<p>I couldn’t get into Lee’s crying story because neither side asked him why he had these feelings towards his family during Caylee’s pregnancy and Caylee’s birth.But in the overall scheme of thinbgs, I don’t even know what this has to do with who killed Caylee.As far as Cindy and her cholorform searches story goes, I have a dog (have had many over the years) the first thing I do when my dog is sick or acting odd, is call her vet. If I was going to google symptoms, I would have entered “are bamaboo leaves toxic to dogs”.I always felt so much sympathy towards Cindy, but now I feel like she lied under oath and even though I understand she doesn’t want her daughter to face the death penalty, I can’t stand to see Caylee’s pictures and videos and not think that Casey might be pure evil.</p>
<p>Has George stated under oath that he found Caylee in the pool?</p>
<p>No. It was in the defense’s opening statements. There are no requirements that the statements be backed up, or that anyone state under oath anything to corroborate this.</p>
<p>It’s like they are just throwing a bunch of stuff out there with no cohesive defense and hoping that something will stick.</p>
<p>Lee’s sobbing was weird.</p>
<p>The defense was trying to suggest that he was crying because he feared that he was the bio dad. But even if he thought he was (which I doubt), he’s known for a long time that he was ruled out.</p>
<p>I think the sobbing is just a bunch of pent-up emotions from realizing his sister totally lied to him (because he always believed that Casey would lie to OTHERS, but not to him)…and the realization that his sister was involved someway in Caylee’s death. Lee spend a gazillion hours looking for Caylee…and now he knows that Casey knew Caylee was dead the whole time.</p>
<p>Frankly, blaming George and Lee was really dumb on the part of the defense. It made them realize that CAsey would throw them under the bus to save herself.</p>
<p>The defense has a tough situation with a bad client. She is despised, a liar, and just plain horrible. That’s what he has to work with, along with publicity that really makes this a difficult case.</p>
<p>What he is trying to do is show that there are many scenarios possible here as the evidence does not exclude them. If I were he, (big talk sitting here and not even a lawyer), I would have made the alternatives more believable as it truly is possible that the little one died not of Casey’s direct action/intent. But I don’t think he wants to get into the minutia of that kind of evidence and Casey may have refused to admit even having anything to do with the death which is highly unbelievable. But he is stuck with her story as unbelievable as it may be.</p>
<p>^^^ Sorry, but if I were on that jury and hearing what the defense has put forth …. Casey is looking MORE guilty of “direct action/intent” not less. Cindy’s lying and Lee’s crying has not helped the defense’s case.</p>
<p>I think Baez’s problem is that he is trying to take all of the facts and come up with a cohesive alternate theory instead of just attacking all of the weak points in the prosecution’s case individually.</p>
<p>Baez seems to be trying to say:
- Caylee drowned in the pool
- Casey was so messed up by her family’s sexual abuse that she didn’t react normally
- George knew about it and did not call 911
- The chloroform in the car’s trunk got there due to cleaning products
- The two cadaver dogs and odor testing of the trunk were all wrong about whether there was a body in the trunk
- George helped hide the accident and Caylee’s body </p>
<p>Two more items that haven’t yet been fully discussed, but may be added to the mix:
- Caylee’s skeletal remains were moved to where they were found by the meter reader who reported them (and collected a reward).
- The duct tape was added to the skull by said meter reader</p>
<p>If I were a juror I could believe the first point, and just maybe the second point. But there’s no way I could believe the rest of the points. And without believing all of them, the defense falls apart.</p>
<p>I haven’t been following this at all until just recently. Is the biological father of Caylee known? Have Casey’s father and brother been ruled out?</p>
<p>I did see Cindy’s testimony about googling chloroform/chlorophyl. She sounds credible unless you pay attention to what she is actually saying. I agree with a previous poster that someone who is worried about a dog having eaten a plant would call the vet, rather than google the chemicals in the plant! And all this while she was known to be at work.</p>
<p>Read a comment somewhere, and person thought perhaps Casey, had been experimenting with Chloroform on dog, therefore, explaining the lethargic dog.</p>
<p>^^^
Wow. That would just be the icing on this crazy case.</p>
<p>Why would a nurse look up chlorophyll and then cloroform for a lethargic dog? Does this make sense to anyone? I am not even talking about how many times it was looked up. Interesting how nobody can find the pop up of the skateboarder and his “neck breaking” feat. Does anyone believe this testimony?</p>
<p>I don’t believe it. People remember little details of events that happened long ago because they were emotionally significant somehow. If you were looking up information about why your dog was sick, would you remember *years later *that one of the search results was about a skateboarding stunt?</p>
<p>I also think people are putting too much on Jose Baez. He represents Casey Anthony; whatever defense he puts forward is driven by what his client tells him. Unless he is really unethical, he wouldn’t just make up a story about Caylee drowning. His client must have told him that’s what happened, and now he’s stuck stating it as fact in court, because he has to represent his client. I can’t imagine he believes it.</p>
<p>^^^
That is true but i would think that as a lawyer with a reputation at stake, he would be concerned with looking like an a$$. Do lawyers ever walk away from cases if their clients are too ludicrous to be believable? This defense team should have run.</p>
<p>I think Casey did come up with the drowning story. I don’t blame Baez for that. I blame Baez for taking on a death penalty case without the requisite lawyering skills. He lacks the very basic skill of being able to ask questions properly. His handling of his experts - such as they were - was terrible. They weren’t prepared properly and he didn’t know how to elicit what he needed. </p>
<p>The opening statement is not evidence and the jury will be instructed not to treat it as such. They are supposed to disregard anything not backed up with evidence.</p>
<p>I think that Baez has done very well. I do think that Jeff Ashton came across as far more skilled than Baez.</p>
<p>Good point, mantori.suzuki. Who, indeed, would remember a random Google result years later?</p>
<p>*- The duct tape was added to the skull by said meter reader
*</p>
<p>Since the duct tape was an unusual brand and found in the Anthony garage, the defense either has to claim that Geo put in on the dead child…or Kronk got the duct tape from George.</p>
<p>Does anyone now if Kronk had access to the duct tape directly or indirectly though the taping of posters of Caylee?</p>
<p>Both George and Lee were ruled out as Caylee’s bio dad through DNA testing.</p>
<p>I’d guess that those posters were all over, held in place by the tape. But from what I understand, the section of tape found with the remains is very long, not likely to have been used on the posters. I would think there would be residue from whatever the poster was attached to (ie telephone pole, etc).</p>
<p>I suppose I could believe the baby drowned, but why no one reported it, called for help, told someone during the 3+ years Casey has been in jail I can’t understand.</p>
<p>My heart breaks for Cindy Anthony. I think she’s beyond what anyone can endure, and is trying to save the life of her daughter. I don’t think, as a juror, I would believe her, but I do feel badly for her.</p>