Speaker 1: It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you.
Speaker 1: What do you do when you win?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Are you a fist pumper, a wooo, a handclapper, a
Speaker 1: high fiver? I kind of like the high five. But
Speaker 1: if you want to hone in on those winning moves,
Speaker 1: check out Chumbuck Casino. At chumbacasino dot com, choose from
Speaker 1: hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to
Speaker 1: redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly,
Speaker 1: plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait. Start having the
Speaker 1: most fun ever at chumbuck Casino dot com.
Speaker 2: No prigs necessary void overby.
Speaker 3: I lost the terms conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 2: Judy was boring Hello, then Judy discovered chumbucasino dot com.
Speaker 4: It's my little escape.
Speaker 2: Now Judy is the life of the party.
Speaker 5: Oh baby mama is bringing home the bacon Who.
Speaker 2: Take it easy, Judy, jump the CHUMBA life that's for everybody.
Speaker 2: So go to chumbacasino dot com and play over one
Speaker 2: hundred casino style games. Join today and playing for free
Speaker 2: for your chance to redeem some serious prices. Jump chumpacasino
Speaker 2: dot com. Nope, just necessary boid. We're prohibited to my
Speaker 2: long eighteen plus terms and conditioned plice Let's host Radio.
Speaker 6: You are now listening to True Murder, The most Shocking
Speaker 6: Killers in True Crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 6: written about them Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every
Speaker 6: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 6: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,
Speaker 6: journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Speaker 7: Good evening, This is your host Dan Zupanski for the
Speaker 7: program True Murder, The most Shocking Killers in True Crime
Speaker 7: History and the authors that have written about them. A
Speaker 7: week after my interview with Dan Fanning discussing her book
Speaker 7: Mummy's Little Girl before the Casey Anthony murder trial had commenced.
Speaker 7: It is very rare to have a book published before
Speaker 7: a trial has taken place, and it seemed to Diane
Speaker 7: and myself certain that Casey Anthony would be convicted of
Speaker 7: murdering Kayley. Now that the verdict is in and Casey acquitted,
Speaker 7: Diane will join me again to discuss the incredible case
Speaker 7: and give us her analysis of the entire trial. So
Speaker 7: my special guest this evening is Diane Fanning. The Casey
Speaker 7: Anthony murder trial Analysis and we will have Diane on
Speaker 7: right now. Hello Dan, Hello Diane, Hello Diane.
Speaker 5: Hello Dan. Can you can't hear me?
Speaker 7: Yes, I can. I've just connected with you. So welcome
Speaker 7: back to the Welcome back to the program, and thank
Speaker 7: you very much screen this interview. It's going to be ga,
Speaker 7: thank you very much. Last week, as I had mentioned
Speaker 7: in my email, I replayed our interview, which was quite
Speaker 7: interesting given the verdict about your book Mommy's Little Girl,
Speaker 7: about the Casey Anthony case, and like I mentioned in
Speaker 7: the introduction, it is fairly unusual or quite rare to
Speaker 7: have a book written before a trial has been concluded.
Speaker 7: And when I reviewed the interview, I found it very interesting.
Speaker 7: We went on both of us. We were certain that
Speaker 7: Casey Anthony would be convicted, and now the verdict is
Speaker 7: in and she has been acquitted. So I've a lot
Speaker 7: of fans of the program asked, why don't you have
Speaker 7: Diane Fanning on again and let's talk about the case
Speaker 7: once again. So here we are, and so we can
Speaker 7: give us the analysis of the case. We won't go
Speaker 7: into reviewing too much of because unless someone has left
Speaker 7: the planet for the last little while, they have heard
Speaker 7: in great detail about the verdict and her acquittal. Now,
Speaker 7: just let us know, did you attend the trial yourself personally?
Speaker 5: No, I watched the trial online or on TV every.
Speaker 7: Day right now for our audience, and I didn't follow
Speaker 7: it so much. I got sort of a review of
Speaker 7: it each day. There was a couple news or a
Speaker 7: couple sites that sent me reviews of what had happened
Speaker 7: at the trial each day, so I read most of
Speaker 7: those for our audience. Tell us, I think, because of
Speaker 7: course this is very important. Tell us about Jose Biaz
Speaker 7: and Cheney Mason. Tell us about the legal team first off.
Speaker 7: For Casey Anthony, tell us who those people were, and
Speaker 7: just give us a little bit of background, because obviously
Speaker 7: she had a good defense team.
Speaker 5: Well, Chady Mason was very experienced, and he had a
Speaker 5: good reputation as a defense attorney for people safe and
Speaker 5: criminal charges prior to this case. He didn't play the
Speaker 5: primary role though during the trial. He did some of
Speaker 5: the closing argument and he did do some of the questioning.
Speaker 5: But even though he was the most experienced one, he
Speaker 5: was not the one to do it. It was jose Bias, who,
Speaker 5: after graduating from law school, spent years trying to pass
Speaker 5: the bar and ran two of the Kini businesses into
Speaker 5: the ground while he was trying to become practicing attorney,
Speaker 5: and he's been practicing for about three years when he
Speaker 5: took One Anthony as a client in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 5: And I really thought all throughout the trial that he
Speaker 5: did a poor job in cross examining witnesses. I thought
Speaker 5: he wasn't much better in his direct questioning either. He
Speaker 5: seemed to get suffused at times, and he let information
Speaker 5: in that you wondered why he even asked the question,
Speaker 5: Like he asked his scientists, well, did you find any
Speaker 5: evidence of marijuana in the air? And they said yes. Now,
Speaker 5: why he wanted to portray his client as someone who
Speaker 5: used an illegal substance, I'm not sure. I mean, that
Speaker 5: really did not make a whole lot of sense. Another
Speaker 5: blunder he made was a judge had ruled that George
Speaker 5: Anthony's suicide note would not be admitted as evidence, but
Speaker 5: then uh Bias mocked the grief of George Anthony so
Speaker 5: much that the judge overturned his own decision and decided
Speaker 5: to admit it to evidence. And it was a very really,
Speaker 5: a very moving expression of the emotion he was going
Speaker 5: through at the time, so I, you know, I thought
Speaker 5: that that really would nail the verdict. But unfortunately, it
Speaker 5: seems what had happened is that Jose Bias in his
Speaker 5: opening statements, claimed that he would offer evidence to prove that, uh,
Speaker 5: that Kaylee actually was victim of an accidental drowning, and
Speaker 5: that George Anthony was the one who disposed of the body,
Speaker 5: and that the utility worker Roy Kronk, who found the
Speaker 5: body actually had found it much earlier, taken possession of
Speaker 5: the body and put it in the spot where he
Speaker 5: found it. And to make matters worse, on top of that,
Speaker 5: he said that Lee Anthony and George Anthony had incestuous
Speaker 5: relations with Casey Anthony, and he was very graphic about
Speaker 5: what went on between George and Casey. And he said
Speaker 5: all these things to be proven at trials. Not one
Speaker 5: word of what he said was proven at trial. And
Speaker 5: it got down to the only way he could have
Speaker 5: proven it was to put Casey on the witness stand
Speaker 5: to deliver the corroborating testimony, and he never did that.
Speaker 5: In most cases, when something like that happens, the jury
Speaker 5: will hold that against the attorney that made the false
Speaker 5: promises in the first place. But instead of doing that,
Speaker 5: this jury that the jurors who have spoken said, well,
Speaker 5: we were very suspicious of George and so we couldn't
Speaker 5: be sure if he had something to do with it
Speaker 5: or not. Now that's really bizarre because there was no
Speaker 5: evidence connecting George to the murder at all.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and for what I didn't know beforehand was that
Speaker 7: George Anthony was a former police officer.
