The state calls Paul Gongaware as its next witness. Deputy DA Deborah Brazil conducts the exam.
Gongaware is CEO of AEG. He produces and promotes concert tours, has done so about 30 years. He had occasion to work with Jackson in the past, the first being the "Dangerous" tour, then the "History" tour. He was involved in the "This Is It" tour as well, as producer and promoter. Gongaware says that he interfaces between art and commerce. He says Jackson was very excited and a brilliant guy.
PG was not responsible for planning rehearsal schedule. He was, however, involved in the tour scheduling. Initially, there were 31 shows contracted by AEG and Jackson for the "This Is It" tour. Prince had done 21 shows at the O2, and Jackson wanted to do 10 more; hence, the 31 scheduled shows. PG says people registered online to buy tickets. They did an initial offering of 10 shows which sold out instantly, so they added more shows in that cycle. The 31 shows sold out instantly as tickets were put up for sale. There were still 250,000 people in queue to buy tickets after the 50th show's tickets sold out.
Brazil gives witness an 11-pg document, and he reviews it and identifies it as the schedule of the rehearsals and shows for London. It consists of calendars beginning in May. PG created the calendars. The witness identifies where rehearsals were calendared to take place and when.
In July 2009, there were to be 8 performance dates at O2 Arena and 5 rehearsal dates, with remainder of months being days off. In August, 10 shows and no rehearsals. In September, 9 shows and no rehearsals were scheduled for O2 Arena. No performances scheduled for Oct, Nov, Dec because the arena was booked by other performers. Jan 2010 - 10 performances and 3 rehearsals, with rest of the month being days off. Feb 2010 - 10 shows, no rehearsals. March 2010- 3 shows scheduled. On days with no performances, Jackson was free from performance/rehearsal obligations.
Rehearsals in May/June 2009 in LA. PG was present during rehearsals in Burbank. Had opportunity to interact with Jackson, who PG says was excited and wanted to work, seemed happy. Also interacted with Jackson when performances moved to The Forum, where he again found him to be very enthusiastic about working and performing. PG attended some meetings at Jackson residence. One particular instance, Jackson was late. He can't recall the date. PG came to find out Jackson was late because he'd been at the doctor. PG believes it was Dr. Klein. PG noticed Jackson was a bit off, speech slightly slurred when he arrived. Nonetheless, the planned meeting occurred and Jackson participated in it.
In May had discussion with Jackson about his wanting to hire Murray as a personal physician for the tour. PG didn't know Murray at all, but since they were going to London, he would've preferred to hire a London doctor who was familiar with the medical establishment there. Jackson told him, "This is a machine [referring to his body] and you have to take care of the machine."
So PG contacted Murray to try to make a deal with him. Murray wanted to participate. PG asked him what he wanted. Murray told him he had four clinics he had to close, would have to lay off people, and that he'd need $5 million per year to do that. PG told him there was no way that was going to happen, Michael couldn't afford it. PG felt he could obtain services of doctor in London for far less, so PG ended negotiations.
PG testifies that Jackson brought the matter up again. Jackson's assistant called PG, saying he wanted PG to hire Murray. He heard Jackson in the background saying, "Offer him $150k, offer him $150k." PG took this to mean per month and called Murray with that offer. Murray initially said he couldn't do it for that. He told Murray the offer came directly from the artist, and Murray immediately said, "I'll take it." Murray told him not to worry about the licensing in London, he'd take care of it. Said he would need equipment, an assistant, and housing for his family in London. PG then put the wheels in motion for Murray's contract to be drafted.
In early June 2009, PG attended meeting at Jackson's home. Ortega felt Michael wasn't where he needed to be in order to be engaged and prepared in time for opening date in London. PG says it's sort of like a football game, where you have to train and get ready, then kick it up ten notches when you hit the stage. Ortega felt Jackson wasn't where needed to be with it at that point in time. Meeting was to address that concern. Jackson, Ortega, Phillips, Dileo, PG and Murray were in attendance. Jackson wasn't defensive, knew they wanted to do what was best for him in preparing for the tour.
Purpose of meeting was to see what they could do for/give to Jackson to get him where he needed to be - eating habits, rehearsal habits, whole engagement process. Jackson was receptive. Murray was very engaged. He listened a lot and tried to understand situation, expressed that he did and knew what he needed to do to get Jackson ready.
Court is adjourned for the day. Jurors are released for the day and will reconvene Wednesday morning at 8:45am PT.
***Please note - since I have several upcoming obligations, I won't have the time to devote to this case as I devoted to the Anthony case. I wanted to get opening statements down for you, and I will blog or tweet other testimony as time allows. Thanks! :)
27 September 2011
Conrad Murray Trial - Day 1 - Witness: Kenneth Ortega (Part 2)
Direct examination of Ortega by Walgren continues after the afternoon break. Ortega plays a June 23 2009 video of Jackson performing "The Way You Make Me Feel" for the jurors. Jackson appears in excellent form, singing and dancing. There is discussion, fine-tuning of the performance as they go along. Ortega testifies the back-up dancers are average age 18-24 [less than half Jackson's age].
Walgren now plays video of "Earth Song," which Ortega says was his last performance/rehearsal ever. Again, Jackson appears fully possessed of his talents in the video. Ortega says after that song, Jackson came down and the two of them watched the rest of the rehearsal with a stand-in doing Jackson's part so they could assess staging, lighting, etc. Ortega testifies that he and Jackson discussed future plans, aside from the "This Is It" tour. Jackson wanted to take it out into the world, perhaps the US. He also wanted to make movies. Jackson invited him to collaborate on a full-length feature of Thriller and his Smooth Criminal character.
End of direct exam.
Ed Chernoff conducts cross-exam of Ortega. He asks about June 20th, when the meeting at Jackson's house occurred. Ortega says he did not speak to the others on the phone about the incident with Jackson prior to sending the email. Ortega thought it was Gongaware who scheduled the meeting, but he is not sure. Chernoff asks if Ortega understood part of purpose of meeting was to discuss missed rehearsals. Ortega said it wasn't brought up to him. Ortega says his comments in email referred to meetings that had occurred prior to that night about Jackson making rehearsals.
Ortega says that was the only meeting he was included in. He wasn't aware of another meeting, but assumes must've taken place regarding the rehearsals, scheduling of Jackson's practice times. Chernoff asks if Ortega knows when Murray made the schedule was made for Jackson. Ortega does not know.
Ortega had expressed concerns prior to the week before Jackson's death about his missing rehearsals. He had conversations with a few people about those concerns, including Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips. Chernoff was concerned they might not make the goal without Jackson's timely participation in rehearsals.
During the meeting at the house, Ortega said he felt Murray had the impression that Ortega had pulled Jackson off rehearsal instead of Jackson's being unable to perform, as if Jackson had told him one thing, then Ortega another.
Chernoff asks if Ortega remembers telling Karen Faye to read Jackson the riot act, not to placate Jackson. Ortega says he would've never used that word, says he might have told her Jackson told him he was taking the reins and could use their support.
Chernoff: Would you agree your success was somewhat tied to Jackson's success with the tour? Yes, says Ortega. Agrees that Jackson's not showing for rehearsals would impact everyone, including him - he'd be unable to do his job.
Chernoff asks whether Jackson was intimately involved in decision-making of production. Ortega says yes, he was. The idea for the 3D effects came from Jackson. He had a hand in all details. Ortega agrees with Chernoff that Jackson understood the historical significance of the tour.
Ortega agrees with Chernoff that Jackson's condition on June 19th scared him; had never seen him before like that. Chernoff: Ever occur to you he might've been on drugs? Ortega: Yes. Chernoff asks if Ortega knew Arnold Klein. Ortega says he'd heard about him but didn't actually know him.
Ortega testifies that he doesn't recall seeing Murray at Staples, but did at The Forum. Had some conversation with Murray. Murray invited him to call if he ever had any concerns about Jackson/scheduling. Murray brought scheduling suggestions to Ortega. One suggestion was that Jackson be allowed to have lunch at home with his children.
Ortega testifies that through April and May, he and Jackson had creative collaborations. As they moved to The Forum/Staples, the scope of production and discussion about them increased. Ortega believes they moved to Staples the week immediately preceding Jackson's death. Thinks they had only 2-3 rehearsals there. Those rehearsals were recorded, as were rehearsals from June 15-19, per Jackson's request (but only when Jackson was there; when he wasn't, they didn't record).
Ortega was hired to help edit videotape for "This Is It" movie by Sony Pictures after Jackson's death. There was footage of behind-the-scenes interviews with staff/performers to be used in a possible video release later.
Chernoff: Is there tape showing Jackson sitting in a chair with a blanket wrapped around him? I haven't seen it, says Ortega. [End of cross, no further direct. Witness is excused, subject to recall.]
Walgren now plays video of "Earth Song," which Ortega says was his last performance/rehearsal ever. Again, Jackson appears fully possessed of his talents in the video. Ortega says after that song, Jackson came down and the two of them watched the rest of the rehearsal with a stand-in doing Jackson's part so they could assess staging, lighting, etc. Ortega testifies that he and Jackson discussed future plans, aside from the "This Is It" tour. Jackson wanted to take it out into the world, perhaps the US. He also wanted to make movies. Jackson invited him to collaborate on a full-length feature of Thriller and his Smooth Criminal character.
End of direct exam.
Ed Chernoff conducts cross-exam of Ortega. He asks about June 20th, when the meeting at Jackson's house occurred. Ortega says he did not speak to the others on the phone about the incident with Jackson prior to sending the email. Ortega thought it was Gongaware who scheduled the meeting, but he is not sure. Chernoff asks if Ortega understood part of purpose of meeting was to discuss missed rehearsals. Ortega said it wasn't brought up to him. Ortega says his comments in email referred to meetings that had occurred prior to that night about Jackson making rehearsals.
Ortega says that was the only meeting he was included in. He wasn't aware of another meeting, but assumes must've taken place regarding the rehearsals, scheduling of Jackson's practice times. Chernoff asks if Ortega knows when Murray made the schedule was made for Jackson. Ortega does not know.
Ortega had expressed concerns prior to the week before Jackson's death about his missing rehearsals. He had conversations with a few people about those concerns, including Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips. Chernoff was concerned they might not make the goal without Jackson's timely participation in rehearsals.
During the meeting at the house, Ortega said he felt Murray had the impression that Ortega had pulled Jackson off rehearsal instead of Jackson's being unable to perform, as if Jackson had told him one thing, then Ortega another.
Chernoff asks if Ortega remembers telling Karen Faye to read Jackson the riot act, not to placate Jackson. Ortega says he would've never used that word, says he might have told her Jackson told him he was taking the reins and could use their support.
Chernoff: Would you agree your success was somewhat tied to Jackson's success with the tour? Yes, says Ortega. Agrees that Jackson's not showing for rehearsals would impact everyone, including him - he'd be unable to do his job.
Chernoff asks whether Jackson was intimately involved in decision-making of production. Ortega says yes, he was. The idea for the 3D effects came from Jackson. He had a hand in all details. Ortega agrees with Chernoff that Jackson understood the historical significance of the tour.
Ortega agrees with Chernoff that Jackson's condition on June 19th scared him; had never seen him before like that. Chernoff: Ever occur to you he might've been on drugs? Ortega: Yes. Chernoff asks if Ortega knew Arnold Klein. Ortega says he'd heard about him but didn't actually know him.
Ortega testifies that he doesn't recall seeing Murray at Staples, but did at The Forum. Had some conversation with Murray. Murray invited him to call if he ever had any concerns about Jackson/scheduling. Murray brought scheduling suggestions to Ortega. One suggestion was that Jackson be allowed to have lunch at home with his children.
Ortega testifies that through April and May, he and Jackson had creative collaborations. As they moved to The Forum/Staples, the scope of production and discussion about them increased. Ortega believes they moved to Staples the week immediately preceding Jackson's death. Thinks they had only 2-3 rehearsals there. Those rehearsals were recorded, as were rehearsals from June 15-19, per Jackson's request (but only when Jackson was there; when he wasn't, they didn't record).
Ortega was hired to help edit videotape for "This Is It" movie by Sony Pictures after Jackson's death. There was footage of behind-the-scenes interviews with staff/performers to be used in a possible video release later.
Chernoff: Is there tape showing Jackson sitting in a chair with a blanket wrapped around him? I haven't seen it, says Ortega. [End of cross, no further direct. Witness is excused, subject to recall.]
Conrad Murray Trial - Day 1 - Witness: Kenneth Ortega
The state calls Kenneth Ortega as its first witness. He lists his extensive background in choreography, stage production. He met Jackson in 1990 when Jackson called to express interest in working with him on the "Dangerous" tour. Ortega was the co-creator of the show and director of the production. Also partnered with Jackson for the "History" tour and some charity productions.
Ortega describes his collaborations with Jackson as fun, inspirational. They collaborated on everything that contributed to the whole of the production - music, effects, costuming, staging, lighting, etc. Michael did the choreography on his own and with others. Ortega supervised the choreography but did not create the dances himself.
"We had a great friendship working together as professionals." Ortega says he didn't see him a great deal outside of that, though in latter years, it was more often contact.
Ortega said he was informed by AEG that Michael had a tour, then Jackson reached out to him personally to be part of the tour. Jackson used the phrase "this is it" several times during their conversation, and Ortega suggested that's what he should name the tour - "This Is It." Ortega began working on the production in mid-April as co-creator and co-director.
Ortega worked with Jackson 4-5 times per week on the preparations. Jackson was very excited, convinced this was the time and that he had great reason to do it. Ortega says Jackson wanted to share what he did with his children (were then of an age to appreciate what he did), wanted to do it for his fans, felt his music applied to the world situation more than ever.
Walgren asks if Jackson's children attended rehearsals. Ortega says they did not, that Jackson was waiting to bring them on tour to the shows in London and wanted them to keep up with their schooling.
Ortega says Jackson told him his songs he'd written about the environment, the planet, the children, were more important than ever and wanted them to be out there and part of the show experience.
During June 2009, production was held at The Forum. Near end of June, moved to The Staples Center, about a week before he died. It was larger and more comparable to the O2 Arena in London where they'd be opening. It was going to be a huge production with enormous, 3D movie screen. All sorts of sets, props, costumes, lighting, special effects, pyrotechnics. The movie screen was Jackson's idea. He and Ortega had created short 3D films to accompany live production so that audiences would have a live 3D experience during the show.
Ortega describes his work with Jackson at The Center Stages. Once at The Forum, the production moved into the staging phase. At Staples Center, they did technical rehearsal, lighting, other elements of the show.
Jackson's rehearsal times were almost always late afternoon into the evening, lasting between five and seven hours. This time included creating, decision-making, rehearsal. Jackson always had the last word on any differences of opinion on creative matters.
Ortega identifies defendant as Dr. Murray. Says he met Murray at Jackson's house when he was there for creative meeting with Jackson one day, he believes April or May. Murray attended a few of the rehearsals at The Forum, but doesn't believe he came to the other two venues.
During a period in June, Jackson wasn't showing up for rehearsals - mid to latter part of June, before they went to Staples. It was the last week at The Forum, approximately. Ortega testifies that he would expect him each day, and it became a continued absence. He was only told that it was a scheduling issue. Didn't have reason to doubt that.
On Friday, June 19, 2009 (he believes it was still at The Forum), Ortega observed that his friend, Jackson, "wasn't right, wasn't well." It deeply troubled him. He was chilled, appeared lost - sort of lost and a little incoherent, although we were conversing and he could answer questions. I did feel he was not well at all, not well enough to rehearse. Ortega offered him food, which he accepted. He put a blanket around him, rubbed his feet, put a heater in the room next to him. They just talked and Jackson asked if he could just sit with him that night and watch rehearsal. That's what they did, for a little less than 2 hrs. Jackson seemed not to be "there," like there was something wrong. He'd never seen Jackson like that before.
Jackson left before the end of rehearsal. Ortega suggested he leave and Jackson agreed. Ortega expressed his concerns in an email to Randy Phillips. He wanted others to know of his concerns about Jackson after his encounter with him that night at rehearsal. Ortega reads the email aloud. He notes in email that Jackson is in perilous shape and desperately needs a therapist to help him; that he may not be able to go forward; terribly worried about him.
Ortega noted in his mail they'd "brought the doctor [Murray] into the fold." He says Murray was setting the schedule for Michael so that he could make rehearsals. "The tough love, now-or-never card" reference was about a meeting outside Ortega's presence wherein Jackson was told unless he showed for rehearsals, they might not be able to make the shows in London.
