THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL (An Answer to Pundits and Others) James Williams An Interested Party email@example.com 770-559-0321 July 6, 2011 I cannot believe I am taking the hour or so it has taken me to compile this, all just from memory. It is my habit to avoid completely all the “Judge Shows” and reality TV, etc. – thinking that basically voyeur behavior and silly. This trial though captured my attention. That’s due to a concern I have about the Judicial System and how the adversarial system in our courts has gone crazy. It is clearly often not about justice at all, but about winning and losing at some job performance and/or ego level. That’s OK, but not to the person on trial, or those trying to settle a dispute. It’s out of control. Truth: I always thought the Scott Peterson Trial was a travesty, and that the evidence did in no reasonable way support a guilt verdict. Frankly, I did not pay very much attention to that situation, so am willing to re-evaluate if presented with the facts… but in any case that left me with a continuing and nagging feeling of uncertainty about the Courts in America. Added to that: 1. The Florida Courts and rules of evidence/court procedure confound me. It seems to me the likelihood of conviction, especially in a big-interest trial, is greatly enhanced. Very strange. 2. I was/am personally infuriated by the behavior of the media, pundits and contributing attorneys. Almost every one had this woman convicted and executed long, ling ago. This includes the likes of Nancy Grace (who I will not watch even if paid) and those of her unfortunate ilk. However, it also includes Judge Pirro, whose behavior has been despicable by any reasonable estimation… and she will not give it up even now. Frankly, Judge “Alex” is just as bas, but he is from Florida, so probably tainted anyway. What did I hope as the result of this trial? Process. Guilty or not, I wanted the outcome to be decided by the evidence and the facts presented. I was frankly amazed that this WAS the outcome. The jury performed bravely, with common sense and accuracy given the evidence presented. Nevertheless, the likes of Pirro and “Alex” and most of the rest continue by saying such as (Alex: The jury demanded NO doubt to convict…). This is clearly NOT true, nor are the other insane claims made by Pirro and others. The only “outlier” is Geraldo Rivera. I have never been a fan of Geraldo Rivera, but am one now. He steadfastly talked about the evidence and used good and honest sense. He is doing so now, despite the overtalking and screaming by Pirro when they appear together. Unless he must as a function of his contract, were I Geraldo I would reuse to appear with Pirro ever again… She is plainly abusive. Anyway… what follows is a quick overview of most of the evidence in this case. It is only what I remember, so much is missing… but noting of real substance. I invite you to just quickly review what is here and then tell me why that woman was PROVED guilty… even by the loosest of standards. 1. CHLOROFORM (Car Trunk): “Trace” amounts only found. Such amounts basically “ambient” levels. Such amounts result of using many common cleaners/other such products. NOT RELEVANT / NOT EVIDENCE SMELL OF HUMAN DECOMPOSITION (Car Trunk): Anecdotal human “smell recognition” not scientifically reliable. Anecdotal human “smell recognition” not reliable as evidence, especially since there are contradictory statements on-file. Trained canine “smell recognition” MORE reliable, but impossible to conclude the recognition is RELIABLY ONLY the result of human decomposition in the environment where testing was performed. Can admit as evidence, but is very weak evidence absent physical corroboration. Automated Smell Detector: - Never scientifically accepted. - Only study reports for the device are mixed. - All studies but two (2) refute device inventor’s claims of accuracy. - The two (2) positive studies were performed BY THE DEVICE INVENTOR. - Field test performed for purpose of trial in FL was a failure. EVIDENCE FLAWED / NOT RELIABLE / CONFLICTING EVIDENCE RECORDED HAIR FOUND (Car Trunk): Single strand only. Inconclusive DNA (Consistent with Casey, Caylee and Grandmother) Banding on hair: - Possible indicator of post-mortem removal – Inconclusive and conflicting report - No additional samples to test EVIDENCE INCONCLUSIVE – STRONG REASONABLE DOUBT HUMAN REMAINS (Swamp Area near Anthony Home): Discovery: - No evidence regarding how remains got to the site. - Discovering party visited remains multiple times. - Discovering party disturbed remains - Animals disturbed remains - Other items in area removed/disturbed (e.g., white log/lumber) - Remains flooded at the site at least once, likely disturbance of remains. Bones: - No usable evidence - No useful DNA - No signs o physical abuse. Skull: - Admittedly disturbed at least once by discoverer, possibly others - Articulated jawbone inconclusive as evidence – State of decomposition, etc. - No additional usable evidence Duct tape: - Not affixed to remains. - No DNA of other evidence on the tape. - Could have migrated to position on skull by water, wind, human movement. - Impossible to confirm tape was ever affixed to the body. - Impossible to confirm tape had not been tampered with by discoverer/other - “heart impression” on tape not documentable/repeatable – non-evidence EVIDENCE MAINLY INCONCLUSIVE – STRONG REASONABLE DOUBT CHLOROFORM SEARCH (Home PC): Conflicting reports as to # search