Speaker 5: Yes, when he lived in Ohio, he worked for the
Speaker 5: Sheriff's department up there, and he actually liked doing that work,
Speaker 5: and Cindy there wanted him to make more money and
Speaker 5: encouraged him to get out of that job.
Speaker 7: So the defense opened with the allegation of Casey being
Speaker 7: sexually abused and then put forth the theory with again
Speaker 7: without providing any foundation to this, that there was some
Speaker 7: sort of accident in a pool and then the father
Speaker 7: had something to do. So in your mind, once you
Speaker 7: heard that that the early statements and the strategy that
Speaker 7: Biez was putting forth, you thought, jes this really isn't
Speaker 7: going to work out for the defense With this kind
Speaker 7: of convoluted and very strange sort of strategy to begin
Speaker 7: the trial.
Speaker 5: The only way I thought it could have worked was
Speaker 5: if they put Casey on the stand, which seemed highly
Speaker 5: unlikely because she had a whole lot of vulnerability because
Speaker 5: of all the lies she told. And in the end
Speaker 5: she was convicted of lying to law enforcement. But you know,
Speaker 5: I do not think the jury really understood what they
Speaker 5: were doing. And to me, the thing that indicates it
Speaker 5: the most is the fact that they did not find
Speaker 5: her guilty of the child abuse charge. Now, I think
Speaker 5: if you asked any mother out there, if you knew
Speaker 5: that a child something bad had happened to a child,
Speaker 5: or that a child was missing for thirty one days,
Speaker 5: would you called and you didn't report it or say
Speaker 5: anything to anybody? Would you call that child abuse? I
Speaker 5: think every single mother would say yes, right. So to me,
Speaker 5: that was so obvious, and the defense even admitted that
Speaker 5: she did that, and yet they didn't convict her on that.
Speaker 5: I mean, one of the juries even said, well, we
Speaker 5: could not judge her based on her behavior. Well, yes
Speaker 5: you can. That's what circumstantial evidence is about in a
Speaker 5: lot of cases. I mean, murderers do not send out
Speaker 5: invitations to the climinet going to commit so often you
Speaker 5: don't have anybody that sees the actual act, You can
Speaker 5: only judge that the act happened by how the perpetrator
Speaker 5: behaves before and afterwards.
Speaker 7: Now, the the presiding judge was Judge Belvin Perry, so
Speaker 7: let's talk about his performance during this as well, and
Speaker 7: also the prosecution, because there's three parties involved in this.
Speaker 7: So tell us what your impression was of the prosecution
Speaker 7: and their strategy and their conduct. Will say, get near
Speaker 7: the beginning of the trial, what did you think of
Speaker 7: the prosecution and what they put forth in their early
Speaker 7: statements and their choice of witnesses and just how they
Speaker 7: started the trial. What did you think in terms of
Speaker 7: were you confident that the prosecution was good and was
Speaker 7: handling this appropriately well?
Speaker 5: For starters, Dan, I got so many emails from people
Speaker 5: that said, it sounds like the prosecution is using your
Speaker 5: book as the outline for the presentation of their case.
Speaker 5: So based on that, it would be difficult for me
Speaker 5: to criticize how they laid out their case. I thought
Speaker 5: they did excellent job. And when it came to time
Speaker 5: for the defense side of the case and they got
Speaker 5: to cross examined, I think that Jeff Ashton did textbook
Speaker 5: cross examination I mean, you could teach people how to
Speaker 5: cross examined by the way he did it. He took
Speaker 5: witnesses for the defense who started out setting one thing
Speaker 5: and turned them around till they were agreeing with him.
Speaker 5: You rarely see that in a courtroom. That was extraordinary
Speaker 5: work by the prosecution. Perhaps, if I could criticize anything
Speaker 5: they did, I think maybe they should have put on
Speaker 5: more rebuttal witnesses. But I think that probably, like me,
Speaker 5: they thought the allegations, the unproven allegations by Bias, were
Speaker 5: not anything to even worry about, because Bias presented no
Speaker 5: evidence to support them, and so because of that, they
Speaker 5: didn't put on rebuttal witnesses to cameract that because technically
Speaker 5: what a lawyer says in an opening statement on either
Speaker 5: side is not evidence, and it is not supposed to
Speaker 5: be considered evidence by the jury. But this jury seemed
Speaker 5: to do that. And in my mind, watching a lot
Speaker 5: of other trials and the length of time it takes,
Speaker 5: they didn't spend enough time reviewing documents, and one of
Speaker 5: the jurors in fact, said, we didn't think we needed
Speaker 5: to review the documents. Well, that's the documents are as
Speaker 5: much a part of the evidence in the case as
Speaker 5: things that come out of people's mouths in this trial,
Speaker 5: and they did not give enough time to go through
Speaker 5: and do that. And you know, I just don't understand
Speaker 5: what they were thinking. And there's something else too that
Speaker 5: really bothers me, because all the jurors who have spoken
Speaker 5: couldn't have said that there was not one person on
Speaker 5: that jury who thought she was innocent. Now, you know,
Speaker 5: I'm a strong believer in civil disobedience, and in this case,
Speaker 5: what that means to me is if I do not
Speaker 5: think someone is innocent, and I think they are culpable
Speaker 5: for the crime, and if I think that put the
Speaker 5: prosecution didn't prove it, but still believe that person is guilty,
Speaker 5: I'm going to hang that jury. I'm not going to
Speaker 5: let someone walk away on a murder charge just because
Speaker 5: something else should have been done in the courtroom. I'm
Speaker 5: going to give them another chance. And yet that seems
Speaker 5: to be what the jury was thinking, and that no
Speaker 5: one had a strong enough sense of doing the right thing,
Speaker 5: or a strong enough conscience or a strong enough understanding
Speaker 5: to realize they could have done this is disturbing.
Speaker 7: Well, some I you know, I wasn't there and I
Speaker 7: haven't reviewed the statement by the judge at the end,
Speaker 7: but I known in the cases that I've reviewed that
Speaker 7: it is important for the judge to assess how the
Speaker 7: case has played out in front of the jury, and
Speaker 7: then he has the opportunity to say, you know, this
Speaker 7: is what you should look at, this is what you
Speaker 7: should look at. Like you were talking about the documents,
Speaker 7: tell us about which documents specifically you thought that the
Speaker 7: jury should have looked at very very closely and scrutinized
Speaker 7: and didn't.
Speaker 5: Two years before the trial, I sat down and reviewed
Speaker 5: the autopsy report, and I reviewed the forensic reports of
Speaker 5: the scene where the body was found. And in reviewing
Speaker 5: that material, it became very obvious to me that the
Speaker 5: murder weapon was the duct tape. And I still believe
Speaker 5: the murder weapon was the duct tape. And you know,
Speaker 5: I can't help but think that anyone else reviewing that material,
Speaker 5: at least out of twelve people, someone should have come
Speaker 5: to that same conclusion. You know, it's not that far fetched.
Speaker 5: I thought of it. I was not the only person
Speaker 5: that thought of it. And then later that's what the
Speaker 5: prosecution presented. It was clearly obvious to.
Speaker 7: Me how important was the fact that there was no
Speaker 7: DNA found on the duct tape.
Speaker 5: I think it was important to the jury, but it
Speaker 5: should not have been because there was testimony about that
Speaker 5: duct tape, and DNA decomposes just like the rest of
Speaker 5: our body does, and there was so much decomposition in
Speaker 5: the heat, in the flooding from the hurricane in that
Speaker 5: spot where her body was left.
