Monday, July 4, 2011



Casey Anthony is what the courtroom.  She is looking at paperwork and talking with Dorothy Clay Simms, .her attorney. the jury is brought in the state
Good morning and happy Fourth of July. Linda Drane Burdick and I will discuss different portions of you with you to are both going to speak you are going to discuss topics.  I want to begin by discussing the signs in the case.  Defense counsel issued an approach tax on the signs I want to take a more measured in complex approach.  Science cannot be understood.  Simplistic concepts are easy phrases.  The best way to understand the science this case is to look at it and first look at what the scientists agree on.  And then, what they do not agree on.  And basically the way it works is.  It is up to you to decide when an expert as with any other witness will party of the testimony you believe or do not believe.  And in a dispute between experts.  It is a cute decide which one you believe in you may reject oath.  You may believe, you may find that a more credible than the other because of the experience or because of just what they said made sense.  So it is totally up to you to decide what you believe from what the experts have told you.  I think you might be helpful to start are kind of isolating these areas sort of by subject matter.
Their first what I like to start talking about is the experts.  You heard on the subject a forensic anthropology in forensic pathology. those are sort of the fields.  Those are the medical examiner and a forensic pathologist. The people that look at the remains of cells.  And what they told you.  He simply heard in this case from Dr. Jen who was the chief medical examiner of the District 9 medical examiner office here in Orange county.  Dr. us he was a gentleman who first took custody of the remains were removed to remove the duct tape and told about that.  You for conduct Scholz was a forensic anthropologist who works out of hear the University Center Florida and is a contract consultant for the medical examiner examiner's office here.  You are from Dr. Michael warned, who is the director of the identification lab of the University of Florida.  And you also heard from Dr. Warner Spitz, whose a defense expert called on the subject.  Now what do all of them agree on?  Well all of them agreed that number one.  There is nothing in the bones that tells us anything.  The all agree there is no somatic injury to the bones.  There is no break, no fractures no injuries is no nothing.  Just looking at the bones.  They all agree that bears nothing to tell us how Caylee die.  Everyone agrees to that.  The other thing they all agree about that is significant in this case is that because of the way the human body decomposes their are two parts of the head that should not be together.  That is the mandible and the skull.  It is Spitz even said remember he talked about when you pick up the skull the mandible would stay on the ground.  Do not connect appeared Wednesday decompose clear is that we keep them together.  And what they all also agree about in this case is that when Caylee Anthony's body was found school and the mandible were still in what they refer to as an of comical position.  In other words, it was in the same position it would have been had the flesh of the tendon been holding it.

Where they disagree is on Wyatt light that was the case.  Dr. us Dr. Schultz and Dr. Warren all told you that the only theme that could have kept that mandible in anatomical position is.  The tape.  Remember Dr. Warren told you in years, I would Smits you based on what you have heard the most experienced of the four forensic anthropology.  In skull he has told you that the only other time he has ever seen be gelatine ice fully skeleton eyes body with the mandible and the skull and anatomical position is in sirree able in a skull of a person that was duct taped.  They have told you do in their opinion, which again you make up your you may reject, that the tape had to have it in on that skull before she decompose.  Dr. Spitz presented you with an alternative.  And I discussed that alternative with him at length.  His alternative was that someone had come along at some later point for some unknown reason a reached down and picked up the skull off the ground.  The effect of the mandible took them someplace put them back together and duct taped them to hold them in place.  And then return them to the scene.

