"It was an Accident"

I apologize up front for getting distracted from the case I’ve been researching. I will get back to it, but I was captivated by the opening statements in the Casey Anthony trial. I, along with the rest of the country, wanted to hear Jose Baez explain those 31 days. However, I never expected to hear what I heard. I have to know what everyone thinks.

Before I get started, let me say I’m trying to watch the trial with an open mind. I, like many others, formed opinions of Ms. Anthony over time. However, most of these opinions were formed due to a ‘media’ trial, not a court trial. I have taken great effort to push my opinions aside and try to watch as if I’m hearing it all for the first time. After all, to be truly fair, she is “innocent until proven guilty”. It can be very difficult for many of us to remember this, especially with such a horrible crime. Although, now I guess I have to say ‘alleged’ crime until the case is proven.

I do have to wonder if we will ever really know the whole truth on the family dynamics involved here. I really don’t want to concentrate too much on the allegation of sexual abuse. As far as I’m concerned, that’s something the defense must prove since they accused. However, I wasn’t shocked to hear them use that argument since we’ve heard the allegations in the past. What shocked me was the admission that Caylee was never missing, but that on June 16, 2008, she drowned in the family swimming pool.

I had to rewind and listen to that again. Did I really hear that right? A completely different story emerges. As I listened, I had to admit it; Jose Baez made it sound really good. After all they say truth is stranger than fiction; but can Casey be believed? She seems to lie every time she talks. It’s going to be a long 6-8 weeks (if it’s actually done in that time) trying to wait to hear all the witnesses.

I paid extra close attention when Jose Baez started talking about Roy Kronk. I will admit, I have always thought there was something a little suspicious about his story. I don’t believe he had anything to do with the death or disposal, but I can believe he moved the body or parts of it. The first day he called to report it, he left the area instead of waiting for an officer. This could be viewed as the act of a Good Samaritan who just didn’t want to be involved. With one report, I would agree, but he called three days in a row. Why was he so interested? My curiosity wants to know. I can’t wait to hear his son testify and tell the story. Why would his son lie?

Another issue with “the meter reader” is the report. When he made those calls three days in a row, he reported seeing what he believed to be a skull. It wasn’t found. When he called back in December, he reported seeing a bag. This time, he led the officers to the spot where Caylee’s remains were found. They were all in the bag, including the skull. I want to know how, between August and December, a skull got into a bag from the ground. It didn’t get there without help.

Finally, the ’forensic’ evidence that we’re supposed to hear. I’m waiting to see if I can believe the process the State is presenting. Most of the case is based on circumstantial evidence, and while enough of it is convincing, forensics always makes it easier.

A dog trainer will testify that the dog, trained to target decomposition, hit in the Anthonys’ back yard and Casey’s car. I wonder about his reliability. Apparently the dog was taken into the back yard two days in a row; he hit one day, but not the next. If this is true, how can the dog be considered reliable? The smell is either there or it isn’t; it’s not here today and gone tomorrow.

The test on the car also wasn’t done correctly, according to Jose Baez. He said the dog was only given Casey’s car, and not a lineup. If true, the dog really means nothing. Just like any identification, there should have been multiple cars lined up. The officer also should not have known which car was Casey’s. Then when the dog hit on her car, it could be trusted.

I may have a hard time with the air sample expert. I don’t even know how he’s going to try to explain it, but he’s going to have to be tremendously convincing for me to buy into it. After all, this expert has a patent on this process. Of course he’s going to testify to its’ reliability. If his ’science’ becomes accepted, he stands to make a fortune. I’ll listen to his testimony, but I doubt that will play a part in my judgment.

Did I have a pre-conceived notion of her guilt before the trial started? Of course, I did. Casey Marie Anthony is a horrible excuse for a mother for partying and lying the 31 days away. Everything points to the theory that she killed her own daughter. However, when a trial starts, I look at it as though I’m sitting on that jury. The law REQUIRES that we assume a defendant is innocent. The State has the burden of proof, and opening statements are not proof, on either side. That’s why we have to listen to the evidence presented IN COURT. The media will present whatever story is going to get the most attention.

I have thought all along Casey was guilty, but as of today, she is innocent for the moment. I did find myself wondering today, “Could this have been an accident and Casey flipped out?” The real issue with that is the duct tape. Why tape her head?

At least we may get some answers. With this line of defense, Casey almost has to take the stand. If not, it means nothing.

What do you think? Do you want to hear Casey Anthony testify and explain herself? Feel free to comment, just not hatefully