Closing Arguments in Casey Anthony Trial

Update: I think the defense caught a break when the Judge recessed the trial after the defense closing until tomorrow, forcing the prosecutors to wait to give their closing rebuttal. Now the jury gets to go home and consider the arguments of both sides equally, without the prosecution having the advantage of two bites at the apple. Even though they aren't supposed to, some may make up their minds today, and any leaning towards the defense, may be listening with a closed mind by the time the rebuttal comes tomorrow. The prosecutor's laughing during the defense closing may have backfired big time. Also, isn't it a bit disrespectful for the Court to hold trial on the 4th of July?


Original Post

If you liked the old days of Court TV, tune in to Headline News where Vinnie Politan, Jean Casarez and Janie Velez-Mitchell are dissecting the closing arguments in the Casey Anthony trial. It's not quite like the old Court TV, it's more like Court TV on speed, with a surreal intensity. Every word is enunciated with such emphasis and varied tone inflection, you see their lips form every word. It's more like listening to sports announcers at the Superbowl than legal analysts, as they continue to hype this so-called "trial of the century." They keep talking about the passion of the prosecutor in closing, but when they play clips, in comparison to them, he's sounds like he's speaking in a monotone. Put another way, the old Court TV was like watching a golf match, while this is like watching an Xtreme Sports or snowboarding competition. [More...]

The prosecution gave its initial closing this morning, and the defense then began its argument. The defense will continue after lunch, and the state will then give its rebuttal argument. The prosecution gets two shots (and the last word) because it has the burden of proof.

I still haven't figured out why this particular case or trial or any of its participants has captured the fancy of so many people. Nor have I followed it. So far, it seems like a case where the state hasn't even proven a murder occurred. If a guilty verdict is returned and it moves into a death penalty phase for sentencing, I may start following it.

You can also watch the actual court proceedings live (without the spin) online here.

< Sunday Morning Open Thread: | Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The Mysterious Phone Call With Jailed Acquaintance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Coverage of HLN's Coverage (none / 0) (#1)
    by The Maven on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    Saturday's New York Times had an article looking at the HLN (formerly known as Headline News) incessant, unrelenting coverage of the Anthony trial, noting that the network paid only glancing attention on Friday to the bombshell revelations in the DSK prosecution.

    Anytime Nancy Grace focuses her gaze on a particular case, it seems that there's a mass deployment of resources designed to convict the defendant in her distorted court of "citizens' justice" (a polite term for vigilante lynch mob).

    HLN (none / 0) (#2)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    is the worst channel to watch. They heavily favor the prosecution. Believe it or not Fox is better(not covering morning session). They have a more balance group.
     The prosecution want to inflame the jury to hate her.
      The defense is going right at the evidence. The people who did not smell death in the car.Police officers,people riding in the car during the days supposedly the body was in the trunk, the person who towed the truck. If the jury believes these people, it will make the prosecution witness look like liar. The smell of death originated with George Anthony.
      The prosecution I believe is believing there on hype.I have spoken often about the Oakridge Boys.A research firm hired by the prosecution to perform experiment during the trial. There responsible for the smell test, the death band on the single strand of hair in the car.
      I believe she drowned, while with George Anthony. He never seems to have a job. He lied about so many things in this trial.Denied having a mistress, She was very credible she had text message, 12 visit register at the security gate. She lied to the police at first about the affair,when confronted with the text messages she had to come clean. He text her 3 days after the body was found" he needed her in his life". She also said George Anthony said" It was a accident that snowball out of control". She also gave him 4,000 dollars because he did not have a job.


    Links? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    And preferably more readable!

    I suspect that (none / 0) (#5)
    by sj on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    that loveed doesn't have links.  I'm pretty sure she doesn't do links. yet.

    She is describing the television coverage that she watched.  Actually I think it's the televised proceedings but I could be wrong.


    Believe it or not (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    I finally learned how to copy and paste. Now working on how to link.

    Sorry unreadable (none / 0) (#6)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:22:25 PM EST
     I watched the trial. No links just the facts as they came out in testimony.



