law school, Jose Baez was called before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners which screens prospective Florida attorneys. He was told his application to become a member of the Bar had been denied based on what I call, "behavior unbecoming an officer of the court."
Jose Baez appealed this decision all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld the Board's decision. The Florida Supreme Court issued an order in 2000 denying Baez entrance to the Bar citing "unpaid bills, extravagant spending and other financial irresponsibility" up to that time. Justices reserved the strongest condemnation for Jose Baez's failure to stay current on his child support payments for his only child. His overall behavior, wrote the Justices, showed a "total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law." For eight more years, the Bar continued to deny Jose Baez's entrance.
Undeterred, Baez began working as a paralegal for the Miami-Dade Public Defender's office. He also taught internet research to lawyers and started four businesses including two bikini companies (Bon Bon Bikinis and Brazilian-Bikinis.com), and applied for his real estate license. After working for the Miami-Dade Public Defender's office as a paralegal for a number of years, Baez took and passed the Bar exam in 2005 and at that time he was accepted by the Florida Bar. At present, Jose Baez is a lawyer in good standing with the Florida Bar Association.
It's really quite a story. One can see that Baez had a rough beginning, a rough middle, and had to face consequences for his actions for a number of years before he was given the privilege of practicing law. One would think these experiences humbled him, but alas it does not seem so.
He is a tragic figure, I believe, and his tragic flaw, like Icarus, is that of hubris. As a result, he behaves brazenly and even recklessly, both in his personal and his professional life. All those years in the Public Defender's office, and it is surprising he did not learn the lesson that all defense lawyers must learn: Do not assume your client is being truthful, do not trust your client, do not take your client's word for anything. And for heaven's sake, DO NOT tell the jury you are going to prove something you CANNOT prove! If you do, you will lose all credibility with a jury, if you lose all credibility, your client will as well!
I knew Jose Baez was asking for trouble in presenting a defense saying Casey Anthony had been molested since the age of 8, and further, that George Anthony had witnessed the death of Caylee and had himself covered it up. First and foremost, the latter claim is utterly ridiculous. While it IS believable Casey Anthony might have panicked after an accident and attempted to cover it up, it is NOT believable that a man who was a cop, who worked for the Orlando Sheriff's Department, in fact, would consider for one second covering up an accident. Nor is it believable that George Anthony would then allow his daughter to take the rap for him. Is such a scenario possible with some father and daughter somewhere? Sure. But an ex-cop certainly knows that covering up an accident is the worst possible move. Further, I think he'd have done a better job hiding the body!
As to the molestation charges, it seems clear that Jose Baez was trying to find a way to explain Casey's lying behavior to the jury. And I have no doubt that, even if prompted in some way by him, she did in fact tell him that this was true. However, to make a charge like this one simply must have some kind of evidence, even if in the form of someone to whom Casey told such a story. Had Baez consulted a number of psychologists, I'm sure one or two could have given some theories as to what COULD have happened to her, as to what her diagnosis was or is. An expert witness could have said that Casey's behavior is consistent with this or that diagnosis, and to have this or that diagnosis, one must have suffered X, Y or Z, even if one does not recall this, or understand it well enough to articulate it. That's about as good as it's going to get.
The fact is, if Jose Baez thought it possible George Anthony molested Casey, and he may well have believed it, he would have done well to investigate. Is there a friend she told? Might a teacher or counselor from school recall anything of note? Does George Anthony have any criminal record? Have there ever be any complaints of any kind against him? Any lawsuits? Was there ever a report made to Child Protective Services? Would Lee be able to testify to anything that could give credence to this charge? Is there an expert witness who can say that Casey exhibits signs of molestation?
Clearly none of these things existed. I'm simply not sure why he thought he could go ahead and put on this defense, even if he had originally planned to put Casey on the stand.
The failure of this case-- and I believe Jose Baez has failed miserably--all comes back to the fact that, like the lawyer played by Richard Gere in Primal Fear, he BELIEVED IN his client. the jury. And I can only imagine that in order to believe Casey was telling the truth, he also had to believe he was immune to the rules all other lawyers must follow. He had to believe that he was special, and that his ability to detect the truth was unique, granting him the ability to go with a defense based solely on the word of a proven liar.
He then built a defense based on his belief that his rapport with Casey was such that she would not lead him astray, that she would in fact tell HIM the truth. That is the only possible reason someone would put on such a risky defense. And thus his defense was built upon the shifting sands of untruths, which could not withstand the scrutiny of actual investigation.
Look how surprised he was-- truly surprised-- that Cindy Anthony committed perjury. As he said to the judge, "We took Mrs. Anthony's word she was telling the truth." I am sure that is true. But THAT is exactly what a defense lawyer cannot afford to do.
Closing statements are scheduled for tomorrow, Sunday July 3, 2011. I expect rather a grand show from Baez. And I expect the usually smugness (perhaps deserved at this point) from Jeff Ashton. I cannot say whether the jury will find Casey Anthony guilty of First Degree Murder, but if I had to guess I'd say yes. If they do not, there are plenty of other charges to keep her in prison for life, or most of her life. But as of right now, I suspect she will get a first degree murder conviction. As for death or life, I'd guess she'd get life, so as to spare George and Cindy Anthony further grief. However, I wouldn't be shocked if she did in fact get death.
* http://mo.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/06/05/casey-anthony-trial-qod-who-is-jose-baez/
This myth might have been tailor-made for the story of Jose Baez, criminal defense attorney who, after a mere three years of trial of experience, took on one of the highest profile First Degree Murder cases in history, with the whole world watching. Like Icarus, who thought too highly of himself, Baez thought he was up to a task that would give the most seasoned defense attorney pause.
I've heard some In Session (TruTV) commentators say, Jose Baez has experience. He has 45 cases under his belt. Maybe so, but not 45 cases of this magnitude. Baez has tried five murder cases, and one capital case, cases which reportedly had nothing like the complexity of the Casey Anthony case. Jose Baez does not have the experience and background one would expect to lead a defense team in a complex high-profile capital murder case being watched by the world.
Jose Baez, as it turns out, has a rather checkered past, according to the Orlando Sentinel*. Baez was born in Puerto Rico in 1969, and grew up in the Bronx and South Florida, raised by his mom, a single parent. He dropped out of Homestead High in 9th grade. Following that, he married at 17 and shortly became a father. He then earned a GED in lieu of a high school diploma and joined the Navy.
According to his resume, Baez spent three years assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Norolk, Virginia, where he trained as an intelligence analyst with what he describes as "Cosmic Top Secret" security clearance. Upon discharge from the military, he attends Miami-Dade Community College and transfers to Florida State University, from which he graduates. Baez is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and competed with the karate, pistol and crime scene team from FS U's chapter of Lambda Alpha Epsilon, a fraternity of criminology majors.