Ortega mentioned in email that he'd called Jackson's doctor [Murray]. Ortega says he was unable to reach him. "It would shatter him [Jackson], break his heart, if we pulled the plug. He's terribly frightened it will all go away." Ortega says Jackson was always positive and optimistic about the show. He really wanted that tour.
A meeting was held at Jackson's house later that day. It was not previously scheduled. Ortega says he got a call asking him to come to the house, late morning/early afternoon. He assumed meeting would be about Jackson. Randy Phillips, Frank Dileo and Dr. Murray, along with Jackson, were in attendance.
Murray confronted Ortega, upset that Ortega didn't allow Jackson to rehearse and had sent him home. Murray told him he should not try to be the doctor or an amateur psychologist, to leave the medical issues to him and just direct the show. Ortega told Murray it wasn't his choice - Jackson asked to sit it out. Murray told him Jackson was capable of handling all the responsibilities of his show. Ortega was shocked because Jackson did not appear at the time to be physically or emotionally stable.
Ortega says Murray was stern with him, and he responded in kind. Ortega asked Jackson to tell the doctor what happened, that it was his choice to sit it out, and Jackson agreed with Ortega. Jackson told him he was ready and capable and asked him to stay with him. Ortega says he told Jackson he only brought the issues up because he didn't want something bad to befall him. They hugged and Ortega left.
No rehearsal for Sat/Sun/Mon. Next rehearsal was the 23rd of June. Jackson's condition was improved on that date. Was full of energy, enthusiasm, desire to work. "It was a different Michael," Ortega says. On June 24th, Jackson came to rehearsal and was a full participant.
After two successful days of rehearsal, Jackson was feeling great. He asked Ortega if he was happy and Ortega said yes. He asked Jackson if he were happy, too, and Jackson said he was.
June 25, 2009, an illusion was scheduled to take place. It transitioned Jackson from one musical event to another. Michael would stand on a bed in silk flames and then float out over audience in a cherry picker. Jackson was very excited - he loved magic and illusion and was excited the apparatus had arrived and they were going to rehearse it. The night before (the 24th), Jackson asked him to thank everyone and tell them that he loved them. Ortega told him all would be ready when arrived the next day so he could step right into the illusion rehearsal. They said I love you to each other and hugged, then Jackson left.
Ortega arrived the next day to begin working on the illusion. He received a phone call from Paul Gongaware that an ambulance picked Jackson up and that he was at the hospital, in with the doctors, and that he'd call back when he knew more. Paul called him again to tell him that they'd lost Jackson. Ortega says it took a while to feel his feet on the ground, and it was clear everyone in the room was getting messages and calls, that the word had spread. He called everyone together. They joined in a circle, and he informed them of Michael's passing.
Judge calls the mid-afternoon break.
Ortega describes his collaborations with Jackson as fun, inspirational. They collaborated on everything that contributed to the whole of the production - music, effects, costuming, staging, lighting, etc. Michael did the choreography on his own and with others. Ortega supervised the choreography but did not create the dances himself.
"We had a great friendship working together as professionals." Ortega says he didn't see him a great deal outside of that, though in latter years, it was more often contact.
Ortega said he was informed by AEG that Michael had a tour, then Jackson reached out to him personally to be part of the tour. Jackson used the phrase "this is it" several times during their conversation, and Ortega suggested that's what he should name the tour - "This Is It." Ortega began working on the production in mid-April as co-creator and co-director.
Ortega worked with Jackson 4-5 times per week on the preparations. Jackson was very excited, convinced this was the time and that he had great reason to do it. Ortega says Jackson wanted to share what he did with his children (were then of an age to appreciate what he did), wanted to do it for his fans, felt his music applied to the world situation more than ever.
Walgren asks if Jackson's children attended rehearsals. Ortega says they did not, that Jackson was waiting to bring them on tour to the shows in London and wanted them to keep up with their schooling.
Ortega says Jackson told him his songs he'd written about the environment, the planet, the children, were more important than ever and wanted them to be out there and part of the show experience.
During June 2009, production was held at The Forum. Near end of June, moved to The Staples Center, about a week before he died. It was larger and more comparable to the O2 Arena in London where they'd be opening. It was going to be a huge production with enormous, 3D movie screen. All sorts of sets, props, costumes, lighting, special effects, pyrotechnics. The movie screen was Jackson's idea. He and Ortega had created short 3D films to accompany live production so that audiences would have a live 3D experience during the show.
Ortega describes his work with Jackson at The Center Stages. Once at The Forum, the production moved into the staging phase. At Staples Center, they did technical rehearsal, lighting, other elements of the show.
Jackson's rehearsal times were almost always late afternoon into the evening, lasting between five and seven hours. This time included creating, decision-making, rehearsal. Jackson always had the last word on any differences of opinion on creative matters.
Ortega identifies defendant as Dr. Murray. Says he met Murray at Jackson's house when he was there for creative meeting with Jackson one day, he believes April or May. Murray attended a few of the rehearsals at The Forum, but doesn't believe he came to the other two venues.
During a period in June, Jackson wasn't showing up for rehearsals - mid to latter part of June, before they went to Staples. It was the last week at The Forum, approximately. Ortega testifies that he would expect him each day, and it became a continued absence. He was only told that it was a scheduling issue. Didn't have reason to doubt that.
On Friday, June 19, 2009 (he believes it was still at The Forum), Ortega observed that his friend, Jackson, "wasn't right, wasn't well." It deeply troubled him. He was chilled, appeared lost - sort of lost and a little incoherent, although we were conversing and he could answer questions. I did feel he was not well at all, not well enough to rehearse. Ortega offered him food, which he accepted. He put a blanket around him, rubbed his feet, put a heater in the room next to him. They just talked and Jackson asked if he could just sit with him that night and watch rehearsal. That's what they did, for a little less than 2 hrs. Jackson seemed not to be "there," like there was something wrong. He'd never seen Jackson like that before.
Jackson left before the end of rehearsal. Ortega suggested he leave and Jackson agreed. Ortega expressed his concerns in an email to Randy Phillips. He wanted others to know of his concerns about Jackson after his encounter with him that night at rehearsal. Ortega reads the email aloud. He notes in email that Jackson is in perilous shape and desperately needs a therapist to help him; that he may not be able to go forward; terribly worried about him.
Ortega noted in his mail they'd "brought the doctor [Murray] into the fold." He says Murray was setting the schedule for Michael so that he could make rehearsals. "The tough love, now-or-never card" reference was about a meeting outside Ortega's presence wherein Jackson was told unless he showed for rehearsals, they might not be able to make the shows in London.
Ortega mentioned in email that he'd called Jackson's doctor [Murray]. Ortega says he was unable to reach him. "It would shatter him [Jackson], break his heart, if we pulled the plug. He's terribly frightened it will all go away." Ortega says Jackson was always positive and optimistic about the show. He really wanted that tour.
A meeting was held at Jackson's house later that day. It was not previously scheduled. Ortega says he got a call asking him to come to the house, late morning/early afternoon. He assumed meeting would be about Jackson. Randy Phillips, Frank Dileo and Dr. Murray, along with Jackson, were in attendance.
Murray confronted Ortega, upset that Ortega didn't allow Jackson to rehearse and had sent him home. Murray told him he should not try to be the doctor or an amateur psychologist, to leave the medical issues to him and just direct the show. Ortega told Murray it wasn't his choice - Jackson asked to sit it out. Murray told him Jackson was capable of handling all the responsibilities of his show. Ortega was shocked because Jackson did not appear at the time to be physically or emotionally stable.
Ortega says Murray was stern with him, and he responded in kind. Ortega asked Jackson to tell the doctor what happened, that it was his choice to sit it out, and Jackson agreed with Ortega. Jackson told him he was ready and capable and asked him to stay with him. Ortega says he told Jackson he only brought the issues up because he didn't want something bad to befall him. They hugged and Ortega left.
No rehearsal for Sat/Sun/Mon. Next rehearsal was the 23rd of June. Jackson's condition was improved on that date. Was full of energy, enthusiasm, desire to work. "It was a different Michael," Ortega says. On June 24th, Jackson came to rehearsal and was a full participant.
After two successful days of rehearsal, Jackson was feeling great. He asked Ortega if he was happy and Ortega said yes. He asked Jackson if he were happy, too, and Jackson said he was.
June 25, 2009, an illusion was scheduled to take place. It transitioned Jackson from one musical event to another. Michael would stand on a bed in silk flames and then float out over audience in a cherry picker. Jackson was very excited - he loved magic and illusion and was excited the apparatus had arrived and they were going to rehearse it. The night before (the 24th), Jackson asked him to thank everyone and tell them that he loved them. Ortega told him all would be ready when arrived the next day so he could step right into the illusion rehearsal. They said I love you to each other and hugged, then Jackson left.
Ortega arrived the next day to begin working on the illusion. He received a phone call from Paul Gongaware that an ambulance picked Jackson up and that he was at the hospital, in with the doctors, and that he'd call back when he knew more. Paul called him again to tell him that they'd lost Jackson. Ortega says it took a while to feel his feet on the ground, and it was clear everyone in the room was getting messages and calls, that the word had spread. He called everyone together. They joined in a circle, and he informed them of Michael's passing.
Judge calls the mid-afternoon break.
Conrad Murray Trial - Day 1 - Defense Opening Statement (Cont)
After the lunch break, Ed Chernoff resumes his opening statement for the defense:
Dr. White will tell you that both administration of Propofol is a matter of degree. Like with other medicines - with Tylenol, taking 1 might get rid of headache, but taking too many might get rid of your liver.
Propofol dissipates. Clinical effects disappear much more quickly than other drugs, regardless how much someone is given. When given 25mg, it will dissipate and not be in the blood in ten minutes. Same is true for larger amounts - after 10 mins, nothing is left. [I'm wondering why any was found at all, then.]
The amount found in toxicology is consistent with major surgery, invasive surgery. We believe experts, both state and defense, will say that is an amount larger than 100mg. You'll hear testimony from a coroner investigator of what was at the scene, things that were found.
We will demonstrate that it was not only improbable that there was a drip, but that it was impossible. So the question you will have in jury room will be, "How did Michael Jackson get more Propofol?" This is what you will wrestle with.
An act cannot be cause of death unless it's a "substantial factor." This is the language we believe you will have in jury room - you will be told that an act can only be a cause of death if it is the natural and probable consequence of the act, one a reasonable person is likely to know might happen if nothing intervenes.
We believe Dr. White will tell you that Murray could not have killed Jackson, could not be responsible for his death; that the amounts Murray gave weren't capable of causing death; that the precautions taken were sufficient; that if Murray had given such amount, it would not be measurable after ten minutes. Science will prove that there had to be more Propofol taken by Jackson when Murray left the room. If the drugs Jackson received on the 25th were exactly what Murray reported, would that have killed Jackson? Every one of them will tell you no, that there had to be more delivered/provided/taken by Jackson after Murray left that room.
The defense believes the delivery of that Propofol was by Michael Jackson himself.
We believe what happened with the Lorazepam shows the state of mind Jackson was in. It was in great, high amounts in his system. Murray gave him 4mg. If he'd given enough to Jackson to reach the level found in toxicology, he'd have to have given Jackson a huge number of shots [didn't catch the number per hour]. Amount in Jackson's stomach was four times greater than in his bloodstream. He had to have swallowed them for it to show up in his stomach, not by injection.
Because Murray wouldn't give him the Propofol he wanted, Jackson swallowed up to 8 pills on his own without permission from his doctor. When Murray left the room, Jackson self-administered an additional dose of Propofol, and it killed him instantly - no way to save him.
This is an emotional case. The whole thing is tragic, Chernoff says, but the evidence is not going to show Dr. Murray did it. He is an imperfect man, as we all are, but in this criminal court, he is not guilty. [End of Defense Opening Statement]
Dr. White will tell you that both administration of Propofol is a matter of degree. Like with other medicines - with Tylenol, taking 1 might get rid of headache, but taking too many might get rid of your liver.
Propofol dissipates. Clinical effects disappear much more quickly than other drugs, regardless how much someone is given. When given 25mg, it will dissipate and not be in the blood in ten minutes. Same is true for larger amounts - after 10 mins, nothing is left. [I'm wondering why any was found at all, then.]
The amount found in toxicology is consistent with major surgery, invasive surgery. We believe experts, both state and defense, will say that is an amount larger than 100mg. You'll hear testimony from a coroner investigator of what was at the scene, things that were found.
We will demonstrate that it was not only improbable that there was a drip, but that it was impossible. So the question you will have in jury room will be, "How did Michael Jackson get more Propofol?" This is what you will wrestle with.
An act cannot be cause of death unless it's a "substantial factor." This is the language we believe you will have in jury room - you will be told that an act can only be a cause of death if it is the natural and probable consequence of the act, one a reasonable person is likely to know might happen if nothing intervenes.
We believe Dr. White will tell you that Murray could not have killed Jackson, could not be responsible for his death; that the amounts Murray gave weren't capable of causing death; that the precautions taken were sufficient; that if Murray had given such amount, it would not be measurable after ten minutes. Science will prove that there had to be more Propofol taken by Jackson when Murray left the room. If the drugs Jackson received on the 25th were exactly what Murray reported, would that have killed Jackson? Every one of them will tell you no, that there had to be more delivered/provided/taken by Jackson after Murray left that room.
The defense believes the delivery of that Propofol was by Michael Jackson himself.
We believe what happened with the Lorazepam shows the state of mind Jackson was in. It was in great, high amounts in his system. Murray gave him 4mg. If he'd given enough to Jackson to reach the level found in toxicology, he'd have to have given Jackson a huge number of shots [didn't catch the number per hour]. Amount in Jackson's stomach was four times greater than in his bloodstream. He had to have swallowed them for it to show up in his stomach, not by injection.
Because Murray wouldn't give him the Propofol he wanted, Jackson swallowed up to 8 pills on his own without permission from his doctor. When Murray left the room, Jackson self-administered an additional dose of Propofol, and it killed him instantly - no way to save him.
This is an emotional case. The whole thing is tragic, Chernoff says, but the evidence is not going to show Dr. Murray did it. He is an imperfect man, as we all are, but in this criminal court, he is not guilty. [End of Defense Opening Statement]
Conrad Murray Trial - Day 1 - Defense Opening Statement
After a brief break, Ed Chernoff delivers the defense's opening statement:
At the end of the trial, you'll be asked to determine whether Dr. Murray committed a crime, not whether he was a good doctor in the abstract. You'll be asked to determine who/what was the cause of Jackson's death. We believe the pure science will show you that, despite anything in the past or earlier that day, Jackson was frustrated because his doctor wouldn't give him the medication he wanted. He committed an act that caused his own death. Jackson swallowed numerous Lorazepam, enough to put six people to sleep. He did this when Murray was not around.
When Murray left the room, Jackson self-administered propofol. Along with Lorazepam, it created a perfect storm that killed him instantly. When Murray came back into the room, there was no doctor or machine that could revive Jackson. He died instantly, so quickly he didn't even have time to close his eyes.
The defense is not required to put on evidence, but we will...we will put on the science to show you what happened. We will provide you answers to two questions: First, how did Jackson get to this desperate point? Second, what happened when Murray was out of the room?
Jackson wanted to create history with his O2 Arena concert. You'll hear from witnesses that Jackson had not performed for 10 yrs. This particular series of concerts was going to be his absolution - he needed to do these shows. They will tell you he was intimately involved in every aspect of production.
Jackson wasn't just brilliant artistically; he was a smart man and was involved in every aspect of planning. The dance, the music, the writing - it was all his. This was going to be his memory - he needed to do these shows.
Randy Phillips will tell you it wasn't going to end with "This Is It." If he completed the series, he had the opportunity for a world tour, in four segments. You'll see in his own handwriting his plans for 4 or 5 movies. This equated to hundreds of millions of dollars for Jackson. All he had to do was complete the O2 series.
The problem was that he was never going to be able to do these shows. Jackson had a problem that no amount of determination and talent would ever overcome. He knew he needed help. In the spring of 2009, he went out looking for that help.
When Murray left the room, Jackson self-administered propofol. Along with Lorazepam, it created a perfect storm that killed him instantly. When Murray came back into the room, there was no doctor or machine that could revive Jackson. He died instantly, so quickly he didn't even have time to close his eyes.
The defense is not required to put on evidence, but we will...we will put on the science to show you what happened. We will provide you answers to two questions: First, how did Jackson get to this desperate point? Second, what happened when Murray was out of the room?
Jackson wanted to create history with his O2 Arena concert. You'll hear from witnesses that Jackson had not performed for 10 yrs. This particular series of concerts was going to be his absolution - he needed to do these shows. They will tell you he was intimately involved in every aspect of production.