    Caylee (none / 0) (#24)
    by lc on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    Where is the evidence Caylee drowned?  Defense counsel's opening and closing statements aren't evidence.  I don't believe there was one witness who testified she drowned, no Medical Examiner testimony who talked about her drowning.

    Defendant has the right to choose not to testify.  But when she did that, she shouldn't get the benefit of the drowning defense that she chose not to testify about.


    The prosecution has no idea (none / 0) (#25)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    how she died. No one knows how she died. The defense suggesting drowning is more powerful than suffocation by duct tape.
     She loved to swim. They took her swimming almost everyday. She had outgrown three life jackets. She could go up the ladder by herself. She probably could open the patio door. There was no safety locks on the patio door. When Cindy came home the ladder was attach to the pool, and the gate leading to the pool was open. The body was found with clothes that did not fit Caylie, also pull ups she no longer wears. No shoes and socks was found with the body.
     The duct tape theory don't hold water. There was no chloroform(this a proven fact, no drugs period)
    Also no suffocation (this is also a proven fact).
    The body was never in that car. Don't you think she would have taken off the tape,she's 1month shy of 3yrs?



    I've had the local coverage on most of the day (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    I think the defense theory is the most logical - accidental drowning and mother with mental issues panics and hides the body, possibly with the help of her also odd, multiply lying father.

    I'll watch the prosecution's rebuttal too, but I so far don't buy any premeditated murder charges. It just does not make sense.

    I am loving this closing (none / 0) (#10)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:45:07 PM EST

    waiting for the to small clothes (none / 0) (#12)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    the clothes found with the body was 24months this is infant size. She was almost 3yrs old.
     Ashton has read and watch to much Nancy Grace.

    Baez said basically that the clothes (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    Discrepancy was very strange but I was not sure what point he was trying to make. He did not put forth a theory of why  the clothes were wrong.

    Having had children (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    and having to cope with the vagaries of clothing sizes (and with children's favorites that they want to keep wearing), I really don't get this hang-up.  As a commenter put it elsewhere:

    "Defense attorney Jose Baez once again put Cindy Anthony on the stand. He questioned her regarding the 24-month-sized shorts found with little Caylee Anthony's body. Since, at the time of her death, Caylee wore a size 3T, he tried to insinuate that someone not familiar with little Caylee Anthony's clothing size put her in those shorts.

    "Now, every mother and grandmother in the world knows that children's clothing sizes often widely vary. Also, a child younger than 24 months is often still wearing diapers and the clothing manufacturers design the clothing to accommodate this fact. Children younger than 24 months are frequently chubbier than they are the next year, as they grow taller. My grandson weighed 30 pounds when he was 9 months old, and the same weight when he was 2. Therefore, a size 24 month shorts would easily fit a child almost three years old who was then wearing training pants or pull-ups.
    "Is Baez really that stupid that he doesn't know this, or does he just think the rest of the world is that stupid?"

    It's the Johnny Cochran defense (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

    Maybe because I have 2 daughter (none / 0) (#26)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    and 12 granddaughter. This really stands out. 24months is infant size it's smaller than 2toddler.
     I will make this easy. Your going to a 3yr old birthday party. What size would you buy(probably a 4t). kaylee wearing the clothes found with the body. She was 18 months.  
     http://www.wftv.com/storylink/19106388/detail.html?page=http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/19106388/ detail.html

     I hope this works.

     I will try and find the picture of Caylee opening the patio door.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#28)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    what "a 2 daughter" is.  But I have raised a daughter as well as a son, and my experience was that children's clothing sizes varied greatly.  

    Perhaps we shopped differently.  But nothing in your experience negates my experience nor that of the blogger quoted.  You keep repeating this argument about the clothing as if it's a clincher.  It's not.


    It's probably just me (none / 0) (#31)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 05:32:47 PM EST
    but I buy a lot of girls clothes for about 45yrs. I buy so many that I don't needs tags(LOL).

    Then you don't know the sizes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    as labeled by the manufacturer.  If not looking at the tags, then ability to make the argument about clothing sizes becomes moot.  

    she was almost 3yrs old (none / 0) (#16)
    by loveed on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:32:04 PM EST
      1.clothes  size 24months (there are pictures of her in these clothes before her second birthday).
      2.she no longer wore pull ups (she was potty trained).
      3.no shoes or socks (drowning )

     Whom every put these clothes with the body, it was not Kasey or Cindy.  


