Week 1: Sex, Lies & Videotape -- Something Stinks!

The first week of trial -- what a week! Allegations of abuse; testimony about Casey's behavior and demeanor; videotapes of Casey shopping with other people's money; testimony about the God-awful stench from Casey's car; George Anthony coming under attack; Cindy seemingly overcoming her longstanding animus for the state and LE; Casey pitching a fit, and so much more. Let's take a closer look.

Real Abuse or "Hail Mary" Defense?

Jose Baez has made horrific, disgusting allegations about George Anthony, both flat-out in his opening statement and by insinuation/inference in cross-examining witnesses. As I said earlier on, if he is going to claim incestuous sexual abuse as an excuse for his client's behavior, he'd better sell the hell out of it to the jury. If they don't believe this abuse story, they will also not believe Caylee drowned in an accident.

Baez has admitted to all the world that his client is a pathological liar, and testimony has borne that out. She lied about her job, the nanny, and so many incidental, unimportant things. Baez said she was "raised to lie." So if she lies about everything, why should anyone believe the abuse allegations?

The allegations and lies are something I feel Casey's used for attention and sympathy for years, whipping them out whenever she feels it might benefit her to do so. If I recall correctly, Lazzaro testified that the timing of Anthony's telling him about the abuse was right around his trip to NY. Another witness testified that she overheard a phone call Casey made to Lazzaro in which she was angry, telling him she didn't want him to go, etc. So, consider the timing of her "revelations" of abuse to others as well.

When Baez made a proffer to the court of Lazzaro's testimony (put him on the stand and questioned him outside the presence of the jury), Lazzaro testified that Casey told him Lee had tried to feel her up but wasn't successful. As for George, Lazzaro remembered his abuse as "hitting," which he interpreted as discipline.

He very clearly said that if she'd claimed George had molested her, he would remember that, just like he remembered Lee's alleged attempt to feel her up. Not that that's not a horrible thing, but in comparison to her father actually molesting her, it pales in comparison. If he remembered Lee's "attempt," then of-fricking-course he'd remember her saying her father actually molested her.

The defense didn't get what they wanted from Lazzaro, though Baez tried and tried to get him to at least say that he couldn't remember whether Casey said it was sexual or other abuse. Given Lazzaro's statement on direct exam that he'd remember if she said it were sexual, the defense got nothing incriminating against George from this witness.

You Can't Hide Your Lyin' Eyes.

The lies Casey told her mother are truly "jaw-dropping," to borrow a phrase from the defense. I mean, one after another after another. Constant. And the level of detail she attached to her lies is staggering. She lied about so many things there was never any need to lie about, adding superfluous (and sometimes grand) details that didn't matter, all to bolster her deception.

The state brought in many witnesses to attest to Anthony's behavior during June/July 2008. Not only could they testify that she was carefree, happy, "a party girl," they also were able to testify about the lies Anthony told each of them. Her lies were truly never-ending. So unless there is someone to testify they actually witnessed the abuse, that jury is never going to believe those allegations, especially once they hear the entirety of testimony from her family and LE. And not only because the accusations are obviously self-serving in this instance, but because Anthony simply cannot be believed about anything whatsoever.

And speaking of the web of lies, Baez is now attempting to go the "alternate reality" route with his cross-exam, asking witnesses if it all just seemed so bizarre; asking Tony Lazzaro whether Casey kept her world with him and her world with her family separate; asking whether it seemed she believed what she was saying about her job and the nanny.

Baez is clearly attempting to paint the picture that Anthony lived in a world all her own, a false reality that she truly believed was real. Anthony wasn't just raised to lie; wasn't just scared of her monster father and the brother who "wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps" -- she actually believed what she told people and didn't understand it wasn't the truth.

If that were the case, folks, then she had no need to try to cover her behavior with even more lies, did she? It's my opinion that she was 100% in touch with reality, and I have no doubt that she knew right from wrong. She was spoiled (sickly enabled by her mom), didn't want to take responsibility for herself and her child, and would rather have stolen from others than make an honest living. Casey believed she was special. She deserved whatever she wanted, so she took it without regard to consequence and without concern for anyone but herself.