Jackson wasn't just brilliant artistically; he was a smart man and was involved in every aspect of planning. The dance, the music, the writing - it was all his. This was going to be his memory - he needed to do these shows.
Randy Phillips will tell you it wasn't going to end with "This Is It." If he completed the series, he had the opportunity for a world tour, in four segments. You'll see in his own handwriting his plans for 4 or 5 movies. This equated to hundreds of millions of dollars for Jackson. All he had to do was complete the O2 series.
The problem was that he was never going to be able to do these shows. Jackson had a problem that no amount of determination and talent would ever overcome. He knew he needed help. In the spring of 2009, he went out looking for that help.
Randy Phillips will tell you that in summer of 2008, there were initial negotiations for "This Is It." In October 2008, he met with Jackson and others at a hotel to discuss the parameters of the show.
Jackson cried during the meeting. He said, "I'm tired of being a vagabond. I just want a house for me and my kids."
In January 2009 Jackson met with Phillips again to sign the contract. Jackson signed for himself and as president of Michael Jackson Company. Jackson was nervous. Contract read "for up to 31 shows," and Jackson was afraid he wouldn't sell the tickets. It sold so quickly that a mere week after pre-sales, they had to increase the shows to 50. Jackson agreed to that on 2 conditions: 1) that he had a house for him and his children with 16 acres and horses; and 2) that Guiness Book of World Records would be there to document the historic event.
In March 2009, the announcement was made at O2 Arena. During the entire process - negotiations, contract signings, discussions about the tour - Dr. Murray was helping patients. You'll hear during trial who Murray really is. He is no celebrity doctor - has no office dispensing pills to rich and famous. He's an interventional cardiologist. He has two offices - one in Houston and one in Vegas. He performs angioplasty every week, procedures that require anesthesia/sedation. He takes care of people who have had, or are about to have, a heart attack. That's who he was, who he is.
Mr. Walgren said the $150k/month was so lucrative that Murray would provide any medication for Jackson. We'll bring you patients of Dr. Murray who will testify about what means most to Murray.
Jackson cried during the meeting. He said, "I'm tired of being a vagabond. I just want a house for me and my kids."
In January 2009 Jackson met with Phillips again to sign the contract. Jackson signed for himself and as president of Michael Jackson Company. Jackson was nervous. Contract read "for up to 31 shows," and Jackson was afraid he wouldn't sell the tickets. It sold so quickly that a mere week after pre-sales, they had to increase the shows to 50. Jackson agreed to that on 2 conditions: 1) that he had a house for him and his children with 16 acres and horses; and 2) that Guiness Book of World Records would be there to document the historic event.
In March 2009, the announcement was made at O2 Arena. During the entire process - negotiations, contract signings, discussions about the tour - Dr. Murray was helping patients. You'll hear during trial who Murray really is. He is no celebrity doctor - has no office dispensing pills to rich and famous. He's an interventional cardiologist. He has two offices - one in Houston and one in Vegas. He performs angioplasty every week, procedures that require anesthesia/sedation. He takes care of people who have had, or are about to have, a heart attack. That's who he was, who he is.
Mr. Walgren said the $150k/month was so lucrative that Murray would provide any medication for Jackson. We'll bring you patients of Dr. Murray who will testify about what means most to Murray.
Chernoff relates story of one witness who will tell how Murray opened up cardiac care clinic in poorest part of town, where there's no money to be made. When patients came to see Murray, he didn't ask how they were going to pay. He would treat them anyway, even if they couldn't, even bought medicine for some patients. You need to hear the full story about Murray, and we'll provide it.
Murray met Jackson in Vegas in 2006 when one of Jackson's bodyguards (whose father Murray had saved) called on Murray when Jackson's child was sick. From 2006-2008, Murray treated Jackson for things like toe fungus, broken foot, lab work. They were friends. On two occasions, Jackson told Murray that he had anxiety and trouble sleeping. Murray, who did not know of "real" problem Jackson had, prescribed Restoril. For Jackson, it was about as effective as water.
Jackson didn't have insomnia. He didn't have trouble going to sleep. He had an absolute, total and thorough inability to sleep. Not for minutes or hours, but for days.
Chernoff says that on June 27, 2009, two days after Jackson's death, he and Dr. Murray met with detectives. The only thing that we chose was the location (because we were staying there) and the time (because we had to fly in). Everything else was decided by police.
We scheduled meeting for 2pm, but they rescheduled it for 4pm. Det. Smith had already toured Jackson home twice, attended autopsy, interviewed hospital staff, all prior to speaking to Dr. Murray. No limitations on what could be asked of Murray, no time limit. He answered all questions thoroughly.
Murray told detectives, "I don't know what killed Michael Jackson; I want to know also."
At the meeting with detectives, Murray told them about Jackson's sleep problems. He told them about the discussions in spring 2009, when Jackson came to him and asked him for help. What you will hear is Dr. Murray talking about Jackson's desperation, his need. He told Murray he had an inability to sleep, and the only way he could sleep was on Propofol. He told Murray how it needed to be applied (with Lidocaine). He had a nickname for Propofol - "milk." He nicknamed Lidocaine "anti-burn."
Murray said Jackson was going to use it with or without Murray's help, so Murray agreed to help him sleep, to provide the Propofol. Chernoff says the state claims that the mere act of providing Propofol is negligent. "What you'll learn, though," he says, "is that Murray provided Propofol for sleep for 2 mos for Jackson. For those 2 mos, Jackson slept, woke up and lived his life. He went to work and continued what he felt he needed to do."
Evidence will not show you that Jackson died when Murray gave him Propofol for sleep. It will show Jackson died when Murray stopped giving it. What you will learn is that Murray told police he felt his role was to help Michael Jackson find a way to sleep, but he discussed with Jackson that he couldn't keep using Propofol forever.
Murray ordered benzos, hoping he could switch to those to wean Jackson off of Propofol so he could sleep naturally. What he told police was that the day Jackson died was the 3rd day of a weaning process. Three days before he died, Jackson finally agreed to cooperate to get him off of Propofol. On that day, Murray gave half the amount he'd normally give (normal would be 25 mg + drip to keep level up). He gave him 25 mg and the benzos. And Jackson slept, then got up and went to work. The next day, he gave Jackson no Propofol at all. First night in 2 mos he slept without Propofol, used only the benzos.
The night before he died, the plan was not to give Propofol, but to go to the benzos. For 10 hrs, Murray refused to give him Propofol, instead giving benzos. As 10:00am approached, Jackson started begging for Propofol. Murray was confused - didn't understand why the medications weren't making him sleep. Felt under bed to see if meds had leaked out.
Evidence will reveal certain personality traits Jackson had. He had a habit of compartmentalizing relationships, packaging them, like spokes in a wheel. The wheel turned, but the groups of people were like spokes - they rarely, if ever, touched. His security staff knew where he went because they took him, but they weren't allowed inside the house. President of AEG had to go through Michael Amir Williams, his assistant, in order to talk to Jackson.
You'll hear about situations with Jackson's family. One of the spokes in Jackson's wheel was a Beverly Hills doctor - Dr. Arnold Klein. We can't call him as a witness, nor his staff, but we can provide medical records subpoenaed showing treatment he received in Klein's office.
Murray met Jackson in Vegas in 2006 when one of Jackson's bodyguards (whose father Murray had saved) called on Murray when Jackson's child was sick. From 2006-2008, Murray treated Jackson for things like toe fungus, broken foot, lab work. They were friends. On two occasions, Jackson told Murray that he had anxiety and trouble sleeping. Murray, who did not know of "real" problem Jackson had, prescribed Restoril. For Jackson, it was about as effective as water.
Jackson didn't have insomnia. He didn't have trouble going to sleep. He had an absolute, total and thorough inability to sleep. Not for minutes or hours, but for days.
Chernoff says that on June 27, 2009, two days after Jackson's death, he and Dr. Murray met with detectives. The only thing that we chose was the location (because we were staying there) and the time (because we had to fly in). Everything else was decided by police.
We scheduled meeting for 2pm, but they rescheduled it for 4pm. Det. Smith had already toured Jackson home twice, attended autopsy, interviewed hospital staff, all prior to speaking to Dr. Murray. No limitations on what could be asked of Murray, no time limit. He answered all questions thoroughly.
Murray told detectives, "I don't know what killed Michael Jackson; I want to know also."
At the meeting with detectives, Murray told them about Jackson's sleep problems. He told them about the discussions in spring 2009, when Jackson came to him and asked him for help. What you will hear is Dr. Murray talking about Jackson's desperation, his need. He told Murray he had an inability to sleep, and the only way he could sleep was on Propofol. He told Murray how it needed to be applied (with Lidocaine). He had a nickname for Propofol - "milk." He nicknamed Lidocaine "anti-burn."
Murray said Jackson was going to use it with or without Murray's help, so Murray agreed to help him sleep, to provide the Propofol. Chernoff says the state claims that the mere act of providing Propofol is negligent. "What you'll learn, though," he says, "is that Murray provided Propofol for sleep for 2 mos for Jackson. For those 2 mos, Jackson slept, woke up and lived his life. He went to work and continued what he felt he needed to do."
Evidence will not show you that Jackson died when Murray gave him Propofol for sleep. It will show Jackson died when Murray stopped giving it. What you will learn is that Murray told police he felt his role was to help Michael Jackson find a way to sleep, but he discussed with Jackson that he couldn't keep using Propofol forever.
Murray ordered benzos, hoping he could switch to those to wean Jackson off of Propofol so he could sleep naturally. What he told police was that the day Jackson died was the 3rd day of a weaning process. Three days before he died, Jackson finally agreed to cooperate to get him off of Propofol. On that day, Murray gave half the amount he'd normally give (normal would be 25 mg + drip to keep level up). He gave him 25 mg and the benzos. And Jackson slept, then got up and went to work. The next day, he gave Jackson no Propofol at all. First night in 2 mos he slept without Propofol, used only the benzos.
The night before he died, the plan was not to give Propofol, but to go to the benzos. For 10 hrs, Murray refused to give him Propofol, instead giving benzos. As 10:00am approached, Jackson started begging for Propofol. Murray was confused - didn't understand why the medications weren't making him sleep. Felt under bed to see if meds had leaked out.
Evidence will reveal certain personality traits Jackson had. He had a habit of compartmentalizing relationships, packaging them, like spokes in a wheel. The wheel turned, but the groups of people were like spokes - they rarely, if ever, touched. His security staff knew where he went because they took him, but they weren't allowed inside the house. President of AEG had to go through Michael Amir Williams, his assistant, in order to talk to Jackson.
You'll hear about situations with Jackson's family. One of the spokes in Jackson's wheel was a Beverly Hills doctor - Dr. Arnold Klein. We can't call him as a witness, nor his staff, but we can provide medical records subpoenaed showing treatment he received in Klein's office.
Klein is a dermatologist. You will learn that Jackson would visit him up to 3-4 times per week and receive Botox or Restalyne, perhaps a blemish removal. On each of those occasions, though, he'd also receive a shot of Demerol - sometimes 100, 200, 300mg. There were weeks where he received over 1,000mg in one week.
We will present an addiction specialist, a doctor. We will show Dr. Arnold Klein addicted Jackson to Demerol. One of the most insidious things about Demerol and its withdrawal for some patients is an absolute inability to sleep. When Murray was checking under sheets to see where medicine was going, Murray wasn't part of the package - he didn't know Jackson was receiving this Demerol.
The addiction specialist will talk about events in the week leading up to death. He will tell you that Jackson was suffering from the Demerol withdrawal, and the insomnia was a result of that. Jackson told Murray he couldn't sleep because his mind was always racing with plans, ideas. But it was also the Demerol.
Murray explained in great detail what happened when he agreed to give the 25mg of Propofol. You will hear what transpired between Murray and Jackson at that time. Jackson told Murray around 10:50am that, "If I don't sleep - if I don't get some sleep - I can't complete my rehearsal. If I can't complete rehearsal, I can't do my show. I will disappoint my fans. I will fail if I can't perform."
The conversation at the emergency meeting at Jackson's house was actually about pulling the plug on the tour, Chernoff says. When Jackson told Murray the above, he meant it and Dr. Murray knew he meant it.
Murray knew Jackson had to be up at noon. Knew Jackson already had benzos in his system. He agreed to give Propofol, but only 25mg injection. He pulled Lidocaine into the syringe as well. Toxicology will bear that out. When Murray did this, Jackson finally went to sleep. Murray checked pulse oximeter - saturation was in the 90s, very good. Pulse was in 90s, normal for Jackson.
He left only when he felt comfortable about Jackson. When Murray left that room, there was zero Propofol in Jackson's system, and we'll explain why that was. As I told you during jury selection, this is a scientific case. Listen to the science, and you'll know the truth.
I want you to know exactly what Propofol is and what it isn't, because in this case, that's going to matter. We will put experts on the stand. Dr. Paul White is the preeminent expert on Propofol. He is internationally known for IV Anesthetic Medicine. One of the state's experts was his student. He is known by his peers as the "father" of Propofol. He developed the protocol for using Propofol for conscious sedation in this country.
White will tell you things about Propofol you may not have heard:
Propofol is normally used as intraveneous drug (injected or dripped).
We will present an addiction specialist, a doctor. We will show Dr. Arnold Klein addicted Jackson to Demerol. One of the most insidious things about Demerol and its withdrawal for some patients is an absolute inability to sleep. When Murray was checking under sheets to see where medicine was going, Murray wasn't part of the package - he didn't know Jackson was receiving this Demerol.
The addiction specialist will talk about events in the week leading up to death. He will tell you that Jackson was suffering from the Demerol withdrawal, and the insomnia was a result of that. Jackson told Murray he couldn't sleep because his mind was always racing with plans, ideas. But it was also the Demerol.
Murray explained in great detail what happened when he agreed to give the 25mg of Propofol. You will hear what transpired between Murray and Jackson at that time. Jackson told Murray around 10:50am that, "If I don't sleep - if I don't get some sleep - I can't complete my rehearsal. If I can't complete rehearsal, I can't do my show. I will disappoint my fans. I will fail if I can't perform."
The conversation at the emergency meeting at Jackson's house was actually about pulling the plug on the tour, Chernoff says. When Jackson told Murray the above, he meant it and Dr. Murray knew he meant it.
Murray knew Jackson had to be up at noon. Knew Jackson already had benzos in his system. He agreed to give Propofol, but only 25mg injection. He pulled Lidocaine into the syringe as well. Toxicology will bear that out. When Murray did this, Jackson finally went to sleep. Murray checked pulse oximeter - saturation was in the 90s, very good. Pulse was in 90s, normal for Jackson.
He left only when he felt comfortable about Jackson. When Murray left that room, there was zero Propofol in Jackson's system, and we'll explain why that was. As I told you during jury selection, this is a scientific case. Listen to the science, and you'll know the truth.
I want you to know exactly what Propofol is and what it isn't, because in this case, that's going to matter. We will put experts on the stand. Dr. Paul White is the preeminent expert on Propofol. He is internationally known for IV Anesthetic Medicine. One of the state's experts was his student. He is known by his peers as the "father" of Propofol. He developed the protocol for using Propofol for conscious sedation in this country.
White will tell you things about Propofol you may not have heard:
Propofol is normally used as intraveneous drug (injected or dripped).
Propofol is not a poison, not a neurotoxin. Has one job - to induce sleep, including general anesthesia for invasive surgery. PDR states that amount of Propofol used for that is 2mg per kilogram of body weight - approximately 130mg for Jackson's size.
With that much Propofol, there is not just a danger it will stop your heart, but a risk of an apnea event. If you have that much Propofol, you can't wake up to stop the apnea. But Propofol is most often used not for invasive surgeries, but for sedation - in amounts far less than it would be for those dangerous procedures.
Chernoff says it's a matter of degree. Given in amounts of 25-50mg (conscious sedation), there is no danger of an airway restriction. No risk of cardiac effect. That info comes from the American Anesthesiology for Non-Anesthetists protocol, he says. "It's a known fact."
Murray gave Jackson 25mg on the day of Jackson's death. It's a matter of degree, Chernoff repeats.
The noon recess is called by Judge Pastor. Court resumes at 1:30 PT (4:30 ET).
Murray gave Jackson 25mg on the day of Jackson's death. It's a matter of degree, Chernoff repeats.
The noon recess is called by Judge Pastor. Court resumes at 1:30 PT (4:30 ET).
Again, remember I'm blogging as we go along, so please overlook typos.
