I just received my copy of the new book, Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony, by prosecutor Jeff Ashton.
I will keep you posted as I read the book, but here’s a sneak peek:
A short time before Casey Anthony’s murder trial began, she told two mental health experts that Caylee did not drown in the family pool. Casey told them George Anthony deliberately killed Caylee.
Jeff Ashton calls this version of her story, “Casey 4.0,” which is the the fourth version of what Casey says happened to Caylee on June 16th, 2008.
Ashton writes: “I have seen my share of liars, but never one quite like this” and, “In many ways, I think the defense came to mirror the client they represented.”
“One of Casey Anthony’s mental health experts, Dr. Jeffrey Danziger, was very concerned about sharing what Casey had told him about her father, worried he was becoming a mouthpiece for “very, very serious allegations against someone in a situation where there is no other evidence he actually did anything.”
If Cindy Anthony had chosen Caylee over Casey, Ashton said, the prosecution might have been able to make a better case that Casey was a bad parent and had a motive to kill her daughter. Cindy Anthony “was in denial about her daughter on a colossal scale.” Ashton called her and Casey’s a “lethally toxic co-dependent relationship.”–The Boston Herald
Ashton is right that Cindy chose Casey over Caylee. But he is wrong by calling it denial. I believe Cindy Anthony outright knew her daughter killed Caylee, and she willingly covered it up because Cindy thinks Casey is mentally ill. Or Cindy did it out of sheer guilt, because Cindy feels she raised a child killer.
“In the end, Ashton wrote, the verdict reflected the work of a jury that didn’t believe Casey Anthony deserved to be punished at all.” –Boston Herald
That’s right. They identified with her in some way.
“What I find truly baffling is that somehow they did not see proof enough to convict her of a lesser murder charge or even manslaughter,” Ashton wrote. The biggest legacy of the case won’t be that she failed to be convicted of first-degree murder, but that “she got away scot-free,” he said.”–Boston Herald
That’s absolutely right. Anyone with a balanced view on the matter could, and would have, been satisfied with manslaughter, or even aggravated child abuse…. but the fact that the those 12 people let her walk free is proof of their indifference to child murder.