Baez was accepted to St. Thomas University of Law in Miami and graduated in 1997. It is unclear when he takes the Bar, however passing the Bar exam is not the only qualification for becoming a lawyer. One must be accepted by the State Bar. In 1998, after his graduation from law school, Jose Baez was called before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners which screens prospective Florida attorneys. He was told his application to become a member of the Bar had been denied based on what I call, "behavior unbecoming an officer of the court."
Jose Baez appealed this decision all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld the Board's decision. The Florida Supreme Court issued an order in 2000 denying Baez entrance to the Bar citing "unpaid bills, extravagant spending and other financial irresponsibility" up to that time. Justices reserved the strongest condemnation for Jose Baez's failure to stay current on his child support payments for his only child. His overall behavior, wrote the Justices, showed a "total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law." For eight more years, the Bar continued to deny Jose Baez's entrance.
Undeterred, Baez began working as a paralegal for the Miami-Dade Public Defender's office. He also taught internet research to lawyers and started four businesses including two bikini companies (Bon Bon Bikinis and Brazilian-Bikinis.com), and applied for his real estate license. After working for the Miami-Dade Public Defender's office as a paralegal for a number of years, Baez took and passed the Bar exam in 2005 and at that time he was accepted by the Florida Bar. At present, Jose Baez is a lawyer in good standing with the Florida Bar Association.
It's really quite a story. One can see that Baez had a rough beginning, a rough middle, and had to face consequences for his actions for a number of years before he was given the privilege of practicing law. One would think these experiences humbled him, but alas it does not seem so.
He is a tragic figure, I believe, and his tragic flaw, like Icarus, is that of hubris. As a result, he behaves brazenly and even recklessly, both in his personal and his professional life. All those years in the Public Defender's office, and it is surprising he did not learn the lesson that all defense lawyers must learn: Do not assume your client is being truthful, do not trust your client, do not take your client's word for anything. And for heaven's sake, DO NOT tell the jury you are going to prove something you CANNOT prove! If you do, you will lose all credibility with a jury, if you lose all credibility, your client will as well!
I knew Jose Baez was asking for trouble in presenting a defense saying Casey Anthony had been molested since the age of 8, and further, that George Anthony had witnessed the death of Caylee and had himself covered it up. First and foremost, the latter claim is utterly ridiculous. While it IS believable Casey Anthony might have panicked after an accident and attempted to cover it up, it is NOT believable that a man who was a cop, who worked for the Orlando Sheriff's Department, in fact, would consider for one second covering up an accident. Nor is it believable that George Anthony would then allow his daughter to take the rap for him. Is such a scenario possible with some father and daughter somewhere? Sure. But an ex-cop certainly knows that covering up an accident is the worst possible move. Further, I think he'd have done a better job hiding the body!
As to the molestation charges, it seems clear that Jose Baez was trying to find a way to explain Casey's lying behavior to the jury. And I have no doubt that, even if prompted in some way by him, she did in fact tell him that this was true. However, to make a charge like this one simply must have some kind of evidence, even if in the form of someone to whom Casey told such a story. Had Baez consulted a number of psychologists, I'm sure one or two could have given some theories as to what COULD have happened to her, as to what her diagnosis was or is. An expert witness could have said that Casey's behavior is consistent with this or that diagnosis, and to have this or that diagnosis, one must have suffered X, Y or Z, even if one does not recall this, or understand it well enough to articulate it. That's about as good as it's going to get.
The fact is, if Jose Baez thought it possible George Anthony molested Casey, and he may well have believed it, he would have done well to investigate. Is there a friend she told? Might a teacher or counselor from school recall anything of note? Does George Anthony have any criminal record? Have there ever be any complaints of any kind against him? Any lawsuits? Was there ever a report made to Child Protective Services? Would Lee be able to testify to anything that could give credence to this charge? Is there an expert witness who can say that Casey exhibits signs of molestation?
Clearly none of these things existed. I'm simply not sure why he thought he could go ahead and put on this defense, even if he had originally planned to put Casey on the stand.
The failure of this case-- and I believe Jose Baez has failed miserably--all comes back to the fact that, like the lawyer played by Richard Gere in Primal Fear, he BELIEVED IN his client. the jury. And I can only imagine that in order to believe Casey was telling the truth, he also had to believe he was immune to the rules all other lawyers must follow. He had to believe that he was special, and that his ability to detect the truth was unique, granting him the ability to go with a defense based solely on the word of a proven liar.
He then built a defense based on his belief that his rapport with Casey was such that she would not lead him astray, that she would in fact tell HIM the truth. That is the only possible reason someone would put on such a risky defense. And thus his defense was built upon the shifting sands of untruths, which could not withstand the scrutiny of actual investigation.
Look how surprised he was-- truly surprised-- that Cindy Anthony committed perjury. As he said to the judge, "We took Mrs. Anthony's word she was telling the truth." I am sure that is true. But THAT is exactly what a defense lawyer cannot afford to do.
Closing statements are scheduled for tomorrow, Sunday July 3, 2011. I expect rather a grand show from Baez. And I expect the usually smugness (perhaps deserved at this point) from Jeff Ashton. I cannot say whether the jury will find Casey Anthony guilty of First Degree Murder, but if I had to guess I'd say yes. If they do not, there are plenty of other charges to keep her in prison for life, or most of her life. But as of right now, I suspect she will get a first degree murder conviction. As for death or life, I'd guess she'd get life, so as to spare George and Cindy Anthony further grief. However, I wouldn't be shocked if she did in fact get death.
* http://mo.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/06/05/casey-anthony-trial-qod-who-is-jose-baez/
June 30, 2011
What George Really Thinks Happened
When Jeff Ashton questioned George Anthony, here's what came up:
JA: When you were giving the statement on Juky 24, 2008.. Did you ever tell the police that you thought your daughter had murdered your granddaughter?
GA: I didn't believe that at that time.. No.
It seems clear what George Anthony is saying. In essence, he didn't think so before but he now thinks his daughter Casey is a murderer, and that she murdered his granddaughter.
Each day that passes, the defense's theories about Georgr being a child molestor, about George covering up an accidental death .. seem more and more ridiculous.
JA: When you were giving the statement on Juky 24, 2008.. Did you ever tell the police that you thought your daughter had murdered your granddaughter?
GA: I didn't believe that at that time.. No.
It seems clear what George Anthony is saying. In essence, he didn't think so before but he now thinks his daughter Casey is a murderer, and that she murdered his granddaughter.
Each day that passes, the defense's theories about Georgr being a child molestor, about George covering up an accidental death .. seem more and more ridiculous.
George Anthony Raised From the "Dead" Like Lazarus
Today, or rather, yesterday, June 29, 2011, George Anthony really seemed genuine. And I go back to my original opinion of him. He's a good guy. Listening him say to Baez, "No matter how you want to spin it."
Hearing him talk about his desire to be with Caylee, and about his suicide attempt, was heart-wrenching ..