Conrad Murray Trial - Day 1 - State's Opening Statement
The Conrad Murray trial began today. Murray is charged with involuntary manslaughter based on gross negligence in his extreme deviation from standard of medical care of Michael Jackson. I'm live blogging as we go, so please forgive any typos. Will try to catch/correct as time permits. Please note that I am not in the courtroom (using a live stream).
David Walgren delivers the state's opening statement. Walgren says that Michael Jackson "literally put his life in the hands of Conrad Murray." "That misplaced trust, in the hands of Conrad Murray, cost Michael Jackson his life."
Propofol and other drugs were administered by Murray on the date of Jackson's death. Levels of Propofol were similar to those for general anesthesia. Lorazepam also present in significant amount and heightened effects of Propofol.
The investigation centered on the day before and day of death. The day before, Jackson was strong and practicing "The Earth Song" at rehearsals. The next day, he was dead. What happened during that time frame? The actions of Murray directly led to Jackson's premature death.
Murray repeatedly acted with gross negligence and denied appropriate care to his patient. His repeated incompetent and unskilled acts led to Jackson's death.
Jackson was preparing for the "This Is It" tour, to begin in London. He wanted his children to have the opportunity to see him perform before a large crowd. Rehearsals began in May 2009 in Burbank with various members of production team. They then moved to The Forum for most of June, then moved to Staples Center.
Murray was a medical doctor. Was not anesthesiologist, was not board certified as cardiology specialist, nor any other specialty. Murray and Jackson met in Vegas in 2006. Murray treated Michael and his children for various minor ailments in Vegas. They maintained contact.
Offer was made for Murray to accompany Jackson on his tour. Murray wanted $5 million, but that was rejected and a counteroffer of $150k per month was offered and accepted instead. The contract, however, was never signed by all parties. Conrad Murray signed it June 24, 2009, but neither AEG nor Jackson reps had signed it.
Murray sent a goodbye mail to his clients saying that, due to a once in a lifetime opportunity, he was suspending his practice of medicine indefinitely.
What is Propofol? It's a general anesthetic. It's not a sleep aid or sleep agent - it's a general anesthetic. It is a wonderful drug if used by someone who knows what they're doing. It has a quick onset of sedation and rapid return to consciousness with minimal postoperative nausea.
Propofol and other drugs were administered by Murray on the date of Jackson's death. Levels of Propofol were similar to those for general anesthesia. Lorazepam also present in significant amount and heightened effects of Propofol.
The investigation centered on the day before and day of death. The day before, Jackson was strong and practicing "The Earth Song" at rehearsals. The next day, he was dead. What happened during that time frame? The actions of Murray directly led to Jackson's premature death.
Murray repeatedly acted with gross negligence and denied appropriate care to his patient. His repeated incompetent and unskilled acts led to Jackson's death.
Jackson was preparing for the "This Is It" tour, to begin in London. He wanted his children to have the opportunity to see him perform before a large crowd. Rehearsals began in May 2009 in Burbank with various members of production team. They then moved to The Forum for most of June, then moved to Staples Center.
Murray was a medical doctor. Was not anesthesiologist, was not board certified as cardiology specialist, nor any other specialty. Murray and Jackson met in Vegas in 2006. Murray treated Michael and his children for various minor ailments in Vegas. They maintained contact.
Offer was made for Murray to accompany Jackson on his tour. Murray wanted $5 million, but that was rejected and a counteroffer of $150k per month was offered and accepted instead. The contract, however, was never signed by all parties. Conrad Murray signed it June 24, 2009, but neither AEG nor Jackson reps had signed it.
Murray sent a goodbye mail to his clients saying that, due to a once in a lifetime opportunity, he was suspending his practice of medicine indefinitely.
What is Propofol? It's a general anesthetic. It's not a sleep aid or sleep agent - it's a general anesthetic. It is a wonderful drug if used by someone who knows what they're doing. It has a quick onset of sedation and rapid return to consciousness with minimal postoperative nausea.
Unfavorable properties must be respected by doctor administering such a dangerous drug, including respiratory and cardiovascular depression. If not knowledgeable and prepared, those dangers can become deadly quickly. Continuous monitoring is mandatory, according to the included prescribing information.
Propofol comes in 100ml and 20ml vials. For each ml, there are 10mg propofol. Murray sought out pharmacy, was not honest with pharmacist. Told him he had a clinic in CA, but it was actually the apartment of his girlfriend. Shipments began from Applied Pharmacy in Vegas to the apt of that girlfriend on April 6, 2009.
In that April 6th shipment were 10 of the 100ml vials and 25 of the 20ml vials. On April 28th, there was a shipment of 40 of the 100 ml vials and 25 of the 20ml vials. On April 30th, a shipment of 10 vials of lorazepam and 20 of midazolam.
May 10, 2009, Murray made voice recording on his iPhone. On that recording are the voices of both Jackson and Murray. The recording documents Jackson highly under the influence, with Murray nearby, recording on his phone. It reveals Murray's knowledge of Jackson's state on May 10th.
Walgren plays clip:
Audio is Jackson describing that he wants people to come to his show and leave thinking it was the greatest show and he was the greatest entertainer ever, and he wanted to take the money and set up the biggest children's hospital in the world. His speech is extremely slow and slurred.
Despite seeing Jackson in that state, Murray orders even more medication - a total of 45,000 mg of propofol. June 10th, Murray orders additional 50,000 mg of propofol. From April to June, he ordered 155,000 mg or 15.5 liters/4.09 gallons of propofol, all within span of 80 days. Based on those shipments, that equals dosing of 1937.50 mg of propofol per DAY.
June 19 2009, Jackson showed up in poor shape for rehearsal - chills, trembling, cold, rambling. Kenny Ortega was concerned. Had never seen Jackson in that state before. Jackson did not rehearse that day. Ortega put a blanket around him, massaged his feet to try to warm him. Jackson ended up going home because of his poor physical state.
Meeting was called at Jackson's house among Murray, Ortega and others the next day concerning Jackson's health. Murray scolded Ortega for his concern, told him to leave the doctoring to him.
Propofol comes in 100ml and 20ml vials. For each ml, there are 10mg propofol. Murray sought out pharmacy, was not honest with pharmacist. Told him he had a clinic in CA, but it was actually the apartment of his girlfriend. Shipments began from Applied Pharmacy in Vegas to the apt of that girlfriend on April 6, 2009.
In that April 6th shipment were 10 of the 100ml vials and 25 of the 20ml vials. On April 28th, there was a shipment of 40 of the 100 ml vials and 25 of the 20ml vials. On April 30th, a shipment of 10 vials of lorazepam and 20 of midazolam.
May 10, 2009, Murray made voice recording on his iPhone. On that recording are the voices of both Jackson and Murray. The recording documents Jackson highly under the influence, with Murray nearby, recording on his phone. It reveals Murray's knowledge of Jackson's state on May 10th.
Walgren plays clip:
Audio is Jackson describing that he wants people to come to his show and leave thinking it was the greatest show and he was the greatest entertainer ever, and he wanted to take the money and set up the biggest children's hospital in the world. His speech is extremely slow and slurred.
Despite seeing Jackson in that state, Murray orders even more medication - a total of 45,000 mg of propofol. June 10th, Murray orders additional 50,000 mg of propofol. From April to June, he ordered 155,000 mg or 15.5 liters/4.09 gallons of propofol, all within span of 80 days. Based on those shipments, that equals dosing of 1937.50 mg of propofol per DAY.
June 19 2009, Jackson showed up in poor shape for rehearsal - chills, trembling, cold, rambling. Kenny Ortega was concerned. Had never seen Jackson in that state before. Jackson did not rehearse that day. Ortega put a blanket around him, massaged his feet to try to warm him. Jackson ended up going home because of his poor physical state.
Meeting was called at Jackson's house among Murray, Ortega and others the next day concerning Jackson's health. Murray scolded Ortega for his concern, told him to leave the doctoring to him.
Rehearsals did not take place 21st or 22nd, but did resume June 23rd. Video from that day shows Michael appearing strong, looking forward to the tour. The next day, same thing. Michael was excited because the next day they were going to practice an illusion for the show. He never returned to Staples Center.
Murray spent the night at Jackson's house every night for almost 2 months. In his own words, his purpose was to put Michael to sleep with Propofol.
Walgren shows the jury a diagram of Jackson's home, along with photos of rooms in the house, including Jackson's bedroom and the bed in which he died.
What transpired from 1:00am until Jackson's death the next day? Law enforcement investigation shows Murray very busy on the phone that night/morning, including phone calls, emails, text messages. There was an email from the insurance broker in London trying to collect medical records so they can get the insurance set up. Murray responded at 11:17am on June 25th, saying that reports about Jackson's poor health were "fallacious."
Walgren shows chart of phone calls made/taken by Murray that morning. For the couple of hours prior to his noticing Jackson dead, there was heavy phone use. At 12:12, Murray calls Michael Williams and leaves a voicemail to call right away. Williams returns call, and Murray tells him Jackson had a "bad reaction" to the medication. No mention of anyone calling 911.
Murray spent the night at Jackson's house every night for almost 2 months. In his own words, his purpose was to put Michael to sleep with Propofol.
Walgren shows the jury a diagram of Jackson's home, along with photos of rooms in the house, including Jackson's bedroom and the bed in which he died.
What transpired from 1:00am until Jackson's death the next day? Law enforcement investigation shows Murray very busy on the phone that night/morning, including phone calls, emails, text messages. There was an email from the insurance broker in London trying to collect medical records so they can get the insurance set up. Murray responded at 11:17am on June 25th, saying that reports about Jackson's poor health were "fallacious."
Walgren shows chart of phone calls made/taken by Murray that morning. For the couple of hours prior to his noticing Jackson dead, there was heavy phone use. At 12:12, Murray calls Michael Williams and leaves a voicemail to call right away. Williams returns call, and Murray tells him Jackson had a "bad reaction" to the medication. No mention of anyone calling 911.
Alberto Alvarez gets to the bedroom and sees Jackson in his bed, appearing to be dead, with Murray doing CPR with one hand. Jackson has a catheter in his penis. Murray directs Alvarez to grab vials of medicine and put in a bag, along with the IV bag. This was corroborated by LE during search - they found empty saline bag, slit top to bottom, with Propofol vial inside.
Alvarez was then told to call 911. He called at 12:20pm. Call was not made at 11:56 when Sade Anding put the phone down during their call, nor at 12:15 when Murray called Williams. Emergency response were on scene immediately after call, but it was too late. They did all they could to try to resuscitate him. Pupils dilated, no pulse. Murray said it had only just happened, that he had just been talking to him. When asked what he'd given him, Murray only said Lorazepam - never once revealed he'd given Propofol.
Murray rode along in ambulance and took over care en route. At ER, he was asked by doctors what Jackson had taken and what he'd given him. Murray said Flomax and Lorazepam. Said the only thing he'd given him was Valium. Never once told anyone there that he had given him Propofol.
Propofol bottle was found on floor of home, along with syringe on nightstand that tested positive for Propofol and Lidocaine. There were other prescription drug bottles there as well. There was also a Cardiology Board Review book found (text one would study to pass the exam to be board-certified in that specialty).
Initially, detectives were unsure what might've caused Jackson's death since toxicology had not yet been done. Murray met with detectives and told them he was Jackson's personal physician and was accompanying him on his tour. He told them that for over 2 months, he was giving Michael Jackson nightly doses of Propofol. In the two days since Jackson's death, it was the first time he ever mentioned to anyone that he'd administered Propofol.
Murray says he put IV in Jackson's leg to hydrate him. Valium at 1:30am; Lorazepam at 2:00am; Midazolam at 3:00am. At 4:30am he was still wide awake, and Murray says Jackson told him he had to get some sleep, even if it meant missing rehearsal, so Murray says he gave Jackson 25mg of Propofol, which would've put Jackson to sleep (according to experts) for about 10 mins.
Alvarez was then told to call 911. He called at 12:20pm. Call was not made at 11:56 when Sade Anding put the phone down during their call, nor at 12:15 when Murray called Williams. Emergency response were on scene immediately after call, but it was too late. They did all they could to try to resuscitate him. Pupils dilated, no pulse. Murray said it had only just happened, that he had just been talking to him. When asked what he'd given him, Murray only said Lorazepam - never once revealed he'd given Propofol.
Murray rode along in ambulance and took over care en route. At ER, he was asked by doctors what Jackson had taken and what he'd given him. Murray said Flomax and Lorazepam. Said the only thing he'd given him was Valium. Never once told anyone there that he had given him Propofol.
Propofol bottle was found on floor of home, along with syringe on nightstand that tested positive for Propofol and Lidocaine. There were other prescription drug bottles there as well. There was also a Cardiology Board Review book found (text one would study to pass the exam to be board-certified in that specialty).
Initially, detectives were unsure what might've caused Jackson's death since toxicology had not yet been done. Murray met with detectives and told them he was Jackson's personal physician and was accompanying him on his tour. He told them that for over 2 months, he was giving Michael Jackson nightly doses of Propofol. In the two days since Jackson's death, it was the first time he ever mentioned to anyone that he'd administered Propofol.
Murray says he put IV in Jackson's leg to hydrate him. Valium at 1:30am; Lorazepam at 2:00am; Midazolam at 3:00am. At 4:30am he was still wide awake, and Murray says Jackson told him he had to get some sleep, even if it meant missing rehearsal, so Murray says he gave Jackson 25mg of Propofol, which would've put Jackson to sleep (according to experts) for about 10 mins.
However, Walgren says since Jackson told Murray to cancel the noon rehearsal and let him sleep, Murray gave him more than 25mg. Based on shipments of Propofol to Murray, he had been regularly giving him far more than 25 mg.
Murray said he went to the restroom and, when he came back, Jackson wasn't breathing. Medical experts call this "medical abandonment" (leaving patient on such medications unattended).
Evidence shows phone records detailing phone calls around this time, the same time he indicates he gave the Propofol. He was emailing insurance brokers saying poor health reports were fallacious, even while Jackson lay in the bed heavily sedated.
Murray said he didn't tell Williams to call 911 because he would've wanted to know what was going on and Murray had a patient he needed to work on, didn't want to waste time explaining.
Murray said he went to the restroom and, when he came back, Jackson wasn't breathing. Medical experts call this "medical abandonment" (leaving patient on such medications unattended).
Evidence shows phone records detailing phone calls around this time, the same time he indicates he gave the Propofol. He was emailing insurance brokers saying poor health reports were fallacious, even while Jackson lay in the bed heavily sedated.
Murray said he didn't tell Williams to call 911 because he would've wanted to know what was going on and Murray had a patient he needed to work on, didn't want to waste time explaining.
Walgren says Murray acted with "gross neglicence," an element of involuntary manslaughter, in his actions/inactions regarding Jackson. Propofol is utilized in hospital setting, with appropriate equipment/personnel to revive a patient if something goes wrong - it's not for use outside that setting. Propofol is not an agent to relieve insomnia. Using it as such is an extreme deviation from the standard of care and is grossly negligent.
There was no monitoring equipment used for Jackson as is required when administering Propofol. What appears to be a pristine, unused blood pressure cuff was found. Murray was using the cheapest pulse oximeter without a monitoring screen. It would have at least sounded alarm when oxygen levels became dangerously low.
Propofol requires immediate access to all standard emergency resuscitation equipment - crash cart, automatic defibrillator, emergency respiratory rescue (trach tube, etc.).
Benzodiazepenes combined with Propofol heighten the effects of Propofol and add to the danger. Again, all with no monitoring equipment. Extreme deviation from the standard of care amounting to gross negligence.
There was no monitoring equipment used for Jackson as is required when administering Propofol. What appears to be a pristine, unused blood pressure cuff was found. Murray was using the cheapest pulse oximeter without a monitoring screen. It would have at least sounded alarm when oxygen levels became dangerously low.
Propofol requires immediate access to all standard emergency resuscitation equipment - crash cart, automatic defibrillator, emergency respiratory rescue (trach tube, etc.).
Benzodiazepenes combined with Propofol heighten the effects of Propofol and add to the danger. Again, all with no monitoring equipment. Extreme deviation from the standard of care amounting to gross negligence.
In addition, no informed consent signed by patient indicating they are aware of risks. Another extreme deviation from standard of care. Charting and documentation absent - extreme deviation of standard of care. Basic common sense requires 911 be called immediately, but not done - another extreme deviation from standard of care that amounts to gross negligence.
Walgren says there was no doctor-patient relationship wherein doctor advises the patient and refuses to provide inappropriate care, and even walk away if necessary. Instead, it was employer-employee relationship, where Murray wasn't working for the health of Jackson but for $150k per month. He was an employee and acted as such, did not act as medical professional. Egregious and unethical violation of standard of care.