Baez has been asking witnesses about how much Caylee adored Casey. That means nothing. Anyone who's ever been or known an abused child knows that they still love their abusive parent. In fact, they may try even harder to love and please the parent in order to gain approval and affection in return.

I can only guess that Baez thinks jurors would believe an abused child would cower in the corner constantly and recoil each time the parent was near. Hello! Baez himself said Casey would be molested by her dad, go to school right after and play with the other kids as if nothing were wrong.

You can't have that both ways in terms of how children deal with abuse. Of course, we know children can cope in many different ways, but if you're going to say your client could still live with her abuser (and even let him be alone with her beloved child) and never recoil or cower in his presence, you can't then say that if Caylee were abused, there would've been obvious signs in the way she interacted with her mother. The whole "Did Caylee love Casey" line of questioning is really insulting to the jurors' intelligence.

Note: Let's say Baez impeaches a witness here or there (e.g., contradictory statements between testimony and depositions). During closing argument, how will he, with a straight face, call them liars who aren't to be believed...and then in the next breath, tell the jury that they should believe his client, a person he, himself, has aggressively presented as a grand liar? "Don't believe that liar, but DO believe this liar" is gonna be a tough sell.

Casey vs. Cindy -- a never-ending power struggle.

Casey had a tantrum -- a meltdown, really -- after one segment of her mom's testimony. During that testimony, Cindy had talked about going with Lee to purchase the playhouse for Caylee's second birthday. She left out any mention of Casey helping with it. When asked if Caylee were vocal, she also said that you learn what your child means when they are trying to say something.

I believe that testimony, coupled with seeing Cindy and George hug after Cindy left the stand, is what set Casey off. She began looking their direction, talking animatedly with Dorothy Clay Sims, shaking her head back and forth, looking very frustrated and angry, as if she thought her mom had been unfair to her in her testimony or disloyal by hugging her dad.

THAT is the real Casey Anthony. You know, the one who couldn't allow herself to get upset and cry over Caylee at any point, but who had no problem crying each time the judge read the charges against her in jury selection and on many occasions throughout the trial thus far. Apparently, Caylee's death didn't affect her nearly as much as the judge reading charges and her mom testifying.

Casey's meltdown after Cindy's testimony is a perfect example of the dynamics of the Casey/Cindy relationship. It has been a power struggle at least from the time Caylee was born. Casey was unwilling to take full responsibility, to get a job, strike out on her own. She was dependent on her parents to take care of both her and Caylee, and she resented the hell out of Cindy for being "in charge" and taking on so much of Caylee's care (and affection).

There's no doubt there was major dysfunction in the family. As evidenced by Cindy's interaction with LE, media and others (we've all seen the videos), Cindy has a very strong, domineering personality. And she is not going to stop til things are the way she wants/needs them to be. She even tried to control LE (including the FBI!) in their investigation, telling them how to do their jobs. Ditto with media. Cindy has a need to fix things and, if she can't, to find a way to excuse them, lest they shed a bad light on her.

I suspect Casey was made to feel inferior most of her life because her mom directed absolutely everything and never allowed Casey the independence and confidence to be her own person. It's possible to demean a person (even in the guise of "helping") to the point they're not able to function on their own. Cindy needed the fantasy of Casey working, having a Nanny and being successful for her own reasons -- but she also needed Casey to remain dependent on her as well. So she enabled Casey's behavior and lies to the hilt.

Casey needed her mom for financial support, to take care of Caylee and to help cover for her, but she resented it and blamed her mom for her own shortcomings. She wanted to be the up-and-coming event planner she projected in her lies; wanted to be independent, be her own person. But she lacked enough initiative to make that happen. She'd always had someone take care of everything for her and didn't want to do the hard work it takes to be on your own and be responsible for yourself, much less take on sole responsibility for a child.

