Surprise, surprise. Witnesses were called in to refute Cindy Anthony's claim that she and not he daughter performed the bulk of the incriminationg computer searches found on the Anthony computer. I debated this point briefly on Twitter with Judge Alex a few days ago. No debate with Judge Alex on Twitter goes on for many exchanges. Judge Alex is a true gentleman and understands that it is more important to behave in a classy manner than to always be right in any argument, and he lets the argument go quickly. In this case, I was actually correct for once when I said that it was feasible to subpoena patient records or other documents with the patients' names redacted for the purpose of establishing that Cindy was at work at the times she claimed to have been at home making the searches. I must give credit to pseudoaunt jillia, who first suggested the idea to me.
Exactly how this impacts the jury's take on anything remains to be seen.
Those selecting the jury don't give out IQ tests or auditory comprehension assessments before seating individuals on a jury. Aunt Jillian has told of jury panels on which she has been where a statement or instruction was given as plainly as day, yet needed further clarification to some jurors. Jillian said if the less-than-genius jurors recognize their shortcomings and will rely on others for interpretations of what was said or instructed, things usually work out. When they're unaware of their shortcomings, however, problems ensue.
Furthermore, many people in tTVland have formed thei opinions based on what the talking heads have had to say. The jurors have not had the benefit of the talking heads' expertise. (In some cases, considering the relative idiocy spewed by the talking heads, this is actually a good thing.) In most instances, however, Vinnie Politan, Judge Alex, and Dr. Drew have been sharing very sensible commentary. Some of the jurors would benEfit from hearing what it is they've heard in testimony via this commentary, yet, for obvious reasons, may not be privy to the commentary.
Some talking heads and forum posters are debating whether or not Cindy Anthony will face perjury charges for her apparently false testimony concerning who conducted the incriminating Internet searches regarding chloroform, neck breaking, and other various and sundry nefarious topics.
Nancy Grace has taken an uncharacteristically compassionate stance toward Cindy Anthony in this regard. She feels that Cindy Anthony should be granted a pass, as she was acting out of desperation in orde to possibly save her daughter from a death sentence. The bald man, whose name I can never recall, who filled in for Dr. Drew, didn't seem to understand what Ms. Grace was saying. his point was that it is wrong to lie for one's child in order to protect one's child from the consequences of the law. I don't think Nancy Grace disagrees with what he said in principle. Especially early on, when stakes are lower, it is very important to allow one's child to suffer the full consequences of his actions in order that he or she might learn from mistakes and never have to face this ultimate consequence that Casey may face. I assume Ms. Grace agrees with that. When it comes right down to a death sentence, however, it's a different matter. I cannot judge Cindy Anthony for what she did, as I do not know that I wouldn't do the same thing under similar circumstances. Even Dr. Drew, the King of Ethics, admitted that he's not sure what he would do under the circumstances.
Many talking heads are betting on a conviction of second degree murder, which, in the opinion of many talking heads, would be a victory for the defense. The jurors have not heard this take. They may not know that were they to convict Casey of such, they would, in essence, be granting a victory to Mr. Baez. I'm hoping the more intelligent jurors are able to convince the less bright ones that the computer searches are sufficient evidence of premeditation, and that no actual evidence of accidental death via drowning was actually present, and that, furthermore, George Anthony's affair, whether or not it happened, is little more than a red herring.
I'm counting on Jeff Ashton and his assistants to deliver a knockout punch in the form of a perfectly delivered closing argument, with the rebuttal portion putting out any fires the defense sets in the name of reasonable doubt. In my opinion, reasonable doubt in this case exists only in the minds of the defense team.