Speaker 1: Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an
Speaker 1: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we, just to
Speaker 1: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 1: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 1: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 1: Chumbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games
Speaker 1: you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses.
Speaker 1: That's your brighten your day, Lowe actually a lot, so
Speaker 1: sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 1: Casino dot com.
Speaker 5: No purchace necessary DAIOI where hibit by lossy terms conditions
Speaker 5: of eighteen plus.
Speaker 3: With lucky land slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 6: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 6: the bride and groom.
Speaker 5: Mari, sorry we're here.
Speaker 2: We were getting lucky in the limo and we lost
Speaker 2: track of time.
Speaker 1: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 1: quicker than he gets registered.
Speaker 6: In that case, I pronounce you Lucky.
Speaker 3: Play for free at lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses
Speaker 3: are waiting. No purchase necessary BOID. We're prohibited by low
Speaker 3: EIGHTEAM plus terms and conditions apply. See website for details.
Speaker 5: Even the duct tape itself had started to decompose. The
Speaker 5: organic material in it, that cotton fiber in it had
Speaker 5: all decomposed, So how could and that's inside the duct tape,
Speaker 5: so how could anything on the outside of the duct
Speaker 5: tape had survive for testing? You know that a lot
Speaker 5: of times you'll find jurors, and usually it's not all
Speaker 5: of them, but you'll find somebody hanging a jury because
Speaker 5: they either want an eyewitness, or they want a confession,
Speaker 5: or they want DNA evidence. Well, you know, it just
Speaker 5: doesn't happen with the DNA. I mean often, I mean
Speaker 5: this is not CSI is not real world, right, And then,
Speaker 5: as I said earlier, with murders, often you don't have
Speaker 5: an eyewitness because it is not a public event, it's
Speaker 5: something hidden and private. And in most cases and then
Speaker 5: find and a confession. Well, you know, when you've got
Speaker 5: someone sitting there accused of murder who is a malignant narcissist,
Speaker 5: you will never get them to admit that they did
Speaker 5: something wrong. Never.
Speaker 7: Well, another thing that I found that I thought the
Speaker 7: jury used to Casey Anthony's advantage was that there was
Speaker 7: no by the time you say the decomposition, there was
Speaker 7: no conclusive cause of death. Now, however, what did the jury,
Speaker 7: how did the jury react or pardon me? What was
Speaker 7: the prosecution's witness and how effective were they when they
Speaker 7: tried to put Casey at the place where the body
Speaker 7: was found, Like for those that don't know, the body
Speaker 7: was found near the Anthony, George and Cindy's property. Now,
Speaker 7: was there any evidence brought forward or at least some
Speaker 7: suggestion that Casey had ample opportunity to be able to
Speaker 7: be able to bury that body near that property or
Speaker 7: was there.
Speaker 5: They had they had the self teller things, they knew
Speaker 5: where she was in every minutes, she where she was going.
Speaker 5: And I do not What was perplexing to me is
Speaker 5: I do not understand how there could be evidence presented
Speaker 5: in the courtroom of a murderer, and the jury is
Speaker 5: still wondering about whether maybe it was an accidental drowning
Speaker 5: for which no evidence was presented. The only thing was
Speaker 5: what was said by jose Biased in his opening statement.
Speaker 5: She Now, the defense doesn't have to prove anything, but
Speaker 5: if they promised to prove something, they should be doing that,
Speaker 5: and they shouldn't be saying, we will do anything for
Speaker 5: the defendive rights of our client, no matter if it
Speaker 5: violates the rights of everyone else, and they drug anyone
Speaker 5: and everyone through the mud they could possibly drag you know,
Speaker 5: I think it was just highly unethical to say the
Speaker 5: things that was said about George and Lee Anthony and
Speaker 5: Roy Klok.
Speaker 4: Because they had no proof.
Speaker 5: The only thing they had was the lives of the
Speaker 5: client that they admitted was a liar.
Speaker 7: Right now, how did the defense counter the testimony of
Speaker 7: George and Cindy and the testimony about the dead body
Speaker 7: smell from the car when they first took possession of
Speaker 7: the car and which got this whole case going. How
Speaker 7: did they deal with that? How did the defense deal
Speaker 7: with that?
Speaker 5: Well, one of the things where they put sinding up
Speaker 5: on the stand who said that the stain was in
Speaker 5: the car when they bought it, and that you know,
Speaker 5: she didn't really say it was a dead body. She
Speaker 5: really it shed smell there. They also put up this
Speaker 5: other witness from Nebraska who had done some experiments with
Speaker 5: a pig in the trunk of a car in Nebraska
Speaker 5: and tried to draw conclusions from that and a body
Speaker 5: in a flooded area in the heat of Florida. And yet,
Speaker 5: you know, the as the prosecution put it, the pig
Speaker 5: was not in a blanket. You know, they asked me
Speaker 5: Whiting to put the pig in a blanket, which brought
Speaker 5: a lot of laughs, but really didn't undermined that much
Speaker 5: because Kayley's body was wrapped in a blanket, in two
Speaker 5: different garbage bags, and then in a waterproof canvas bag.
Speaker 5: But still at the end of that guy's testimony, he
Speaker 5: was saying that the garbage could have caused that smell,
Speaker 5: and so the prosecution got out the garbage and the
Speaker 5: guy actually looked at it instead of looking at pictures
Speaker 5: and said and reversed himself and agreed with the prosecution
Speaker 5: when it was over. So none of the witnesses were
Speaker 5: really effective. They had a botanist who got up there
Speaker 5: and said that the vines that had grown through the
Speaker 5: eye sockets of the skull could have done so in
Speaker 5: two weeks, which boggles the imagination. By the time prosecution
Speaker 5: was through with her, she was saying, well, that would
Speaker 5: have been the absolute minimum. It could have taken as
Speaker 5: much as six months.
Speaker 7: Right, Well, that's not negage that testimony.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that happened over and over again.
Speaker 7: I do not.
Speaker 5: I do not understand this journey at all. I don't
Speaker 5: want to think a lot of people online have said
Speaker 5: that all they wanted to do is to get home.
Speaker 5: One of the jurors had a crucification schedule for Thursday,
Speaker 5: so they took the easy way out in the quittor
Speaker 5: so they wouldn't have to If they convicted her first
Speaker 5: degree murder, they would have had to have a penalty phase.
Speaker 5: It'll be days before they went home. I don't want
Speaker 5: to believe that they were that selfish. I really don't,
Speaker 5: But I don't understand what they did.
Speaker 7: Now tell us about the aggravated manslaughter. There was some
Speaker 7: talk that there could have been an agreement if the
Speaker 7: verdict was going to go a certain way. Obviously, Florida's
Speaker 7: a death penalty state, says capital crime. So tell us
Speaker 7: what you know about this possible aggravated manslaughter and what
Speaker 7: that would have meant in terms of time.
Speaker 5: Well, they if they if they had considered, uh, the
Speaker 5: aggravated manslaughter, which I didn't know why they didn't convict
Speaker 5: her on that at the minimum. But the aggravated manslaughter
Speaker 5: basically was based on a belief that that she did
Speaker 5: not premeditate this murder. It sort of just kind of
Speaker 5: happened to the spur of the moment she started wanting
Speaker 5: to quiet the child and things got out of control,
Speaker 5: and then she disposed of the body. But they didn't
Speaker 5: find her guilty of that either. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 5: it's mind boggling.