And watching Casey Anthony look at him stone-faced, is chilling.
He obviously isn't perfect but George Anthony is a decent guy- his wife too. I still say Casey Anthony, an antisocial personality if ever there was one- narcissistic personality too-- was born at least as much as she was made. Nature v. Nurture -- I think this one has a lot more "nature" to it.
Hearing him talk about his desire to be with Caylee, and about his suicide attempt, was heart-wrenching ..
And watching Casey Anthony look at him stone-faced, is chilling.
He obviously isn't perfect but George Anthony is a decent guy- his wife too. I still say Casey Anthony, an antisocial personality if ever there was one- narcissistic personality too-- was born at least as much as she was made. Nature v. Nurture -- I think this one has a lot more "nature" to it.
June 28, 2011
Anthony Family Starts to Unravel: Cindy & Lee Tell Very Different Stories
George, Cindy and Lee Anthony were all to the stand by the defense today, Tuesday June 28, 2011.
George was asked if he knew Krystal Holloway (aka River Cruz), and whether he had had an affair with her. He stated, Yes, he did know her as she volunteered to help with search for Caylee. As for an affair, he denied it, but the wording he used was adversarial and bizarre. He responded, "No, I did not have an affair with Krystal Holloway.." Then he looked down with a slight smirk adding, "I find that very funny." If he'd been asked that question in any other context, I could understand his mocking her. But is anything really "very funny" at all today, at his daughter's first degree murder trial?
He was asked if he'd gone to her home. He agreed he had, two or three times. He explained that Krystal had told him she had a brain tumor and had asked him for emotional support. Because, he said, he wanted to be a "good guy", he had visited at her home to offer her said support. In this small piece of testimony there was something disturbing about the man. He seemed unnecessarily hostile and for the first time I noticed an arrogance about him that gave me pause. Is the mask starting to slip?
Jose Baez asked Cindy Anthony if she had a conversation or argument with son Lee about sending
Dominic Casey and/or Jim Hoover to look for Caylee with a video camera. Cindy denied sending them on any search and denied having any conversation or argument with Lee about such a search. She further denied having any knowledge of such a search until after Caylee's remains were found in December 2008. "I had no knowledge of a (November 08) search in that area so I would not have had an argument regarding that. My first knowledge of that search was after Caylee's remains are found."
Baez continues: "And you never had a discussion where he confronted you saying, "Why are you looking for a dead kid?"
Prosecution: Objection, Asked and answered. Judge: Sustained. Cindy is excused with no cross examination.
Lee Anthony is called to the stand. Jose Baez asks Lee, "Good Morning Mr. Anthony. Did you ever havd an argument or discussion with your mother about sending Dominic Casey to look for Caylee with a video camera off Suburban Drive?"
Lee responds, "Yes I did," for the first time completely contradicting his mother. Jose Baez asks him to tell the court what happened. "Yes sir. I was over at my mother's house and we.. " Objection, Narrative. Judge asks Baez to rephrase.
Baez: "Did you go to your parents' home?"
Lee: "Yes I did."
Baez: "When you got there did your mother tell you anything about Suburban Drive?"
Lee: "Yes"
Baez: "What did she tell you?"
Lee: "She sent Dominic into the woods off Suburban because she got a psychic tip she wanted to follow up on." He then recalls this conversation took place in about October. He says he was very angry that his family was looking for or acknowledging a "deceased Caylee."
Lee said he went back to work in part because his parents decided to look for Caylee's dead body at all, and also was upset that his parents hadn't discussed this with him.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Notably this is the second time Lee is very upset that he is left out of family decisions or issues. The first was when Lee spoke of being upset at being left out of Casey's pregnancy and the birth of Caylee. Lee apparently considered it a betrayal by Mom and Dad that they would even consider that Casey had fabricated the story about Casey. He seems bitterly hurt and angry with parents, not unlike the way Casey appears to feel.
I find myself beginning to fear what else I'll find out. I feel compelled to watch yet horrified. George's sarcastic comment that he finds it "funny" being asked about an affair with Krystal keeps echoing in my head. I no longer trust my original perception of George Anthony. I hope I am wrong.
George was asked if he knew Krystal Holloway (aka River Cruz), and whether he had had an affair with her. He stated, Yes, he did know her as she volunteered to help with search for Caylee. As for an affair, he denied it, but the wording he used was adversarial and bizarre. He responded, "No, I did not have an affair with Krystal Holloway.." Then he looked down with a slight smirk adding, "I find that very funny." If he'd been asked that question in any other context, I could understand his mocking her. But is anything really "very funny" at all today, at his daughter's first degree murder trial?
He was asked if he'd gone to her home. He agreed he had, two or three times. He explained that Krystal had told him she had a brain tumor and had asked him for emotional support. Because, he said, he wanted to be a "good guy", he had visited at her home to offer her said support. In this small piece of testimony there was something disturbing about the man. He seemed unnecessarily hostile and for the first time I noticed an arrogance about him that gave me pause. Is the mask starting to slip?
Jose Baez asked Cindy Anthony if she had a conversation or argument with son Lee about sending
Dominic Casey and/or Jim Hoover to look for Caylee with a video camera. Cindy denied sending them on any search and denied having any conversation or argument with Lee about such a search. She further denied having any knowledge of such a search until after Caylee's remains were found in December 2008. "I had no knowledge of a (November 08) search in that area so I would not have had an argument regarding that. My first knowledge of that search was after Caylee's remains are found."
Baez continues: "And you never had a discussion where he confronted you saying, "Why are you looking for a dead kid?"
Prosecution: Objection, Asked and answered. Judge: Sustained. Cindy is excused with no cross examination.
Lee Anthony is called to the stand. Jose Baez asks Lee, "Good Morning Mr. Anthony. Did you ever havd an argument or discussion with your mother about sending Dominic Casey to look for Caylee with a video camera off Suburban Drive?"
Lee responds, "Yes I did," for the first time completely contradicting his mother. Jose Baez asks him to tell the court what happened. "Yes sir. I was over at my mother's house and we.. " Objection, Narrative. Judge asks Baez to rephrase.
Baez: "Did you go to your parents' home?"
Lee: "Yes I did."
Baez: "When you got there did your mother tell you anything about Suburban Drive?"
Lee: "Yes"
Baez: "What did she tell you?"
Lee: "She sent Dominic into the woods off Suburban because she got a psychic tip she wanted to follow up on." He then recalls this conversation took place in about October. He says he was very angry that his family was looking for or acknowledging a "deceased Caylee."
Lee said he went back to work in part because his parents decided to look for Caylee's dead body at all, and also was upset that his parents hadn't discussed this with him.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Notably this is the second time Lee is very upset that he is left out of family decisions or issues. The first was when Lee spoke of being upset at being left out of Casey's pregnancy and the birth of Caylee. Lee apparently considered it a betrayal by Mom and Dad that they would even consider that Casey had fabricated the story about Casey. He seems bitterly hurt and angry with parents, not unlike the way Casey appears to feel.
