Imperfect Justice_ Prosecuting Casey Anthony - Jeff Ashton [130]
It also tickled us that Jose got up in front of the jury and argued how disreputable and morally bankrupt Kronk was for selling a photograph of his snake carcass, with interview, for $20,000, when Baez had engineered Casey’s sale of Caylee’s pictures to ABC for $200,000. Indeed the irony, once again, was rich.
Kronk had always been a difficult part of this case for us. He clearly had not been completely forthcoming about finding the body in December, why he went there, and why he was embellishing his story. As difficult as Roy Kronk was, clearly he did not place the skull there. There was no question about that. So that was an interesting choice on Baez’s part, to go with that argument. He did a good job with it, though once again it was only effective so long as you didn’t think too hard about it.
It was Jose’s strategy of arguing both sides, “maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t,” that he put forth about both George Anthony and Roy Kronk. It was also so ludicrous to accuse two different people, completely unconnected to each other, of putting the duct tape on the child. I thought surely the jury would see this. According to Jose, either George put the tape on Caylee and it was there from the day she died, or Kronk put the tape on Caylee later, after she died. Jose had no logical motive for either man to do so. Connecting George to the duct tape on the gas cans was meaningless. Hearing this argument was probably the time when I first began smile-smirking as I sat at the prosecution table. I am not proud of that behavior, but at least I was not breaking out in laughter at the ridiculousness of the paradox. It’s all relative.
Baez also asserted that the only evidence connecting anyone in the home to the remains was the duct tape, which is absolutely false. There were a number of other things that connected the remains to the house; they’d see that in the evidence.
As the opening drew to a close, Baez raised the idea that George’s suicide attempt was an indicator that he was somehow complicit. He implied that there was information in the suicide note, although he did not elaborate. I decided at that moment to have Yuri Melich get the letter and find some way to get it into evidence.
My ears perked up when Baez twisted the story, saying that the defense was not saying that George killed Caylee. I knew Casey had told both of the shrinks that that her father had drowned her daughter. I thought we might be witnessing the birth of Casey 5.0. Would she really change the story again, in the middle of the trial?
As an attorney, it’s mind-blowing how effective you can be when you are not limited by the truth. Attorneys are immune from libel or defamation in court. An attorney can say anything during his opening remarks and not be sued, so that he doesn’t have to do his opening looking over his shoulder. On the other hand, to me, it is unethical for a lawyer to spout whatever he wants in an opening statement without a good-faith belief that he will be able to prove it at trial. It did not appear that Baez shared my convictions on that matter.
If Baez knew that Casey was not going to testify, then it would be considered unethical to float such inflammatory accusations against George without qualifying them. Of course, Baez could always justify introducing statements like this by saying “Well, I thought she was going to testify.”
But that’s again one of the mysteries of this case. Baez planted the idea that there was some deeper psychological issue with Casey knowing that he couldn’t prove it. I’m still dumbfounded that he was able to get this jury to assume things without proving them. I don’t think I have ever had a trial before where a jury was so eager to assume facts favorable to the defendant without actually making the defense prove