Speaker 7: It's interesting.
Speaker 5: They had a lot of choices. I mean, they they
Speaker 5: could have found her guilty of murder and given her
Speaker 5: a life sentence. They didn't have to give her a
Speaker 5: death sentence. Uh, they could have done that. They could
Speaker 5: have found her guilty of aggravating Flurida, could have found
Speaker 5: her guilty of child abuse. But all they nailed her
Speaker 5: were four counts of lying to law enforcement, and obviously
Speaker 5: Judge Perry wasn't really pleased with that verdict either, because
Speaker 5: he did something you see very often. He gave the
Speaker 5: maximum sentence on each of the four accounts and said
Speaker 5: that they had to be served consecutively, not conferrently. You
Speaker 5: often see when they're similar charges that the judge makes
Speaker 5: them concurrence so that you serve them at the same time.
Speaker 5: But not with this one, he said, consecutive.
Speaker 7: Interesting, and now we have the old.
Speaker 5: Charge from stan Strickland where she was convicted of stealing
Speaker 5: from Amy Hanzinka. And you know he's demanding that you
Speaker 5: get back to Florida now, Orlando, it's now in he said,
Speaker 5: seventy two hours, which is now twenty four. That gone
Speaker 5: and serve for approbation. Now, you can serve probation in
Speaker 5: different places, but you have to be in the city
Speaker 5: where you've got it to make arrangements to be someplace else.
Speaker 5: And her attorneys are fighting that, but strickly saying no,
Speaker 5: you can't serve probation while you're still in jail, which
Speaker 5: is what the defense is alleging she did. But the
Speaker 5: fact of the matter is the terms of probation cannot
Speaker 5: be met while one is in jail. You have to
Speaker 5: be out in the free world to meet the terms
Speaker 5: of probation.
Speaker 7: Now, what I found interesting was that the defense seemed
Speaker 7: to be prepared to concede to aggravated manslaughter, and yet
Speaker 7: they just didn't.
Speaker 5: Have to do that.
Speaker 7: And obviously they felt that it was going to be
Speaker 7: very detrimental to their case to put Casey Anthony on
Speaker 7: the witness stand. And yet, as you say, if they're
Speaker 7: trying to have a defense on raise issues like the
Speaker 7: father abused her, mother abused her, that would have to
Speaker 7: come through basically normally through her testimony to have any
Speaker 7: validity at all, because then she would again have to
Speaker 7: go through cross examination and withstand.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and they tried to get George to admit that
Speaker 5: he's actually abused her. They tried to get Cindy Didmitch
Speaker 5: she knew about the sexual abuse, and that failed. So
Speaker 5: the only thing had was the caller on the stand.
Speaker 5: And I'll tell you, Dan, I do not think the
Speaker 5: defense thought they were doing really well at all, because
Speaker 5: that's why they called for that competency hearing for Casey.
Speaker 5: They wanted her founding competence. They wanted the trial to
Speaker 5: go away, and that failed, and then they filed for
Speaker 5: a mistrial. They wanted a mistrial, or to call it
Speaker 5: several different times they filed for mis trial. I mean
Speaker 5: they were desperate. They didn't think they were winning this
Speaker 5: thing at all. I think they were surprised as anybody
Speaker 5: was when that hurt came down.
Speaker 7: Now, given that this was such a high profile case,
Speaker 7: I understand that one lawyer could not handle all the
Speaker 7: work and all the preparation necessary, especially in a capital
Speaker 7: case like this. But why with the personnel that were
Speaker 7: attracted to the case because it was high profile, why
Speaker 7: did they let Bias, who was virtually inexperienced, proceed with the.
Speaker 5: Because that issue Casey Anthony wanted. The judge gave her
Speaker 5: opportunity several opportunities during hearings to dump Bias, and she
Speaker 5: did not want to. She insisted on having him as
Speaker 5: her council. Now, the state did insist there had to
Speaker 5: be someone on the defense team that had experience in
Speaker 5: death penalty trials, and that's how Cheney Mason was brought
Speaker 5: into the picture to fill that requirement.
Speaker 7: What was Mark Lippman's rule.
Speaker 5: Mark Lippman was a new attorney on the scene, brought
Speaker 5: in for George and Cindy to be their attorney. Prior
Speaker 5: to that, their attorney had been Brad Conway, and that's
Speaker 5: who had been speaking for them for a couple of years.
Speaker 5: But he got frustrated with them because they would were
Speaker 5: violating every piece of advice he gave them. I mean,
Speaker 5: he didn't want them in the media, he didn't want
Speaker 5: him doing a lot of things which they insisted upon doing,
Speaker 5: and he just got exasperated with them and said that's
Speaker 5: It wasn't long before the trial, but they brought Mark
Speaker 5: Lippman in.
Speaker 7: All right, So when do you think the now that
Speaker 7: you look at this in retrospect, where were the key
Speaker 7: or what were the key points that the jury seemed
Speaker 7: to either miss in some cases or misinterpret And what
Speaker 7: do you think those keys? We've talked about a couple
Speaker 7: of them, but tell us about all of the things
Speaker 7: that you think were the keys to them being convinced
Speaker 7: that she was innocent.
Speaker 5: I think it started at the minds were poisoned by
Speaker 5: the defense opening statement. I think it was polluted with
Speaker 5: information of which there was no proof, and if they
Speaker 5: sort of use that as the yard sticks to measure everything,
Speaker 5: because doctor Gergovalie could not give them a cause of
Speaker 5: death that gave them a problem that maybe she did drown,
Speaker 5: But as doctor, she said, there is no reason in
Speaker 5: the world to put three pieces of duct tape over
Speaker 5: the mouth and nose of any child unless you intend
Speaker 5: to kill them. There is no reason to put that
Speaker 5: over the mouth that knows of the child who was
Speaker 5: already dead. There is no sense to that. It makes
Speaker 5: no sense. And yet the jury was just hung up
Speaker 5: on the fact that she could not give the exact
Speaker 5: cause of death. She knew that a manner of death
Speaker 5: was a homicide, but she could not give the specific means.
Speaker 5: So basically, on that point, the jury was rewarding Casey
Speaker 5: Anthony for having put the body in a place where
Speaker 5: decomposition would happen before it was found.
Speaker 7: Wow, how did the jury or how did the defense
Speaker 7: counter the thirty one days without Casey calling police? Because
Speaker 7: I know emotionally, that's the biggest thing that I've read
Speaker 7: in terms of comments, is that, let's be real here,
Speaker 7: no one in their right mind, no one accept a killer,
Speaker 7: no one who has any regard for their child, would
Speaker 7: wait thirty one days before they called police. And even
Speaker 7: then the mother called police. So tell us how the
Speaker 7: defense countered that, and how did the prosecution present that
Speaker 7: and was it a strong presentation because it seems to
Speaker 7: be the kind of overwhelming circumstantial evidence that just most
Speaker 7: people can relate to.
Speaker 5: Well, the defense in the opening statement said, the reason
Speaker 5: that she did that is because she was sexually abused.
Speaker 5: That's why she lied, And that's what they said in
Speaker 5: the un statement. They never really provided any proof of
Speaker 5: that outside of that, except for this kind of really
Speaker 5: flaky sech grief counselor. They talked about people grieve in
Speaker 5: different ways. One of the jurors, I believe it was
Speaker 5: the foreman, said that we could not use her behavior
Speaker 5: in that thirty one days as an indication of any wrongdoing. Well,
Speaker 5: that is a clear misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence is
Speaker 5: and how it can be used in forming an opinion. Right,
Speaker 5: So it was clear they were wrong on that. I
Speaker 5: also think that they blew up the definition of reasonable
Speaker 5: doubt and instead we're operating on beyond any shadow of
Speaker 5: a doubt. I mean, really, that's how they were defining it,
Speaker 5: because they were taking just things that were just thrown
Speaker 5: out there without proof as things that they could seriously consider.