    The way he talked about them right after (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:42:13 PM EST
    talking about how easy it would have been for Caylee to leave the house and get into the pool, it was almost like he was implying Caylee might have put them on herself.  Which is possible.

    I don't think either side has told a particularly coherent story- probably none of the lawyers know what happened. The defense for all intents and purposes admits Casey knows what happened, but still can't tell the whole story.

    All in all, I would be hard pressed to convict.


    The defense theory is that her drowning (none / 0) (#20)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 11:47:59 PM EST
    was an accident and that Casey's father disposed of the body, is it not? Where did he get the too-small clothing and the pull-ups she no longer wore? If her father dressed her, wouldn't he have gotten the clothing from her room in his house? Why were there still items there that she had outgrown? The defense has never suggested that Casey wasn't present when the supposed accidental drowning happened so why wouldn't she have been involved in the clothing selection? It seems more likely to me that sociopath Casey murdered her and dressed her in clothes that represented a happier time for her when Caylee was younger-or she wanted to make it seem that Caylee's body was of a younger child than her's.

    I thought the prosecution rebuttal was (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    strong. This being the only part of the trial I have actually viewed, I like the female prosecutor a lot better than the male, who I find very condescending. I know the jury is not supposed to pay attention to who they like better, but I can.

     At this point I can see it going either way. Which means to me that I think there is reasonable doubt.


    This is role reversal (none / 0) (#37)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:12:12 PM EST
     The male prosecutor did all the emotional aspect in the closing argument.

     The female prosecutor was direct and very pointed. She a good lawyer. She will be a defense attorney soon(I predict).


    I think the clothes was in (none / 0) (#30)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    the garage, Cindy had a lot of garage sell and sold a lot of Kaylee clothes. The white bag that the body was found in came from the  garage.

     The defense said in opening argument,that Kasey father George brought the body to Kasey.

     People who did not watch this trial should know that George Anthony is a liar(I'm not talking about the mistress). He was impeached so many time by both Prosecution and Defense.
      He and ex-police officer who cannot keep a job.It's funny how there no fingerprints or dna on any piece of evidence. Do you really think Kasey is that smart?
      Also the pet cemetery testimony was just creepy.


    Local analyst said that Baez told the judge he (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 06:04:55 PM EST
    did not want to see Ashton held in contempt.

    Yep (none / 0) (#17)
    by rdandrea on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    I was watching.  That's what he said.

    i thought it odd too (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:21:57 PM EST
    that any gov't building in the country would be open on july 4th, absent some kind of emergency situation. i've never heard of this before, and i work for the fed. gov't. i understand (and have personal experience in) a court staying open after normal business hours during the week, because the case had gone to the jury, but this is definitely strange.

    i neither watched or read the defense's closing, no need to, the facts pretty much speak for themselves, and come nowhere near bouncing over the bar of reasonable doubt (it doesn't even come close to stumbling over it). that isn't what's going to determine the jury's decision however. that will be the jury member's feelings about ms. anthony's partying ways, in the weeks following her daughter's disappearance. her actual guilt or innocence will have little or nothing to do with it.

    We should watch these high profile cases (none / 0) (#27)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    The verdict is not the most important thing, it's the process. The process that all of us will be judge by.

     In the 60's if you were black you were guilty. And some parts of the country you were hung. It's like were back in the sixty's.

    Race (none / 0) (#29)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 04:51:31 PM EST
    was not and is not a process.  

    In the instances you note, race was a predetermined verdict.  The process did not matter.


    When you here people say (none / 0) (#32)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 06:43:01 PM EST
     She guilty because she went partying, she a liar.
    without any facts, won't watch the trial(it's available). But insist they know that she's guilty. She was not read her rights. All those video's you see of her in jail, she don't have a lawyer (Baez recommended by cellmate)
     Black men was always guilty of rape. Why? Because
    they were black. No lawyer,held without being charged etc.. When American started to pay attention changes was made (all white juries).

       What is the difference?