Casey began hanging out with a group of young people who were in college, who were goal-oriented and wanted to go places. Some had already embarked on careers. She liked being part of that group. Liked going to Fusion. Liked the attention. Liked being thought of as the manager of the "shot girls." Liked for her group of friends to believe she was "one of them," so to speak. She lied about her employment and nanny situation to try to fit in. She didn't want anything -- or anyone -- to come between her and this new life (even though that life was built entirely on lies).

Is it a shame Cindy might have treated Casey this way? Sure, it is. But plenty of us have had family dysfunction and domineering mothers. It's no excuse once you're an adult. It's up to you to remove yourself from it. If you don't, it's because you're getting something you need from the relationship. So, however bossy and "take-over-ish" Cindy may have been, Casey alone is responsible for her behavior. She was in her 20s at the time Caylee "disappeared." She cannot blame Cindy for anything she did (although I'd bet that's her mindset -- that it's all her mom's fault somehow).

Note: Is Cindy *really* a prosecution witness? Well, my thought is yes and no. She is not argumentative and defensive with them as she has been in the past; however, she still is making excuses for some of Casey's lies and acting as if she still believes some of them. One great big red flag to me is that she claimed she was still looking for the Imaginanny up until six weeks ago (coincidentally, about the time it came out the defense was going to throw the family under the bus in a major way).

Come on now, Cindy. Despite how heartbreaking it all is, after three years, you know there never was any Zanny the Nanny. At least she isn't still claiming Caylee is alive, as she did in a hearing within a few months of trial. Had Casey not thrown the family under the bus, however, I feel Cindy would still claim Caylee is alive and that there *is* a Zanny; that she would be making all sorts of efforts on Casey's behalf with her testimony; and that she would still have the same antagonistic attitude toward prosecutors and LE that she's had all along.

So, much as I want to believe she is going to just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, I still have some nagging doubt about whether she's willing to let go and let that happen. Hopefully, as testimony progresses, that doubt will be erased.

George Anthony -- The Goat Being Scaped.

George Anthony has not only been accused of molesting his daughter. The past week, he was accused of discovering Caylee's body and, by inference, disposing of it. He was accused of having prior knowledge the car was at Amscot; knowing that he should take gas cans with him to pick it up because he was already aware it was out of gas; knowing not to touch anything that might be evidence so he could avoid any focus on him in an investigation...and so much more.

Repeatedly, Baez questioned George in what seemed (to me, at least) to be a bit more than necessary Perry Mason fashion...trying to portray "gotcha" moments out of small issues. His questions were so convoluted at times that it was easily understandable that George needed clarification. George accused Baez of trying to trick him, confuse him, upset him. He did his best to make it difficult for Baez -- you could feel the tension boiling up at certain points. But, overall, George maintained his composure in an admirable fashion.

Baez, in what I thought was a humiliating and demeaning act, forced George to come off the stand and mark dates on a huge calendar Baez is using. They were within arm's reach of each other several times. I gotta hand it to George for keeping his cool. If someone were attacking me with the hideous accusations the defense has put forth, not sure how calm I could remain. I can't help but think Baez is doing his best to push George's buttons so that he pops off in such a way that Baez can show George is a hothead to be feared.

Of course, that is Baez's job, and it wouldn't bother me if I thought there were truth behind the "George is a monster" allegations. But I've seen absolutely nothing thus far to suggest that in the least. Unless/until I do, I see George not just as a victim in losing his granddaughter, but as someone who is being victimized over and over again due to his daughter's selfishness. I don't see how he bears it.

Something Stinks -- "Whoa, I know what THAT smells like."

The manager of the tow yard to which Casey's car was taken from Amscot testified this week. Simon Birch said that on an initial look-see of the car, he put his hand against the window to shield against the sun and detected a strong odor. Later, when he and George opened the car, he smelled it even more. And there was an extremely pungent odor coming from the trunk when they opened it.