Speaker 7: As well, when you get the thirty one days without
Speaker 7: her contacting police at all. How did they counter the
Speaker 7: mysterious nanny that when the mother said, well where is
Speaker 7: this nanny?
Speaker 4: No nanny existed, they defans said right up front that
Speaker 4: the nanny didn't exist.
Speaker 5: They said that she lied about that, she made it up.
Speaker 5: But they didn't bother to tell all their witnesses about that.
Speaker 5: The one witness was on the stand and when the
Speaker 5: prosecution asked him, well do you know what happened to
Speaker 5: that little girl? He said, yes, she was kidnapped by
Speaker 5: zanny to nanny. Now, the defense had gotten up there
Speaker 5: until it was a big lie. But they never bothered
Speaker 5: to inform their witnesses that their original operating theory was
Speaker 5: no longer on.
Speaker 7: Wow, well didn't didn't they wasn't it wasn't that good
Speaker 7: ammunition for the prosecution?
Speaker 5: Yes, and they used it. I mean, I'm telling you,
Speaker 5: there is little to criticize about what the prosecution did.
Speaker 5: I thought they did a masterful job of presenting the
Speaker 5: case and putting everything, all the pieces all together. I
Speaker 5: could not I only criticized, And the only thing I
Speaker 5: could criticized was that they didn't call more rebuttal witnesses
Speaker 5: for no other reason than to put more time distance
Speaker 5: between the defense case and the deliberations. I think they
Speaker 5: should spend more time on rebuttal just to make some
Speaker 5: of that stuff fade away.
Speaker 7: Now I know this would it calls for you to
Speaker 7: speculate a little bit, but we know that the jury
Speaker 7: was picked from Saint Petersburg and then bust to Orlando
Speaker 7: and sequestered for the six weeks. In your mind and
Speaker 7: your experience, is it possibly that it was so hard
Speaker 7: to find a jury that had not already formed an opinion?
Speaker 7: And do you think that has anything to do with
Speaker 7: the kind of jurors that they ended up with at
Speaker 7: the trial?
Speaker 5: You know, I think there are a combination of things there.
Speaker 5: A good number of the people in the jury had
Speaker 5: said that they don't read a newspaper, they don't watch
Speaker 5: the news on television, they don't follow news online, and
Speaker 5: so they're unaware of anything going on in the outside
Speaker 5: world basically, which makes you wonder what kind of people
Speaker 5: are so interested in the world around them. And then
Speaker 5: you had other people, and this is where I think
Speaker 5: Perry made a mistake. I think there were some people
Speaker 5: on that jury that should have been dismissed for cause.
Speaker 5: For example, there was one woman on there who said
Speaker 5: that it was against her religion to judge anyone. So
Speaker 5: if she's saying that, then why the heck is she
Speaker 5: on a jury, let alone a death penalty jury. I
Speaker 5: think she should have been let go. I think Perry
Speaker 5: was so desperate to get jurors. I mean, he settled
Speaker 5: for less than he wanted anyway, but he was so
Speaker 5: desperate to get that jury selection done, and he let
Speaker 5: a couple of people slide in that he probably should
Speaker 5: have dumped out. And there was another woman who was
Speaker 5: and she's one of the ones that has spoken out
Speaker 5: that was over eager to serve on the trial. You
Speaker 5: can almost see a secret agenda in the background there
Speaker 5: someone We're wondering, what's up with that person? I think
Speaker 5: he should have jumped her.
Speaker 7: Too, isn't it though? The responsibility in the end for
Speaker 7: the prosecution to be able to challenge those what you've
Speaker 7: just mentioned. Those are two jurors that should not have
Speaker 7: been on that.
Speaker 5: Jury, and they have limited challenges. That's a defense in
Speaker 5: the prosecution, have limited challenges, and there and the judge
Speaker 5: takes them off a cause, and then they can and
Speaker 5: and then the lawyers can take others off, but it
Speaker 5: is limited, and so they have to be careful about
Speaker 5: who they bump into who they don't. And and with
Speaker 5: this particular group, I mean, they had a lot of
Speaker 5: people that needed to go. And you know, when you think,
Speaker 5: you think back to the jury selection, there was one
Speaker 5: time where Perry had to send home a whole group
Speaker 5: of forty five people because one guy who was on
Speaker 5: the jury list happened to have been one of the
Speaker 5: searchers for Texas Equi Search and he was on the
Speaker 5: witness list he should and he talked to everybody about
Speaker 5: what they look for and everything and about the case.
Speaker 5: So the Jude tried to disqualify all those people. Now,
Speaker 5: that person bears some responsibility for that, because.
Speaker 8: If he had told someone at the courthouse the moment
Speaker 8: he arrived that he was on the witness list, they
Speaker 8: would have let him go and he would never been
Speaker 8: sitting with that group. But he didn't do that.
Speaker 7: Now, what was the makeup of the jury in terms
Speaker 7: of a male female and tell us that first, and basically,
Speaker 7: what was the sort of the breakdown of the age
Speaker 7: variant between say the oldest and the youngest roughly.
Speaker 5: It was seven, I mean, five men, and it seemed
Speaker 5: to be a very young jury. I can't recall the
Speaker 5: exact dages now, but there were a lot of them
Speaker 5: that that seemed to be Casey's age, which I guess
Speaker 5: is appropriate, you know, it's the jury appears. But still
Speaker 5: I think that there were some of them that probably
Speaker 5: didn't look as hardly at the fact that she partied
Speaker 5: when her child was missing as maybe someone who had
Speaker 5: had an experience with motherhood would have right.
Speaker 7: Right, So, getting back to just a couple of questions ago,
Speaker 7: you do think that because of the unusual circumstances in
Speaker 7: this case, the incredible circumstances in this case, that they
Speaker 7: had a hard just getting a jury period, and as
Speaker 7: a result did and as a result that maybe the
Speaker 7: prosecution had only so many to work with and just
Speaker 7: tried to get the best that they had available.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and you know, and and there's there's nothing perfect
Speaker 5: about ever picking a jury. I mean, both sides always
Speaker 5: make mistakes in certain people, but I think overall the
Speaker 5: pool was just horrible because you had looking for people
Speaker 5: that were totally unaware of the case, and some of
Speaker 5: the people weren't. That it ended up on the jury,
Speaker 5: but the ones they had that were oblivious to the
Speaker 5: world around them, it just makes you wonder, you know,
Speaker 5: do they really even care? Do they understand the societal
Speaker 5: impact of allowing someone so obviously guilty just to skip
Speaker 5: away as if nothing happened.