     It use to be the media that would shine the light on injustice. Now they just want to make money.

      One of the biggest reason Florida has a sunshine law. So American can watch there justice system. But we so inflamed with emotion we're blind. So instead of blacks being guilty, now it lying party girls.

    There are flaws being ignored. The way the prosecutors bring in junk science and it validate this junk (the sniffer machine). When the defense  have to bring in the FBI experts to repudiate prosecution expert it something wrong.
     George Anthony lied numerous time. No one with a brain believes he was trying to commit suicide.The prosecution keep on vouching for his credibility. They know he lying,but they need him to win. The defense never received his cellphone records.

      The prosecution job is to search for the truth, not win.


    "You people"? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 07:02:09 PM EST
    Whenever I hear that, I know with what I am dealing.

    And I don't deal with that, as that's despicable.


    Where did I say "you people" ? (none / 0) (#35)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    I didn't see her (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    saying "you people."  She just misspelled "hear" as "here."  Clearly, she was trying to say "When you hear people say...."

    Not clear to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    at all.  It could have been, as I read it, yet another misconstruction:  "you people here."

    That's a bit of a stretch, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    especially when you go on to read the body of her comment.

    Admittedly, I have (none / 0) (#41)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 10:01:08 PM EST
    a lot of difficulty comprehending her comments.  You must have a gift for understanding whatever is going on those comments -- maybe it's regional or something, but I've never read anything like that.  At a certain point, I guess I just give up, so I well may have missed something in the body of the comment that would suggest what you say.

    sometimes it's better (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 10:36:45 PM EST
    to just acknowledge you misread something and apologize. It's pretty obvious from the title and first line it was a mis-spelling of "you hear". And there was no "you people." I understand you thought she meant "you here people" as "you people here" as in commenters at this site, but re-reading it after it's been pointed out to you makes it clear that's not what she meant, and you jumped on her pretty hard, calling it "despicable." Now you say you can't understand her comments generally, so didn't bother to wade through the whole thing.

    I think "I'm sorry, I misunderstood" goes a long way towards establishing civility and avoiding bruised feelings.


    The comment (none / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:40:12 AM EST
    that claimed that I was making "a bit of a stretch" was stretching beyond civility.

    I will accept an apology for that, if it is offered.  Until then, yes, my feelings are bruised.


    I did not realize I misspelled Hear (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 07:59:03 AM EST
    some time my spelling may be wrong. And my opinion my be confusing. I hated english when I was in school. Loved math and history.
     I was trying to voice my views about our justice system. And the fears that I have.
     I have read this site for years. Never commenting because of my lack of writing skills.

      I became aware of Jerilyn during the OJ trial. I thought she was fair.
      I have read a lot of the views on this site. But I would like for my voice to be heard also.
      We had a president who went to Harvard and Yale(Bush), I think my skills may be equal to his.

     If you want an apology, I am sorry if I offended you in anyway. So let's move on.


    I think your skills (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 08:11:17 AM EST
    are probably superior.

    You're doing fine (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    I had no trouble following what you said.

    I enjoy your comments (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 01:23:22 AM EST
    don't worry about your writing. It's the thought behind it we're interested in. I mispell words all the time when I'm on my laptop which has a small screen. I always appreciate when people point it out in comments so I can go back and fix it.

    I think you know (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:53:25 AM EST
    I was referring to an apology by you to Loveed.

    What a commenter thinks that I know (none / 0) (#48)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    is the cause of the problem.

    I read the word "here" as the word "here."  

    I was told that it is a "stretch" to read a word as it was spelled.  That commenter clearly thinks that s/he knows that I really ought to have read a word that was not there, "hear."  

    Re this blog, that argument would be interesting to see made in court -- or applied to other posts here (yes, here and not hear) re what Casey Anthony really meant, re what DSK's accuser really meant, etc.  

    Or, I suppose, in Constitutional law terms, I was being a strict constructionist.  

    But that's what happens online:  We can only read what we see here, not . . . hear.  And for reading what was written, an apology would be ridiculous.  


    The verdict (none / 0) (#36)
    by loveed on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:05:17 PM EST
    Prosecution will win on emotion,or lose on George Anthony.