You heard the cross-examination of Dr. Spitz about that.  So Mario.  And it is up to you to judge whether that said ,is reasonable or makes any sense at all.  When I pointed out to Dr. Spitz, that his scenario all of this goal being returned was inconsistent with the first of all the deterioration of the duct tape and second of all most importantly remember I asked him about.  Well, the person would not just have the skull back they would have had to have drink pieces of air over the skull.  Remember what his response to that was.  His response to that was to accuse the medical examiner personnel of doing it.  And then when I showed him the photograph of the skull at the scene undisturbed with the head in exactly the same place.  He accused the sheriff's personnel of doing that.  It is up to you to decide which of those two expert opinions you find more credible.  And I submit to you based on evidence that you heard that Spitz's version of events is credible and non-credible.  And I will get to later on in my remarks that it actually is also inconsistent with the very theory the  defense has been presented to you in the other parts of their argument.  We will get to that later.
 The other area that they disagreed on was a appropriateness and necessity saw an open TV skull.  Dr. Spitz told you that incorrect that it was a violation of protocol for the doctor not to have sought open Caylee skull. And that it was in his words, sloppy.  On cross examination, however.  When challenged, even with his own bloat to demonstrate where that protocol was set down.  He was unable to do so.

When asked if there was any protocol he was aware of dealing with skeletal remains that required such an act.  He admitted there was not.

In response to that we call Dr. Michael war and back again.  The director of the human identification laboratory to tell you that in fact it is not protocol.  In fact, it is contra indicated to open the skull unnecessarily because there may be times when there may be some articular artifact that cannot be otherwise appreciated.  But generally no skulls are not open.  It is not sloppy or failed to do so.  In fact, it is dangerous to open the skull.  Particularly in a child because when you do that, the skull breaks, as Dr. Spitz did.  Member I accept a Spitz, if you broke me to hear broke that I showed him the photograph and the skull was fractured.  He did not seem to remember.  And I would submit to you that based upon what you have heard in this case that Dr. Spitz is claimed that that autopsy was done improperly is not credible.

The other issue that they disagree on is this issue of the suppose it and this was sort of my shorthand term.  But brain dust or brain residue.  He referred to it as like dust in the skull.  He says that there was this residue in the skull that he could tell by looking at it was romance of the decomposition of Caylee's bring.  And because of the position that he could tell that that is, but that is the skull was on its side.  He is now is that he took sample of it and he does not know if it has ever been tested or not.  So we brought in Dr. Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida who watched the inside of the skull tested it and told you that there is no decomposition product inside that skull.  So he did the test that Dr. Spitz said he did not do.  He could not do it because he did not have a laboratory.  And we know now that is not what Dr. was.  So Dr. Spitz hold their event that proven that the skull was on his side has not been disproven.

You will also recall in cross examination, I pointed out to Dr. Spitz, that the arrangement of the hear Mass is not consistent with his theory of how the skull decomposed.  you will also recall cross-examination.  I pointed out their hair mat is not consistent with his theory of how the skull decompose.  In fact remember we talked about how the skull was on its side.  The hair mass was  going to fall to its side.  It is not going to fall evenly.  Blah blah blah.  You can look at those on grass.  Have them all back to jury room.  You can look at them and you can see.

I also like that the Spitz an interesting question that counsel somewhat criticized me for asking.  He now is that in determining the manner of death is absolutely essential for forensic pathologist to know about the events leading up to the death or disappearance of the victim.  It is common sense.  He said yes.  You have to know as much as you can about that.  So I accept the Spitz will what did you know?  What information were you given?  What research did you do?  He said when I went to the house.  What you do at the house?  Does it there was a pool.  That is all he remembered.  We will what do you know about the events.  You know leading to her disappearance, etc.  Will that was something about the nanny.  It has all been you.  I was him its you that is foundation of information about this case is not sufficient to make his opinion credible.  In this case.  That affect the evidence in the case shows that the medical  investigation was thorough and complete and the testimony by the doctors is credible and is worthy of your belief.