I find myself beginning to fear what else I'll find out. I feel compelled to watch yet horrified. George's sarcastic comment that he finds it "funny" being asked about an affair with Krystal keeps echoing in my head. I no longer trust my original perception of George Anthony. I hope I am wrong.
June 23, 2011
The Shock, Horror and Tragedy That Holds Us in Thrall
I have corresponded with more strangers about the Casey Anthony trial in the past few weeks than about any other ten topics combined. Mostly on Twitter. There are the few disturbing voices: Like Bizarro Guy who thinks Casey is "hot." Like the Lynch Mob: Say one harsh word about the prosecution (their case, not the wrongness of their position!!) and you shall be accused of following Satan. But many more, if not most, are educated, smart, funny and, well, smart --
I feel a bond with these fellow Casey Anthony trial watchers I can't fully explain. NO one is kinda watching it. You're either waking at 6 or 7 because you live on the Left Coast, tweetikg 20 to 30 times a day about it, and in between Googlimg Florida's statutes, its new federal death penalty ruling or Judge Perry's appellate record-- OR you're just barely aware the trial is happening and you have no idea what has people so riveted!!
I think I know. This trial is Biblical. There's the temptress. A pregnancy. A baby girl and young Grandms and Grsndps Good folks . A nurse and a cop for God's sake!
There's a word for killing your Mom (matricide), your Dad, and your sibling, but no word for killing your child. One can understand why. And who is this enigmatic sulky stone-faced thing sitting at the defense table. I have this feeling Cindy and George suddenly see how evil she is. And it must be unbearable. Biblical. Archetypal.
So cruelly unfair that soon they go home, these two, without the granddaughter they loved, and with knowledge that they once sheltered a monster: their daughter. They go home, too, accused of heinous things. Accused of defending a monster (they did not), of pedophilia (doubtful) adultery (unlikely). And finally -- accused of somehow being to blame. Of being so foolish and blind, so in denial that they could not see.
I'm just not sure thst anyone really could have seem more than that their daughter was disappointingly selfish, narcissistic and vacant. I know therapists are supposed to blame the parents. But it doesn't always work that way. Besides, it's not a matter of blame, but of understanding. Yet here -- in the midst of a family that seems pretty normal in its dysfunction -- I do not thus far see anything, not in Cindy or in George, that accounts for creating a monster. Their sins-- and we all have them-- not mortal merely venial. In the nature or nurture debate, this time around, Nature most definitely wins.
I understand that to those not engrossed, it may seem that we're all voyeurs. But I beg to differ. The Casey Anthony trial is making its mark on our collective psyche. It will change us separately and as a whole. Yet until it is done I'm not sure we'll really know how for quite some time. --Claudia Miles
I feel a bond with these fellow Casey Anthony trial watchers I can't fully explain. NO one is kinda watching it. You're either waking at 6 or 7 because you live on the Left Coast, tweetikg 20 to 30 times a day about it, and in between Googlimg Florida's statutes, its new federal death penalty ruling or Judge Perry's appellate record-- OR you're just barely aware the trial is happening and you have no idea what has people so riveted!!
I think I know. This trial is Biblical. There's the temptress. A pregnancy. A baby girl and young Grandms and Grsndps Good folks . A nurse and a cop for God's sake!
There's a word for killing your Mom (matricide), your Dad, and your sibling, but no word for killing your child. One can understand why. And who is this enigmatic sulky stone-faced thing sitting at the defense table. I have this feeling Cindy and George suddenly see how evil she is. And it must be unbearable. Biblical. Archetypal.
So cruelly unfair that soon they go home, these two, without the granddaughter they loved, and with knowledge that they once sheltered a monster: their daughter. They go home, too, accused of heinous things. Accused of defending a monster (they did not), of pedophilia (doubtful) adultery (unlikely). And finally -- accused of somehow being to blame. Of being so foolish and blind, so in denial that they could not see.
I'm just not sure thst anyone really could have seem more than that their daughter was disappointingly selfish, narcissistic and vacant. I know therapists are supposed to blame the parents. But it doesn't always work that way. Besides, it's not a matter of blame, but of understanding. Yet here -- in the midst of a family that seems pretty normal in its dysfunction -- I do not thus far see anything, not in Cindy or in George, that accounts for creating a monster. Their sins-- and we all have them-- not mortal merely venial. In the nature or nurture debate, this time around, Nature most definitely wins.
I understand that to those not engrossed, it may seem that we're all voyeurs. But I beg to differ. The Casey Anthony trial is making its mark on our collective psyche. It will change us separately and as a whole. Yet until it is done I'm not sure we'll really know how for quite some time. --Claudia Miles
June 14, 2011
Casey Anthony: Borderline Personality or Narcissistic Sociopath?
As a psychotherapist with 15 years experience, I find myself strongly disagreeing with Psychotherapist Fran Sherman's assessment of Casey Anthony's mental state and the possibility of sexual abuse by George. First, I don't agree with borderline personality disorder as the primary diagnosis. In my experience, BPD's have much more extreme emotionality. I do see her as having a blend of personality disorders, including antisocial and narcissistic personality disorder. She seems far more calculating and in control than most BPDs. Also, I understand that Ms. Sherman feels trauma was involved in Casey's early childhood. I do not. Many personality disorders and certainly antisocial personalities seem to derive from abandonment, real or imagined. And all their behavior subsequent to feeling abandoned is designed to relieve that sense of abandonment and prevent it. Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, was left alone a lot, and literally abandoned by his parents when they divorced. All his crimes were a way to stop the pain of feeling alone or abandoned. I find Casey far more sociopathic and far less vulnerable than your typical borderline. Further, I don't believe the claims of sexual abuse. George and Cindy Anthony seem very bonded- in the way mature adults become in a long term marriage or partnership. To imagine him as a man who would molest an 8-yr-old, one has to assume he is a pedophile, behavior which does not come and go. Pedophiles do not tend to maintain the kind of adult bond the Anthonys appear to have. Further, Casey seems to take any opportunity to get attention, especially sympathy. Why tell her "boyfriend" that Lee attempted to molest her, if she has a far more chilling story. I don't imagine she'd suffer in silence. I feel that Casey was born damaged. I believe there are some people who have a physiological predisposition to sociopathy- at least, there are some killers who do not appear to have a history of
abuse at all, yet who present with antisocial personality disorder. I believe Casey killed Caylee out of narcissistic rage. She felt emotionally abandoned by her parents and could not bear seeing Caylee receive the nurturance and unconditional love from them that she so badly wanted.
abuse at all, yet who present with antisocial personality disorder. I believe Casey killed Caylee out of narcissistic rage. She felt emotionally abandoned by her parents and could not bear seeing Caylee receive the nurturance and unconditional love from them that she so badly wanted.
