It really is eye opening. This girl can remember more about fictional people than I can about real life ones. This morning listening to the tape of her being confronted by detectives and getting aggressive with them was fascinating and chilling. I just cannot fathom trying to get away with weaving that tale to professional law enforcement members. What chutzpah.

Paul Lenz, were you part of the stampede yesterday to get seats in the courtroom? Thanks so much for the reports!!

Here's what I think FWIW. I think the Defendant kept up with these lies as long as she could, because she knew the body was out in the Florida elements, decomposing. The longer it took for the body to be found, the more decomposition. The more decomposition, the less likely cause of death could be determined. Thus, opening the door to the accidental drowning story.

Marcia Clark mentioned the story of Robert Durst, but she got the facts wrong. Durst (also suspected in the disappearance of his wife decades before, and from an extremely wealthy family), shot and killed a man in Galveston. He chopped up the body and placed the body parts in various plastic bags, and threw them into Galveston Bay. Of course, they began to wash up on shore. But the head never washed up, strangely enough. Once Durst knew the cops never found the head, he claimed self-defense. He claimed he got into a fight with the victim and he shot the guy in the head in self defense. Of course, without the head, the State could not examine where the shot came in (like the back of the head?). He was acquitted and walks the streets of America today. Of course he was represented by Dick DeGuerin, not Jose Baez. Somehow it never sat right with me that you can kill someone, chop up the body and hide the most significant piece of evidence, and get away with it. But he did.

You're welcome.

No--Gawd no!--not part of the stampede. As interested as I am in this trial, I'm not interested enough to get in line at 3 or 4 a.m., and brave that thundering herd. Those folks are vicious! I did get some opportunity yesterday to chat with some of the other spectators...my 'read' on most of those with whom I interacted was that they are "there for Caylee" (that was said to me, over and over, almost as if it was a religious mantra), and strongly believe (prejudgment, to be sure, but I share it) Casey Anthony murdered her daughter. Of those I chatted with on the subject, opinion was split about evenly between those who believe she should get the DP and those who believe the sentence should be LWOP.

Naw, as the opportunity arises, and I am able to clear my schedule, I will be interested in going to the trial, although I wouldn't expect those two things to happen together more than a one or two more times. But, in general, I'm seeing it via the livestream or broadcasts, like everyone else.

TF is correct; the family stopped visiting and writing because all of that footage and the letters are public and are evidence.

However......

After watching Cindy Anthony on the stand, on which she:

*sobbed while doubled-over
*sunk down in her seat to the point of being almost invisible in the witness stand
*watching her as she was told to look at her daughter and she wouldn't look at her daughter's face
*and her daughter wouldn't look at her at all,

I think the entirety of Casey's lies suddenly snapped into complete clarity for Cindy. If the defense that Caylee drowned, Casey was heartless to keep that from her mother for 3 years. If the defense isn't true, it means her daughter is a murderer who killed a 2 year-old child whom Cindy and George essentially raised.

The Anthonys may be able to forgive Casey for killing Casey and for all of her lies, but I don't think they can face her again. Cindy is now on disability because of the physical and emotional toll this has taken on her.

If the Anthonys can't look at Casey when she is on trial, if they can't fake loving expressions for Casey before a jury while their daughter is being tried for capital murder, they aren't going to visit or write her while she is in prison. At least not for a very. very long time. They may continue to deposit money in her prison acct, but they won't invest any more emotional energy into Casey.

After all, Casey told the entire world (on live tv) that George sexually abused her for years, hid Caylee's body and returned to Caylee's body to place duct tape on Caylee's mouth and nose in order to frame Casey for murder in case Caylee was ever found.

George and Cindy are done. They will continue to love Casey, but they are done with her. She has treated them badly for years (even before Caylee's death). They know that Casey isn't sorry and they know that if they visit Casey in prison, they know that she will lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. They also know that Casey doesn't and is incapable of loving them in return. Casey blames her parents (literally and truly) for all of this.

Lee will likely continue to stay in contact with his sister. The George and Cindy can get what they need through him.



Ah. Thank you!



