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:

• 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?

So now I know:

1. Caylee was killed (she did not suffer an accident).
2. Caylee was in that trunk.
3. The car stench was from decomp.
4. Fly evidence points to decomp/stage of decomp.
5. Caylee's body was at remains site for many months (negating "Kronk hid/discovered her for money" scenario).
6. Items from Anthony home found at remains site.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

I didn't cover everything, just hit a few high points. There is much, much more. But taking just the points I covered and looking at them in their totality, I think it's enough for a jury to convict on First Degree Murder. It is "reasonable" to draw inferences from this mountain of circumstantial evidence that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, kept her in her trunk for a few days, then dumped her close to home. There is nothing "reasonable" to suggest anyone else had anything whatsoever to do with Caylee's death/disposal.

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!