June 10, 2011
The Casey Anthony Trial: an American Tragedy
As I watch the Casey Anthony trial each day, i'm reminded of American Psycho, a film about a greedy violent man who fools everyone into thinking he's as human as they are because he looks the part. No one notices the vacant stare, lack of empathy. No one paid attention. So how did Casey Anthony walk among us so long? Her parents are good people, and one can even understand their denial. It's heartbreaking to see it melt away and watch them grieve their granddaughter, meanwhile having no choice but to give testimony that will lead to their daughter being executed. This is truly an American Tragedy.
June 7, 2011
Casey Anthony Trial: Jose Biaz Takes Off the Gloves on Cross, 06/06/2011
Today is the third week of the Casey Anthony trial, and the third week of the state's case against Casey Anthony (Florida v. Casey Anthony 2011). Like most murder trials, this is a circumstantial case. In other words, no witnesses, no murder weapon, and no cause of death by the M.E., other than "manner, homicide", as Caylee's body had been in the elements for quite some time. When manner of death is known, and it generally is in a murder (i.e., blunt force trauma? drugs? Gunshot wound?) the police investigation will focus on finding either the murder weapon itself or even a link to the type of weapon. They might not find the poison or the baseball bat, but was she seen buying the ingredients for the poison, was she known to possess a baseball bat which has mysteriously disappeared?
Manner of death also allows the prosecution to offer a theory of the crime that within the timeline or opportunity. Without any of that the prosecution has to find a way to link Casey Anthony to daughter Caylee's deceased body. Their evidence consists of, the smell in the trunk of Casey's Sunfire identified by several witnesses as the smell of human decomposition, and a single hair probably belonging to Caylee, that has the appearance of a hair from a decomposing body (specifically a dark band or discoloration near the root of the hair.) However even the expert witness, from the FBI forensic lab, cannot say with total certainty that the hair did come from Caylee's decomposing body. There could be other explanations.
So that leaves the smell in the trunk. There were five witnesses who testified that the car smelled of decomp, four of whom have experience detecting this highly unique smell. Wanting more definitive evidence of a decomposing body in Casey's car, the state called Dr. Arpad Vass of the Oak Ridge Research Lab in Tennessee to testify that there was scientific proof that this odor was in fact decomposition. Using an entirely new methodology which he invented, Dr. Vass collected air samples from the trunk and tested those samples using this methodology, and thus "proving" that the odor in Casey's car was in fact from human remains and not, say, garbage.
Because this science had never before been used at trial, and because Dr. Vass is the only expert to use this science, the defense has no opportunity to challenge it. So Jose Baez objected strenuously to Dr. Vass's testimony, or specifically, the science itself. He did not want evidence presented as scientific that may not truly meet that standard. I think it was crucial for Jose Baez to challenge this new science, strenuously, that he did. Most of Monday consisted of Mr. Baez objecting to Dr. Vass' direct testimony in which he explained his technique and stated that according to this method, he could be scientifically certain that a dead body was in Casey' car.
In Jose Baez's cross examination, he made clear that Dr. Vass was neither a chemist or physicist, and also that Dr. Vass would profit financially -- and perhaps by reputation, if his science was used successfully in a criminal trial.
Personally, I thought a briefer and more dismissive cross examination-- something along the lines of, 1) So this science has never been used?; 2) you aren't a chemist; 3) You can't prove a link to a specific body (like that of Caylee Anthony, and a few more questions of that nature and stop -- I think Jose may have lent more credence to this "proof" of decomposition than he needed to, since it wasn't a direct link to Caylee, and since the car was out of Casey's possession for several days so others has access to that trunk and car.
All that aside, what I can't get out of my mind is Jose Baez's opening in which he claims that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008, in the family pool, that George Anthony, a retired police officer, held Caylee's lifeless body in his arms, and that he himself covered up the crime and disposed of the body. It seems so clear that George Anthony was desperate to find his granddaughter during the period of time the defense has said he had to have known she was dead. In addition, he clearly seems to be a man who would not allow his daughter to take the rap for him, certainly not be executed, nor a man who would allow his wife to suffer unnecessarily, for months, agonizing over where her granddaughter's body was.
l
Most of it was spent trying to introduce a new kind of science, developed at Oak Ridge Laboratories by Dr. Vass. that would be able to
Manner of death also allows the prosecution to offer a theory of the crime that within the timeline or opportunity. Without any of that the prosecution has to find a way to link Casey Anthony to daughter Caylee's deceased body. Their evidence consists of, the smell in the trunk of Casey's Sunfire identified by several witnesses as the smell of human decomposition, and a single hair probably belonging to Caylee, that has the appearance of a hair from a decomposing body (specifically a dark band or discoloration near the root of the hair.) However even the expert witness, from the FBI forensic lab, cannot say with total certainty that the hair did come from Caylee's decomposing body. There could be other explanations.
So that leaves the smell in the trunk. There were five witnesses who testified that the car smelled of decomp, four of whom have experience detecting this highly unique smell. Wanting more definitive evidence of a decomposing body in Casey's car, the state called Dr. Arpad Vass of the Oak Ridge Research Lab in Tennessee to testify that there was scientific proof that this odor was in fact decomposition. Using an entirely new methodology which he invented, Dr. Vass collected air samples from the trunk and tested those samples using this methodology, and thus "proving" that the odor in Casey's car was in fact from human remains and not, say, garbage.
Because this science had never before been used at trial, and because Dr. Vass is the only expert to use this science, the defense has no opportunity to challenge it. So Jose Baez objected strenuously to Dr. Vass's testimony, or specifically, the science itself. He did not want evidence presented as scientific that may not truly meet that standard. I think it was crucial for Jose Baez to challenge this new science, strenuously, that he did. Most of Monday consisted of Mr. Baez objecting to Dr. Vass' direct testimony in which he explained his technique and stated that according to this method, he could be scientifically certain that a dead body was in Casey' car.
In Jose Baez's cross examination, he made clear that Dr. Vass was neither a chemist or physicist, and also that Dr. Vass would profit financially -- and perhaps by reputation, if his science was used successfully in a criminal trial.
Personally, I thought a briefer and more dismissive cross examination-- something along the lines of, 1) So this science has never been used?; 2) you aren't a chemist; 3) You can't prove a link to a specific body (like that of Caylee Anthony, and a few more questions of that nature and stop -- I think Jose may have lent more credence to this "proof" of decomposition than he needed to, since it wasn't a direct link to Caylee, and since the car was out of Casey's possession for several days so others has access to that trunk and car.
