"Jaw-Dropping" Opening Statement / Will Casey Anthony Testify?

*This post was originally published just before Blogger went down for those couple of days week before last. Posts which were lost when the service went down were eventually restored as drafts (not as published posts). This is one of them.

The defense has promised that their opening statement will clear up the mystery of why Anthony didn't report her daughter, Caylee, missing for 31 days and that jaws will drop when we hear that explanation. They've also promised that this will occur within the first "3 minutes" (later revised down to only one minute!) of opening statements.

Lots of speculation out there about what this "jaw-dropping" information might be. Clearly, since the defense contends Anthony is innocent of murder, that leaves only Fear-of-Reprisal (what I'll call "FOR") in an accidental death or SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It).

I see many problems with going the accident route in the guilt phase. First and foremost, Anthony would be admitting she knew of Caylee's death and that Caylee's body was indeed in Casey's car trunk. If the jury doesn't buy the accident scenario, then they're left with those admissions, and that would negate any expert testimony that the stain and air compounds in the trunk weren't related to decomposition. Then Anthony is really in a bind, and that's before we factor in all the other circumstantial evidence the state will present.

In letters to a prison pen pal, Anthony claimed sexual abuse by both her father and brother. The defense wanted a psychiatrist/therapist/counselor to basically testify in place of Anthony about something (we don't know exactly what, but it was clear from the attorney/judge discussion in open court that it was an attempt to get Anthony's explanation before the jury without her taking the stand). The judge said NO to that.

Most speculation seems to focus on Anthony's father, George, and claims of abuse by him. I tend to think those claims of abuse would be brought up in mitigation rather than the guilt phase of trial.

In mitigation during the penalty phase, Anthony might maintain her innocence while proclaiming that "FOR" kept her from reporting either an accidental or SODDI death; that the FOR coupled with the trauma of losing Caylee caused Anthony to employ an "ugly coping" mechanism to deal with it all. ("Ugly coping" is a psychological defense mechanism whereby someone behaves contrary to accepted norms of behavior in reaction to a traumatic incident.)

But will anyone believe she so feared the wrath of her father/family that she was willing to carry out her fabrication to the bitter end -- risking being put to death -- rather than face the consequences from her dad/court for an accidental (or neglect resulting in a SODDI) death?

Eh. Gonna need something far more sinister than the type of things we've heard about George (pushing a protester off his property, shoving a family member through a window back in Ohio, etc.) for anyone to buy that scenario.

If Anthony were to testify, she would be ripped to shreds on cross-exam by the state. But might that be part of the plan? Will she confess to and apologize for all the lies and claim that she just didn't know any other way to handle things (i.e., the "ugly coping")? Maybe she'll claim she was so distraught over Caylee's death and so fearful of reprisal from her monster abusers that she just couldn't tell the truth to anyone. For three years. Uhhh-huh.

Even as a mitigator, some of the same problems remain -- if jurors have already convicted her of murder, they're not going to appreciate or buy it if Anthony claims accident with "FOR"  from her abusers. They'll "consider" it if the judge tells them to, but they won't buy it.

Regardless what abuse Anthony may have suffered (physical, sexual, emotional) from her family, a boyfriend, a stranger, a preacher, a teacher -- it just won't matter as far as mitigating her actions. So many have suffered horrific abuse, trauma, pain and misery in their lives -- it's not an excuse.

There is no doubt Anthony is a master of manipulation and deception. She employed the same tactics *before* Caylee "went missing" as she did after. The trauma of losing her child didn't cause her inappropriate behavior and deception -- that's who she has been all along.

That's not to say she's not got issues -- anyone living in that house would, and it's obvious Anthony herself does. But do they rise to the level of excusing her behavior? Abuse and/or trauma over her daughter's death just won't fly, in my opinion. It's obvious she was trying to save herself from LE and the judicial system -- not from her family or anyone else.

I think it's far more likely defense will (as it should) hold the state to the burden of proving its case against Anthony. At the same time, they will point the finger (at least half-heartedly) at Kronk, boyfriends, anyone they can claim may have had the opportunity to kill Caylee and dump her body in the woods while Anthony sat in jail. They don't have to offer proof; they need just raise a reasonable doubt -- and to get it to stick with only one juror, at that (since it would require a unanimous verdict to convict her).

We'll have to see if they even go any of those routes. They all pose risks. While the defense is not required to prove a darn thing in the guilt phase and are required to prove only by the greater weight of the evidence any claims in mitigation during the penalty phase, if they're going to put forth an alternate scenario, they better be able to sell it like hell to the jury if they want to create reasonable doubt (or at least mitigation).

George and Cindy Anthony's attorney has declared that, depending on what is said in court, they might take legal action over false abuse claims. Yeah, good luck with that...

What is your take on the defense's "jaw-dropper" -- what do you think it will be? What about the possibility that Anthony could take the stand? Sound off in the comments section!