Now let us talk next about the entomological evidence,. the big feature of the case, it was not due to the council referred to it as let us talk about it.  You heard the entomologists.  He told you to opinions essentially.  What about the car and what about the scene.  You heard from Dr. Timothy Huntington, who has been missing in this field since he received his PhD in 2008.  A very bright young man.  I do not mean to denigrate his education or his sincerity.  But the fact of the matter is you have to decide who you find more believable.  Someone who has been practicing in the field for twenty-five or thirty years, as someone who has been practicing in the field for three.  But again, they are art beings they agree on.  They agree on this very important fact.  That the evidence at the scene were Caylee is remains body was found indicates that the body.  Initially be composed in some other location from which the early colonizing flies were restricted.  Dr. Huntington said he agreed that wherever Caylee's body was are the first few days of decomposition.  Those early flies cannot get to her.  And then she was taken and dumped there and that in the woods in that swampy area you were describing so many people.  They both agreed that they occurred sometime in June or July 2008.  Based upon the evidence, and they agree.  What Dr. Haskell said about the scene Dr. Huntington , agrees.  Where they diverge is the single issue of whether the trunk would have excluded the early colonizing flies.  That is the only place where they disagree.  Dr. Haskell with his twenty-five years of experience in the field has told you that in his opinion, that they that in his opinion the trunk is a source that could have excluded the early colonizing fly.  Dr. Huntington who candidly admits that he has never any his career doubt what they did the.  A trunk in a real world situation are based upon some experiments applying conditions completely different than in this case.  Remembered that the pigs in the blanket comment that we meet.  That based upon bad experiment and experiment alone, he renders the opinions the trunk would not have excluded the early colonizing flies.  Again, it is a TV decide which expert is more credible, whether you believe it or need it is completely up to you.  But the important thing is on what they agree.  That the body decompose some place else.  That it was somewhere, either by being wrapped or by being stored was a situation whether or early flies could not get to it -- from June or July through December.  It sat there in the woods.  All right.  Let us go to the area next of the chloroform.

Mr. Baez had a nice big poster about that.  Had all the experts are people that talked about chloroform.  What is important to understand and evaluate the various people who testified about chloroform is to understand first what that were testing and second what their perspective was.  Not remember Mr. Baez made a good deal of comment on the adjectives used by Dr. Voss and Dr. Weisser vs. the adjectives used by Dr. Rickenbaugh..  One thing you have to understand using those adjectives is they are perspective.  That the box and Dr. Weiss are used to looking in environmental air samples.  Dr. Weiss told you he is he has looked at of our mental air samples from all kinds of car exhausts environmental conditions.  Industrial all different areas.  And he has told you that based upon that experience that he fell to the amount of chloroform.  He was seen in the sample from the trunk was high.  Was surprisingly high  because of what his experiences.  Dr. Vass experience is similar.  What he is looking at is they are samples from dead bodies and easy seized many of them.  He told you that based upon he what he has seen in decomposing bodies and he has occasionally seen chloroform andin those cases and theirin those cases very small amounts, but compared to debt, what he saw was shockingly high.  But taking away the adjective important thing is more to say, what did they actually find?  Dr. Weiss and Dr. Bosque told you that the chloroform.  They found in the trunk hair sample and the car was somewhere in the low parts per million range.  Dr. Weiss gave you an excellent explanation of the idea quantified tags.  He is a quantify cats would have meant anything in this case, because even if you want to buy the amount of chloroform being given off by the carpet sample mean anything in terms of the amount of chloroform that was there was a month before.  Because chloroform is volatile, it evaporates.  So it is would not mean anything.  But he does say that Dr. Voss says that based upon the qualitative analysis and the comparison between the amount of chloroform and the limit of the machine and the controls was somewhere in Lowell part per million range.

Dr. Rick and box from the FBI to assist simmers similar sample out of the car but also tested the actual spare tire cover in this box.  Remember, he received it in the box not sealed.  Not in the can.  None plastic.  In air permeable car board.  He actually told you he found chloroform.  Even in that spirit, he was surprised.  He could not believe he founded the member chloroform is volatile.  And this is not sealed.  The fact he thought anything on that sample was amazing.  I remember when he told you was that he found eight much greater amount of chloroform in this field can.  Remember, I think I had them I have put some numbers on the board and it was in terms of of percentages of the control.  The control was 100 ppm.  In this item, I think he put it at .08% of the control.  In the cannot it was 5% of the control.  Again, he said because he said, and we will tell you, that is not a qualitative tags.  It is not intended to be.  But what is interesting about it is that the rough estimate.  But in the low parts per million.  The same thing that Dr. Voss found.  Now to Dr. Rickenbacha case that was being investigated.  But even he said that he found detectable amounts of chloroform coming from the carpet in this case and Casey Anthony's car.  Nothing he had ever seen before.  That is the significance of about just what it says.  If they all told is thinking.  This is the first time we have seen this.  Actually taxable amount of chloroform coming from a car remember what they told you Dr Rickenbach agree.  The amount of chloroform in the items is far less than the amount of chloroform.  That would have been there before.  Because chloroform is volatile, it evaporates.  It fills a space.  Until fresh air comes in.  Remember the car was aired out by the Anthony family for hours on the fifteenth going into the sixteenth.  So the chloroform that would have been there before.  It was opened up when it was at the junkyard what it was at the total yards was far greater than anything these people found.  And ladies and gentlemen, I would submit to you that there has been absolutely no evidence to explain where it came from and why.  Objection overruled.