Speaker 7: It's even hard to believe. It is even hard to
Speaker 7: believe that you're walking around America without I mean, I
Speaker 7: don't know. I mean Nancy Grace was screaming at the
Speaker 7: top of her lungs for a couple of years along
Speaker 7: with the vertic I mean talk of this case because
Speaker 7: it was just all in consumed Americans and people throughout
Speaker 7: the world. I can't believe that they had a television set,
Speaker 7: a computer, or ever read a newspaper magazine, because it
Speaker 7: would be hard pressed to go for groceries without seeing
Speaker 7: the case in a sensationalistic headline on any magazine right
Speaker 7: at the grocery store. So to me, I think there
Speaker 7: and I'll ask you if you thought that possibly, in
Speaker 7: light of the jurors being able to respond after the verdict,
Speaker 7: there are opportunities for televisi programs. I know this sounds
Speaker 7: very cynical and it but do you think there is
Speaker 7: a possibility that some of these jurors actually could have
Speaker 7: known that what then that what the likelihood was, and
Speaker 7: that the expect expectation was that Casey would be convicted,
Speaker 7: and in fact, you know, in a bizarre twist, gave
Speaker 7: gave themselves an opportunity to be on television programs because
Speaker 7: of the to say, the least controversial verdict that the
Speaker 7: jury delivered.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, I mean that that is a fact.
Speaker 5: I mean that they their their media uh ex goes
Speaker 5: in and would become a more valuable commodity of the
Speaker 5: way the verdict went. I would say, though, when you
Speaker 5: look at the vast number of jurors, they still have
Speaker 5: not come forward.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 5: In fact, one woman reportedly has moved from Florida up
Speaker 5: to like I think with Minnesota, Michigan or something where
Speaker 5: she had family. She was afraid to stay around the area.
Speaker 5: And you know, you only have I believe, four who
Speaker 5: have spoken out, and at least one of those was
Speaker 5: an alternate. So I think if you're going to consider
Speaker 5: that as a possibility, the only people that could be
Speaker 5: a possibility for are the ones who have spoken out,
Speaker 5: because the others are basically you know, hiding well.
Speaker 7: But in light of the outrage expressed by the public,
Speaker 7: I mean, the person that would probably have to be
Speaker 7: in hiding as casey Anthony, and of course the family
Speaker 7: is in hiding as well. But wouldn't wouldn't the jurors
Speaker 7: be in some kind of precarious situation if they were
Speaker 7: to say, listen, yeah, I stand by this verdict. There's
Speaker 7: a lot of angry people out there. I mean, they
Speaker 7: wouldn't have any peace, so I can see somebody taking off.
Speaker 7: I can also see that you know that the jurors
Speaker 7: weren't immediately contacting the media, even though they have the
Speaker 7: right to be able to do that. But again, of
Speaker 7: being cynical, wouldn't that just raise their you know, their rate,
Speaker 7: wouldn't that? You know, I mean, this case is not
Speaker 7: going to go away immediately.
Speaker 5: As soon as two people spoke out very publicly. Oh
Speaker 5: you know, I think that ended that because then you
Speaker 5: had people revealing, so they staying quiet no longer became profitable.
Speaker 5: So that I think that is you know that that
Speaker 5: can be dismissed. But you know, let's say there's two
Speaker 5: people who granted those very public interviews. Was that they're
Speaker 5: thinking one of those people was the woman who seems
Speaker 5: to be over eager to serve on the jury. So
Speaker 5: what was going on in her mind?
Speaker 3: Who knows?
Speaker 5: I mean, we have no way of really knowing. And
Speaker 5: if that was going on, I mean I doubt that
Speaker 5: it would be admitted, you know, if someone would say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 5: well I did the jury that they verted this way
Speaker 5: so that I could get more media that should I
Speaker 5: can't see that happening, right, So I don't know. I
Speaker 5: just I think that they got any bad jury with
Speaker 5: a couple of strong personalities who thought they knew it
Speaker 5: all and didn't know much at all anyway, and they
Speaker 5: led the jury by the nose and ended up with
Speaker 5: this farcical verdict.
Speaker 7: Now, when you talked about the opening defense statements and
Speaker 7: the defense putting out unsubstantiated claims like the abuse and
Speaker 7: the accidental death possibility and someone else than Casey burying
Speaker 7: the body, do you think possibly because do you think
Speaker 7: this wasn't a strategy or do you really think this
Speaker 7: lawyer just stumbled his way into an acquittal, or do
Speaker 7: you think that providing this unsubstantiated claims one way or
Speaker 7: another really did help, as you say, really helped. But
Speaker 7: do you think in hindsight, it might.
Speaker 5: I think he thought that was his only hope. I
Speaker 5: think that. But you know, it's raised questions. There's some
Speaker 5: more associations across the country now looking at the freedom
Speaker 5: the criminal attorneys have, and I think the reason they
Speaker 5: are doing that is because they're afraid there might be
Speaker 5: some legislation coming down because it should not be right. Yes,
Speaker 5: a defense attorneys supposed to do everything I can for
Speaker 5: the sake of their client, but it should not be
Speaker 5: right to allow the defendant's rights to be able to
Speaker 5: run rough shot over the rights of everyone else. They
Speaker 5: should not be allowed to get up there and make
Speaker 5: these unsubstantiated claims to paint these people. I mean, they
Speaker 5: called royd Kronk, Morley Brandton bankrupt, they called George Anthony
Speaker 5: a pedophile and an incests committter. I mean, you know,
Speaker 5: it's just outrageous.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I agree with you there. I think that there
Speaker 7: should be a very very healthy debate, especially given of
Speaker 7: a vigorous defense and when you because if you look
Speaker 7: at the OJ Simpson case, and you look at this
Speaker 7: case and other cases as well, if you do get
Speaker 7: a lawyer, and I mean, some people think this is
Speaker 7: just the way it is. But if you can get
Speaker 7: a lawyer, a defense team to say anything, to have
Speaker 7: no reservations, to make any substantiated claim like you say,
Speaker 7: accusing an ex police officer and a grieving grandfather and
Speaker 7: a person that's concerned about his daughter. But at the
Speaker 7: same time, he has not been indicted for anything, he
Speaker 7: has not been convicted of anything. His entire reputation thrown
Speaker 7: in the trash with these unsubstantiated claims. And this is,
Speaker 7: I believe, not part of a vigorous defense. That should
Speaker 7: not be part of the definition of a vigorous defense.
Speaker 7: Do everything within the law and with ethics to be
Speaker 7: able to fight for your client, but that should not
Speaker 7: include outright baldfaced lies just to help your client.
Speaker 5: And you know, I mean, I'm sure he could say, well,
Speaker 5: I didn't lie, this is what my client told me.
Speaker 5: But the fact of the matter is is that he
Speaker 5: knows and he's admitted in the courtroom that his client
Speaker 5: is a liar.
Speaker 7: Well, that's exactly a point that I made in our
Speaker 7: Canadian courts as well in the trial that I was
Speaker 7: involved with. Is the same thing that you should be
Speaker 7: You should not be able based on the cornerstone of
Speaker 7: the judicial system is that you're not to lie for
Speaker 7: your client or have your client perjure themselves on the stand.
Speaker 7: So I asked the question, then how do you determine
Speaker 7: the truth? Well, that should be the cornerstone. I mean,
Speaker 7: you can't have a cornerstone of the judicial system and
Speaker 7: then we all have this respect for it, so much
Speaker 7: so that we go through this incredible process. But yet
Speaker 7: if that cornerstone, that fundamental foundation, is gone, then really
Speaker 7: what do we have except a circus.
Speaker 5: Well, yes, and you use that word respect, And I've
Speaker 5: heard some commentators say, well, we have to respect the
Speaker 5: jury's verdict. No, we do not. We have to accept
Speaker 5: a verdict. And you and I and I don't think
Speaker 5: it would be wrong to gun case the anthony down.
Speaker 5: I mean, let me read straight. I think it was
Speaker 5: very wrong to gun case the anthony down on the street.