Walgren says there was no doctor-patient relationship wherein doctor advises the patient and refuses to provide inappropriate care, and even walk away if necessary. Instead, it was employer-employee relationship, where Murray wasn't working for the health of Jackson but for $150k per month. He was an employee and acted as such, did not act as medical professional. Egregious and unethical violation of standard of care.
Walgren says Murray deceived paramedics. Never mentioned Propofol, even as they worked to bring him back to life. Extreme, unethical, unconscienable violation of standard of care. Same when asked specifically by emergency room doctors - he made no mention of Propofol.
Doctors will tell you that Murray's actions (or lack thereof) represent unskilled, non-medically trained professional. His breaches of duties directly resulted in Jackson's death. Gave Jackson unlimited access to Propofol without regard to Jackson's safety or life. He acted with an extreme departure from standard of care that resulted in Jackson's death.
Murray had a legal duty of care to use his best judgment, to "do no harm" to Jackson. Instead, with eye on lucrative contract, he agreed to provide Jackson with massive doses of Propofol on regular basis. Murray figuratively and literally abandoned Jackson on June 25, 2009. He left a vulnerable man, filled with all those medications, with no monitoring equipment - left him there to fend for himself. It violates not just every medical standard, but decency of one human being to another.
Murray's gross negligence and unskilled hands, along with desire for lucrative contract, led Murray to not only abandon his patient but all principles of medical care. His actions and omissions to act directly caused Jackson's death. State asks for guilty verdict of involuntary manslaughter based on Murray's gross negligence.
Doctors will tell you that Murray's actions (or lack thereof) represent unskilled, non-medically trained professional. His breaches of duties directly resulted in Jackson's death. Gave Jackson unlimited access to Propofol without regard to Jackson's safety or life. He acted with an extreme departure from standard of care that resulted in Jackson's death.
Murray had a legal duty of care to use his best judgment, to "do no harm" to Jackson. Instead, with eye on lucrative contract, he agreed to provide Jackson with massive doses of Propofol on regular basis. Murray figuratively and literally abandoned Jackson on June 25, 2009. He left a vulnerable man, filled with all those medications, with no monitoring equipment - left him there to fend for himself. It violates not just every medical standard, but decency of one human being to another.
Murray's gross negligence and unskilled hands, along with desire for lucrative contract, led Murray to not only abandon his patient but all principles of medical care. His actions and omissions to act directly caused Jackson's death. State asks for guilty verdict of involuntary manslaughter based on Murray's gross negligence.
06 July 2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Verdict &Taking Comfort Where We Can
I was all set to spend the first day away from constant tweeting of court action breaking down the closing arguments and jury instructions. But we got a verdict much more quickly than I expected, so I'm jumping straight to that. I waited until I'd had time to put emotion aside and read the jury instructions again and try to understand the verdicts in that context.
Were the verdicts just? It all depends on your perspective. Let's look at the Murder count first.
1st Degree Murder/Aggravated Child Abuse
If a juror believed Casey Anthony used chloroform or duct tape on Caylee and she died as a result, even if accidentally, that is plenty to find Casey guilty of at least felony murder (Aggravated Abuse) or one of the lesser included offenses of 1st Degree Murder (2nd degree, Manslaughter or 3rd degree).
If a juror felt the state failed to prove that Casey used either chloroform or duct tape on Caylee, then it would indeed be incorrect to convict of M1 or a lesser included, or of the aggravated child abuse charge.
I went back and re-read the jury instructions twice tonight. For the murder charge, jurors first had to believe Casey killed Caylee before going any further with determining what degree of murder she committed. They didn't go on to consider any lesser includeds because they felt the state didn't prove Casey actually killed Caylee.
Connectors-of-Dots vs. Need-a-Smoking-Gun Jurors
There are two types of thinkers -- those who are comfortable connecting dots and working through to a logical conclusion in determining guilt, and those who don't accept the inferences of non-smoking-gun evidence as proof enough to form a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
I submit both are reasonable positions for the person making the call. Jurors are told to give testimony/evidence whatever weight they feel it deserves. So while I personally feel there was plenty to connect the dots for at least aggravated child abuse, and while I'm surprised all 12 jurors felt differently, I am not shocked that Casey wasn't found guilty of 1st Degree Murder.
We all come to the table with our own mindsets, methods of thinking and reasoning, and the influence of our own life experiences. What's obviously important in pointing away or toward guilt for one person might not be to another. Some people are minute-detail types while some others tend to be more big-picture types. Neither is a faulty way to think. It's just who we each are.
So I can see how jurors might have rejected Murder and, therefore, have gone no further with the lesser includeds (remember, the instruction said they first had to determine that Casey killed Caylee -- if they think that went unproven, then game over for the Murder count and any of its lesser included offenses).
Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
When we move on to Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, however, I truly am stunned at the not guilty verdict on that count. The element to be proven was that Caylee either died as a result of Casey's act(s) OR her culpable negligence:
"Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury."
Even if you discount the state's theory and buy 100% into the theory of defense -- that Caylee died in the pool -- then it happened as a result of Casey's culpable negligence.
Neglect of a child is defined as "a caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health...that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child."
Is not failing to properly supervise your child to ensure she doesn't go outside unattended and climb into the pool neglect? You know she can open the door because you've seen it with your own eyes. You even fricking photographed it -- you know full well she can do it. You know she can climb the pool ladder - you've seen her do it and have photos of that as well. And you know she lives for playing in that pool.
And yet you do nothing to secure the sliding glass door leading to the pool? No childproof lock or bar across it? If not drown in the pool, she could wander into traffic and be killed. She could even be kidnapped...for real. And because she loves that pool so much and can open the door you failed to secure and drown if your back's turned, you at least check that the ladder is down each night before bed, when you're cooking, showering, anytime you can't be constantly attentive, right?
The negligent behavior does not need to be a series of events either. The instruction reads: "Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect."
The defense in closing insinuated it was the fault of the parents -- Cindy for having left the pool ladder up the night before and George for it having happened "on his watch." But the thing is, Casey had custody of her own child. She and she alone was responsible for Caylee's safety and, in her scenario, failed to provide the supervision necessary to maintain her well-being.
In addition, she failed to call 911 when George allegedly found Caylee in the pool. She did not try to see if she could be revived. She did absolutely nothing to help save her child. She is not qualified to determine whether Caylee was dead or unconscious, nor whether she could possibly be revived. That is a failure to provide a service necessary to maintain her child's health and well-being. I would argue that's a second instance of culpable neglect.
Because of these two instances of neglect (or take your pick of the two), Casey Anthony was at least culpably negligent in her daughter's death and should have been found guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child -- and that's if you buy her OWN story. And you know that that's the absolute minimum she's responsible for. I mean, who the hell is going to make up a story that makes them even more criminally responsible than they actually are? Could we at least connect those 2 dots?
I defended jurors on the murder verdict even though I very much disagree with them (I think she did apply duct tape and that it caused Caylee's death, hence aggravated abuse). But I can't do the same here. I don't understand how they could not find guilt on this count. It's not a reasonable conclusion to me. You've even got the admission from the defendant herself. I think they got it very wrong on this particular count.
I've read and re-read the instructions and definitions for the Aggravated Manslaughter count. I'm a layperson and am certainly not above being corrected; in fact, I welcome it. So if someone can explain why this interpretation is wrong, please do.
Taking Comfort Where We Can
This is the end of the road as far as hoping for legal justice for Caylee. That will never happen now. But as I told someone earlier, things have a way of coming full circle in one way or another...eventually. I have to hope and believe they will in this instance. The alternative is too heartbreaking.
Someone said that Caylee had no one seeking justice for her. Let me tell you that in addition to law enforcement and the prosecutors, there are people all over this world who love Caylee and wanted justice for her. I have Twitter followers from the US, Canada, several countries in Europe, Asia, Africa -- you name it -- all of whom care deeply about Caylee and followed this trial hoping to see justice done for her.
Who could look at that sweet little face propped on her hands or see her reading her kitty cat book, hear her singing, "You Are My Sunshine" at the nursing home and not fall head over heels in love with her? This darling, darling child touched so many hearts around the globe. She has had millions of advocates, each in our own ways.
If love reaches across time and space and beyond this world, then I think Caylee must feel like the most loved child ever.
Were the verdicts just? It all depends on your perspective. Let's look at the Murder count first.
1st Degree Murder/Aggravated Child Abuse
If a juror believed Casey Anthony used chloroform or duct tape on Caylee and she died as a result, even if accidentally, that is plenty to find Casey guilty of at least felony murder (Aggravated Abuse) or one of the lesser included offenses of 1st Degree Murder (2nd degree, Manslaughter or 3rd degree).
If a juror felt the state failed to prove that Casey used either chloroform or duct tape on Caylee, then it would indeed be incorrect to convict of M1 or a lesser included, or of the aggravated child abuse charge.
I went back and re-read the jury instructions twice tonight. For the murder charge, jurors first had to believe Casey killed Caylee before going any further with determining what degree of murder she committed. They didn't go on to consider any lesser includeds because they felt the state didn't prove Casey actually killed Caylee.
Connectors-of-Dots vs. Need-a-Smoking-Gun Jurors
There are two types of thinkers -- those who are comfortable connecting dots and working through to a logical conclusion in determining guilt, and those who don't accept the inferences of non-smoking-gun evidence as proof enough to form a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
I submit both are reasonable positions for the person making the call. Jurors are told to give testimony/evidence whatever weight they feel it deserves. So while I personally feel there was plenty to connect the dots for at least aggravated child abuse, and while I'm surprised all 12 jurors felt differently, I am not shocked that Casey wasn't found guilty of 1st Degree Murder.
We all come to the table with our own mindsets, methods of thinking and reasoning, and the influence of our own life experiences. What's obviously important in pointing away or toward guilt for one person might not be to another. Some people are minute-detail types while some others tend to be more big-picture types. Neither is a faulty way to think. It's just who we each are.
So I can see how jurors might have rejected Murder and, therefore, have gone no further with the lesser includeds (remember, the instruction said they first had to determine that Casey killed Caylee -- if they think that went unproven, then game over for the Murder count and any of its lesser included offenses).
Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
When we move on to Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, however, I truly am stunned at the not guilty verdict on that count. The element to be proven was that Caylee either died as a result of Casey's act(s) OR her culpable negligence:
"Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury."
Even if you discount the state's theory and buy 100% into the theory of defense -- that Caylee died in the pool -- then it happened as a result of Casey's culpable negligence.
Neglect of a child is defined as "a caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health...that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child."
Is not failing to properly supervise your child to ensure she doesn't go outside unattended and climb into the pool neglect? You know she can open the door because you've seen it with your own eyes. You even fricking photographed it -- you know full well she can do it. You know she can climb the pool ladder - you've seen her do it and have photos of that as well. And you know she lives for playing in that pool.
And yet you do nothing to secure the sliding glass door leading to the pool? No childproof lock or bar across it? If not drown in the pool, she could wander into traffic and be killed. She could even be kidnapped...for real. And because she loves that pool so much and can open the door you failed to secure and drown if your back's turned, you at least check that the ladder is down each night before bed, when you're cooking, showering, anytime you can't be constantly attentive, right?
The negligent behavior does not need to be a series of events either. The instruction reads: "Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect."
The defense in closing insinuated it was the fault of the parents -- Cindy for having left the pool ladder up the night before and George for it having happened "on his watch." But the thing is, Casey had custody of her own child. She and she alone was responsible for Caylee's safety and, in her scenario, failed to provide the supervision necessary to maintain her well-being.
In addition, she failed to call 911 when George allegedly found Caylee in the pool. She did not try to see if she could be revived. She did absolutely nothing to help save her child. She is not qualified to determine whether Caylee was dead or unconscious, nor whether she could possibly be revived. That is a failure to provide a service necessary to maintain her child's health and well-being. I would argue that's a second instance of culpable neglect.
Because of these two instances of neglect (or take your pick of the two), Casey Anthony was at least culpably negligent in her daughter's death and should have been found guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child -- and that's if you buy her OWN story. And you know that that's the absolute minimum she's responsible for. I mean, who the hell is going to make up a story that makes them even more criminally responsible than they actually are? Could we at least connect those 2 dots?
I defended jurors on the murder verdict even though I very much disagree with them (I think she did apply duct tape and that it caused Caylee's death, hence aggravated abuse). But I can't do the same here. I don't understand how they could not find guilt on this count. It's not a reasonable conclusion to me. You've even got the admission from the defendant herself. I think they got it very wrong on this particular count.
I've read and re-read the instructions and definitions for the Aggravated Manslaughter count. I'm a layperson and am certainly not above being corrected; in fact, I welcome it. So if someone can explain why this interpretation is wrong, please do.
Taking Comfort Where We Can
This is the end of the road as far as hoping for legal justice for Caylee. That will never happen now. But as I told someone earlier, things have a way of coming full circle in one way or another...eventually. I have to hope and believe they will in this instance. The alternative is too heartbreaking.
Someone said that Caylee had no one seeking justice for her. Let me tell you that in addition to law enforcement and the prosecutors, there are people all over this world who love Caylee and wanted justice for her. I have Twitter followers from the US, Canada, several countries in Europe, Asia, Africa -- you name it -- all of whom care deeply about Caylee and followed this trial hoping to see justice done for her.
Who could look at that sweet little face propped on her hands or see her reading her kitty cat book, hear her singing, "You Are My Sunshine" at the nursing home and not fall head over heels in love with her? This darling, darling child touched so many hearts around the globe. She has had millions of advocates, each in our own ways.
If love reaches across time and space and beyond this world, then I think Caylee must feel like the most loved child ever.
Caylee, you are the sunshine, honey.
03 July 2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Verdict Watch Chat
I set up a chat for anyone who wants to hang out and discuss the case or just share fellowship during verdict watch. It's a premium room, so you shouldn't see any ads. I'll be in and out while Tweeting, but will check in when I can. Please make yourselves at home and enjoy! :-)
Here's the link: Trial Notes Chat
Here's the link: Trial Notes Chat
01 July 2011
Casey Anthony Trial - "All They Care About Is Getting Caylee Back"
I keep coming back to a statement made by Casey Anthony. I think it helps show that George had no involvement in Caylee's disposal or knowledge of her whereabouts. During Casey's first call home after being arrested, one of the people she spoke with was a friend, Christine.
Christine told Casey that her family were 100% behind her. Casey said that they weren't; that she'd been watching the news and nobody in her family was on her side. "All they care about is getting Caylee back." (After a pause, having realized how that sounded, she awkwardly added that that's what she wanted, too.)
I believe that single statement shows that no one in that family other than Casey had any knowledge of what had happened to Caylee or where she was. "All they care about is getting Caylee back."
I also believe that statement ties in to motive. Casey was demonstrably pissed that her family's focus/concern was for a "missing" Caylee instead of an incarcerated Casey. I think that was part of an overall pattern of selfishness - lying, stealing, taking advantage of family and friends over and over for her own selfish benefit.
She may have tried to "love" Caylee (as much as she was capable), maybe even enjoyed her when it was convenient to do so (especially as a means of attention-grabbing). But when the chips were down and Caylee became an overwhelming inconvenience, Casey did what Casey does - put herself first.
There was testimony that Casey said her mom "owed" her babysitting, many power struggles between them over Caylee. Maybe it was a combination of resentment over Caylee being the "favored" child, contempt for her mother's control in her life (possibly including forcing her to keep a child she didn't want or, at least, forcing her to be responsible for Caylee at times she didn't want to be) and the desire to live the "bella vita" that motivated her to get rid of Caylee.
Resentment, spite, unimaginable selfishness. Motive.
"All they care about is getting Caylee back." Amidst all the lies, a single truth.
Christine told Casey that her family were 100% behind her. Casey said that they weren't; that she'd been watching the news and nobody in her family was on her side. "All they care about is getting Caylee back." (After a pause, having realized how that sounded, she awkwardly added that that's what she wanted, too.)
I believe that single statement shows that no one in that family other than Casey had any knowledge of what had happened to Caylee or where she was. "All they care about is getting Caylee back."
I also believe that statement ties in to motive. Casey was demonstrably pissed that her family's focus/concern was for a "missing" Caylee instead of an incarcerated Casey. I think that was part of an overall pattern of selfishness - lying, stealing, taking advantage of family and friends over and over for her own selfish benefit.
She may have tried to "love" Caylee (as much as she was capable), maybe even enjoyed her when it was convenient to do so (especially as a means of attention-grabbing). But when the chips were down and Caylee became an overwhelming inconvenience, Casey did what Casey does - put herself first.
