Like many of us, I followed the Casey Anthony trial closely. HLN had great coverage and cameras being allowed in the courtroom added another level of intrigue to the case. After watching the case, hearing the expert analysis, and learning from the jury – I think it is pretty clear how Casey Anthony could have been convicted. And I think that when the media continues to analyse the case, they aren’t focused on the most important thing.
In interviews, the jurors continue to say that they couldn’t convict because they don’t know how Caylee was killed. The prosecution focused a lot of effort and time on trying to prove how she was killed with the “how to make chloroform” searches along with analysis of the duct tape that was found on Caylee’s skull. All of this evidence was circumstantial, and the more the prosecution focused on it – the more confused the jurors got.
On Piers Morgan Tonight, veteran prosecutor Marcia Clark said that you don’t have to prove cause of death to get a conviction In fact, she said that she has gotten several convictions, including a first degree murder conviction, without even producing a body. While everyone in the media, along with prosecutor Jeff Ashton, continue to reference the specific evidence as proof that Casey murdered Caylee – it still remains a question in many people’s mind. So, we need to stop focusing on this and instead focus on the thing which could have convicted Casey Anthony.
In my mind, the prosecution was given a gift when defence attorney Jose Baez told the jury what really happened during his opening statement. Casey didn’t testify on the stand, but this was her story of the events that occurred. And instead of focusing on the cause of death, we need to focus on her statement about what really happened.
Casey said that her father, George Anthony, found the body in the pool and that it was an accident. She then said her dad convinced her to help him cover it up so that she wouldn’t have to go to jail. This, she said, is how the body got from the pool to the swamp which is where it was ultimately found. However, this story has major holes.
Casey was facing the death penalty. If convicted of first degree murder, at best she’d spend life in jail and at worse, she’d be put to death If this truly was an accident, that both George and Casey covered up, the criminal penalty would have been a few years in jail, at most. So, why would George not admit the accident to police?
Casey admitted the baby drowned and that it snowballed out of control. She’s leaving jail this week. Why wouldn’t George have admitted the same thing, if it had happened that way? Regardless of whether or not you think George Anthony is a good guy, what father would not admit to an accident and risk his daughter getting the death penalty. In fact, most legal pundits thought Casey was going to get murder 1 – so are we really to believe that George would continue to lie about a minor crime and let his daughter spend the rest of her life in jail and potentially get the death penalty? That doesn’t make sense – and there is no reasonable doubt there.
Also, remember, Casey said her dad covered up the accident and threatened to her that if they didn’t cover it up – that she would go to jail. So Casey admitted that her dad was doing all of this so that she didn’t go to jail. Well, if this is the case, and her dad didn’t want her going to jail, why would her dad not admit the accident and instead risk his daughter getting the death penalty?
Not to mention, there is taped meetings Casey had with her parents from jail. Casey clearly tells her dad she loves him – and that she doesn’t know where Caylee is. This is all happening while Casey is rotting away in jail – with no sign of ever leaving. Why in the world would Casey not ask her dad to admit that it was a simple accident? If this was an accident that George and Casey experienced, that jailhouse meeting couldn’t have went the way that it did.
Again, there was clear logic to prove that Casey’s story was a fares. Why hasn’t the media, and why didn’t the prosecution focus more on this? They didn’t break down Casey’s actual story enough, so it lingered as a possibility in the jurors minds. Casey was on the hook for that story, and the prosecution would have had a much easier time proving that her story was a lie instead of trying to prove the cause of death. And maybe they couldn’t have gotten murder 1 had they only focused on her story – but they could have focused on and had success with a lesser charge.
This jury didn’t want to convict with reasonable doubt in their minds. The cause of death and time of death evidence wasn’t strong. And by coming up with a theory for the cause of death, it gave the jurors something to find doubt with. Had the prosecution focused more of their attention on poking holes into Casey’s laughable story – the jury would have had the resolve it needed to convict.
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.