Almost one-and-a-half years after the verdict, pseudo-investigators are still researching the evidence in the case of the State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony. Longtime TV investigator Tony Piptone has been on this case since the beginning and gained notoriety for his researching skills. This past week he released a report outlining “overlooked” evidence in the case which “may have affected the outcome.” However, the evidence was not exactly new as Jose Baez, Casey’s former defense attorney, revealed it in his book.
What was the nature of the evidence?
When you turn on Nancy Grace (or any show on HLN), you hear from mental health “experts” who proceed to tell you that Casey Anthony is a psychopath or sociopath. They say she has a narcissistic personality disorder. They say she’s a pathological liar. The problem is that none of these “experts” have ever met Casey Anthony or studied her past. They sell you their “expert opinion” with superficial analysis.
Meanwhile, the reports from psychologists who actually examined Casey Anthony in jail tell a very different story than comments from their TV counterparts; and their opinions are substantiated by hours of research and hard data.
What did they say?
I give credit where credit is due. Jeff Ashton was a helluva prosecutor in this case. Like him or hate him, you can’t deny that the man was good at selling a story. It was almost unfair how much better he was than anyone on the defense team. The secret behind his success was his logical reasoning. His theories just made sense, so it was difficult for people to argue against him. However, in this case, his logic was his downfall.
While reading his book, I found myself agreeing with Ashton on many topics. Indeed, if you read his book and read some of my previous posts, you will see that in many places my logic mirrors his – which is a bit eerie. However, on the issue of murder, we disagree. Ashton has repeatedly said in interviews that his book outlines the “truth” as he believes it. I commend him for adding the disclaimer.
Ashton reviewed the case evidence in his book and I’m going to keep him honest. What was true and what was embellished?
Above the State Attorney’s Office in Orange County, FL reads the message:
“Seek Truth, the Cornerstone of Justice”
“Justice for Caylee” starts by seeking the truth. And the truth is always in the evidence.
For most people, the premise of a mystery is irresistible. At the conclusion of the trial, I was left disappointed because I felt that the mystery had not been solved. While I was watching the trial, I could see that there were inconsistencies in both the State’s and defense’s version of events. It was painfully obvious that there was more to the story than was being told.
Therefore, I started this blog. I wanted to know what happened. Did Casey Anthony murder her child according to the State’s version of events? I spent countless hours reading the police transcripts and FBI reports – thanks to Florida’s liberal release laws – as well as rewatching trial testimony.
I looked at the chloroform and computer evidence and determined that it was highly improbable that Casey made chloroform (read “The Chloroform”, “The Computer Forensics”). I looked at the trunk evidence and accepted that there was a body in the trunk for a short while (read “The Trunk”). I researched papers on the decompositional process of a human body and concluded that the duct tape could not have been on the face for the reasons the State implied (read “Challenging the Duct Tape”). I read accounts of what Casey was like during the “31 Days” and realized that there was a misportrayal of her behavior in the media (read “The Cover-Up”).
After all that, it became clear that Casey did not murder her child the way the State claimed (read “The Analysis”).
I proceeded to research the character of Casey Anthony and the relationship she had with her child. I spent hours reading transcripts from her friends and family. I could not find anyone who had anything bad to say about Casey as a mother. Psychologists who examined Casey in jail spoke out on her behalf after the trial ended and dispelled misconceptions.
It was then I realized that there was no murder (read “Casey: Loving Mother?”).
I had forgotten how much I dislike Dr. Phil. Unfortunately, George and Cindy Anthony decided to talk to him in exchange for a donation to their charity. In an exclusive interview, they revealed what was happening behind-the-scenes in the Casey Anthony case for last three years and their thoughts on the matter. It certainly was an interesting, albeit frustrating, interview to watch.
I believe both were honest as to what they believed. But were they really telling the truth? To figure that out we have to look at the evidence in this case.
How did their responses fit the evidence?
Casey Anthony told her friends and family that a woman named “Zanny” babysat her child while she was at “work.” In a statement written on July 16, 2008, she advised LE that she left her child with the babysitter, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, on June 16, 2008 and had not seen either of them since then (read statement). The detectives proceeded to look for the woman, however their leads were nonexistent because no one had actually seen or talked to “Zanny, the Nanny.”
Who was this woman?
I hate objections. I hate when testimony is cut short, especially when it is the opinion of a scientist. It’s not right. The truth should never be silenced. However, that is the way the judicial system works. If you do not like what is coming next, object and plead your case. Both sides were guilty of concealing the truth.
The Testimony Never Heard
After the trial, I wondered why the defense did not elicit testimony about the duct tape from Dr. Arpad Vass given his experience with decomposition. Then I remembered they called someone else. Dr. William Rodriguez, a forensic anthropologist, attempted to testify on June 18, but his testimony was cut short by the State (view testimony). They contended that the opinions he was going to render were not included in his written report. Personally, I couldn’t care less for the legal argument. Who cares if his opinions weren’t in a report? I wanted to hear what he had to say.
However, the prosecution didn’t. What was he going to say that had them scared?