All that aside, what I can't get out of my mind is Jose Baez's opening in which he claims that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008, in the family pool, that George Anthony, a retired police officer, held Caylee's lifeless body in his arms, and that he himself covered up the crime and disposed of the body. It seems so clear that George Anthony was desperate to find his granddaughter during the period of time the defense has said he had to have known she was dead. In addition, he clearly seems to be a man who would not allow his daughter to take the rap for him, certainly not be executed, nor a man who would allow his wife to suffer unnecessarily, for months, agonizing over where her granddaughter's body was.
l
Most of it was spent trying to introduce a new kind of science, developed at Oak Ridge Laboratories by Dr. Vass. that would be able to
June 3, 2011
The "Accident that was Covered Up" Defense is Coming Apart
During the trial--and in-between on In Session--we've been watching the videotaped jail house conversations between Casey and her parents, Casey and just Mom, and Casey and just Dad. These tapes make it pretty impossible to believe that a) there was an accident that was covered up by either parent; and b) equally impossible to believe that either parent KNEW Caylee was dead.. Both parents are asking, pestering, cajoling, and even manipulating Casey, to get her to talk, to say what they know. George is highly believable talking about wanting to see Caylee, wanting to hear her say "Jo Jo.. Jo Jo swim, Jo Jo walk..Jo Jo, take a ride in the wagon. . I'm going to do everything I can [to enjoy and have fun with Caylee], more than I ever did before."
To think he would refer to he and his granddaughter swimming if he was covering up a drowning. That he would reminisce in the way he is here, and express hope of seeing her again soon, if he knew she was dead.
In fact, Casey's father suggested that she could talk to someone in law enforcement and tell him what she knows. Even, he said, without your lawyer, if you want. Why would he encourage a meeting with law enforcement if he was dovering up a death, even accidental?
Both parents are very high profile here with the media, connecting with organizations who look for missing children, raising reward for info money, going on Nancy Grace, going on TV, speaking to People magazine. This is hardly the behavior of people covering up an accidental death of a child.
George Anthony may come off as less likable when he testifies during the trial, but I think it's pretty tough to have to get on the stand after your daughter's defense accuses you of molesting here from age 8 on. And yet, it's also tough to testify at your daughter's death penalty trial. No matter how feels about what she's done, it's agonizing to be in the position of sending his daughter to her death, and same goes, of course, for her mom and brother.
However, George Anthony was a police officer. There is simply NO REASON that he would not call the PD in an accident. Not if it really was an accident. Maybe if it was a murder that he was trying to cover up. But if it were an accident, he would trust that the forensics would show it were an accident.
As for the molestation charges, I noticed that when George Anthony is asked, Did you molest your daughter, Casey is listening and shaking her head during that question-- as if to say, no no no, he didn't do it. Stunning.
Motive -- Understanding Casey Anthony 6/3
As to motive, I believe it's clear- and evident in the testimony and evidence. Casey was jealous not of her mother, but of Caylee. She had been her parents' only daughter- their "little girl." She never really "individuated" from mom and dad and remained dependent on their approval. As she grew up, Cindy's controlling nature and intrusiveness kept Casey flipping back & forth between wanting to please Mom and wanting to get away from her.
She missed being "taken care of" by Mom without adult responsibilities and wanted the kind of unconditional love given to Caylee; it was unbearable that Caylee had stolen the spotlight from her.. Mom even denied her credit for bringing Caylee to the family (a perfect or great mistake but a mistake.)
Clearly, La Bella Vita was not the motive - the Anthonys wanted custody as it was. But she wanted to be her folks' little girl, and not seen as someone who abandoned her baby.
In fact, Cindy Anthony said on the
stand that she saw a therapist several months before Casey left with Caylee. Cindy discussed with the therapist that Casey was an unfit mother (partying while they cared for Caylee, et al.) The therapist said Cindy and George should kick Casey out and file for custody. How is this not the motive? In this case, since this was mentioned on the stand, can't the therapist be subpoenaed or her records? Can't doctor - patient privilege be bypassed in this case?
She missed being "taken care of" by Mom without adult responsibilities and wanted the kind of unconditional love given to Caylee; it was unbearable that Caylee had stolen the spotlight from her.. Mom even denied her credit for bringing Caylee to the family (a perfect or great mistake but a mistake.)
Clearly, La Bella Vita was not the motive - the Anthonys wanted custody as it was. But she wanted to be her folks' little girl, and not seen as someone who abandoned her baby.
In fact, Cindy Anthony said on the
stand that she saw a therapist several months before Casey left with Caylee. Cindy discussed with the therapist that Casey was an unfit mother (partying while they cared for Caylee, et al.) The therapist said Cindy and George should kick Casey out and file for custody. How is this not the motive? In this case, since this was mentioned on the stand, can't the therapist be subpoenaed or her records? Can't doctor - patient privilege be bypassed in this case?
Day 9-Casey Anthony Trial: Recorded Jail House Visits with Parents
It becomes increasingly clear that Casey Anthony is mentally ill. I agree with Beth Karas that it is odd that Jose Baez didn't try to present diminished capacity as a defense and go for some kind of plea bargain. He certainly is going out of his way to emphasize these aspects at trial, possibly as grounds for appeal. Or jury nullification in regard to the death penalty.
Watching the jail house visit between Casey and her dad, one cannot imagine Casey having been molested by him. As a therapist, I consider myself able to spot a pedophile, especially one guilty of molesting his daughter, and I feel confident that such a thing never happened.
Interestingly, Casey keeps referring to her daughter, not as "Caylee," but as 'that little girl." I find that strange. Casey will say, "That little girl was the best part of us.." OR, "I love that little girl." But each time her dad focuses on finding Caylee, and bringing Caylee home, Casey keeps responding with, "I know.. I just want to be home with you guys, as a family. Just know how much I love you guys. How much I miss you. (And how much I miss, Caylee- almost as an aside..). We should be home together as a family. As we should be." Dad: "Yeah, because I miss her so much." Casey is clearly trying to flatter him, compliment him (you are the best dad, always have been, and the best grandpa) in order to manipulate him to get her out of jail. He has explained of course that they have tapped every resource and don't have the amount of bail they need to get.
It's as if Casey believes that if she keeps flattering him and making it seem as if bringing Casey home will significantly help in the search for Caylee, that somehow George Anthony will be able to do something further to get her out of jail. Her concern is to be home. She does not want to be in jail, and her primary focus is to convince as many people as she can that she must get out, and have every possible thing down to bring this about.
Watching the jail house visit between Casey and her dad, one cannot imagine Casey having been molested by him. As a therapist, I consider myself able to spot a pedophile, especially one guilty of molesting his daughter, and I feel confident that such a thing never happened.
Interestingly, Casey keeps referring to her daughter, not as "Caylee," but as 'that little girl." I find that strange. Casey will say, "That little girl was the best part of us.." OR, "I love that little girl." But each time her dad focuses on finding Caylee, and bringing Caylee home, Casey keeps responding with, "I know.. I just want to be home with you guys, as a family. Just know how much I love you guys. How much I miss you. (And how much I miss, Caylee- almost as an aside..). We should be home together as a family. As we should be." Dad: "Yeah, because I miss her so much." Casey is clearly trying to flatter him, compliment him (you are the best dad, always have been, and the best grandpa) in order to manipulate him to get her out of jail. He has explained of course that they have tapped every resource and don't have the amount of bail they need to get.
