For three years we (those of us who paid any attention) have been bombarded with selective information that definitely seemed to justify convicting Casey of murder. This information was delivered by various media PUNDITS (who never give an unbiased view), and reporters (who are meant to deliver unbiased reports but rarely do). I too was convinced and also felt very strongly that she was guilty. But after casually watching this trial for the first time on day 8, I became rather obsessed with it and still believed Casey guilty of murder. However, the more I watched, the more I realized how much I had missed in those first few days of testimony. So, I began to do my own research online: watching the testimonies, watching interviews, listening to jailhouse conversations, reading official reports and documents, reading letters to Casey from her family, reviewing the timelines of details given, etc. I have put in hours of obsessive research. For some reason, I had to try and understand her behavior and motivation.
The conclusion I have ultimately come to is that despite all of her atrocious, despicable and disturbing behavior after the "disappearance" of her child, there is absolutely no concrete proof of what happened to Caylee. We know she died, but because the body was not found by authorities in August 2008, despite THREE calls reporting it, WE, none of US, will EVER know what happened.
I agree that there IS a lot of circumstancial evidence pointing at Casey, especially if you believe EVERYTHING George has said about the timeline and events.
But you must consider that as a former police officer, George knew he was also a suspect in this case. So WHY believe things that ONLY George can verify?
Too manys things he did and said just don't make common sense. And in a statement to FBI officers he admits that he is a liar. (Re: an internet scam he says was the cause of their financial ruin, but admits that he told Cindy it was gambling debts. So we know that he tells big lies, not just innocent white lies).
Considering that, why believe his version of anything? (We haven't really heard her version).
From George alone we "know" the alleged last time Caylee was seen alive, and we "know" the content of the conversation they (George and Casey) allegedly had about the gas cans and about him really wanting to talk to Caylee (which would boost his story of concern, despite his remarkable lack of action during those 31 days, and as a bonus, further destroy her character- however bad it already was)?
Why are his letters to Casey in jail completely unprobing, only supportive and complimentary? Why are his visits to her the same way? Her other family members are noteably concerned about Caylee and what Casey knows about her absence.
So again, why should ANYONE believe him? Because he acts nice? Because he's mild mannered and cooperative? Because he's recorded urging Casey to speak with authorities? What better way is there to prove his innocence than to be the one who is supporting the investigation into his granddaughter's dissappearance all the while subtly pointing away from himself and toward Casey behind closed doors?
An experienced officer would know how he needs to behave to reduce suspicion: appear to be a wonderful father/person. He evens brings up how he really wanted to make a good first impression on the authorities during one of his first FBI interviews. So we know it's on his mind don't we? Would that be your concern if your grandchild was missing? Making a good impression? No. Mine would be to do whatever it takes to find the child. (If I'm innocent, I'm not worried about APPEARING innocent because I naturally will look that way).
The Anthonys did not ever participate DIRECTLY in searching for Casey. And, WHY did the Anthonys (George, Cindy and Lee) refuse to take polygraphs? I know that polygraphs are not conclusive, nor are they admitted as evidence in a court of law. But consider that George is a former police officer, and he knows that if they were a) innocent and b)truthful while taking the exam the family most likely would would have been excluded from any suspicion immediately. But as a group, they decided not to be tested. Who led the group decision? My guess is George. Lee alone, the most truthful acting of the family, told the FBI that they would all take the polygraphs, then he spoke with his parents privately and minutes later they all refused as a group. If they hadn't all banded together, suspicion would be thrown toward only whoever refused, instead as a group, you can't rule any one of the three out and you can't focus on any one particular test that may show some deception either. Smart decision, especially if you KNOW you might be implicated.
Furthermore, as a former law officer wouldn't George have known that if Casey's Sunfire,that he picked up and drove home from the tow yard, had smelled like human decomposition, and the only two family members associated with that car had been mysteriously and uncharacteristically absent for 31 days, the ONLY thing he should have done with it was call the police to investigate the cause of the smell and the location of the missing individuals. AND to desperately try and reach the missing persons himself? But he didn't. Not a single call to find them or to call police.
One more thing - there was no physical evidence found to conclusively tie any living family member to the trunk of Casey's car or to the body's location. Yes, someone could have, and probably did, tamper with and move the remains around before it was found at it's final location. But who is so experienced in that family to know how to keep from leaving ANY conclusive evidence? No fingerprints on anything, not even the multiple plastic bags or duct tape? No hair, no DNA? I can certainly think of at least one person.
I'm NOT saying George killed Caylee, because there's no proof of that either. (The prosecuters say he was at work during the time of her death. Umm, when exactly did they determine her exact time of death? I never saw or read anything that pinpointed it). But there are plenty of reasons to believe that something else was going on to hide WHATEVER happened. I also personally think George and Casey most likely worked together, at first, to mislead authorities.
Unfortunately, I don't think George knew the extent of Casey's lies. He knew she lied, but I think he believed in "Zanny" as babysitter and possible scapegoat. I think when all of Casey's lies very quickly became evident to authorities, the point came when he had to choose between covering for himself and covering for Casey. And Casey lost. I think at first he intended to stand behind her, and for that reason, didn't implicate her immediately or directly. But as time went on, he knew he had to make a choice, and it was already decided for him by the public at large. Everyone was already convinced that Casey alone was responsible for what happened because of her undeniable lies about so many other things.
But before you think "a father would never do that to his daughter", think again. MY father would and has blamed me for things he has done. He has also denied abusive things he has done TO me. And I was a "daddy's girl". So please don't presume that when put in a desperate situation a parent won't sacrifice their own children. Some of them will.
So, WE KNOW Casey is undeniably involved in lying to police and her parents. Guilty. She's a thief. Guilty. She's lacking the morals expected of a good mother. Guilty. She didn't display grief in a way society demands to see it displayed. Guilty. (Or does she turn to attention from others, and partying to forget what's really bothering her? She did write disturbing and depressive blogs during those 31 days on MySpace...)But there's no proof of child abuse by Casey. No one witnessed the child ever being abused or neglected in any way by her. No one. And there's no proof of her murdering that child. There is an assumption, but no definitive proof. It's just as plausible to think that this was an accident that snowballed out of control, like George's unfairly villified friend/mistress testified to hearing him say. And then there's evidence that WHATEVER happened was covered up, just as possibly by making it look like a murder as by actually being murder. There's a lot of possibilities unproven. But there's no hard evidence.
So to finally wrap up my dissertation on the matter: This is only MY THEORY, and there is nothing to conclusively prove what I've suggested. And, I would have had to have voted "not guilty" to any charge of her killing that child. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, but none of US knows how that child died due to the state of the body (skeleton). I think Casey and George do know, and I KNOW we can't trust what either of them has to say about it.