Dr. Sigmund who was a gentleman from UC ask that did his initial testing of the sample.  He told you he testified the trunk for days after that.  It was removed.  It had been gone for four days.  It even after four days later he was able to take to detect even with his equipment, which said is not as good as what Dr. boss uses.  It does not capture as much even he was able to find detectable amounts of chloroform in the trunk of that car.  What should have been bears should not have been any chloroform in the trunk of the car.  But it was there.  Dr. Sigmund also told you something that was very interesting.  He told you that while chloroform can be created by incidental contact between chlorine bleach and organic materials that that does not happen in a vacuum.  That when that does happen, other compounds are created and those compounds have not been found in this case.  All that has been found is chloroform.  No chlorine.  Remember I asked Dr. Furtan there is no bleach stains on the spare tire cover.  Are there?  No.  There is not.  There is no the issue was brought out the same cleaning products and small amounts of chloroform in their.  I accept the Furtan, where any of the other constituent compounds of cleaning products found?  No, they were not.  All that was found in the examination of that carpet is -- they are tire cover were the components of decomposition of chloroform.  And that all the experts agree including those called by the defense.

Let us talk now, another subject, as far as the air examination, which is the order of decomposition.  The expert testimony that defense.  The defense's primary attack on Dr. Voss is dead he has developed a device which iswho is used to looking at chloroform in its liquid form is an a lot.  We told you this is the first time I have ever found chloroform and any kind of solid object.  Every time I have looked at chloroform is been the liquid form in an  adulterated liquids of some sort .....Ashton: Experts deal w/diff. forms of chloroform. But both found detectable amounts of chloroform,Ashton said UCF expert tested trunk 4 days after item removed. He still detected chloroform.Ashton says The myth of the garbage has been disproven.
 Ashton turns to the smell of the car.Ashton said defense attacks royalties earned from device designed by Dr. Vass.
 Says Vass' device is for military/ law enforcement. Ashton calls Vass an "unapologetic science geek."

Ashton brings up reasonable doubt and says duct tape came from Anthony home. Says to say George was involved "absurd" . Ashton says let's just assume George Anthony.was involved- "Does any of this make sense? None of it does." again calls it "absurd." .
The take the gas cans which at the time they have no idea has anything to do with his anything photographic and they end they gave it back to him.  Talk about gas cans. This is at the point George Anthony takes the can back and sticks in a garage for four monthsan opportunity do anything with it.  Does not try to connect it to the police.  He just lets it sit there.  And then in December when the body is found.  The police find the can with duct tape in the garage.  George does not pointed out to them, they find because remember George's and even they are.  They find it in they take it into evidence.  So what does this nefarious criminal, then do?  He takes the very same roll of duct tape and he which connects into this death and uses it to display posters.  Does any of this make sense?  None of this makes sense.  To assert that George Anthony use of the dub of the tape on the pollsters for his missing granddaughter painted Lee absurd.  It does not make any sense.  Objection was to strike overruled.

