This Was Then And This Is Now - The Casey Anthony Criminal Matter? How Much Law Enforcement Learned And When?

By Lawrence W. Daly

On October 3, 2008, Fox News reported that “The mother of missing Orlando preschooler is now officially considered a suspect in her disappearance, Orange County police said”. Prior to this statement the police had referred to Casey Anthony as a person of interest. Generally police will use this type of statement to keep everyone off guard, so if there is evidence of any kind, the alleged perpetrator will not destroy the evidence and/or attempt to hide it.
              At the October 3, 2008 notice of Casey being the suspect, the police had created “reams of pages” including text messages, voicemail and police interview transcripts. Due to the investigation by law enforcement, to the October 3rd date, the police believed Caylee to be dead.

Defense Claims Law Enforcement Leaking Information
            The defense has claimed that law enforcement officials have been leaking investigative findings to the media. Disclosing information about the law enforcement investigation in some States is a crime. In this case it became obvious that someone close to the investigation was leaking information to the media. When law enforcement leaks information about an investigation there are generally several purposes for doing this. They are: the law enforcement official believes the integrity of the investigation has become problematic. Two, the official wants to share the information with the media so they present to the community the merits of their investigation. Three, the official believes he/she is not being heard by their team/organization and leaking to the media the information will bring attention to the official. Four, they want to bring a bad impression upon the organization they work for. Five, maliciously and intentionally provide official information out of spite and failure to abide by the policies, procedures and protocols of the organization. These top five reasons need to be considered in Casey’s case. Are there an official and/or officials wanting to bring about a positive and/or negative light upon their organization? Why else would the official want to expose those who were investigating the case?

Casey Anthony Charged – First Degree Murder Charges
            On October 14, 2008, the grand jury indicted Casey for first-degree murder. In an unsealed indictment the grand jury alleges that Casey had intentionally killed Caylee. Additionally, she was charged with aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter and providing false information to law enforcement. The significance of all of these charges was law enforcement believed at this time that they had sufficient evidence to charge Casey with all of these crimes. The first issue for the grand jury was to consider only the information that the prosecution provided to them. Sometimes the prosecution may not want anyone to know the entire evidence they have against a suspect. As the grand jury is progressing, law enforcement should be continuing their investigation. In this case, law enforcement officials were continuing their investigation. The obvious reason is they believed Caylee to be dead and they had not found her body. So what evidence did law enforcement have on October 14, 2008 which led them to believe Casey had intentionally killed Caylee? First, Caylee was missing and Casey could not provide anyone a legitimate reason for where she was. Second, the numerous lies she had given to her family, friends and law enforcement. Third, the lies she told about her current employment. Four, the cadaver dog who responded positively to Casey’s car, specifically the trunk area. Five, inside Casey’s car there sat Caylee’s car seat. Six, the decomposed hairs found in the trunk which was believed to be identical to Caylee’s hair. Seven, there was chloroform that was found in the trunk area.

The Prosecution Theory
            These seven areas were the basis for the prosecution to ask the grand jury for the seven-count criminal indictment against Casey. The theory of the prosecution was in reviewing all of the evidence to date; there was no doubt that Casey had taken Caylee’s life. All of the evidence was circumstantial up to the October 14th date and law enforcement was utilizing forensic experts and numerous interviews in putting their investigation together.

In Trial
            Over the past week the prosecution and the defense are putting on their respective case theories in front of a paneled jury. The above evidence the prosecution presented was similar in nature to the evidence presented to the grand jury. The difference in the proceedings is the defense is present to question the evidence the law enforcement officials uncovered during their investigation. Questions about the State’s evidence were questioned for the first time since its collection by the defense team. Cross examination of witnesses including expert witnesses have been called to the stand and provided positive and supportive information to the jury.

The Defense Challenges The Evidence
            Once the prosecution closed their presentation the defense took the opportunity to inform the jury that George and Lee Anthony had sexually assaulted Casey as a young child. Moreover, that George took Caylee from a pool where she allegedly drowned and hid the body. George immediately denied sexually assaulting Casey and denied having an involvement in the moving and hiding of Caylee’s body. The defense is now attacking the State’s witnesses and trying to demonstrate that the evidence the State found back in 2008 has a reason and that Casey is not responsible for it.
The Media Pundits
            The media pundits are split over who is responsible for the death of Caylee. Some have alleged that it is possible that Casey was sexually assaulted by George and Lee. They are split over the possibility that Casey didn’t intentionally kill Caylee, that it was an accidental drowning and that George helped Casey dispose of the body?
            So what has law enforcement learned since the grand jury came back with their seven-count criminal indictment? If you have been following the case you know that the prosecution has followed what they believe happened when the information was presented to the grand jury. Law enforcement since that October 14th date has identified numerous relationships, the kind of relationships and the constant lies Casey told her acquaintances, friends and family. Over the past two years and eight months, law enforcement has been attempting to tighten their investigation. Bringing their hypothesis that Casey is responsible for the intentional killing of Caylee. Their focus has been on the relationships she had at the time of the killing and the statements she made prior to and after the killing of Caylee. Some of the information has been helpful and some of the information supports previous conceived ideas.

The Jury - Conclusion
            Over the next two weeks the jury will continue to listen to the many witnesses for the defense and prosecution. Defense attorney, Jose Baez, will have the opportunity to explore and prove the accidental drowning theory. He will web together how Casey, being a sexually abused child, had something to do with the death of Casey. Still missing from the courtroom for the jury to see, are the many Women Rights Groups who support women and children who have been victims of child sexual abuse. This author wants to know where they are and why the absence of them has not been questioned by the media.

This is


Post a Comment

All comments and feedback appreciated!

Criminology & Justice Headline Animator


Law Books




Serial Killers



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...