It's as if Casey believes that if she keeps flattering him and making it seem as if bringing Casey home will significantly help in the search for Caylee, that somehow George Anthony will be able to do something further to get her out of jail. Her concern is to be home. She does not want to be in jail, and her primary focus is to convince as many people as she can that she must get out, and have every possible thing down to bring this about.
June 1, 2011
Casey Anthony Trial 6/1/2011 Her brother Lee testifies
Probably there were two key things Lee Anthony did for the prosecution were, first, he confirmed the smell of human decomposition in Casey's car, and he testified as to two inflammatory and sarcastic responses made by Casey.
He had asked her, What is up? Why won't you let us see Casey?- And she said to him, according to Lee, "Because maybe I'm a spiteful bitch."
He also testified that Casey had said to him, "Mom keeps saying to me over ans over, that I'm an unfit mother. Well, Maybe I am."
He had asked her, What is up? Why won't you let us see Casey?- And she said to him, according to Lee, "Because maybe I'm a spiteful bitch."
He also testified that Casey had said to him, "Mom keeps saying to me over ans over, that I'm an unfit mother. Well, Maybe I am."
Casey's Brother Lee Anthony, 28, Testifies Today 6/1/2011
Lee Anthony is called by the prosecution today to testify about his knowledge of events. He was at the family home at his Mother's request when Cindy Anthony brought home Casey at the end of the 31 day period, made the final 911 call, and before and after detectives arrived. He stated that his mother told him that she had asked Casey, "Why won't you let us see Caylee?" and that his mother told him that Casey's response was, which he was about to repeat. (An objection was initially made about this testimony citing the "hearsay" rule, followed by a sidebar. The judge overruled the objection since Lee had reported this conversation with his mother, as he recalled it, to Det. Edwards, and it was part of an official police report. The question about Casey's response to her Mother's question was then rephrased. Lee was asked specifically, "What did you tell Det. Edwards that Casey replied to your Mother's question? He replied that his mother told him Casey said, in response to being asked, why won't you let us see Casey, "Maybe because I'm a spiteful bitch."
Lee is then asked by the prosecution, Do you recall what your sister told you when you asked her, "What's going on?" He couldn't recall the exact words so was shown his 2008 statements to police. The prosecution asked again, Now that you've seen [your statement], do you recall what your sister told you? Lee replied, "She told me that my mother had, numerous times, thrown it in my sister's face that she- that Casey- was an unfit mother for Caylee. And she added, "Maybe I am." Lee states that he went on to say that his mother also had said that "Caylee was a mistake, but a great mistake or the best mistake Casey's ever made."
Prosecutor also asks Lee if he recalls getting frustrated with his sister at this point. "Very," Lee replies. When asked why he said, "Because nothing was making sense to me. Why couldn't we go get Caylee? There's no reason to fight with mom at this point.
Lee says he asked Casey, What is the last place you remember seeing Caylee? And that she replied, The Sawgrass Apartments. She also told her brother that she was trying to find Caylee herself and that was why she hadn't called the police.
It appears that Casey tends to remember the lies she tells and repeat the same lies to all parties who ask her the same questions.
Lee is then asked by the prosecution, Do you recall what your sister told you when you asked her, "What's going on?" He couldn't recall the exact words so was shown his 2008 statements to police. The prosecution asked again, Now that you've seen [your statement], do you recall what your sister told you? Lee replied, "She told me that my mother had, numerous times, thrown it in my sister's face that she- that Casey- was an unfit mother for Caylee. And she added, "Maybe I am." Lee states that he went on to say that his mother also had said that "Caylee was a mistake, but a great mistake or the best mistake Casey's ever made."
Prosecutor also asks Lee if he recalls getting frustrated with his sister at this point. "Very," Lee replies. When asked why he said, "Because nothing was making sense to me. Why couldn't we go get Caylee? There's no reason to fight with mom at this point.
Lee says he asked Casey, What is the last place you remember seeing Caylee? And that she replied, The Sawgrass Apartments. She also told her brother that she was trying to find Caylee herself and that was why she hadn't called the police.
It appears that Casey tends to remember the lies she tells and repeat the same lies to all parties who ask her the same questions.
Bystanders Run to Get in Line to Attend Casey Anthony Trial 06/01/11
People are riveted to this trial. "In Session" aired footage of a horde of people running to be first in line to watch the trial in the limited spots available. One of the "runners" was even wearing a cervical collar. Some of the attendees have driven or flown from out-of-state to watch the trial. Reports are that the trial is airing in workplaces throughout the country, people are so riveted to this case. As In Session correspondents point out, the case has multiple scandalous and dramatic elements -- a young mother, an admitted pathological liar, accused of murdering her 2 1/2 year old daughter (Casey was actually two months from her 3rd birthday when she died); allegations of sexual abuse by a father who is also a retired police officer and a brother; alleged jealousy on the part of Casey about her parents' devotion to Caylee, who in her mind, allegedly displaced her in her Mother's affection.
Casey Anthony Trial 5/27/2011
Narcissistic and sociopathic personalities are by definition charming, and easily able to convince others they are sincere and normal. Casey Anthony appears to fall right into that category, and apparently has convinced her defense team that she's just a poor innocent young woman who was sexually abused by her father, a fact that hasn't been proved, and seems merely a ploy to get sympathy by Casey.
On TruTV, several of the correspondents seem to say that Casey seems to have "loved" her daughter Caylee, based purely on behavior she displayed in front of others. Her former friends, mostly male, state that her daughter appeared "well fed," that Casey did not yell at her or hit her, that Casey has a backpack with her with various DVDs and toys, that Casey played with Caylee and appeared to be having fun, and Caylee seemed to enjoy it. When the defense asked if it appeared she was a "good mother," several said "Yes", based on the above facts.
The defense (Attorney Jose Biaz) keeps asking questions like this: "Did you ever see Caylee malnourished?" and "Did you ever see Casey strike or torture or harm Caylee?" Well, first of all, Casey and Caylee lived with Casey's parents for quite some time, and they made sure Caylee was fed, clean, well dressed, and had DVDS, toys, learning tools. Certainly Casey hadn't worked in two years so she wouldn't have had her money to buy these things.
But more relevant here is this: What is the definition of a good mother? Feeding and clothing and not "torturing" your child only suggests a lack of neglect and overt abuse. They certainly do NOT indicate, alone, that a mother loves a child. In my view, a good mother is someone who is mature enough to love her child enough that her well being is more important than you "having fun. A good mother does not leave her 2-year-old unsupervised while she has sex with her boyfriend of one month in the other room. One witness, Maria K., testified that when she came to Tony/s (the boyfriend's) apartment, little Caylee answered the door while Casey was nowhere to be seen. Maria then noted that Casey was in her boyfriend's bedroom at the time.