There was testimony that Casey said her mom "owed" her babysitting, many power struggles between them over Caylee. Maybe it was a combination of resentment over Caylee being the "favored" child, contempt for her mother's control in her life (possibly including forcing her to keep a child she didn't want or, at least, forcing her to be responsible for Caylee at times she didn't want to be) and the desire to live the "bella vita" that motivated her to get rid of Caylee.
Resentment, spite, unimaginable selfishness. Motive.
"All they care about is getting Caylee back." Amidst all the lies, a single truth.
30 June 2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Defense To Rest/Casey To Testify?
Way overdue for a blog update. Sorry about that, guys. I had to make a choice between Tweeting pretty much non-stop during testimony and updating my blog daily. I've had so many people say the Tweeting is helpful to them, so I chose to keep up with that and just get to the blog whenever I could get to it.
At the close of trial Wednesday, the defense informed Judge Perry they will likely rest their case in chief Thursday. If this is all they've got, they're in worse trouble than I imagined they could be. And that's before the state puts on its rebuttal case.
George: Mastermind Criminal/Abuser/Suicide Faker
Today was disastrous for the defense. George Anthony was credible in his testimony and, thanks to Baez, was able to respond that he "put 1 and 1 together" when he realized Caylee was missing and that Casey was the last to see her. In addition, he testified he didn't think "at that time" that his daughter could've killed Caylee, clearly leaving the impression that he thereafter did come to believe her capable of it.
Jose Baez questioned George about his "alleged" suicide attempt. George corrected him, saying that it wasn't alleged, but that he fully intended on going through with it and would have if not for LE having found him. Baez asserted to the judge (out of the jury's presence) that George shouldn't get a pass and be allowed to act all innocent since "all" he had were some blood pressure pills and beer. Baez totally minimized the issue and said it could've been faked for sympathy or attention.
Apparently, he's unaware how dangerous taking too much BP medication can be. Having sufficient blood pressure is kind of a big deal. But hey, George was just putting on a show because he knew "the walls were closing in" on him and that LE was about to find him out for all his monstrous sexual abuse and his disposal of Caylee, as well as for trying to frame his poor sweet daughter.
This didn't pan out too well for the defense since George held his own and refused to lend credence to the defense's accusations against him. It also allowed Jeff Ashton to storm right through the door Baez opened and question George about the suicide attempt. In fact, the door opened so wide, Ashton will likely be allowed to introduce the suicide note itself in rebuttal.
George was so sympathetic in talking about how he felt it was time to just leave all the madness behind and be with Caylee. He missed her so much, felt guilty because he felt he didn't protect her, just didn't feel he could take this world anymore.
If I were a juror asked to consider that the attempt might have been insincere, I'd figure if that were the case, George was simply trying to get his daughter to FEEL something in hopes she'd END this nightmare for all of them, not because he knew the coppers were hot on his sexually-molesting, body-dumping, daughter-framing trail.
I have some issues with parts of George's other testimony (especially with regard to "River Cruz," his alleged mistress), but he seemed very sincere in speaking of his overwhelming grief. It was extremely powerful testimony.
Can you imagine being in his shoes? Your granddaughter's missing; your own daughter is obviously involved and won't cooperate; your wife runs her mouth in public, covering, lying, making things worse for everyone involved; you have mobs on your lawn, the media breathing down your neck constantly. And then your granddaughter's remains are found and what you suspected all along, but didn't want to believe, is realized -- your granddaughter is never coming back. The only way to see her again is to go be with her.
It's no wonder he felt overwhelmed to the point of wanting to just get away from it all any way he could. When I think of how his daughter pushed him to the brink of suicide, then (after he does all he can to help her) turns around and accuses him of sexual abuse and of framing her for his criminal acts...truly, TRULY despicable and sickening. Maybe she was hoping he wouldn't be able to take it and would check out for good so that her defense team could say his guilty conscience caused his suicide.
Which brings me to this: If the jury doesn't buy the accusations against George, it not only discounts all the defense theories, it leaves the jury wondering WHY Casey Anthony and her defense team concocted such a cruel and bizarre scenario...unless it's all she could come up with to try to overcome the fact that she's guilty. And if they think that, they will absolutely detest not only what she did to Caylee but how she nearly caused her father's death and humiliated him beyond belief for her own hateful, selfish gain.
Of course, the jury still has to find the state proved its case, regardless all that. But if they do, you better believe all those things will be in their heads, maybe subconsciously pushing some of them toward a guilty verdict when they might not have been as quick to go that route otherwise. They are human, after all, and try as we might to consider only what we're supposed to, if the information is there, it's there. And on some level or another, it's always a factor.
Magical Thinking - Good GRIEF!
As for the "grief expert" allowed to testify today, I'm sure she's a wonderful, caring person and capable grief counselor and teacher, but she proved to have no expertise in making a distinction between which behaviors are grief related and which aren't. She offered absolutely nothing for the defense beyond the obvious - that different people grieve differently and can do some odd things. Well, thanks for that. I had no idea. Now I know that anyone I encounter might be suffering from grief...or not.
On cross exam, she in fact bolstered the state's case by agreeing that she really can't say anything is inconsistent with grieving because, to her, everything is consistent with it. She even agreed that in Ashton's "hypothetical" Casey scenario, all the things he ticked off would be indicative of something different than grief and said that would indicate that the "hypothetical" person would need help of the not-grief-counseling kind.
This witness was intended to testify in Casey's stead, basically. Here was someone who could explain the "why" behind the 31 days (which would've been "infinity" days had Cindy not intervened), all the lying ("magical thinking") and the carefree, happy "bella vita" existence Casey led after Caylee died. But it fell so far short that there isn't a unit of measurement tiny enough to quantify how little it helped. It actually went well into the negative for the defense - just the opposite of what they needed.
Will Casey Take The Stand?
I've mentioned before that she can't get on that stand because she'd not be believed even on direct and would be absolutely decimated on cross. But the defense has done such a poor job showing their theories are plausible enough to raise reasonable doubt that they're now up Shit Creek without a paddle.
Again, we all know the defense doesn't have to prove a thing. But when you throw these salacious, severe accusations out in opening and you don't offer a damn thing to back ANY of it up, it looks bad. Really, really BAD. It looks like the defendant and her team are heartless liars who don't give a damn who they hurt, whose lives they ruin -- everyone and everything is fair game so long as it gives the princess a shot at avoiding the consequences for her actions.
So do you risk leaving the jury with that impression, with contempt and disdain (even if subconscious) for your client for having put so many people through so much to save her own hide (not the least of whom, the jurors themselves!)? Is that what you want them to carry back into deliberations with them?
All you can do in closing argument is regurgitate the same accusations about drowning, George Anthony and Roy Kronk. But you got practically nowhere with any of it during trial. So what do you do? Delude yourself that you can pull it off? Hope the jurors will employ "magical thinking" and buy what you weren't able to sell?
Showing that the family are willing to lie for each other and claiming Cindy lives in denial (I knew there was an underlying, deceptive reason she claimed Caylee was still alive at pretrial hearing) may demonstrate some family dysfunction, but it hardly excuses or even mitigates Casey Anthony's actions. There are plenty of families far, far more dysfunctional who don't end up with dead babies and moms who lie their asses off about where their babies are/what happened to them while they go on to live "the good life" or "beautiful life."
So what do you do if you're the defense attorney in this situation? The only way in the world for there to be even a scintilla of a chance that a juror - just one - buys any of part of your theory is to put someone on the stand who can testify to at least some part of it. Remember, though, you're up Shit Creek -- and your only paddle is Casey herself. Do you try to use that paddle or let the current carry you downstream and hope for the best?
I still feel they're better off going with their unproven (and I mean "NO-proof" unproven) accusations. They can't hope Casey would ever be able to explain herself on direct, much less withstand cross. The most they could hope for is that a juror would think she's nuts and maybe feel a little sympathy for her, but that's its own can of worms.
We've already seen this defense is incapable of controlling what happens with even fairly benign witnesses on the stand. They are completely outmatched in examining them, especially on cross. Just imagine all that could go wrong with Casey testifying. At least an attorney can control what happens during his/her closing.
I think it's best to do what they can without risking putting Casey on the stand. Focus on the penalty phase and appellate issues instead. If she's convicted, and if she can successfully argue for reversal/new trial, I'm sure the next defense team would appreciate Casey's not having locked herself into testimony in the first trial.
But... Casey has the right to testify if she wants to, regardless how stupid a decision her attorneys advise her it may be. She was all smiles Saturday morning after learning she'd been deemed competent by 3 psych evaluators to continue assisting with her defense. Could that motion for incompetence have been made as a CYA by her defense because she is insisting on taking the stand?
As we've seen over and over, there's just no way to predict what will happen in this trial. So stay tuned...let's see where it goes.
At the close of trial Wednesday, the defense informed Judge Perry they will likely rest their case in chief Thursday. If this is all they've got, they're in worse trouble than I imagined they could be. And that's before the state puts on its rebuttal case.
George: Mastermind Criminal/Abuser/Suicide Faker
Today was disastrous for the defense. George Anthony was credible in his testimony and, thanks to Baez, was able to respond that he "put 1 and 1 together" when he realized Caylee was missing and that Casey was the last to see her. In addition, he testified he didn't think "at that time" that his daughter could've killed Caylee, clearly leaving the impression that he thereafter did come to believe her capable of it.
Jose Baez questioned George about his "alleged" suicide attempt. George corrected him, saying that it wasn't alleged, but that he fully intended on going through with it and would have if not for LE having found him. Baez asserted to the judge (out of the jury's presence) that George shouldn't get a pass and be allowed to act all innocent since "all" he had were some blood pressure pills and beer. Baez totally minimized the issue and said it could've been faked for sympathy or attention.
Apparently, he's unaware how dangerous taking too much BP medication can be. Having sufficient blood pressure is kind of a big deal. But hey, George was just putting on a show because he knew "the walls were closing in" on him and that LE was about to find him out for all his monstrous sexual abuse and his disposal of Caylee, as well as for trying to frame his poor sweet daughter.
This didn't pan out too well for the defense since George held his own and refused to lend credence to the defense's accusations against him. It also allowed Jeff Ashton to storm right through the door Baez opened and question George about the suicide attempt. In fact, the door opened so wide, Ashton will likely be allowed to introduce the suicide note itself in rebuttal.
George was so sympathetic in talking about how he felt it was time to just leave all the madness behind and be with Caylee. He missed her so much, felt guilty because he felt he didn't protect her, just didn't feel he could take this world anymore.
If I were a juror asked to consider that the attempt might have been insincere, I'd figure if that were the case, George was simply trying to get his daughter to FEEL something in hopes she'd END this nightmare for all of them, not because he knew the coppers were hot on his sexually-molesting, body-dumping, daughter-framing trail.
I have some issues with parts of George's other testimony (especially with regard to "River Cruz," his alleged mistress), but he seemed very sincere in speaking of his overwhelming grief. It was extremely powerful testimony.
Can you imagine being in his shoes? Your granddaughter's missing; your own daughter is obviously involved and won't cooperate; your wife runs her mouth in public, covering, lying, making things worse for everyone involved; you have mobs on your lawn, the media breathing down your neck constantly. And then your granddaughter's remains are found and what you suspected all along, but didn't want to believe, is realized -- your granddaughter is never coming back. The only way to see her again is to go be with her.
It's no wonder he felt overwhelmed to the point of wanting to just get away from it all any way he could. When I think of how his daughter pushed him to the brink of suicide, then (after he does all he can to help her) turns around and accuses him of sexual abuse and of framing her for his criminal acts...truly, TRULY despicable and sickening. Maybe she was hoping he wouldn't be able to take it and would check out for good so that her defense team could say his guilty conscience caused his suicide.
Which brings me to this: If the jury doesn't buy the accusations against George, it not only discounts all the defense theories, it leaves the jury wondering WHY Casey Anthony and her defense team concocted such a cruel and bizarre scenario...unless it's all she could come up with to try to overcome the fact that she's guilty. And if they think that, they will absolutely detest not only what she did to Caylee but how she nearly caused her father's death and humiliated him beyond belief for her own hateful, selfish gain.
Of course, the jury still has to find the state proved its case, regardless all that. But if they do, you better believe all those things will be in their heads, maybe subconsciously pushing some of them toward a guilty verdict when they might not have been as quick to go that route otherwise. They are human, after all, and try as we might to consider only what we're supposed to, if the information is there, it's there. And on some level or another, it's always a factor.
Magical Thinking - Good GRIEF!
As for the "grief expert" allowed to testify today, I'm sure she's a wonderful, caring person and capable grief counselor and teacher, but she proved to have no expertise in making a distinction between which behaviors are grief related and which aren't. She offered absolutely nothing for the defense beyond the obvious - that different people grieve differently and can do some odd things. Well, thanks for that. I had no idea. Now I know that anyone I encounter might be suffering from grief...or not.
On cross exam, she in fact bolstered the state's case by agreeing that she really can't say anything is inconsistent with grieving because, to her, everything is consistent with it. She even agreed that in Ashton's "hypothetical" Casey scenario, all the things he ticked off would be indicative of something different than grief and said that would indicate that the "hypothetical" person would need help of the not-grief-counseling kind.
This witness was intended to testify in Casey's stead, basically. Here was someone who could explain the "why" behind the 31 days (which would've been "infinity" days had Cindy not intervened), all the lying ("magical thinking") and the carefree, happy "bella vita" existence Casey led after Caylee died. But it fell so far short that there isn't a unit of measurement tiny enough to quantify how little it helped. It actually went well into the negative for the defense - just the opposite of what they needed.
Will Casey Take The Stand?
I've mentioned before that she can't get on that stand because she'd not be believed even on direct and would be absolutely decimated on cross. But the defense has done such a poor job showing their theories are plausible enough to raise reasonable doubt that they're now up Shit Creek without a paddle.
Again, we all know the defense doesn't have to prove a thing. But when you throw these salacious, severe accusations out in opening and you don't offer a damn thing to back ANY of it up, it looks bad. Really, really BAD. It looks like the defendant and her team are heartless liars who don't give a damn who they hurt, whose lives they ruin -- everyone and everything is fair game so long as it gives the princess a shot at avoiding the consequences for her actions.
So do you risk leaving the jury with that impression, with contempt and disdain (even if subconscious) for your client for having put so many people through so much to save her own hide (not the least of whom, the jurors themselves!)? Is that what you want them to carry back into deliberations with them?
All you can do in closing argument is regurgitate the same accusations about drowning, George Anthony and Roy Kronk. But you got practically nowhere with any of it during trial. So what do you do? Delude yourself that you can pull it off? Hope the jurors will employ "magical thinking" and buy what you weren't able to sell?
Showing that the family are willing to lie for each other and claiming Cindy lives in denial (I knew there was an underlying, deceptive reason she claimed Caylee was still alive at pretrial hearing) may demonstrate some family dysfunction, but it hardly excuses or even mitigates Casey Anthony's actions. There are plenty of families far, far more dysfunctional who don't end up with dead babies and moms who lie their asses off about where their babies are/what happened to them while they go on to live "the good life" or "beautiful life."
So what do you do if you're the defense attorney in this situation? The only way in the world for there to be even a scintilla of a chance that a juror - just one - buys any of part of your theory is to put someone on the stand who can testify to at least some part of it. Remember, though, you're up Shit Creek -- and your only paddle is Casey herself. Do you try to use that paddle or let the current carry you downstream and hope for the best?
I still feel they're better off going with their unproven (and I mean "NO-proof" unproven) accusations. They can't hope Casey would ever be able to explain herself on direct, much less withstand cross. The most they could hope for is that a juror would think she's nuts and maybe feel a little sympathy for her, but that's its own can of worms.
We've already seen this defense is incapable of controlling what happens with even fairly benign witnesses on the stand. They are completely outmatched in examining them, especially on cross. Just imagine all that could go wrong with Casey testifying. At least an attorney can control what happens during his/her closing.
I think it's best to do what they can without risking putting Casey on the stand. Focus on the penalty phase and appellate issues instead. If she's convicted, and if she can successfully argue for reversal/new trial, I'm sure the next defense team would appreciate Casey's not having locked herself into testimony in the first trial.
But... Casey has the right to testify if she wants to, regardless how stupid a decision her attorneys advise her it may be. She was all smiles Saturday morning after learning she'd been deemed competent by 3 psych evaluators to continue assisting with her defense. Could that motion for incompetence have been made as a CYA by her defense because she is insisting on taking the stand?
As we've seen over and over, there's just no way to predict what will happen in this trial. So stay tuned...let's see where it goes.