Speaker 5: I think vigilanti justice is wrong and no one should
Speaker 5: take it on itself to harmer. We do need to
Speaker 5: accept that verdict, but we don't need to respect it.
Speaker 5: We can look at it and see logically that it
Speaker 5: was flawed and there was things wrong with that, and
Speaker 5: we need to see that and accept it. If we're
Speaker 5: ever going to make the system better, because face it,
Speaker 5: we're all humans, and when you have humans involved in anything,
Speaker 5: there's never going to be perfection. We can, we want
Speaker 5: to move towards it as best we can, particularly when
Speaker 5: we're dealing with someone's life, but it's never going to
Speaker 5: exist period.
Speaker 7: Now, given that you have written this book, Mummy's Little Girl,
Speaker 7: which I call the definitive book about this murder case,
Speaker 7: have you been the of any criticism because of making
Speaker 7: conclusions like we had in our discussion. When I listened
Speaker 7: to our discussion, we were both very, very positive that
Speaker 7: she would be certainly convicted and should have been convicted
Speaker 7: of this murder despite circumstantial evidence. And like you say,
Speaker 7: there's many many cases that put a fair amount of
Speaker 7: circumstantial evidence together to create to get a conviction. Have
Speaker 7: you been the target of any criticism for your book
Speaker 7: itself and what they might call rush to judgment.
Speaker 5: One of the goofiest things I heard after the trial. Now,
Speaker 5: this is after the verdict has been let out and
Speaker 5: she's acquitted. Someone said, because of people like Diane Fanning,
Speaker 5: no one can get a good fair trial in this country.
Speaker 5: And I'm going, wait a minute, if she'd been convicted,
Speaker 5: there would be logic to saying that about me true
Speaker 5: or not, there would be logical, But consider she's acquitted.
Speaker 5: That has proved that I was totally irrelevant to the
Speaker 5: process of justice. And you know which I should be.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm a writer, I'm not the jury. I'm
Speaker 5: not the judge. But you know, I'm entitled to my opinion,
Speaker 5: and the fact that someone goes into court innocent to
Speaker 5: proven guilty has nothing to do with the opinions of
Speaker 5: the people who are not serving on the jury. I mean,
Speaker 5: this is America. We are entitled to our opinions and
Speaker 5: we're free to speak our opinions. So there was that,
Speaker 5: and then I got a whole lot of really garbage
Speaker 5: things from people. You know, if people were using calling
Speaker 5: me names like bloodsucker or other worst things that we
Speaker 5: can't quite repeat. I just deleted them and blocked them
Speaker 5: and just moved on, because, I mean, you can't argue
Speaker 5: with people like that. Who I couldn't understand them either.
Speaker 5: They they were Casey Anthony's supporters. They got the verdict
Speaker 5: they wanted, so why are they acting angry? It didn't
Speaker 5: make any sense. And then there were others though that
Speaker 5: really misunderstood. I mean, there were people who thought that
Speaker 5: I had raised and got the first book out on
Speaker 5: Casey Anthony a couple of weeks after the verdict. Well,
Speaker 5: as you and I know, this book came out in
Speaker 5: November two thousand and nine. So to shame on me
Speaker 5: for hurrying up writing this book, well, I'd write to
Speaker 5: him and explain to him. And there were a lot
Speaker 5: of people who wrote to me saying wrote negative things
Speaker 5: to me, that did it without calling names or using profanity,
Speaker 5: And I would write back to them and explain to
Speaker 5: them my viewpoints. And I ended up making a lot
Speaker 5: of friends out of that. And so that's fine. I
Speaker 5: don't mind the criticism as long as on the other
Speaker 5: end there is a person that is not just willing
Speaker 5: to talk, but willing to listen.
Speaker 7: Right now, in light of Mommy's Little Girl and that
Speaker 7: being published again last year or more than a year ago,
Speaker 7: are there any plans for a follow up? As the
Speaker 7: publisher contacted.
Speaker 4: You, there is a very short update going in a
Speaker 4: new edition.
Speaker 5: But it's it's it's not it's not a new book
Speaker 5: on the shelves. No, it's not a new.
Speaker 7: Book, and there's no reason to write a new book.
Speaker 5: It's quite frankly, nothing I said in the book was
Speaker 5: disproven in the courtroom, right, incredible. The only thing was
Speaker 5: I think at one point I might have gotten the
Speaker 5: order of bags Wong and how the body was wrapped,
Speaker 5: but that's essentially I had all the bags there, so
Speaker 5: you know that was kind of irrelevant. But you know
Speaker 5: that there there was nothing to show that my theory
Speaker 5: of the murder was wrong. There was nothing to show
Speaker 5: that any of the information presented was false. Nothing. In fact,
Speaker 5: there is more in the book than there actually was
Speaker 5: presented a trial.
Speaker 7: Now, in light of these statements by Lipman and by
Speaker 7: Mason about the conclusion of the trial itself and how
Speaker 7: they had mentioned while all those people that rushed the judgment,
Speaker 7: can you tell us if you thought those statements were
Speaker 7: in line or were they out of order? What do
Speaker 7: you think about those statements by the defense team?
Speaker 5: Well, considering Cheney Mason, who was supposed to be who
Speaker 5: is a mature man and should know better, he should
Speaker 5: not be gloating. There is still a small child dead,
Speaker 5: no matter how you look at it, it was very
Speaker 5: unseemly for him to be gloating and for him to
Speaker 5: flip the bird at the media was just gross and
Speaker 5: childish and quite fine. This is a defense team that
Speaker 5: sucked up to the media, tried to get on the
Speaker 5: media every chance they could to get their face up there,
Speaker 5: to get their words out there. They played the media
Speaker 5: all before the trial, and then suddenly after the trial
Speaker 5: when they get them verdicts they want, they're kicking the
Speaker 5: media and the teeth. I'm sorry, you can't have it
Speaker 5: both ways. They're you're either going to use them and
Speaker 5: appreciate them being there for using them, or you're going
Speaker 5: to avoid them from the beginning. And you know, it
Speaker 5: just was very two faced, two face to the mature, right.
Speaker 5: I lost a lot of respect for Chandy Mason with
Speaker 5: the way he behaved afterwards.
Speaker 7: Right now, do you expect, being an author yourself and
Speaker 7: how the business works, do you expect some books or
Speaker 7: a book from the defense team or coming from that camp.
Speaker 5: I would not be surprised to see one. I mean,
Speaker 5: this case was even though it did the trial didn't
Speaker 5: last anywhere near as long, it still was explosive and
Speaker 5: its impact on the media. And look how many books
Speaker 5: came out about O. J. Simpson. You know, so I
Speaker 5: do expect that they will happen. I think we have
Speaker 5: to get past the anger stage before anyone's going to
Speaker 5: be willing to offer anyone on the defense team a
Speaker 5: lot of money. Uh. There are a lot of people
Speaker 5: out there that are you know, uh, writing to networks
Speaker 5: and posting on their Facebook pages and telling them how
Speaker 5: you know that they will be boycotted. And as long
Speaker 5: as there's that much anger in the air, it would
Speaker 5: be risky business for anyone to offer a lot of
Speaker 5: money for a book to you'll to if anyone anyone
Speaker 5: on the defense side of the room.
Speaker 7: So you're saying that it would be as much as
Speaker 7: it might be tempting for someone to do that. You
Speaker 7: see that the the the pulse of the country itself
Speaker 7: is in like I said, I hate to say about
Speaker 7: in a lynching mood for all those people that got
Speaker 7: you know, what I found was very very incredible too,
Speaker 7: that they already have a Casey Anthony Halloween mask produced,
Speaker 7: among other things.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, you know, when you when you think of
Speaker 5: scary people, are they she's She's one of them. H
Speaker 5: I can't imagine that I would ever put one of
Speaker 5: the those on, you know. I mean, it's just I
Speaker 5: find it a bit too repulsive.
