Friday, July 01, 2011

Global Guilties, Anyone?

I've heard from some of you on the Casey Anthony case, but not as many of you as I'd thought. Hmm, if it wasn't summer, I might be tempted to wonder the reason. Let me hear from you via email if you are of a mind to.

I learn something new every day, and thanks to your emails, my position has evolved a bit. I now have a complete and total distrust of George Anthony. Forget what I said about him not being able to conspire to commit or cover up a crime. Many of you would not trust him as far as you could throw him, as we say in Texas.

I got an email from a very old girlfriend of mine (who has a degree in law enforcement and 3 decades of experience), who reminded me that when she was in college, she dated a married cop in Houston and discovered an entire black market world of what they call "holes" -- places where cops can, shall we say, unwind while on duty, meaning places they can go for sex when they need or want to, or a meal, or a nap, as well as many other things. It blew her mind (and mine) to discover this underground world.

I must admit, I'd forgotten all of that. Thanks, G, for reminding me. G said that George is quite convincing, but then liars often are. G's reason for thinking George is guilty as an accessory is because the execution of the crime (whether it be chloroform or drowning) was almost successful in it leaving no trail for the coroner. She asked me, how often does that appear in a prosecutable crime? And how often is an ex-cop involved? Her radar detects a family cover-up of immense proportion, and I have to vouch for her radar, which is right-on most of the time.

I am still seeing a covered up accidental death by chloroforming, and not a drowning accident, and here is why. A drowning accident would not be indictable by a grand jury. But an accidental chloroforming death would. Simple as that. Don't make it any more complicated than that. Add in George's police experience expertise, both parents wanting to save their daughter's life, and a daughter who is an expert at lying and deceit (and having learned it from her parents, they are equally gifted in lying). The prosecution says the chloroform searches were evidence of premeditation of intent to kill, and I've already addressed that it seems more like premeditation for chloroforming with intent to keep alive. Seems like it would have been a better defense to come clean about the accident and argue that difference of intent, but this is now, not at the trial's beginning. And, besides, it is obvious that this lying family had a big hand in whatever story was fed to Jose Baez.

Speaking of which, today we found out that Cindy had apparently lied on the stand about doing the google searches, because her work records were subpoenaed and they do not corroborate her testimony. I missed seeing today's court proceedings, but the work records show that Cindy was logged in at work, not home. I have to wonder why Cindy attempted this admission at all, knowing full well the limits and rules of her employ. You might just brush that off as her being a dumb-ass, me not at all. Perhaps she thought she had the employer records figured out to be not as detailed, or that they may have been purged due to age. It does prove one thing, though. It proves Cindy's boldness for lying. Should she be cited for this? I think so, especially if a kid can get 6 days in jail for shooting the finger in the courtroom at the prosecutor.
Yesterday, George's alleged mistress Krystal Hollaway aka River Cruz, testified. (G says she thinks Krystal still wants him and is in love with him, and I got that impression as well). Her testimony was what began to erode my trust of George being the stand-up guy I'd believed him to be. To me, this was not the behavior on the stand of a woman trying to scam anyone. She was believable and quite human. Also, when George was back on the stand and asked about it, he twice wrote her allegations off to being very funny, as in humorous. Folks, would this not be the LAST thing you would say in the same position (but innocent)? I mean, use the word laughable, preposterous, even fiction, but not funny. Really, really weird response there. And Jose Baez could have replied, not funny, Mr. Anthony. Dang, I should be a consultant, haha.

It seems strangely consistent, when I look around the world at other big court trials, that there are others besides Casey Anthony apparently being railroaded to conviction based on evidence that ain't quite all there.

Take, for instance, Dominic Strauss-Kahn, the French IMF head who was arrested in NYC for allegedly accosting a hotel maid...remember him? Or perhaps more importantly, remember the way he was treated? He had to do the perpwalk in handcuffs and was refused bail on his own recognizance.

Nobody stood up for the guy really, other than Ben Stein, who warned us to remember about the presumption of innocence in his courageous essay titled "Presumed Innocent, Anyone?" (a witty jab at his Buellar days, and inspiration for my title today). Well, NOW it seems that the case against Strauss-Kahn is in jeopardy, due to some questions about his accuser. All together now, apologies to Mr. Stein....anyone? anyone? You know you owe it, especially those of you who called him a slug or worse.

And remember Amanda Knox, the American student over in Italy, who was convicted there of the murder of her roommate? And while it was happening, we just watched it with passive mild disinterest? Well, NOW, her case is being appealed, this time uncovering corruption during the trial by the prosecution, as well as shoddy evidence that may have been tainted.

It is becoming obvious to me that people the world over have become more knee jerk and pessimistic in their jurist duties, anyway. (This may spell trouble for Casey Anthony, with a Capital M). They say people act this way when times are bad. How else do the violent crowds and rebellious insurgencies form? Could this be why so many liberals see the Tea Party as violent thugs? And why don't they react similarly to those liberal environmental and anarchist student groups who actually do riot, loot and lob Molotov cocktails through store windows at G7 conferences? Ah, food for another thought time, my friends.

Finally, I want to change channels and express my thanks and appreciation to outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates. If you click on his name, it'll take you to his Wiki page where I guarantee you will get seasick trying to absorb all the man's accomplishments. On one hand, he's probably one of the few men in our history that George Washington himself would approve of heartily to oversee our common defense. So, it's a sad day to lose his service, and the world will be a bit more dangerous now. On the other hand, the guy deserves a vacay, retirement, whatever he wants. He's earned it several times over. I admit to having just put my worries in that dept. on the back burner and given them up to Mr. Sec-Def Emeritus. Definitely one of the best role models our society has. He will be missed, but I wish him well and thank him for his service.