attempts. Logging tools detect other than actual search engine criteria CONFLICTING EVIDENCE/REPORTS - STRONG REASONABLE DOUBT AUTOMOBILE ITSELF: NO EVIDENCE BUILDING SEARCH(S): NO EVIDENCE FAMILY POSSESIONS: NO EVIDENCE CASEY ANTHONY BEHAVIOR: All strange behavior COULD be the result of: - Happiness since child dead. - Reaction to missing child. - Reaction to death of child - Reaction to stress of hiding child - Stress caused by trying to keep lies straight - Stress caused by other (Father, etc.) - Obvious history and sub-quality family. - Fear - Etc.and Etc. Ignoring & lying during time child was missing – Result of: - Murdering child. - Accidental drowning of child. - Accidental death resulting from abuse - (All same as above) Lying prior to and after opening statements – Result of: - Basically trying to get out of trouble. - Confusion as to facts (Stress reaction) - Obeying “orders” from others (e.g., Father, etc.) - (All same as above) Interviews with the Police – Result of: - Get out of trouble - Searching for excuse to use - Trying to match circumstances to either drowning or murder or abuse. - (All same as above) GENERALLY NOT RELEVANT – IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN REASON FOR NO CONNECTION NECESSARILY CONNECTED TO CRIME BASICALLY MEANINGLESS AS EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: No confirmation of cause of death No confirmation of any murder Casey Anthony was apparently a loving and attentive Mother to Caylee. No reports of or evidence of abuse No anecdotal reports of inappropriate treatment or abuse Father (George Anthony) is a liar, and not believable Father is guilty of apparent deceptive behavior during time of disappearance Father allegedly reported Caylee’s death was accident Father is ex-police with knowledge of criminal techniques Father would not admit ownership of duct tape Father would not admit location shown in certain photos in evidence Mother is liar Mother complicit in whatever disturbing family behavior and family history Mother has/had conflicting allegiances (Husband – Daughter – Son) Son could not confirm anything of substance Son did confirm dysfunctional family and household Discoverer of body was not believable – seemed to be hiding information Discoverer had apparent financial motive Discoverer’s son reported financial motive Discoverer made multiple visits to remains location without absolutely connecting the skull, etc. with the Police. Discoverer manipulated remains to some degree – possibly more than he admitted Police decided Casey Anthony was guilty Police did not fully investigate Father Police did not fully investigate Discoverer Police basically did not exhaust all opportunities Pathologist did “shoddy” job Pathologist ignored DNA testing on insects in/on remains Pathologist did no DNA testing on car trunk “stains and residue” Pathologist did not fully open skull or bone cavities for residue (Foreign substances, DNA testing, microscopic investigation) CONCLUSION: Virtually everything presented by the Prosecution as evidence was highly flawed, irrelevant, unacceptable science on it’s face or behavior observation that can be attributed to many different causes… and there is no way to ascertain anything of value from this. Questioning of Casey Anthony pre-trial was probably flawed as she was functionally detained regardless of what she was told prior to interrogation. The Appellate Court would likely determine a person not trained in legal jargon nor law enforcement techniques could make the distinction between casual questioning and actual Miranda interrogation. Further, the Court would certainly find that it is the Police Officer’s obligation to recognize when the subject was passing from casual questioning and into damning interrogation. Failure to do this is functionally the same as failure to Mirandize. Much of the Prosecution’s case consisted of exhibits offering no evidentiary value, and so should have been disallowed at trial… clearly an exception upon Appeal. Many attempts to introduce direct evidence and rebuttal were denied wrongly by the Judge. (An opinion) The Appellate Court would surely determine at least some of this is reversible error. VIRTUALLY ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS OF NO REAL VALUE AS IT IS CLEARLY FLAWED AND CLEARLY CONSTITUTES REASONABLE DOUBT. TAKEN COLLECTIVELY, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OFFERS NO ADDITIONAL VALUE FROM THAT TAKEN BY INDIVIDUAL PIECES. IN FACT, THE TOTALITY OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LOSES VALUE WHEN TAKEN AS SUCH. “EVIDENCE” BASED UPON DOCUMENTABLE OBSERVATION CAN BE THE RESULT OF A WIDE VARIETY OF CAUSES, RANGING FROM GUILT OF MURDER TO STRESS REACTION TO SOCIOPATHIC SYNDROMES PRESENT PRIOR TO THE CHILD’S DEATH. THEREFORE, OF LITTLE EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE CONCEPT OF A NEGOTIATED JURY FINDING IS FLAWED INTRENSICALLY (OPINION) IN ANY CASE, THE EVIDENCE COULD NOT SUPPORT A GUILTY VERDICT AT ANY LEVEL OFFERED TO THE JURY. FINALLY THERE WAS NOT LEGITIMATE WAY TO SUPPORT A GUILTY VERDICT BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE LIKELY INAPPROPRIATE EVIDENCE OFFERED AT ANY LEVEL. THIS JURY PERFORMED APPROPRIATELY AND ACCURATELY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND GIVEN THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE OR LACK THEREOF.
Pages to are hidden for
"THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL.pdf"Please download to view full document