[Freeda]

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I thought from the very beginning that the idea that George Anthony would bundle up and toss aside his beloved granddaughter who drowned in the family pool instead of calling 911 was totally ludicrous.

Maybe Casey deliberately killed her daughter or knowingly played fast and loose with her life by placing her in a dangerous situation, but it's all murder to me. I would convict her of the top charge. I don't know if the jury will do that, but I'm hoping.

I agree; although early on I disbelieved some of George's testimony, and still can't figure out why he didn't call the police when he thought the car smelled of death (but maybe it's just that he knew his wife was doing that??), and obviously he lied about some things, I think the evidence only fits murder 1 and only as to Casey; whether premeditated (which is my opinion, don't know if the jury will go there - they may have to compromise) or felony murder.

Some of the strongest points that prosecution made in closing that convinced me were:

(1) Casey was the only family member who had access to all of the items of evidence connected with the death (ie, the duct tape, the blanket, the laundry bag, the shorts, the shirt); in particular, the 'Big trouble comes in small packages' teeshirt that Caylee was found in had not been in the Anthony's home; Cindy had never seen it; so it was among the clothing that Casey had kept available with her in the car/at friends' homes. ONLY Casey had access to that shirt.

(2) The body ending up in a bag in a swamp was not reasonably consistent with any theory that an innocent accident had caused the death. In particular, as to the drowning scenario that Baer had hinted about in his opening (which had to have come from Casey, under ethics rules), it is preposterous to imagine that anyone would do anything other than call 911 in a red-hot panic upon finding a drowned (or otherwise innocently injured) child - regardless of the child's condition. Obviously, if 911 been called, a corpse is not going to end up tossed in a swamp. A story that the prosecution brought up in closing to show a heartbreaking contrast with Casey's lack of any parental sentiment for how Casey's remains were treated was one that had been told by the defense's grief expert. She had described a bereaved mother of a little boy, who was her client, and who had called her to say, when a storm was forecasted, that 'he's never been out in the dark in the rain before'; and the grief counsellor picked her up, and brought a blanket and umbrella, and sat with the mother at the grave with the umbrella to protect the child (ie, the grave) from the rain. I could just imagine the jury picturing Caylee's body in a swamp in a bag, unprotected from storms and animals, as the prosecution reminded them of this story.

(3) (This was sooo sinister as the prosecution related it). 'Timer55', which was Casey's 'Myspace' password, and which she had told her brother had something to do with Caylee was, the prosecution theorized, probably an indication of the exact 55 day period from the June 16 date of Caylee's death until the date of Caylee's upcoming 3rd birthday - the date when Casey knew she would be at 'end-game' (the 'timer' would have run out of time) of her carefree partying days, in terms of making excuses (about being at an out of town conference, etc) to her parents as to why they couldn't see Caylee - she knew that they would never accept any excuse for not having the usual family gathering for Caylee's birthday. (The prosecution suggested that Casey's false story of having a developed romantic interest with a wealthy man who lived in Jacksonville, and that she and Caylee were with him there, was a lead-in to Casey's possible plan to perhaps tell her parents that she and Caylee had gone away - perhaps overseas, who knows?? - with this man, as a reason for them not being able to see Caylee. However, the parents being called by the tow lot about Casey's abandoned car being in Orlando tipped them off that her excuses for her whereabouts had been lies).

(4) The vines, leaf cover etc grown around/over the skull made it obvious that it had been there for months. The weathered condition of of the duct tape made it obvious that it had, also, been on the remains for a long time (ie, not added recently, as the defense suggested Roy Kronk may have done). The correct (pre-death) anatomical position of the mandible to the skull was because of the presence of the duct tape, which was holding the mandible in position; meaning that either the duct tape had been applied prior to decomposition of the skin and other connective tissues (since otherwise the mandible would have fallen away from the skull as decomposition occurred), or that the duct tape was applied after decomposition, in order to reconstruct the mandible and skull into proper alignment; which would have meant that the skull had been moved, which is inconsistent with the overgrowth of vines, etc over the skull. Plus, what reason would anyone have to tape a mandible back into its normal alignment with the skull (besides the fact that it was obvious that the skull had never been moved, as discussed above).

(5) Assuming you believe (4) to be true, that is, the duct tape was applied before the body decomposed, then the question is was it placed before or after death? Why would anyone put duct tape on the face of a dead child? That makes no sense. This leaves as the only answer that the duct tape was placed prior to death. Assuming that to be true, what was the purpose - if you are just trying to silence the child (even in this brutal way), why would you need more than one piece across the mouth? (Three pieces of duct tape were found on the skull). Ashton theorized that one tape would have been used to cover the mouth, the second to cover the nose, and the third diagonally to secure the others.

(6) At the place where Casey had abandoned her car, she had left it backed up to a dumpster - probably in order to find a bag of garbage she could put into her trunk as a 'decoy' to try to explain the smell of decomposition that was in her car's trunk; and also since being by a dumpster would make people near the car less apt to suspect anything from the foul odor - she hoped that they would think it was from the dumpter.

(7) As Caylee approached 3, she was more and more becoming able to talk - and Casey's lies about taking Caylee to Zanny (the nonexistent nanny, which was a cover for the also nonexistent job, which was a cover for Casey's whereabouts when she was partying) etc, which perpetuated the life of freedom and fun that she wanted, would soon, Casey probably realized, be revealed by Caylee, in innocent conversations with her grandparents, etc.

(8) Linda Burdick had the perfect response to the defense's theory that Casey's partying (and all of her lies about what she was doing, Caylee's whereabouts, the two of them being out of town for Casey's work, then later the "ok, the truth is that Zanny abducted her weeks ago, and I've been doing my own investigation trying to find Caylee" story, etc) was her manner of handling grief, based on her dysfunctional background; supported by the grief expert's testimony that people react differently to grief. Ms. Burdick said, "It may be true that it is unpredictable how people respond to grief; however, how people respond to guilt is so predictable - they lie and try to avoid getting caught for what they've done."

Since I didn't see all of the trial some of these points were new to me in the closing arguments.

I predict a verdict by Friday at the latest.