Imperfect Justice_ Prosecuting Casey Anthony - Jeff Ashton [154]
On the stand, George Anthony denied the affair, but Krystal had a text message from him that said, “Just thinking about you, I need you in my life.” George admitted that he had sent the text, explaining that at the time he had needed every volunteer in his life.
On cross, Krystal said that she had lied to the police about their affair to protect George. She also said she chose The National Enquirer for her story, because she could trust the magazine to tell it honestly, and not because they were willing to pay her. She admitted that George referred to a belief that Caylee had died by accident. I got her to admit that he had never claimed any firsthand knowledge, and never indicated any involvement in disposing of his granddaughter’s body.
George was the last witness on the defense’s list. Now came the moment when Casey was either summoned to the stand or wasn’t. In our opinion, Casey needed to take the stand to back up all of the sensational claims that Baez had made in opening. If she did, we would finally hear the story of the sexually-abused child trained to lie. The details would be horrific. Finally the public would see Casey speak and more importantly, face cross-examination. The defense requested a brief recess to consult with their client. When it returned, we learned Casey would not testify, as I had predicted five weeks earlier. Casey 4.0—that Caylee had drowned and she had lied because of her family history—would only come from Baez.
After thirteen days, the defense rested its case. They had thrown the kitchen sink at us, including theories about Roy Kronk and George Anthony, while attacking our forensics. They had never supported their outrageous opening statements. They had not put Casey on the stand. They had no evidence that Caylee had drowned in a pool, or that Casey was so traumatized by sexual abuse that she would not know the difference between a lie and a true story. Their forensic people put on the stand to refute our forensics people were cut to size. We were riding high. We thought the defense case was borderline ridiculous, making claims in opening that you never even supported. In my thirty years, I had never heard of such of a thing.
In all criminal trials, the State has an opportunity to offer evidence to rebut any of the defense’s claims. In most cases, nothing is presented in rebuttal. Whether to rebut is always a difficult decision to make. By the end of a trial, you figure the jury is sick and tired of the case and just wants to get on to deliberations. You don’t want them to perceive you as wasting their time on things that seem trivial. Rebuttal is the last thing they hear, so potentially it can be important. One of the things that we felt we needed to rebut was Cindy’s testimony about the chloroform searches. Before she testified, we had already obtained her work records, which showed that she had been at the office at the times the searches had been conducted. She said it was common practice to clock in at work, then run errands and not note her time away from the office in the time records. Linda knew we needed to probe this further.
From Cindy’s employer, Linda was able to get records of usage on Cindy’s work computer. These showed that Cindy had been on the computer at her desk and entering data at times that would have made it impossible for her to be at home as well. A vice president from Gentiva’s home office in Atlanta, John Camperlengo, was unlucky enough to be the one to come to court with the records to testify. I say unlucky because he ended up having to stay in Orlando for three days while the defense desperately tried to prevent him from testifying. They deposed him, demanded additional records, demanded to talk to the company’s IT people, and ended up trying to argue to the judge that Camperlengo’s testimony should be excluded because of the late disclosure of the information.
Judge Perry responded that the defense should have checked out their witness’s