16 June 2011
Casey Anthony Trial - Another One Under The Bus
Wednesday, the defense filed paperwork for disclosure of a "newly discovered" witness, Vasco Thompson. The defense claims there were phone communications between Thompson and George Anthony just before Caylee went missing and that Thompson is a convicted kidnapper who could be connected to this case. They want to depose Thompson to see if he has any relevant information.
Well, here's the skinny: At multiple sites (especially here - great work by AZLawyer), I've read that Thompson's phone number was incorrectly entered into a public database as the same phone number belonging to George Anthony's (at-the-time) new employer. So when the defense looked over George's phone records and searched out the other party, they found an entry for Thompson as holder of the number and investigated his criminal record.
In fact, that information is incorrect. The number belonged to George's employer in July 2008. Obviously, the defense knows this. This information has been available to them for years. Interestingly, when the defense tried to question Thompson, he actually called law enforcement to complain about it. Does that sound like someone involved in kidnap/cover-up/disposal in this case?
Why try to add Thompson as a witness at this late stage, knowing that even if the judge would allow a depo to determine relevancy, the ultimate result would be that Thompson is completely irrelevant to this case?
I don't believe the defense actually wants to call Thompson as a witness since it would take half a second for him to say that was not his phone number and for the state to clear up on cross that his number was incorrectly entered into a database as the one in question.
I believe *that* is the reason for the late disclosure -- the defense purposely held this until after the state's case so the state couldn't depose Thompson before trial. If they had, the matter would've been cleared up and the defense would've missed out on the opportunity to further implicate George by publicly insinuating a connection to a convicted kidnapper.
So why, then? Because if the defense can get it out into the public arena that they were denied the opportunity to call a convicted KIDNAPPER (imagine that word in huge blinking neon letters) who, according to them, made contact with George a day or two before Caylee went missing...well...you get the idea:
Family of juror hears that a kidnapper was in cahoots with George but the defense wasn't allowed to put him on the stand. Family member visits the juror. Even though they're not supposed to talk about the case, family member drops that little tidbit. Juror wonders if there might really be something to the defense's claim that George is an evil monster capable of unspeakable acts. It takes only one juror with reasonable doubt to hang the jury in deliberations.
It's my belief that the defense doesn't expect to be allowed to call Thompson at trial. They may want to depose him as a fishing expedition to see if he says anything they can twist and try to use; however, I think what the defense really wants is to be denied the opportunity to call Thompson as a witness while at the same time getting that info out in the public in hopes that it might influence a juror via a family member/loved one.
What I can't fathom is that this is a genuine request. First of all, it would come out in deposition that the phone number wasn't even Thompson's actual number and he has no relevance to the case. Secondly, if the defense somehow managed to convince the judge to allow them to call Thompson, the ruse would be evident by the time the state finished cross-exam. The defense has to know all this...they've had years to work on it. This isn't a "new" find.
Despite all that, I say Judge Perry ought to allow them the depo. Let all the info come out via that process. Then the defense can't turn around and have their chief shill screeching on any media outlet that will have her that the defense was denied the right to question George's potential cohort in crime (A CONVICTED KIDNAPPER!!!).
I have a feeling this is all designed to try to create an air of mystery and to further point the finger at George Anthony's involvement. Better to let the defense depose Thompson, let the state destroy this red herring, and put it to rest vs. allowing defense the ability to have their shills declaring on TV that there is a Thompson-George Anthony involvement and they've been unfairly precluded from deposing him.
If the information I've read is correct, and I believe it to be, then it is despicable for the defense to drag Thompson into this for no reason other than to throw another victim under the Casey-bus.
Well, here's the skinny: At multiple sites (especially here - great work by AZLawyer), I've read that Thompson's phone number was incorrectly entered into a public database as the same phone number belonging to George Anthony's (at-the-time) new employer. So when the defense looked over George's phone records and searched out the other party, they found an entry for Thompson as holder of the number and investigated his criminal record.
In fact, that information is incorrect. The number belonged to George's employer in July 2008. Obviously, the defense knows this. This information has been available to them for years. Interestingly, when the defense tried to question Thompson, he actually called law enforcement to complain about it. Does that sound like someone involved in kidnap/cover-up/disposal in this case?
Why try to add Thompson as a witness at this late stage, knowing that even if the judge would allow a depo to determine relevancy, the ultimate result would be that Thompson is completely irrelevant to this case?
I don't believe the defense actually wants to call Thompson as a witness since it would take half a second for him to say that was not his phone number and for the state to clear up on cross that his number was incorrectly entered into a database as the one in question.
I believe *that* is the reason for the late disclosure -- the defense purposely held this until after the state's case so the state couldn't depose Thompson before trial. If they had, the matter would've been cleared up and the defense would've missed out on the opportunity to further implicate George by publicly insinuating a connection to a convicted kidnapper.
So why, then? Because if the defense can get it out into the public arena that they were denied the opportunity to call a convicted KIDNAPPER (imagine that word in huge blinking neon letters) who, according to them, made contact with George a day or two before Caylee went missing...well...you get the idea:
Family of juror hears that a kidnapper was in cahoots with George but the defense wasn't allowed to put him on the stand. Family member visits the juror. Even though they're not supposed to talk about the case, family member drops that little tidbit. Juror wonders if there might really be something to the defense's claim that George is an evil monster capable of unspeakable acts. It takes only one juror with reasonable doubt to hang the jury in deliberations.
It's my belief that the defense doesn't expect to be allowed to call Thompson at trial. They may want to depose him as a fishing expedition to see if he says anything they can twist and try to use; however, I think what the defense really wants is to be denied the opportunity to call Thompson as a witness while at the same time getting that info out in the public in hopes that it might influence a juror via a family member/loved one.
What I can't fathom is that this is a genuine request. First of all, it would come out in deposition that the phone number wasn't even Thompson's actual number and he has no relevance to the case. Secondly, if the defense somehow managed to convince the judge to allow them to call Thompson, the ruse would be evident by the time the state finished cross-exam. The defense has to know all this...they've had years to work on it. This isn't a "new" find.
Despite all that, I say Judge Perry ought to allow them the depo. Let all the info come out via that process. Then the defense can't turn around and have their chief shill screeching on any media outlet that will have her that the defense was denied the right to question George's potential cohort in crime (A CONVICTED KIDNAPPER!!!).
I have a feeling this is all designed to try to create an air of mystery and to further point the finger at George Anthony's involvement. Better to let the defense depose Thompson, let the state destroy this red herring, and put it to rest vs. allowing defense the ability to have their shills declaring on TV that there is a Thompson-George Anthony involvement and they've been unfairly precluded from deposing him.
If the information I've read is correct, and I believe it to be, then it is despicable for the defense to drag Thompson into this for no reason other than to throw another victim under the Casey-bus.
14 June 2011
Casey Anthony Trial - "Imaginary" Defense Strategy?
Yes, it's technically true that the defense isn't required to prove a single thing -- they don't even have to put on a case at all if they choose not to do so.
But like I said from the start, if the defense puts forth such a specific alternate theory, they better be able to sell it like hell to the jury and to BACK IT UP with evidence.
A huge problem is that the defense have painted themselves into a corner with the molestation claims. Unless a third party witnessed this molestation (or unless George suddenly recants his prior testimony and admits it), then Casey Anthony herself is the ONLY person who can testify about it in an attempt to prove it.
Casey Anthony's testifying about anything is an insurmountable problem. She will never be believed. Never. Not a single word.
This is where that grief counselor the defense wants to call comes in. I believe the defense wants this woman to basically testify in place of Anthony. This is how they would get in much of what Casey would testify to. Asking questions an attorney knows will draw objections doesn't stop an attorney when they really, reeeeally need to get a point across to the jury. By the time the question is out of their mouths and objection made, oops...too late to unring that bell.
The defense has done a lot of that already...expect more.
The defense has to prove not only that Casey's nonchalant, happy-go-lucky behavior after Caylee's death was a result of having suffered molestation and grief over Caylee's loss; they must prove the molestation happened. That's not going to happen.
In opening statements, Baez said George came around the corner of the house with a drowned Caylee. And Baez just left it at that. He didn't say, "And then George used the laundry bag, the Pooh blanket and duct tape from the home to dispose of Caylee." No, they just made insinuations. That's fine -- again, they don't have to prove anything. But if they want to be believed enough to raise reasonable doubt, they have to bring it. I don't see how they can.
There are a myriad of issues with blaming George. One is the contradiction between George as a savvy, conniving ex-detective who knew all the tricks to remove himself from suspicion and clean or otherwise tamper with evidence to avoid detection of his nefarious deeds vs. the George who is alleged to have covered up the crime for Casey? You can't have it both ways. Why would George go to all that trouble and then turn around and frame his daughter? Makes NO sense.
Next under the bus in defense's scenario would have to be Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered Caylee's remains. Did the guy want the reward? Yes, and that's kind of unseemly unless you're gonna donate to charity, but it in no way means he took Caylee's remains and secreted them until the time was right to cash in on his "jackpot." This is so far-fetched and ludicrous. Between cross-exam by the state when the defense calls Kronk and Kronk's own denials, it will never fly.
Defense has to raise only reasonable doubt -- and in only one juror -- to avoid conviction. But these jurors are not dummies and are not going to buy that load of bull, especially once they decide the molestation accusations were false. They know what a liar Anthony is...why would they believe her instead of Kronk (or anyone else, for that matter).
If Casey avoids conviction, it will be because a juror felt some element of the state's case was not proven, not because they buy these ridiculous "imaginary" defense stories. If we're to believe Baez that Casey lives in an alternate reality, a world separate from the real world, we know right away not to accept her defense scenarios since her alternate reality is lie upon lie upon lie. Why would her defense scenarios be any more truthful?
But like I said from the start, if the defense puts forth such a specific alternate theory, they better be able to sell it like hell to the jury and to BACK IT UP with evidence.
A huge problem is that the defense have painted themselves into a corner with the molestation claims. Unless a third party witnessed this molestation (or unless George suddenly recants his prior testimony and admits it), then Casey Anthony herself is the ONLY person who can testify about it in an attempt to prove it.
Casey Anthony's testifying about anything is an insurmountable problem. She will never be believed. Never. Not a single word.
This is where that grief counselor the defense wants to call comes in. I believe the defense wants this woman to basically testify in place of Anthony. This is how they would get in much of what Casey would testify to. Asking questions an attorney knows will draw objections doesn't stop an attorney when they really, reeeeally need to get a point across to the jury. By the time the question is out of their mouths and objection made, oops...too late to unring that bell.
The defense has done a lot of that already...expect more.
The defense has to prove not only that Casey's nonchalant, happy-go-lucky behavior after Caylee's death was a result of having suffered molestation and grief over Caylee's loss; they must prove the molestation happened. That's not going to happen.
In opening statements, Baez said George came around the corner of the house with a drowned Caylee. And Baez just left it at that. He didn't say, "And then George used the laundry bag, the Pooh blanket and duct tape from the home to dispose of Caylee." No, they just made insinuations. That's fine -- again, they don't have to prove anything. But if they want to be believed enough to raise reasonable doubt, they have to bring it. I don't see how they can.
There are a myriad of issues with blaming George. One is the contradiction between George as a savvy, conniving ex-detective who knew all the tricks to remove himself from suspicion and clean or otherwise tamper with evidence to avoid detection of his nefarious deeds vs. the George who is alleged to have covered up the crime for Casey? You can't have it both ways. Why would George go to all that trouble and then turn around and frame his daughter? Makes NO sense.
Next under the bus in defense's scenario would have to be Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered Caylee's remains. Did the guy want the reward? Yes, and that's kind of unseemly unless you're gonna donate to charity, but it in no way means he took Caylee's remains and secreted them until the time was right to cash in on his "jackpot." This is so far-fetched and ludicrous. Between cross-exam by the state when the defense calls Kronk and Kronk's own denials, it will never fly.
Defense has to raise only reasonable doubt -- and in only one juror -- to avoid conviction. But these jurors are not dummies and are not going to buy that load of bull, especially once they decide the molestation accusations were false. They know what a liar Anthony is...why would they believe her instead of Kronk (or anyone else, for that matter).
If Casey avoids conviction, it will be because a juror felt some element of the state's case was not proven, not because they buy these ridiculous "imaginary" defense stories. If we're to believe Baez that Casey lives in an alternate reality, a world separate from the real world, we know right away not to accept her defense scenarios since her alternate reality is lie upon lie upon lie. Why would her defense scenarios be any more truthful?
Casey Anthony Trial - After State Rests: Cross-Exam, Rebuttal/Surrebuttal
You may think that once the state rests its case, it's done all it can. But that's not true at all. Remember, the state will be cross-examining all of the defense's witnesses and may be able to elicit things they never could have by calling a witness for direct exam.
Also, once the defense finishes, the state will be allowed a rebuttal case wherein they can put on their own witnesses to rebut the defense's case in chief. By the same token, the defense will be allowed surrebuttal, or rebuttal of the state's rebuttal. Got that? ;-)
Though it may seem the state is done, we will see more from the state in the form of cross-exam of defense witnesses and the state's rebuttal case.
And, of course, both sides will present closing arguments. This is when a good attorney ties together all the bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence (large and small) into a cohesive overall picture. These people have been looking at this evidence for 3 yrs. They know far more than we do -- we may even be surprised at the way in which some evidence ties in or realize that something we thought not to be a big deal really is a huge deal.
Also, once the defense finishes, the state will be allowed a rebuttal case wherein they can put on their own witnesses to rebut the defense's case in chief. By the same token, the defense will be allowed surrebuttal, or rebuttal of the state's rebuttal. Got that? ;-)
Though it may seem the state is done, we will see more from the state in the form of cross-exam of defense witnesses and the state's rebuttal case.
And, of course, both sides will present closing arguments. This is when a good attorney ties together all the bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence (large and small) into a cohesive overall picture. These people have been looking at this evidence for 3 yrs. They know far more than we do -- we may even be surprised at the way in which some evidence ties in or realize that something we thought not to be a big deal really is a huge deal.
Casey Anthony Trial - Evidence: Tying It All Together
Something I often read or hear is, "They've got nothing but circumstantial evidence." Well, the vast majority of cases are built on circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence, so let's talk about that a bit.
Direct Evidence is provided by those who actually witnessed a crime. For example, a witness who sees a defendant snatch a purse can testify that she saw the crime committed. You get the idea -- it is direct, firsthand observance of a crime.
Circumstantial Evidence is evidence from which a jury must draw inferences -- fingerprints, ballistics, hair, fiber, all the CSI stuff; but also testimony about what a witness may have seen or heard, even though they didn't witness the actual commission of the crime. For example, someone may testify that while pumping gas, he heard a gunshot in a convenience store and saw the defendant running from the scene. He didn't actually witness the crime itself, but he can tell the jury about circumstances surrounding the crime and they can draw inferences from that testimony.
As you can imagine, many times there isn't any direct evidence -- most criminals don't perform in front of an audience or videotape their exploits. Most cases are built on circumstantial evidence instead. For some reason, a lot of people think circumstantial cases are weak by their very nature.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Circumstantial evidence can be extremely powerful. It is what allows the dots to be connected when evidence is reliable and believable. If we required direct evidence of every crime, our prisons would be extremely underpopulated. We have to use common sense in deciding whether the totality of evidence presented is sufficient to relieve any reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a crime.
And speaking of reasonable doubt, the word "reasonable" is very important. Jurors are instructed not to consider imagined or fanciful scenarios (or scenarios that haven't been presented) as a "moral out" in order not to convict. They are to evaluate the evidence presented by both sides and convict if they're sure beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit if they're not.
In the realm of "what ifs" in the universe, virtually nothing is impossible. But is it plausible and - using our common sense - reasonable? If not, it's not reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not equal no doubt whatsoever. I think some want to hold the state to a higher standard than the law requires in that regard.
Yes, of course, you want to be sure someone committed the crime before convicting them. And it would be nice if criminals left videos and eyewitnesses for every crime, but they seldom do. So we have to connect the dots and see if our common sense says the reasonable conclusion is that a defendant committed a crime. It's a heavy burden to find someone guilty of a serious crime, especially one that carries the ultimate penalty. But we can't use or create unreasonable scenarios as an excuse to acquit.
Connecting The Dots
The state has done a good job presenting its evidence. I believe they have shown without a doubt that Caylee was in the trunk of that car. That's a huge piece of circumstantial evidence pointing toward Anthony's guilt.
I believe the state has shown that Casey didn't have a "flat affect" as the defense wishes us to believe (a result of abuse and trauma over Caylee's accidental death), but instead had no problem showing emotion, being a bubbly fun "party girl," getting angry with her mom, giggling in jailhouse videos, etc. She showed no concern for the welfare of her child whatsoever.
