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?
No comments:
Post a Comment