It occurred to me this morning, as I was making my coffee, that today, June 16th, marks the three year anniversary of when the State of Florida asserts Casey Anthony murdered her own daughter (Caylee Marie Anthony), by first poisoning her with chloroform, then applying three pieces of duct tape to her mouth and nose, thus suffocating the child to death.
Yesterday the defense argued eloquently for acquittal of the defendant, but nonetheless Judge Belvin Perry rejected this motion for acquittal. One line from Judge Perry supports his denial. “The state has established substantial competent evidence for the jury – which is the trier of fact in the case – to decide.”
Mason argued (successfully in my opinion) that Orange-Osceola Chief Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia’s determination of homicide was mere speculation.
A line spoken crisply by Mr. Mason cast a pall of reasonable doubt in this case. “There is no evidence to establish when the child died, other than a monthly window of possibility, where she died, how she died, who, if anyone, was with her in attendance when she died.”
For the charge of child abuse, Cheney Mason reminded the court that all the witnesses called by the prosecution had emphasized that Casey had been a loving, doting mother to the cute infant. I recalled that all the photograph and motion picture footage that I’ve seen is in support of this assertion.
“In this case there is no evidence of anything other than a caring, loving, mother-child relationship.” If a friend or family member knew otherwise, no one has ever come forward to contradict this brazen statement by Mr. Mason.
True, Casey has been caught in many lies, such as Zanny the Nanny, but Cheney reminded the court this fib had been around since 2006, two years prior to Caylee’s death.
Not that the prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick fumbled the ball in any way; Ms. Burdick clarified the State has presented their case systematically and professionally.
I must note, they have presented 130 pieces of compelling evidence. If I tried hard enough, I could probably list these items for you right here. But have they proved premeditation? And have they proved motive?
The premeditation is shown by way of suspicious computer searches. But how has the State connected Casey directly to the computer searches? For the motive, Linda claims it’s the volatile and troubled relationship that exists between Cindy and Casey. But when and where was this demonstrated? Cindy never said anything, when on the witness stand, about a mother/daughter major altercation of any sort. I must have missed something?
