Imperfect Justice_ Prosecuting Casey Anthony - Jeff Ashton [155]
Cindy’s testimony was further rebutted by the testimony of Sandra Cawn and Kevin Stenger, both of whom had searched the Anthonys’ home computer and had found no evidence that a search for the term chlorophyll had ever been conducted.
We also spent a few moments rebutting some of Dr. Spitz’s claims. We presented the testimony of Dr. Bruce Goldberger, the forensic toxicologist who had tested the washing of the interior of the skull. He said that the material that Dr. Spitz had identified as residue of brain matter was, in fact, not organic in nature, and was most likely just dirt.
Dr. Warren from the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory was also called to dispute Dr. Spitz’s claim that Dr. G had not followed proper protocol for examination of a skull. In response to questions, Dr. Warrant explained that the skull of a child should not have been sawed open as Spitz had done. After the rebuttal, all that was left was for Casey to be found guilty, sentenced, and I would retire on a high note.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
THE PROSECUTION RESTS
The cases had been presented. The objections had been made. I believed our case was strong. I’m sure the defense believed the same about theirs. But there was still one final drama to play out: the closing arguments.
Early on, we’d decided how we’d order our remarks. Linda, with her brilliant opening, had gotten us off on the right foot, and I would start bringing it full circle. The prosecution always went first, so I would lead off for us. Baez and Mason would close for the defense, then Linda would do our final rebuttal to address anything the defense had said. My portion would spend a lot of time reviewing the thirty-one days that Caylee was missing, connecting Casey’s lies to specific purposes and driving home just how calculated her deception was.
I love closing arguments. I’ve loved them ever since I first began standing in front of court. Closing arguments are the cherry on the sundae, the one thing you don’t give away and the best thing you get to do.
As I prepared for the closing arguments, I was thinking a lot about common sense. We’d based so much of our case on common sense. Was Casey’s behavior that of a loving, caring mother? Did it make sense that she would lie to this extent having done nothing wrong? Putting aside the minutiae of the case, the forensic evidence, the detailed timelines, the intricate lies—what did common sense say about a mother who leaves her parents’ home one morning with her child, and then proceeds to live a new life with her boyfriend without the child? What does common sense tell you about that mother? My common sense told me that it meant she wanted a life without her child. My common sense told me that Casey wanted to be rid of Caylee. When you hear that a few weeks after her child had last been seen, she appeared at a tattoo parlor in high spirits and got a tattoo that said “the beautiful life” in Italian, doesn’t common sense say she got the tattoo because that’s how she feels?
When you hear the young mother spin lie after lie after lie to everyone about her child and where she is and why no one has seen her, your common sense says she is hiding something. When you hear the manager of a tow yard, experienced crime scene technicians, an ex-cop (who happens to be the accused’s father), and a scientist who spent twenty years studying an odor tell you that the smell in the trunk was that of a dead body, common sense tells you that there was a dead body in the car. When you hear that a hair from a child was found in that same trunk with evidence indicating that it came from a corpse, common sense tells you there was a child’s dead body in that car.
When you find that someone has searched on a computer for instructions to make chloroform and you find chloroform in