Some have said that this is why Caylee was given chloroform. Some speculate that Casey used chloroform to knock Caylee out so she would sleep; others speculate that Casey used chloroform to knock Caylee out and put her in the trunk of her car with duct tape over her mouth to keep her quiet if she woke up in the trunk so she could go party.

Chloroform isn't a long acting anesthetic (IIRC); it needs to be reapplied repeatedly for it to keep someone knocked out. In addition, the amount of chloroform in the trunk of the car is obscene. Caylee would have been knocked out at significantly lower amounts of chloroform use. The chloroform had to have been continued to be used while Caylee was already knocked out.

I'm not an expert on this, but it is my understanding of the chloroform evidence. It will be interesting to hear the experts discuss chloroform.

Cough syrup would have knocked Caylee out. Casey would know this as the mother of a 2 year old. Cough syrup doesn't require mixing and is cheap and easy to purchase. If Caylee's body was found with cough syrup in it, it would look like her death was accidental.



It's the 3 layers of tape that seals this as a non-accident. I could imagine a horrible parent placing duct tape on their child's mouth to shut them up. 3 pieces of tape on her mouth and nose is murder.

I think that Casey used the chloroform to knock Caylee out and then she applied the duct tape after that. Whether Caylee was dead or alive when the tape was applied is anyone's guess. But I think the intent was to knock Caylee so that Casey could easily and "mercifully" (in Casey's twisted brain) kill her daughter by asphyxiation. Casey wouldn't have to watch Caylee watch as her mother killed her.



976 year gives one a lot of time to build one's vocabulary!

Lawyers have the best vocabulary!!

I hope to address the issue of psychopath vs sociopath later on. They are extremely similar, but in this case, I think the difference is very relevant.

This may relate to LM K's promised point about sociopaths vs. psychopaths. From watching a bit of the news coverage of Casey Anthony before the trial (and before Caylee's body was found), and now from reading about the trial, I was never able to tell whether Casey knows that she committed murder and whether she has any guilt about it. I get it that Casey is a liar and a thief. However, mothers murdering their children are exceptionally rare, and many of the cases of the past 20 years or so have involved women who had serious mental illnesses. Casey was found competent to stand trial, but that is not the same as saying that she is without serious mental illness. Any impressions? Is it possible that Casey is a person who simply does not care at all about other people, including about her own daughter and her parents?

1. Yes she knows she murdered the baby girl and that's why she's spun this elaborate tale of thousands of lies;

2. No, she has no guilt. Her only concern is herself. (Sound like anyone we know?);

3. As to your last question: yes.

LM K, that's a good question, which I'm going to try to answer as well as I can in some detail, but the short answer is that, under Florida Administrative Code, if convicted of a murder, and sentenced to life (with or without parole), she'll be segregated, but it won't be for HER safety, but rather, for the safety of the other inmates (based on the charges of which she would be convicted). By "segregated," I mean that she will be housed in a cell (which may, or may not, be a 'single occupancy'), as opposed to more typical Florida prison inmate housing...a dorm. You can see a pic of our typical prison dorm housing here.

Assume a finding of guilty (of capital murder), and a sentence of life without parole for the following:

She would be housed at the main Florida women's prison for more violent offenders/lifers, Lowell Annex. Lowell Annex (and the Lowell Correctional Institution on the same campus) are the two largest women's prisons in Florida (we don't have that many women's prisons--4, I think). Lowell Annex houses the worst of the worst (from all over Florida), but also (as a 'regional' prison) some of the women convicted of far lesser offenses. Our female Death Row is at Lowell Annex (currently, 3 women reside there). Lowell Annex isn't a really old facility, so it's not that awful (we're not talking Shawshank); on the other hand, like most prisons in Florida, it is not air-conditioned (and it's freakin' hot in Florida). There are no televisions in the dorms, or even in the individual cells (except death row cells), only in the collective "day rooms." One TV per; no cable; no HD; the guard controls the remote, the channel selection, and the volume.

Here in Florida, we have what are known as "custody classifications" The five custody classifications for inmates are: maximum (death row), close (housed in cells), medium, minimum, and community. Within the "close custody" (also called "close management" (CM)) classification, which is how an inmate convicted of 1st (or even 2nd) degree murder would be classified), there are 3 sub-categories (CMI, CMII, CMIII, in order from most to least restrictive). CMI inmates are housed in single occupancy cells. CMII inmates are housed in single or double occupancy cells, and CMIII inmates are typically in double occupancy cells.