Speaker 7: Sure, Now, what is her future in her in terms
Speaker 7: of her ability to be able to show up anywhere
Speaker 7: in America and continue with her life. What do you
Speaker 7: think the future holds for her in America?
Speaker 5: Well, I would think if I were her, I'd be
Speaker 5: busy coloring my hair and getting a little bit of
Speaker 5: plastic surgery because she her face is spread everywhere, you know,
Speaker 5: and and and there there are people all over this
Speaker 5: country who are outraged by the fact that she's walking free.
Speaker 5: And she can't leave the country because she's a convicted
Speaker 5: felon because of those check in stolen money charges, So
Speaker 5: she can't get a passport to leave the country. So
Speaker 5: she's gonna have to find a way to live within
Speaker 5: the borders of the United States. And you know, I
Speaker 5: can't think of any way she can do that but
Speaker 5: by changing her appearance.
Speaker 7: And do you think the same faith awaits her family
Speaker 7: as well? George and Cindy in the family. Uh. And
Speaker 7: the second part of the question is do you think
Speaker 7: that they'll be living together?
Speaker 5: You know, I want I wonder a lot about George
Speaker 5: and Cindy's marriage lasting, and and I think that that
Speaker 5: there's a chance that it will, because although Casey did
Speaker 5: throw her father and brother under the bus, uh, Cidy
Speaker 5: drew a line there and wouldn't do that too, even
Speaker 5: though bias which Wally encouraging her.
Speaker 7: To do that.
Speaker 5: So you know, I guess they have a straight in
Speaker 5: my mind, a strange relationship, and I guess there's a
Speaker 5: good chance that will maintain it. I don't know how
Speaker 5: they can continue to live with her living and be
Speaker 5: comfortable doing it, but I don't know their neighbors, so
Speaker 5: I have no idea how that is for them. Uh.
Speaker 5: There are things about uh, the the Anthony parents that
Speaker 5: have you know, really bothered me that they've done. And
Speaker 5: they've been a bad judgment a lot of times, and
Speaker 5: some of them, like with Sydney particularly being obstructive of
Speaker 5: justice and Georgia out there screaming at people when they
Speaker 5: had crowds around, and you know, there are things that
Speaker 5: just didn't like. But at the same time, Dan, having
Speaker 5: done these other true crime stories, I know that it
Speaker 5: is very difficult to be the loved one of the victim,
Speaker 5: and it is always also very difficult to be the
Speaker 5: loved one of the perpetrator. And George and Sydney Anthony
Speaker 5: were both and I think as long as they're not
Speaker 5: in the media view all the time like they were
Speaker 5: before the trial, that the anger towards them will probably
Speaker 5: fade much quicker than the anger towards Casey.
Speaker 7: Right now, in light of this entire trial and you
Speaker 7: covering this case and writing the definitive book Mummy's Little Girl, well,
Speaker 7: what is your big conclusion in your mind that you've
Speaker 7: learned from this trial and through and through this entire experience.
Speaker 5: I guess the biggest thing I learned from it is
Speaker 5: that justice is not perfect, no matter how much we
Speaker 5: may want it to be, and that we do need
Speaker 5: to remain vigilant to try to make it as close
Speaker 5: to perfect as we can do it. But there will
Speaker 5: always be verdicts that outrage us, and and some of
Speaker 5: those verdicts are not acquittals, but are convictions. And I
Speaker 5: think that we all we need to keep that in
Speaker 5: mind too, because there are there are people in prisons
Speaker 5: serving time for crime, say did not commit. Sure, most
Speaker 5: of the people in jails and prison are guilty, but
Speaker 5: there are those who are not, those who the Jewelry
Speaker 5: got it wrong because you were given a bad information
Speaker 5: or misinterpreted the information they were given.
Speaker 7: Now, one last question, what do you believe about the
Speaker 7: prosecution's chance on appeal?
Speaker 5: Prosecutors don't have a chance to appeal.
Speaker 7: They have no ability to appeal that conviction.
Speaker 5: No, not and whatsoever.
Speaker 7: Well, okay, that's that's my little education, because Canada we
Speaker 7: do have that mechanism.
Speaker 5: Maybe we ought to import that.
Speaker 7: There's one good thing, I guess. Yeah, so all there's
Speaker 7: just she is scott free and we have to live
Speaker 7: with this verdict. And I'm sure the analysis will not end.
Speaker 7: And I'm sure that people that are interested in this
Speaker 7: case will be more than interested in your book for
Speaker 7: all the information that provided in that. Like you say,
Speaker 7: nothing changed with this trial, and you stand by the
Speaker 7: evidence that was that you had beforehanded you published in
Speaker 7: your book. So I'm sure with the update it would
Speaker 7: be even a more fascinating read, given what the verdict
Speaker 7: of the verdict was, because like justice, as any reader
Speaker 7: and just as anyone after reading your book, it looked
Speaker 7: like a absolute slam dunk, and look at the verdict
Speaker 7: that we got, so.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it was. It was really I was really depressed
Speaker 5: for a little while afterwards. More than anything, I white
Speaker 5: justice for Kelly and that didn't happen.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, incredible. Well, I want to thank you, Diane
Speaker 7: for coming back on the program for a very fascinating
Speaker 7: program about your analysis of the Casey Anthony verdict. And
Speaker 7: course I want to tell people even listening to Dan Fanning,
Speaker 7: the author of Mummy's Little Girl, the definitive story about
Speaker 7: the Casey Anthony case and now with a follow up,
Speaker 7: it's the book to refer to if you want to
Speaker 7: know all the details of what really happened in this case.
Speaker 7: So I want to thank you very much Diane for
Speaker 7: coming on and wish you the best with all your
Speaker 7: new projects. I do know that you have for me
Speaker 7: about something coming up in January for release. Can you
Speaker 7: tell us just a little bit about it?
Speaker 5: Her Deadly Web is coming out January second, and it
Speaker 5: is about a woman who had two husbands and she
Speaker 5: claimed the first one died in a cattle stampede, and
Speaker 5: actually she got away with that, and then her second husband,
Speaker 5: she claimed committed suicide and when they studied the ballistics,
Speaker 5: they realized that the second shot was instantly fatal and
Speaker 5: therefore he could not have fired the third shot, and
Speaker 5: she was convicted of that murder and she's in prison
Speaker 5: serving life for that. And while that that investigation was
Speaker 5: going on, they discovered that her first husband, in fact
Speaker 5: did not die from cattle stampede, but had died from
Speaker 5: morphine overdose. And Raynella was a nurse, so she would
Speaker 5: have had access to their drugs.
Speaker 7: Interesting. We look forward to that her deadly web with
Speaker 7: the Black Widow for Help. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, we
Speaker 7: look forward to that and having you back on discussing
Speaker 7: that book. So I want you to have a great
Speaker 7: evening and thank you again for coming on the program
Speaker 7: and discussing this incredible case that has captivated the world
Speaker 7: basically and especially America. You have a good night, Diane,
Speaker 7: do dance, good night, Thank you, by bye. You've been
Speaker 7: listening to the program True Murder, the most shocking Killers
Speaker 7: in true crime history and the authors that are int
Speaker 7: about it with Diane Fanning, the author of Mummy's Little Girl.
Speaker 7: Good Night four