Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have been given a task by the state of Florida. Your task is to evaluate all the evidence that has been presented to you, and decide whether or not the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges against Casey Marie Anthony.
Please look very carefully at the evidence the state has presented, and the evidence that we have presented in defense of Casey Anthony. The evidence shows for 31 days following the tragic drowning of her daughter, miss Anthony showed behavior unbecoming of a mother who had lost her child. That disturbed behavior continued for months. The state paraded more than a dozen witnesses who testified to this behavior, a behavior that had been evident in Casey for many years. The evidence shows the Anthony family is a family who denies the truth, when that truth does not fit the image the Anthony's want to project to their friends and family around them. The evidence also shows Casey loved Caylee, and had an amazing relationship with her. We all know that each individual handles the loss of a loved one in different ways. Law enforcement could not understand Casey's seemingly bizarre behavior. This misunderstanding caused them to believe that something terrible had happened to Caylee. This misunderstanding caused them to believe Casey may have done something terrible to Caylee. This misunderstanding caused them to do everything in their power to prove that Casey had done something terrible to Caylee. After all the tremendous efforts of law enforcement, they could not determine where Caylee had died, or when Caylee had died, or why Caylee had died, or what Caylee had died of, or who had caused Caylee's death if anyone. Law enforcement could not determine these things, because they were trying to prove Casey was responsible for this, and they were wrong.
The state presented a mountain of forensic evidence in an effort to provide proof that Caylee's death was a premeditated murder. Much of this evidence is unreliable. After Roy Kronk first reported he had possibly sighted a human skull, law enforcement arrived in mid August and failed to see what Roy Kronk could see. For weeks previous to mid August, and for months following mid August, a multitude of searchers, including cadaver dogs searched the areas including and surrounding the area where Caylee's remains were ultimately found, and they found nothing. On December 11th, 3 weeks after Roy Kronk had called his son and told him to watch tv, he was going to find Caylee's remains and become rich and famous, Roy Kronk did indeed find the remains of Caylee Anthony once again. Roy lifted a bag, and the contents shifted, and then he looked down and a skull was at his feet. He then stuck his meter stick in the eye socket and tilted the skull upwards to make sure it was indeed a skull. It was. He then notified the office and relayed his findings. In Roy's initial interviews, he reported the skull rolled out of the bag. Finding a child's skull can be a very upsetting event, and can wreak havoc with one's recollection of everything that took place in that moment of discovery. Did Roy pick up the bag, did the skull fall out, did the skull roll out, was the skull on the ground under the bag, did he tap the bag hearing a hollow sound, did he accidently kick the skull causing it to roll, when he pick up the bag did duct tape fall off the bag onto the ground near the skull. did he move around at all while picking up the bag, did he inadvertantly alter the evidence? How could Roy Kronk be so sure he would be on tv and get a reward, that he would call his son 3 weeks prior to reporting to his office that he found the remains? Law enforcement never answered these questions, and that is why the evidence found at the site of the remains is questionable. When you have unanswered questions, you also have reasonable doubt.
The chief medical examiner could not determine the cause of death. The manner of death was homicide, but this was determined by evidence that is questionable. The chief medical examiner did not examine the remains at the site. Roy Kronk had at the very least tilted the skull up with his meter stick, and in that traumatic moment of discovering a tiny skull, Roy Kronk's memory is unclear as to the events that happened prior to and immediately after the discovery.
The evidence within a white trash bag that had been located in the trunk of the white Pontiac yielded many maggots that had to be eating something in that white trash bag. Also found amidst the maggots in the white trash bag that had set in a dumpster for many hours before law enforcement recovered it, was found a single fly leg, and a substance that is like adipocere. Research determined fatty acids that are found in adipocere, however these same fatty acids are found in dairy products such as cheese. Law enforcement failed to determine whether the substance like adipocere was indeed adipocere, because they did not do further testing on this substance that would have determined this as a fact. Instead, rather than performing this test, they take the burden of proof from their experts and place it on you to decide. Dr. Vass made the claim of a shockingly high amount of chloroform in the air sample from the trunk, along with 3 components of human decomposition. Dr. Vass did not do a quantative analysis, nor did he use any standards in his tests. The results of his tests along with a single fly leg were sent to Dr. Haskell, who using these results, along with some tests of his own, speculated that a child may have been in the trunk of the Pontiac for several days. A single hair with apparent decomp was found in the trunk. Law enforcement suspected a stain in the trunk was caused by human decomposition. However, the Anthony's claim the stains in the trunk were there when they bought the car. Although under an alternative light source, it appeared as though the stain may be from human decomp, tests done by OCSO at the facility where the Pontiac trunk was forensically tested, failed to find any blood, or dna, or anything to indicate the stain was from human decomp. The FBI tested the carpet in the trunk and determined no abnormal amounts of chloroform in the trunk carpet. The FBI examined the hair with apparent decomp and determined the hair may have come from a live person or a deceased person. The FBI inadvertantly contaminated some of the evidence that was sent to them. Was the white trash bag contaminated by insects that may have altered the evidence in that bag while sitting in a dumpster? How accurate would the white trash bag evidence be, if insects residing in a dumpster were to infiltrate the white trash bag? This evidence may be contaminated, and with contaminated evidence, you have reasonable doubt.
There is no evidence anywhere, aside from the qustionable results of an air sample that was done using no standards, that shows the manufacturing or use of chloroform at any time ever in regards to this case. Casey's boyfriend had a photo on his myspace page depicting a man with a white cloth behind a woman, and the caption win her over with chloroform. A computer search showed chloroform was searched once, and very shorty thereafter a look at a myspace page. Initial computer forensics resulted in 1 chloroform search using a program that the forensic experts had used for years. A subsequent report, using a new program Cacheback, that evidence shows had technical problems finally resulted in showing chloroform had been searched 84 times in a very short period of time. No searches of myspace showed up in these results. Common sense tells us, there should be no need to return to the same page 84 times in a brief period of time. Common sense tells us that the initial forensic report showing 1 search for chloroform followed by a trip to a myspace page, shows a major conflict with the Cacheback report. Again we have reasonable doubt.
The duct tape. We all saw the graphic fabrication of the duct tape being superimposed over Caylee's face and skull. This was indeed a fabrication. You all saw the photos taken at the site of the remains. You know the duct tape was not wrapped around the skull of Caylee as depicted in the horific fabricated photoshop movie. The evidence shows no dna was found on this tape. The evidence shown in the photos cannot be relied upon since no one, not even Roy Kronk knows exactly what took place when he found the skull. The skull may have rolled, or dropped from the bag, something shifted, but Roy is pretty certain he placed the meter stick in the eye socket and tilted the skull upwards. No fingerprints were found on this duct tape, no evidence at all that ties Casey Anthony to this duct tape. No evidence other than speculation and fabrication that even proves this duct tape had ever been placed on this childs face. That is reasonable doubt.
Two different cadaver dogs searched the Anthony backyard, both alerting in the same area, but CSI's found nothing. A subsequent search by these same two cadaver dogs resulted in no alerts in the same area where they had alerted the previous day. One of these dogs alerted to the trunk of the Pontiac where a garbage bag had sat inside the enclosed trunk for weeks. Maggots infested this garbage bag eating something. Was the odor in the trunk caused by garbage sitting in a hot trunk for weeks in the hot Florida sun, that may have left an odor that could be mistaken for human decomp. Or did traces of butyric acid cause this horrendous odor. Butyric acid that is found in human decomp, but is also found in many other things such as cheese and vomit. Could the same cadaver dog that alerted one day on a spot where nothing was found, alert on the trunk where nothing was found? Dr. Vass stated that human decomp smells like rotting potatoes. Are there other things human decomp smells like? There was a garbage bag filled with maggots in the trunk, there was an awful odor. There were no decompositional fluids found in the trunk. This smells like reasonable doubt.
We are human, and humans make mistakes. Law enforcement is made up of humans and humans make mistakes. With all the resources of law enforcement, with the assistance of the FBI and the assistance of many experts the state cannot answer the questions of how Caylee died, where Caylee died, why Caylee died, or even when Caylee died. The state wants you to convict Casey Marie Anthony of these charges based on nothing but questionable evidence, and a lot of speculation. The state has not met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore you must follow the jury instructions and find a verdict of not guilty of these charges based on the reasonable doubt of all this speculative evidence.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