Custody classification is a function of many (and I do mean MANY) factors (the crime, the inmate's behavior in prison, criminal record, etc.), and is a complex assessment done by each correctional facility's Classification Unit (an admin function). But some classifications are easy and absolute, for example, all death row inmates are in "maximum" custody classification, and all convicted murderers are in the "close" custody classification, unless they are within 5 - 15 years of their scheduled release date. Obviously, if Casey Anthony's sentence is life without parole, she would never be within 5 to 15 years of a scheduled release date, so she would never be eligible for a custody classification less restrictive than "close," and most 1st degree murderers are classified as CMI. It should be noted that, as with everything in this world, there is an avenue for exceptions to be made, by approval of the state's Custody Classification Czar (or sumpin' like that). But the likelihood is that Casey Anthony would never be in the general population, at least not under the current system.

That said, "close custody" does not mean "solitary confinement." Casey would still interact with other prisoners, at least within her housing unit (cell block, so to speak) and there would be times when those prisoners would have physical contact/access to her. Depending on whether her classification is CMI, CMII, or CMIII, she could even work in the prison (kitchen, prison industries, laundry, library, farm, etc.) More information about the restrictions and priviliges of inmates on "close custody" can be found here.

Long answer, lots of detail, feel free to ignore.

The defense this afternoon announced that they would like to call Sally Karioth as an expert witness.

Asking to add an expert in the middle of a trial is spelled D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.

And if I am trying a case involving the murder of an adorable little girl, who am I going to call to explain why my client didn't give a shit about the child being missing and now dead? Well, Sally!

They should just call Jack Kevorkian already.

WFTV's Legal Analyst Bill Shaffer:

Day 19, June 2, 2011 8.5 mins

I'm convinced that she knows she killed Caylee. Does she know that was murder? I'm not thinking of an accidental killing; I am thinking of a badly warped mind that cannot see a crime in her actions.

Speaking of...

Or The Amazing Kreskin.

Too late. Kevorkian's death was just noticed.

WFTV's Legal Analyst, Bill Shaeffer:

Day 20, 6/3/2011 5 mins

The court is in session for 1/2 the day on Saturdays.

While it's definitely not as riveting, or potentially scandalous, we've headed--beginning yesterday and for today's session--into the actual physical evidence in this case, including hair, odor, trash from Casey's car. So far, we've had witnesses from the Orange County (FL) Sheriff's crime scene investigation unit, and the FBI. Expect to see Dr. Vass from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (the so-called "body farm" at the University of Tennessee) testify next week regarding the odor testing (and this will be the first time this 'odor' evidence--at least as measured scientifically--will have been admitted in a court...anywhere). I'd expect the defense to continue to do everything they possibly can to present this evidence as "junk science," and to discredit Dr. Vass as a wacky-inventor-hawking-gadgets (think Back to the Future's Dr. Emmett Brown). Also expect the state to present the cadavar dog evidence next week.

While I find this portion of the testimony fascinating, I know that most folks don't. I can only hope that the jury, lacking any alternate activities during the time the court is in session, will also closely attend to it. It is, of course, a determination of the jury as to whether or not they find any witness (including an expert witness) credible. From having watched the Frye hearings in the Anthony case, I'd have to say that I was impressed with the state's expert witnesses (and less impressed with the defense's counter experts), but we'll see what the jury thinks, I suppose, in another 6 weeks or so.

I'd also expect next week's testimony to include (because we may get there in the chronology, which is generally how the state is presenting their case), to include the search for Caylee Anthony (both by sheriff's investigators and by organized search organizations like Texas Equusearch). There are yet many hours of investigators' interviews/interrogations with Casey Anthony to be seen, where we can again watch her hang herself with her own words, from her own mouth. There is her release from jail (bailed out by bounty hunter Leonard Padilla) in August 2008, and her rearrest and return to jail in September 2008, the second bailout (also in September) and her subsequent return to jail and indictment by the grand jury in late September and October 2008, respectively. There is all of the controversy surrounding the searches (who searched when/where; how much rain did we get from Tropical Storm Fay/standing water/where) to be explored. Parts of that will be back to the shocking, scandalous, and "holy-shit-can-you-believe-she-said-that" moments. Detective Melich will be back on the stand, and likely a couple of the other detectives assigned to the case.