Birch has worked 30 years in the towing business and has had at least 6-8 occasions to smell the odor of decomposition in vehicles. He pulled a two-year stint in sanitation work as well, so he knows the difference between the smell of the most disgusting trash vs. human decomposition. He said there's just no comparison; decomp is a very unique, distinctive odor that you recognize immediately if you've ever smelled it before.

Birch testified there was a garbage bag in the trunk, and he offered to get rid of it. He tossed it over a fence to be picked up later for disposal in their dumpster. When he retrieved the bag after a bit, he said the trunk smell had not stayed with it. On the contrary, George testified the awful smell did remain in the car, even after the garbage was removed. It was so bad that he drove home with all the windows down, even though it was raining. He said there was no way he could've driven the car with the windows up.

The testimony of these two men about the car odor is extremely important. We will hear dog handlers saying alerts for human decomp were made in the trunk. We'll hear from experienced detectives -- who know the smell of death -- that the trunk reeked of it. And, of course, we will hear from Cindy about her "smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car" statement to the 911 operator.

I think the jurors will be left with no doubt that Caylee's little decomposing body was in that trunk at some point, regardless whether the "air compound" evidence Dr. Vass will present is accepted.

There are a lot of holes in the defense scenario. Granted, they're not required to prove anything, but if jurors buy the state's case, then the defense has to raise reasonable doubt with what they present. It has to be credible...or at least plausible.

Legal Wrangling - Motion for Mistrial, Proffers

A few rulings of note:

The defense asked for a mistrial based on the cumulative effect of what they claim is the state's eliciting character testimony from their witnesses (this isn't allowed). The state countered that they are eliciting testimony about Anthony's unchanged demeanor during the relevant time period, not for the purpose of showing bad character. Judge Perry agreed with the state and denied the motion for mistrial.

The state made a motion in limine that the defense be required to make a proffer with witnesses it intends to use before putting defendant's "self-serving" statements to others before the jury. The judge granted that motion, noting that the defense has not met any of the three requirements to overcome the general inadmissibility of self-serving statements, including failure to lay the foundation for them to come in. A proffer is a showing to the court (outside the presence of the jury) that the testimony of a witness is actually admissible. So the defense will not be able to elicit testimony about self-serving statements by Anthony without first running it by the court with a proffer.

The defense wants George Anthony's grand jury testimony. It is normally kept secret but if there are contradictions in a witness's grand jury vs. trial testimony, the judge can allow the defense to have that transcript. Judge Perry is reviewing the transcript this weekend in order to make a ruling. Of course, the defense would love to get its hands on that testimony and go on a fishing expedition to see what might be there that they can use to bolster their case/impeach witnesses (even if on minor points, which they can attempt to turn into monumental issues).

I know I've been hard on the defense in this post, but this is the way I see things at this point. Maybe they will surprise me and I'll begin to believe what they're presenting...but it's not looking likely at the moment. That said, of course the state hasn't yet proved its case. That has to be accomplished before I start pondering any reasonable doubt raised by the defense.

One thing I'm perplexed about is why Cheney Mason has for the most part sat silent at the defense table. He is, however, actively involved in all the sidebars. I wonder if his preference or role is more as an overseer or advisor. Maybe he is more about monitoring legal procedure than actively promoting the defense theory. He's an extremely experienced, respected attorney, compared to Baez's relatively little experience. Maybe we'll see Mason participate more with questioning witnesses as things progress.


There's so much more to cover (the increasing likelihood that Anthony will have to take the stand and logistics of the "drowning" scenario, for a couple), but if you're kind enough to have made it this far, I will mercifully wrap it up for now. ;-)

I'm very interested in what you guys think about each side's case -- especially problems you see with what's been presented thus far. Whether we agree or disagree on a given point, I will always respect your opinion. Sound off in the comments section, and we'll dedicate a future post to discussing and picking apart the holes in each side's case. As always, thank you for stopping by!