The reason that it does not make sense is because it is not.  I submit based on the evidence room is true.  George Anthony had absolutely no idea that the roll of duct tape had anything to do with the death of his granddaughter of his granddaughter.  He had no idea.  Because he was not involved.  Just as he told you.  You know counsel showed you a big poster with the pictures of Caylee walking into the pool.  Instead, that this hypothesis has not been rebutted.  Well, I respectfully disagree.  Because ladies and gentlemen, the two people that Council serves were present when this happened were George Anthony and Casey Anthony.  And George Anthony testified that witness on the witness stand.  The first day of this trial.  It did not happen.  And as Mrs. Burdick will point out when she speaks to you in a few moments.  Mrs. Anthony also was given an opportunity to adopt that every detected.  It twice.  That has been refuted by the evidence in this case.

Council also served to you that the crime scene was quote unquote staged.  And here is the interesting part he tells you on the one hand that George Anthony is connected to the tape. all the tape members he said in opening follow the tape, but then on the other hand, he tells you that workaround is connected to the tape.  The Spitz told you that somebody came along later and took the skull and taped it and in opening statement defense counsel, told you that the person Roy Kronk.  So they both got the duct tape were court who has no connection to the Anthony family other than reading bare meter ones who has never been in their house.  Who has never been in there garage Theatre was never has no way of knowing what kind of duct tape a half.  So which is it?  Who put the duct tape there?  Consuls are you choose the crime scene was staged.  And I have state exhibit number eighty-two published to the jury please?

You will recall, this is a photograph the scene out there are suburban drive as it was found on December the love and.  Of 2008 before anything was disturbed.  This is and it is pristine form.  I would submit to you that looking at this scene.  It is clear that the only thing that has been staged the scene is mother nature herself.  This scene is covered in leaf litter.  There is a to a 3 inch pile of leaf litter surrounding this goal as testify to.  There are binds literally growing over everything in this scene.  Their vines you will see in photographs growing through everything in this scene.  The scene is staged by mother nature, and no one else.  The skull has not been moved for six months.  Pardon me.  Maybe a little bit less because the animals might have moved it before it decompose.  Defense counsel told you in opening statement that Roy Kronk took the remains home and kept them.  We presented the testimony of Dr. John Scholz forensic anthropologist who was in charge of the collection of the remains.  And he went to great lengths with you and show you where the remains were found.  And in what groupings.  The reason that was important was because the grouping of the various poems demonstrates that the body was just articulated during decomposition.  Remember, he talked about that there were certain areas where the ribs were found.  Because that the trunk would have been removed as a connected group of Oregon organs as it decompose.  That the vertebrate that was separately because they were would have decompose separately, the poll showed no evidence of overruled at this point, the poll showed evidence of animal activity that they had been chewed on.  We did not tell you that, just to offend you or to make you mad.  We told you that because it is essential for you to understand that these bones were not scattered by Roy Crunk.  They were scattered by animals, and by tax of nature.  \
Can I have 207 inevidence? okay you can see from this photograph little bit chemicals are up, where the skull.  The skull has not been moved.  For months.  It is surrounded by day here, which is at the top of the head.  You can see it all wrong pretend that evenly distributed about the skull.  This is where the skull has sat since they are in the scalp decompose and fell off.  And it was not and it has not been moved since.  At least not much. 
 Could I have 209?the duct tape.  Duct tape is partially covered by leaf litter along the sides.  Remember when you seed the new for next photograph used in a duct tape actually goes around the jaw and the skull.  This has been here so long that the leaf litter has actually covered parts of the duct tape.  objection overruled.

Could I have 218 please in this photograph, you can clearly see the duct tape wrapped around the mandible.  It did not just get washed thereby water.  It is there because that is where Casey Anthony put it.  If they are, the jaw is in place, because the duct tape is there.  

Can I have 220?  you can see in this photograph for the duct tape has now been lifted away from the skull from the mandible excuse me g\et th was placed over her mouth and her nose before she can take it off now,  There are strings from the tape that actually go under the mandible.  It is not a coincidence.  It is not an accident.  It is not water.  that is because the tape was placed over her mouth and her nose before she decomposed.

