Glaring from the headlines of WFTV and the Examiner were shocking declarations that Casey’s defense is searching for someone else to explain her story to the jury; someone willing to blurt it out so she won’t have to take the stand at her trial. On Tuesday, the ABC affiliate in Orlando wrote:
DEFENSE WANTS SOMEONE ELSE TO TELL CASEY’S STORY TO JURY¹
Yesterday, the Examiner had two separate headline links, and depending on which one you clicked, you saw:
CASEY ANTHONY TEAM FILES MOTION ASKING SOMEONE [to] TESTIFY ON HER BEHALF (READ HERE)²
The other one popped up two minutes later:
CASEY ANTHONY DEFENSE MOTION REQUESTING SOMEONE OTHER THAN CASEY BE ALLOWED TO TELL HER STORY AT HER TRIAL³
Of course, it would be easy to surmise, from WFTV’s headline and the first one from the Examiner, that Casey’s defense team is searching for someone who knows how to narrate a good story, perhaps someone like Garrison Keillor. The problem is, that’s not at all what the defense response says - the one both Websites loosely interpreted.
Initially, the defense team requested the testimony of two psychiatrists, Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and Dr. William Weitz. They were expected to explain, at trial, Casey’s actions after her daughter disappeared. Why did she wait until her own mother reported her grandchild was missing? A whole month, for crying out loud! How long would it have been had Cindy not corralled her daughter?
From the WFTV story:
Now, the defense has filed new documents (read them) asking the judge to let “someone else” tell Casey’s story, but it’s not known who. They don’t want their experts to do it anymore, because then the state’s experts would have gotten free rein in examining her.
But they are trying different tactics to bring in that testimony some way, somehow.
Most interesting to me is that “someone else” is in quotations, which leads one to believe it was taken verbatim from the defense response, RESPONSE TO STATE OF FLORIDA’S MOTION IN LIMINE. It was not.
The Examiner’s subhead says, Casey Anthony team files motion asking someone testify on her behalf (read here), only the response does not say that.
What the response does say is that the defense team wants the judge to deny the State’s Motion in Limine - which he did deny yesterday. Specifically, it asks the court to “prohibit any reference to or mention of certain testimony by the Defendant or any other witness as to events subject to Florida Statutes 80.401, 402, 403, and 404 until such time as their testimony has been proffered to the court”… Because both doctors have been removed by the defense in the guilt phase, “… the reports and the express contents of will not be introduced at trial.”
Here’s where it gets tricky. While the response does not ask for permission to have someone, anyone, recite her story, it does make the claim that “… the events referenced in the reports, which were gleaned through interviews with Ms. Anthony, are admissible as subject matter germane to the theory of the defense.” Although that is tantamount to requesting someone else testify on her behalf, it does not blatantly say so. It is an inference only, because what it does say is that her account of events should be admissible in some form or another. Is it up to the court to decide? I don’t know, but there are several avenues that may work.
WESH asks, COULD FAMILY DYSFUNCTION EXPLAIN CASEY’S BEHAVIOR?‡, with this subhead, Possible Defense Strategies Would Keep Casey Off Stand. The article then goes on to say:
Anthony’s defense argues that what she revealed to the experts is so important that it should still be admitted as evidence.
Lawyers say the information is highly relevant and supports a defense theory that would explain why Anthony didn’t report her daughter’s disappearance for 31 days. Prosecutors said she lied to investigators during the initial days after Caylee was reported missing.
What WESH reported was the truth. You’ll notice it makes no claim that the defense is searching for a storyteller. When Richard Hornsby was questioned, he said that he thinks they want to introduce the information without Casey having to take the stand. He’s right, and he goes on to say:
Who else could testify about trauma in Anthony’s life? Her own family.
It seems they’re pointing at George, who would overreact or act out. That is going to be why Casey didn’t feel comfortable coming forward to her parents during the first 31 days.
Anthony Colarossi, an Orlando Sentinel senior reporter, wrote an article that went online yesterday. Titled, CASEY ANTHONY’S EX-BOYFRIEND SAYS SHE WAS ABUSED BY FATHER†, it cites Anthony Lazzaro’s recently released deposition with law enforcement. It explains why Casey may have been afraid to tell her parents about what happened to Caylee:
“From what I remember, I think it was just hitting – that she was physically abused,” Lazzaro told attorneys during a Feb. 18 deposition.
He said Caylee never appeared to be neglected or abused, but when asked about Casey, Lazzaro said she had told him about being abused herself.
“I just don’t recall it being sexual in nature,” Lazzaro said. “It could have been. Honestly, it would have been much better to do this at that time. I just know she said that they didn’t live together and she made it sound like her dad was like this really bad guy.”
The article continues with Lazzaro’s deposition and includes snippets taken from Amy Huizenga’s interview with the State. In my opinion, anything that Casey told Lazzaro and Huizenga should be hearsay because it is being told by a third party, and since there’s no way Casey will take the stand to corroborate their stories, it leaves the defense team befuddled. How do they get Casey’s story across?
To be quite frank, someone will have to address the issue. How should they handle this dilemma? Well, not that I’m trying to help the defense or anything, but if it’s that important, couldn’t Jose Baez & Co. easily turn George into the fall guy, a scapegoat, by having him testify that Casey was scared to death of him, that she was petrified of his nasty temper? Cindy’s, too? It would certainly get the point across, and that may be exactly what the defense is planning. I have another idea. They can ask Casey to write a new letter to Robyn Adams that explains, in great detail, everything she told the mental health experts. Or better yet, she can write one to George. Either way, they could then submit it as evidence.