Casey Anthony seems to have some similarities to Susan Smith, who killed her two children because her boyfriend did not want to be with her because she had kids and he did not want the responsibility. Prior to the incident where Smith's children were drowned, no one said or noticed that Susan Smith was either a bad mother or abusive to her children. But the fact is, she loved herself more than she loved them. As soon as they became an impediment to what she wanted, she got rid of them.
As for Casey Anthony's father George, several of the In Session correspondents, including Beth Karas and Casey Jordan, defended George's behavior on the stand, and felt that defense attorney Jose Biaz was badgering him. Jose Biaz was questioning George about two gas cans that were stolen from him and the police report that George then made. He questioned whether George had he told the police that his daughter may have been the one who took them since she'd taken his gas cans in the past. The point of the questioning was to show that George may have been lying about the gas cans being stolen (a key piece of evidence) and may have in fact reported them stolen in order to lay groundwork for a later defense.
There was much discussion about whether Jose Biaz was badgering George Anthony or whether George Anthony was simply a controlling angry man. The fact is, Jose Biaz was nervous and tripped over his words quite a bit during that cross examination. He would ask a question about July and then say, Oh, I mean June. He asked other questions that were leading, and others that were simply unintelligible. George Anthony had to say he did not understand the question, or challenge the question, a number of times. I myself found Jose Biaz confusing and unclear, and don't think George Anthony was doing anything other than trying to be certain that what he said On the Record, was true.
In addition, Jose Biaz had accused George in opening statements of sexually abusing his daughter beginning when she was 8 as well as knowing about and covering up his granddaughter's disappearance. It certainly is understandale, if these things are untrue, which I believe they are, that George would be angry, and humiliated after hearing these statements (which he was called by the state to deny)
Most of the In Session correspondents (Beth Karas, Casey Jordan, their law enforcement expert) felt that George Anthony was believable on the stand, appeared genuine, and wasn't any angrier than anyone else would be in the same situation. I tend to agree.
The only emotion Casey shows is when her ex-boyfriend testifies, someone she either loved or was extremely attached to, and when Tony says that Caylee was a wonderful little girl, Casey mouths the word, yes, while holding back tears. However those tears were turned on and then off. I think she wanted appear to be touched by hearing about her daughter in the presence of this man she loved or wanted. No such emotion appeared at any other mention of her daughter thus far in the trial.
They have Casey dressed quite conservatively of course. On Thursday, however, she was wearing a white shirt with poofy sleeves, and a ponytail with the top teased up in such way that she looked like one of those Mormon wives living on the Texas compound that were in the news.
The prosecution is painting a pretty ugly picture of Casey, pretty effectively. The defense is going to have a lot of "splaining" to do.
On TruTV, several of the correspondents seem to say that Casey seems to have "loved" her daughter Caylee, based purely on behavior she displayed in front of others. Her former friends, mostly male, state that her daughter appeared "well fed," that Casey did not yell at her or hit her, that Casey has a backpack with her with various DVDs and toys, that Casey played with Caylee and appeared to be having fun, and Caylee seemed to enjoy it. When the defense asked if it appeared she was a "good mother," several said "Yes", based on the above facts.
The defense (Attorney Jose Biaz) keeps asking questions like this: "Did you ever see Caylee malnourished?" and "Did you ever see Casey strike or torture or harm Caylee?" Well, first of all, Casey and Caylee lived with Casey's parents for quite some time, and they made sure Caylee was fed, clean, well dressed, and had DVDS, toys, learning tools. Certainly Casey hadn't worked in two years so she wouldn't have had her money to buy these things.
But more relevant here is this: What is the definition of a good mother? Feeding and clothing and not "torturing" your child only suggests a lack of neglect and overt abuse. They certainly do NOT indicate, alone, that a mother loves a child. In my view, a good mother is someone who is mature enough to love her child enough that her well being is more important than you "having fun. A good mother does not leave her 2-year-old unsupervised while she has sex with her boyfriend of one month in the other room. One witness, Maria K., testified that when she came to Tony/s (the boyfriend's) apartment, little Caylee answered the door while Casey was nowhere to be seen. Maria then noted that Casey was in her boyfriend's bedroom at the time.
Casey Anthony seems to have some similarities to Susan Smith, who killed her two children because her boyfriend did not want to be with her because she had kids and he did not want the responsibility. Prior to the incident where Smith's children were drowned, no one said or noticed that Susan Smith was either a bad mother or abusive to her children. But the fact is, she loved herself more than she loved them. As soon as they became an impediment to what she wanted, she got rid of them.
As for Casey Anthony's father George, several of the In Session correspondents, including Beth Karas and Casey Jordan, defended George's behavior on the stand, and felt that defense attorney Jose Biaz was badgering him. Jose Biaz was questioning George about two gas cans that were stolen from him and the police report that George then made. He questioned whether George had he told the police that his daughter may have been the one who took them since she'd taken his gas cans in the past. The point of the questioning was to show that George may have been lying about the gas cans being stolen (a key piece of evidence) and may have in fact reported them stolen in order to lay groundwork for a later defense.
There was much discussion about whether Jose Biaz was badgering George Anthony or whether George Anthony was simply a controlling angry man. The fact is, Jose Biaz was nervous and tripped over his words quite a bit during that cross examination. He would ask a question about July and then say, Oh, I mean June. He asked other questions that were leading, and others that were simply unintelligible. George Anthony had to say he did not understand the question, or challenge the question, a number of times. I myself found Jose Biaz confusing and unclear, and don't think George Anthony was doing anything other than trying to be certain that what he said On the Record, was true.
In addition, Jose Biaz had accused George in opening statements of sexually abusing his daughter beginning when she was 8 as well as knowing about and covering up his granddaughter's disappearance. It certainly is understandale, if these things are untrue, which I believe they are, that George would be angry, and humiliated after hearing these statements (which he was called by the state to deny)
Most of the In Session correspondents (Beth Karas, Casey Jordan, their law enforcement expert) felt that George Anthony was believable on the stand, appeared genuine, and wasn't any angrier than anyone else would be in the same situation. I tend to agree.
The only emotion Casey shows is when her ex-boyfriend testifies, someone she either loved or was extremely attached to, and when Tony says that Caylee was a wonderful little girl, Casey mouths the word, yes, while holding back tears. However those tears were turned on and then off. I think she wanted appear to be touched by hearing about her daughter in the presence of this man she loved or wanted. No such emotion appeared at any other mention of her daughter thus far in the trial.
They have Casey dressed quite conservatively of course. On Thursday, however, she was wearing a white shirt with poofy sleeves, and a ponytail with the top teased up in such way that she looked like one of those Mormon wives living on the Texas compound that were in the news.
The prosecution is painting a pretty ugly picture of Casey, pretty effectively. The defense is going to have a lot of "splaining" to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)