You can take it off now.  The scene was not staged.  It appears as it does because of the forces of nature.  The forces of water.  The forces of animals.  And the forces of decomposition, and any suggestion to the contrary.  I would submit to you is conclusively refuted by the evidence in these photographs.  All these photographs you will have in the jury room with you.  Their noble.  The separated by sort of subject matters legal right to them.  Look at them.  Take as much time as you would like to look at them.  And when you see the and when you done that you are going to see that this crime scene was not stage it was not moved the duct tape has been a Caylee space Center day that she died.  Just as the state experts told you.

The state did not call Roy Kronk in this case.  Because Roy Kronk testimony about what he did on December the love and 2008 is embellished.  Ray likes to spin a good yarn.  What Roy said he did on December the love and is impossible.  We do not we import Roy Kronk on to tell you a story that the evidence indicates just is not true.  And I would submit to you that Roy claims that he just happened upon that scene for second time is equally incredible.  That does not mean that he staged the scene that he stole it change the stuff.  What it means is that Roy likes to spin a good yarn.  I submit to you based on evidence, what occurred in this case was that Roy found the skull as we know he did back in August.  He tried a reported four times.  And he got blown off and said the heck with it.  I am over this.  Maybe it really was not.  But then he starts communicating with his son.  He starts telling his son Daniel, the skull was.  His son is impressed.  He tried to get back his relationship back with his son.  Wow, would not it be great to impress my son.  So he had goal is back to the scene, and it is still there.  And right becomes a hero.  And tells a very very dramatic story about lifting up a bag in the skull rolling out and its dramatic.  And it is wonderful and it is fun, but it is not true.  Right from the skull all right.  Absolutely just like he said.  It is just impossible.  But that does not make Roy Kronk a morally bankrupt individual who would take a little girls skull home and play with that.  
The judge is going to give you some legal instructions, and I want to talk.  Talk about a few of them the most important of the judge is going to talk to you about the main charge of murder in the first degree there to wage commit murder in the first degree.  What is call premeditated murder and others call felony murder.
now we get up here and we are wrong to what we do get around to what we believe evidence supports.  In this case we tbut you can come up with whatever scenario you want.  It is up to you to put these acts together and decided in your own mind what you can In.  And that is what we call circumstance.  They are two ways to commit murder in the first degree.  Important thing is for you to know the following during deliberations.  Paragraph in order to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder.  Your Honor will object misstatement of the law armoring directly from overruled.

Get a premeditated murder, felony murder, while you must all agree that the state has proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.  You need not be unanimous in your opinion as to whether the finding is based on premeditated murder or felony murder.  In other words, what makes this means is that is is each individually assessed these facts you do not have to necessarily agree know whether it is premeditation or felony murder.  You can think it is both.  Some cannot think of one.  Somebody gets another.  The important thing is that you all agree that his first degree murder in some form.  The meditative first degree murder is fairly simple concept.

It just indicates that three elements are that Caylee is dead.  The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony and that there is a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Killing is defined as a killing after consciously deciding to do so and there is another more full description that the judge will give you.  Our position is that the facts in this case show beyond a reasonable doubt that this was premeditated murder of a young child.  But we know that you can reconstruct these event.  Anyway you want.  So, you also need to know what felony murder is.

Felony murder has three elements.  The first is the same that is if Caylee is dead.  The second is the death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of aggravated child abuse.  Or she died while Casey was attempting to commit aggravated child abuse.  In that Casey is the person who killed Caylee.

Not aggravated child abuse is defined by two elements.  The first is that the defendant knowingly or willfully committed an act of child abuse upon Caylee and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigure disfigurement and that Caylee was under eighteen.  Which there is no question that she was.

title abuse is defined as the intentional infliction of mental physical or mental injury upon the child or an intentional act that could reasonably be beat be expected to result n  physical or mental injury to a child or act of encouragement of another person to do that.  The reason that we talk about this is.  You can postulate a number of different. ....
Objection Under brogues >Overruled 
....a number of different hypothesis in this case.this some I say well maybe Casey put duct tape on Caylee to keep her quiet.  Maybe she was being loud.  You know, maybe she put it on to keep her quiet and put it onto too tight and Caylee died by accident.  I would submit not really consistent with what we have here, but you know someone could think that.  The reason I bring this out is because if that is what you think happened.  That is felony murder.  As the court will define it for you.  That is felony murder.  Because it is the intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to the child.  So if there is it that something that you are thinking about.  I just want you to know that also first degree murder.  Misstatement of the law, your honor, overruled.