Thank God they take Sundays off on this thing!

I'm interested in the forensic evidence. I hope the jury won't suffer from the "CSI effect" (where light sabers analyze every piece of evidence to a certainty in less than an hour). I think the FBI analyst's testimony was compelling. Baez tried to make hay over the fact that they didn't find more of the baby's hair in the trunk of the Defendant's car. But what was even one hair showing post-mortem banding doing in that trunk? This is how a circumstantial case is built. Somehow, the defense cross doesn't seem to gibe with the story they told in opening statements. Why attack the evidence as if it were a case where the Defendant had absolutely no connection to the death of the child? Since they are blaming all of the bad stuff on the father of the Defendant, why not just say he used the Defendant's vehicle to dispose of the body?

Good points. They can't show that George used the car to dispose of the body because he supposedly moved the body before decomposition occurred (or enough to leave odor, hair banding, decomposition chemicals). Casey took off with the car when Caylee was murdered. George had no access to the car when he allegedly moved the body a 2nd time.

The only person that can be tied to the car while a decomposing body was in it is Casey.

It is too bad that Cindy Anthony washed the pants she found in the car once George picked the car up from impound. They were Casey's pants. They would have had all kinds of evidence on them. One has to wonder if Cindy had a gut feeling that Casey was involved in a death. She knew the car smelled of human decomposition. She shouldn't have touched that car, and George, as an ex-detective, should have known that. But I think they just freaked out. Some believe that the car was cleaned because the Anthonys knew Caylee was dead and that Casey was tied to her death. Those folks believe that they knew Casey had killed or was linked to the killing of someone which is why they cleaned the car. I think that they just freaked out.

The Anthonys don't appear to have been the most psychologically stable folks to begin with. But they were probably pretty average on the nutty scale.

I think that the forensic evidence in this case is solid enough for those who watch a lot of crime tv. Many of the jurors don't watch a lot of tv. They were asked about that a lot. The forensics on this case appears pretty solid; the more Casey lied, the more the police were investing the forensics of this case.

More Americans appear to be interested in science now that there are more outlets that discuss science for the layperson (but I am a science geek, so I could be very wrong). Even those who aren't scientifically curious are fascinated with the forensics in this case. The prosecution is doing a great job of discussing the science so far. Once the cans of decomposition are opened, the jury is going to snap to attention on the science. They won't be able to forget much of the science, including some of the more mundane evidence.

I wonder if a juror will vomit when they smell the decomposition cans. I certainly would.

WFTV's Legal Analyst Bill Shaeffer:

Day 21, 6/4/2011 5.5 mins

Note: For those interested in the trial but not watching footage, the Bill Sheaffer videos are worth watching. He does a good job if discussing what went well, what went poorly and how the jury was responding to each day's testimony.

I so appreciate that TFB legal team is giving their thoughts on this case. As a psychologist, this case fascinates me. Getting to hear what lawyers think about this is fantastic. So thank you!!

Elmer Fudd, a decomposing body odor collection expert, is currently testilying. The testimony has been punctuated by lengthy sidebars, clearly to the delight of the jury.

Huh? My expert on this case tells me that Dr. Vass is a very impressive witness who has testified (successfully) in many pretrial hearings. I cannot watch as I have been ordered to go to another city on Soros business, but I will be checking in later.

He has a very interesting manner of speech. I personally was thinking more clergyman in Princess Bride (tweu wuv) , but Elmer Fudd works too.

I think he's adorable. At one point he was asked to speak more slowly so that the court reporter could get all the technical terms and he said (IIRC), "I'm sorry, I get excited when I know something."

At one point he asnwered something while Baez was objecting and he bit down on his fingers!! He is totally adorable.

He has an articulation disorder and is unable to form 'r' sounds. I have a friend who has the same disorder and was subjected to years of speech correction sessions. It's a congenital malformation. It is very frustrating for my friend who practices criminal law and is often asked to repeat. Dr. Vass articulates very clearly but can't help his 'r's sounding like 'w's.