Casey didn't report Caylee missing for 31 days -- in fact, she didn't report her missing AT ALL. If not for Cindy's calling 911, who knows when Caylee's "disappearance" might have ever been discovered.
I think Dr. Jan Garavaglia gave the jury all they need to be convinced Caylee's death was not an accident, but homicide: In cases of TRUE accidents where children die, it's reported 100% of the time. Every. Single. Time. Just as she said, in cases of drowning, for example, you've no idea how long they were in the water and whether they're clinically dead and unable to be revived. You call 911 and get help there ASAP for even the most desperate situations in hopes your little one might be miraculously revived.
You don't not report a child missing; you don't toss an accident victim into garbage bags and discard her like trash in the swampy woods; you don't duct tape a live child's face, and there's no reason to ever duct tape a dead child's face. Garavaglia convinced me that there is no way Caylee's death was an accident. She was killed. Working from that, it's then left to figure out who killed her.
Decomp was in the trunk of Casey's car. There is no escaping that. Between the stains, air and postmortem root banding on the hair, the state has proved a dead Caylee was in the trunk. So now I know (1) Caylee was killed and (2) She was in Casey's trunk.
Up until the day she discarded her car at Amscot, Casey seems to have been the only one driving her car between June 16 2008 and the date she dumped the car. She complained to her friend about the smell in the car, told her an animal was plastered under the frame. So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee was in trunk of Casey's car (3) Stench was not squirrel under frame but Caylee in trunk.
The insect activity from trunk/trash bag has shown a couple of things: There were very few blowflies, which indicates they'd gotten what they wanted and moved on (in other words, the body was in the trunk for a few days, and the "mama" blowfly decided they'd fed all they could and took her clan away to find a new food source). The phorid flies, which were abundant in the paper towel, come along a bit later in the decomp process.
There were no organic substances in the trash (just empty food containers and such). There would need to be a pretty good pile of raw meat/organic substances to have attracted the flies. Even if you think there were organic materials in that garbage, why weren't the phorid flies attracted to it? What the phorid flies were attracted to in the garbage was that toweling, the toweling with a stain -- a stain believed to be decomp fluid that was wiped up (or otherwise came in contact) with the paper towels.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp in trunk/on towels and even to stage of decomp.
We also heard estimates of how long Caylee's decomposing body had been at the remains location site -- about 6 months. This was determined by the stage of decomp, the environmental conditions, the fact that parts of her little remains were practically buried or embedded in the soil and/or covered with a heavy layer of leaf and litter debris.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp (5) Caylee's body was at remains site for many months, likely from soon after she died in June.
The "Whitney Design" laundry bag with the remains was a match to another in the Anthony home, as were the black plastic trash bags and Caylee's Winnie The Pooh bedding.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp (5) Caylee's body was at remains site for many months, likely from soon after she died in June (6) Items from Anthony home found at remains site.
Abuse excuse -- Baez didn't ask George Anthony on cross whether he molested his daughter. Dorothy Clay Sims didn't ask Lee about it, either. Ashton clearly asked George about molesting his daughter on direct, so the door was WIDE open for Baez to go after him on that point in cross. But not a peep about it. In fact, there's been no evidence whatsoever that George or Lee ever molested or attempted to molest Casey.
I realize Baez can call him during the defense's case, but how much more effective would it have been to crucify him with a molestation inquisition during the state's case. If Baez could make it all believable, it would have tainted all the rest of the state's presentation.
You can see from the jailhouse tapes and testimony that Casey Anthony was NOT afraid of her father in the least. She played him, just like everyone else. She left Caylee alone with her "molester" all the time? I don't think so. Just another batch of lies from Anthony. Perhaps she is exacting revenge on George for having testified against her before the Grand Jury? Or perhaps he is the only scapegoat they could find.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp (5) Caylee's body was at remains site for many months (6) Items from Anthony home found at remains site (7) Trauma and reaction from "molestation" by George is not proven and almost surely false.
The chloroform levels of the AIR samples in Casey's trunk were off the chart. Many keep saying this was contradicted by FBI analyst who found just a "small" amount. But they were testing DIFFERENT THINGS. Now I don't know if the chloroform was a byproduct of decomp or whether Casey used it on Caylee. But it was there and in a hugely enormous quantity. Together with all the computer searches for chloroform, it points to a not-unreasonable conclusion that the substance was used somehow either on Caylee or in the trunk itself.
The duct tape matches Henkel brand that Anthonys had used. Obviously, duct tape is not wrapped around a child's face for any innocent reason when they're alive, nor even after death. I think this more than likely killed Caylee, that she suffocated from her air passages being taped up. Perhaps she was chloroformed and taped as an extra measure.
Now let's look at Casey's behavior. It's true that everyone grieves differently, but I've never heard of or seen a parent of an accidental drowning victim who:
All that said, it must be pointed out that the defense has yet to present their case. It's possible they might knock down some of the state's evidence. But if they don't, I believe the jury will have all it needs to convict of First Degree Murder. A huge problem for the defense is that they committed themselves 100% to that ridiculous scenario of George finding Caylee in the pool, being hateful to Casey about it, Casey never saying a word due to having been molested and using "ugly coping" defense mechanisms to deal with it.
The problem, as I said from the beginning, is that if the jury doesn't believe this defense, then they're left with "It's just another pack of lies by Casey Anthony, and look what she did to her poor father." That is not going to bode well for Anthony during deliberations and sentencing (if convicted).
To be fair, I guess the defense didn't have much to work with and had to come up with something to explain Casey not reporting Caylee missing and refusing to cooperate with LE. But the risk is that if the jury doesn't buy it, they quite possibly will resent the defendant and defense. They might not consciously bring that into deliberations, but somewhere in those noggins will be the thought of how the defense tried to dupe them and what a cold-hearted person Casey is for making up such a wicked story. In other words, they will think even more poorly of her and think her even more likely to be so cold as to have killed her daughter.
Let's see what the defense brings before we declare a conviction is a done deal...but for now, it's sure looking that way.
Share your thoughts in the comments section. As always, I respect all views, including those that might disagree with mine. Everyone is welcome here!
Direct Evidence is provided by those who actually witnessed a crime. For example, a witness who sees a defendant snatch a purse can testify that she saw the crime committed. You get the idea -- it is direct, firsthand observance of a crime.
Circumstantial Evidence is evidence from which a jury must draw inferences -- fingerprints, ballistics, hair, fiber, all the CSI stuff; but also testimony about what a witness may have seen or heard, even though they didn't witness the actual commission of the crime. For example, someone may testify that while pumping gas, he heard a gunshot in a convenience store and saw the defendant running from the scene. He didn't actually witness the crime itself, but he can tell the jury about circumstances surrounding the crime and they can draw inferences from that testimony.
As you can imagine, many times there isn't any direct evidence -- most criminals don't perform in front of an audience or videotape their exploits. Most cases are built on circumstantial evidence instead. For some reason, a lot of people think circumstantial cases are weak by their very nature.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Circumstantial evidence can be extremely powerful. It is what allows the dots to be connected when evidence is reliable and believable. If we required direct evidence of every crime, our prisons would be extremely underpopulated. We have to use common sense in deciding whether the totality of evidence presented is sufficient to relieve any reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a crime.
And speaking of reasonable doubt, the word "reasonable" is very important. Jurors are instructed not to consider imagined or fanciful scenarios (or scenarios that haven't been presented) as a "moral out" in order not to convict. They are to evaluate the evidence presented by both sides and convict if they're sure beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit if they're not.
In the realm of "what ifs" in the universe, virtually nothing is impossible. But is it plausible and - using our common sense - reasonable? If not, it's not reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not equal no doubt whatsoever. I think some want to hold the state to a higher standard than the law requires in that regard.
Yes, of course, you want to be sure someone committed the crime before convicting them. And it would be nice if criminals left videos and eyewitnesses for every crime, but they seldom do. So we have to connect the dots and see if our common sense says the reasonable conclusion is that a defendant committed a crime. It's a heavy burden to find someone guilty of a serious crime, especially one that carries the ultimate penalty. But we can't use or create unreasonable scenarios as an excuse to acquit.
Connecting The Dots
The state has done a good job presenting its evidence. I believe they have shown without a doubt that Caylee was in the trunk of that car. That's a huge piece of circumstantial evidence pointing toward Anthony's guilt.
I believe the state has shown that Casey didn't have a "flat affect" as the defense wishes us to believe (a result of abuse and trauma over Caylee's accidental death), but instead had no problem showing emotion, being a bubbly fun "party girl," getting angry with her mom, giggling in jailhouse videos, etc. She showed no concern for the welfare of her child whatsoever.
Casey didn't report Caylee missing for 31 days -- in fact, she didn't report her missing AT ALL. If not for Cindy's calling 911, who knows when Caylee's "disappearance" might have ever been discovered.
I think Dr. Jan Garavaglia gave the jury all they need to be convinced Caylee's death was not an accident, but homicide: In cases of TRUE accidents where children die, it's reported 100% of the time. Every. Single. Time. Just as she said, in cases of drowning, for example, you've no idea how long they were in the water and whether they're clinically dead and unable to be revived. You call 911 and get help there ASAP for even the most desperate situations in hopes your little one might be miraculously revived.
You don't not report a child missing; you don't toss an accident victim into garbage bags and discard her like trash in the swampy woods; you don't duct tape a live child's face, and there's no reason to ever duct tape a dead child's face. Garavaglia convinced me that there is no way Caylee's death was an accident. She was killed. Working from that, it's then left to figure out who killed her.
Decomp was in the trunk of Casey's car. There is no escaping that. Between the stains, air and postmortem root banding on the hair, the state has proved a dead Caylee was in the trunk. So now I know (1) Caylee was killed and (2) She was in Casey's trunk.
Up until the day she discarded her car at Amscot, Casey seems to have been the only one driving her car between June 16 2008 and the date she dumped the car. She complained to her friend about the smell in the car, told her an animal was plastered under the frame. So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee was in trunk of Casey's car (3) Stench was not squirrel under frame but Caylee in trunk.
The insect activity from trunk/trash bag has shown a couple of things: There were very few blowflies, which indicates they'd gotten what they wanted and moved on (in other words, the body was in the trunk for a few days, and the "mama" blowfly decided they'd fed all they could and took her clan away to find a new food source). The phorid flies, which were abundant in the paper towel, come along a bit later in the decomp process.
There were no organic substances in the trash (just empty food containers and such). There would need to be a pretty good pile of raw meat/organic substances to have attracted the flies. Even if you think there were organic materials in that garbage, why weren't the phorid flies attracted to it? What the phorid flies were attracted to in the garbage was that toweling, the toweling with a stain -- a stain believed to be decomp fluid that was wiped up (or otherwise came in contact) with the paper towels.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp in trunk/on towels and even to stage of decomp.
We also heard estimates of how long Caylee's decomposing body had been at the remains location site -- about 6 months. This was determined by the stage of decomp, the environmental conditions, the fact that parts of her little remains were practically buried or embedded in the soil and/or covered with a heavy layer of leaf and litter debris.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp (5) Caylee's body was at remains site for many months, likely from soon after she died in June.
The "Whitney Design" laundry bag with the remains was a match to another in the Anthony home, as were the black plastic trash bags and Caylee's Winnie The Pooh bedding.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp (5) Caylee's body was at remains site for many months, likely from soon after she died in June (6) Items from Anthony home found at remains site.
Abuse excuse -- Baez didn't ask George Anthony on cross whether he molested his daughter. Dorothy Clay Sims didn't ask Lee about it, either. Ashton clearly asked George about molesting his daughter on direct, so the door was WIDE open for Baez to go after him on that point in cross. But not a peep about it. In fact, there's been no evidence whatsoever that George or Lee ever molested or attempted to molest Casey.
I realize Baez can call him during the defense's case, but how much more effective would it have been to crucify him with a molestation inquisition during the state's case. If Baez could make it all believable, it would have tainted all the rest of the state's presentation.
You can see from the jailhouse tapes and testimony that Casey Anthony was NOT afraid of her father in the least. She played him, just like everyone else. She left Caylee alone with her "molester" all the time? I don't think so. Just another batch of lies from Anthony. Perhaps she is exacting revenge on George for having testified against her before the Grand Jury? Or perhaps he is the only scapegoat they could find.
So now I know (1) Caylee killed (2) Caylee in trunk (3) Stench was from decomp (4) Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp (5) Caylee's body was at remains site for many months (6) Items from Anthony home found at remains site (7) Trauma and reaction from "molestation" by George is not proven and almost surely false.
The chloroform levels of the AIR samples in Casey's trunk were off the chart. Many keep saying this was contradicted by FBI analyst who found just a "small" amount. But they were testing DIFFERENT THINGS. Now I don't know if the chloroform was a byproduct of decomp or whether Casey used it on Caylee. But it was there and in a hugely enormous quantity. Together with all the computer searches for chloroform, it points to a not-unreasonable conclusion that the substance was used somehow either on Caylee or in the trunk itself.
The duct tape matches Henkel brand that Anthonys had used. Obviously, duct tape is not wrapped around a child's face for any innocent reason when they're alive, nor even after death. I think this more than likely killed Caylee, that she suffocated from her air passages being taped up. Perhaps she was chloroformed and taped as an extra measure.
***************
Now let's look at Casey's behavior. It's true that everyone grieves differently, but I've never heard of or seen a parent of an accidental drowning victim who:
- Does not call 911 in a desperate attempt to revive the child, regardless the consequences to herself if she's been neglectful.
- Has fun hanging with her boyfriend and others, renting movies, shopping, cooking, going dancing immediately after her child's death.
- Lies to LE over and over and over again. In fact, every word out of her mouth was a lie designed to cover her own tracks rather than to assist in finding her daughter. She gave absolutely no -- I mean ZERO -- useful information to LE to assist in finding Caylee. NONE.
- Never shows one iota of concern while in jail about her "missing" daughter. She was concerned only with her own situation (perhaps because she knew there was nothing that could be done for Caylee at that point).
- Continues with her lies, never saying a word about an accident til time for her trial when the abuse excuse was concocted. If this were an accident, she would have said so in the three years since Caylee died. She wouldn't have sat in jail awaiting a trial and subject herself to lethal injection over a true "accident." Baez has claimed from the beginning that there was an explanation, that the truth made sense. If he knew of this "accident" and molestation all along, what does that say about his advocacy for his client?
- Caylee was killed (she did not suffer an accident).
- Caylee was in that trunk.
- The car stench was from decomp.
- Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp.
- Caylee's body was at remains site for many months (negating "Kronk hid/discovered her for money" scenario).
- Items from Anthony home found at remains site.
- Duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's face/head. Perhaps chloroform was used as a weapon as well. Computer searches point to a desire to harm someone.
- Trauma and reaction from "molestation" by George is not proven and almost surely false. She would not allow herself to sit for years in jail and face the death penalty out of "fear" of George Anthony.
- Casey's behavior - some think it doesn't matter, but it surely does. Not EVER reporting Caylee missing (or "accidental" death); partying and carrying on with her boyfriend, carefree and happy as can be; never showing concern or asking about progress in finding Caylee while in jail; her bizarre attitude/demeanor on jailhouse tapes.
- All the lies to family and LE about what happened. Every single thing she said distracted from finding her daughter. Every single word out of her mouth a lie.
All that said, it must be pointed out that the defense has yet to present their case. It's possible they might knock down some of the state's evidence. But if they don't, I believe the jury will have all it needs to convict of First Degree Murder. A huge problem for the defense is that they committed themselves 100% to that ridiculous scenario of George finding Caylee in the pool, being hateful to Casey about it, Casey never saying a word due to having been molested and using "ugly coping" defense mechanisms to deal with it.
The problem, as I said from the beginning, is that if the jury doesn't believe this defense, then they're left with "It's just another pack of lies by Casey Anthony, and look what she did to her poor father." That is not going to bode well for Anthony during deliberations and sentencing (if convicted).
To be fair, I guess the defense didn't have much to work with and had to come up with something to explain Casey not reporting Caylee missing and refusing to cooperate with LE. But the risk is that if the jury doesn't buy it, they quite possibly will resent the defendant and defense. They might not consciously bring that into deliberations, but somewhere in those noggins will be the thought of how the defense tried to dupe them and what a cold-hearted person Casey is for making up such a wicked story. In other words, they will think even more poorly of her and think her even more likely to be so cold as to have killed her daughter.
Let's see what the defense brings before we declare a conviction is a done deal...but for now, it's sure looking that way.
Share your thoughts in the comments section. As always, I respect all views, including those that might disagree with mine. Everyone is welcome here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)