Or if you choose to believe that she used the chloroform to sedate Caylee so that she could spend time with her boyfriend as bizarre as that seems.  But let us say that she used the chloroform in the trunk of the car to sedate Caylee so she could go have a good time was Tony on the sixteenth and that Caylee accidentally died.  It is still first degree murder.  Because that act is aggravated child abuse.  If he dies as a consequence, and the result is first degree murder.  So regardless of how you put these facts together and again, I submit to you that one makes the most sense is that this is premeditated because it is.  It is.  But anyway you slice it any way you put it together Casey Anthony is guilty of murder in the first degree.  In this case.  I want to talk.

I want to talk a little bit about George.  You have seen hours of video tapes of conversations between George Anthony sometimes with Cindy and Casey.  And sometimes just with Casey.  Does give you a window into their relationship between them and unguarded.  Unvarnished will into the relationship between these three people people.  Is there anything in any of those conversations that showed George Anthony is anything but a loving father?  And a loving grandfather?  Who is out of his mind with worry over Caylee and am perplexed as to why he is broader, will not tell them something?  Throughout all of these conversations he is supportive.  He is helpfully Caylee to Casey.  He is loving to her.  She been set to him on more than one occasion when he expresses some guilt about not having been a better father.  She set him over and over again you were the best at.  You are great dad.  You are great-grandfather.  There is nothing in any of those tapes that would suggest in any way that he sitting there of.  In some bizarre fashion.  Most of her more fiction virginal relationship is with her mother.  Most of the arguments to that extent that they occur are with her mother.  Not with her father.  You know Georgia is under the gun George is the thumb.  With the five fingers of the hand.  George is about.  It is almost a little silly in a way, but George is not this map of alien self interested monster that counsel has suggested.  The last time George Anthony testified Mr. Baez brought up those suicide.  You recall that he asked his Anthony you know, getting you attempt to commit suicide?  Mr. Anthony said he did Mr. Baez asked him while getting you express some guilt in those suicide letter?  That is of course before you actually would have had a chance to see it.  Now of course Mr. Baez is to be telling you that really was not a suicide attempt.  It was just a couple of beers some blood pressure medication.  That is not what George said.  What Anthony said he to put pressure medication and medication he was given for anxiety by his psychiatrist.  He took everything he could find because on January 22 at 2008 he wanted to die.  He wanted to be with Caylee.  That is all he wanted.  He was tired of it all he was tired of the questions he was tired of not knowing.  He does want to be with his granddaughter and you cannot read this letter and not see it that this man was in pain.

You can see the effects of this drug and alcohol at his handwriting deteriorates through this letter.  This is not some self-serving, deliberately created manifests of innocence.  This is the cry of a man who just does not understand the world anymore he does not understand what happened to his granddaughter.  He does not understand why his daughter will not tell him.  He does not understand, and he is tired.  Caylee Marie Agnes her.  I miss her.  I want my family back.  I sit here falling apart because.  I should have done more.  She was so close to home.  Why was she there?  Who placed her there?  Why is she gone?  Why?  Are months UNI is specially you always question why.  I want this to goal weight for Casey.  What happened?  I could she not come to us, especially you?  Why not leak?  Who is involved with the stuff for the stop for Caylee?  Before that, he says, I blame myself for being gone.  You know for months as a matter of fact for years old, I brought up stuff only to be told not to be negative.

To denigrate Pain by suggesting that that is an that is insincere or selfish, self-serving statement, I believe the facts.  I am going to sit down now, and Mrs. Drain-Burduck will address some other areas in this case.  I just want to end by thanking you for all your sacrifices and all of your time and to wish you well in the decision that you are going to make.  Thank you

No comments: