Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony (30 page)

Every scrap of plastic bag collected at the scene—and there turned out to be over three hundred of them—was tested for prints with no result. The duct tape and laundry bag tested similarly. No surprise there, given the abundance of water and heat, but they were checked anyway. Still, there was a consensus among all of us that the duct tape held a great deal of forensic potential.

When the duct tape arrived at the FBI laboratory, a decision had to be made about where to send it first. The condition of the tape was so poor that most of the adhesive was gone and much of the fabric layer had separated from the plastic. The general opinion was that there was virtually no chance of any DNA being found on the tape. As destructive as heat and moisture are to fingerprints, they are twice as destructive to DNA. The decision was made that the tape would go first to the latent print section to be photographed, then to the Trace Evidence Unit for removal of any adhering hairs or fibers, and finally to the Chemistry Unit for comparison of this sample of tape to that on the gas can.

The task of initially examining and photographing the tape fell to Elizabeth Fontaine, a fairly new examiner. One of the processes used in searching for fingerprints is to inspect the object using different wavelengths of light, some of which are beyond the human visual spectrum. During these examinations she observed no fingerprints, but she did notice a peculiar artifact on the tape, residue that appeared to be in the shape of a small heart. She would describe it as similar in appearance to what you would see after removing a Band-Aid that had been on your skin for a period of time: as if dirt had adhered to the residue of adhesive. She dutifully noted it in her report and showed it to her supervisor. Since there was no policy in place about photographing nonprint impressions, she did not photograph it, and instead she passed the tape along to trace. When trace returned it, she proceeded to the next stages of processing, using various chemicals to enhance otherwise invisible prints. The additional methods met with negative results as expected.

When news of the heart-shaped impression reached investigators, they asked Fontaine to try and photograph the impression. Unfortunately, by the time the attempts were made, the impression could no longer be detected. In an attempt to record the impression, the tape was diverted to Lori Gotesman, a documents examiner, to see if she could do anything with it. She was also unable to visualize the impression.

A big part of the investigators’ interest in the heart-shaped residue was that a red heart sticker had been found at the crime scene on a piece of cardboard some distance from the primary site, a find that had raised eyebrows. Indeed, for this reason, among the list of items on the search warrant when investigators entered the Anthony house had been scrapbooking and arts and crafts supplies. The searchers did find a roll of heart stickers in Casey’s room that were of similar size to the one found at the crime scene.

Despite the lack of clear connection to the Anthony home, this concept of the heart sticker resonated, both in the media and with investigators. It was a disturbing image, and combined with Fontaine’s heart-shaped residue findings, it suggested a surprising possibility: someone, presumably Caylee’s killer, had placed the heart sticker on the duct tape over her mouth.

I
NVESTIGATORS CONTINUED TO SEARCH FOR
a way to connect the Anthony home to the crime scene, and so the next step was to compare the tape at the crime scene to the tape from the gas can. The chemical comparison of the tapes from the scene and the gas can revealed that they were identical in composition and were manufactured the same way.

After those analyses were completed, it was determined that DNA testing should be attempted no matter how improbable, but in the end it only further muddied the waters. A foreign DNA profile was found on the sticky side of the tape that did not match any of the known samples submitted in the case. In addition, the opposite side of the tape had an indication of a very minuscule amount of DNA that was different both from that on the sticky side and from all known samples in the case. After testing the DNA of all those who had examined the tape, it was determined that the DNA matched examiner Lori Gotesman, the documents examiner, and the other trace was accounted for by a second examiner from the Chemistry Unit. The ability of DNA testing to detect extremely small amounts of DNA is both a blessing and a curse. Contamination, as hard as one might try to prevent it, is a fact of life. Forensically insignificant, but embarrassing to the FBI.

The last examination of the tape was done by Karen Lowe, the hair and fiber analyst who had originally examined the hairs from Casey’s car. Lowe’s report threw us for a bit of a loop. She compared the fibers in the tape found on the remains to the fibers in the tape from the gas can. Shockingly, even though the logos matched precisely, the fibers themselves did not match. The report said that the fabric portion of the tape from the scene was composed of only polyester fibers, while the tape from the gas can was cotton and polyester. After reading those words, I was quickly on the phone with Karen. I knew that the cotton in Caylee’s shirt had completely decomposed, leaving only the lettering and the elastic collar. If that cotton had decomposed, wouldn’t the same have happened to the cotton in the tape?

From the product information we’d received from the tape’s distributor, it appeared that the tape was made only with both polyester and cotton. It did not appear that they manufactured tape using just polyester, but we didn’t know for sure. I questioned Karen on the phone about the possibility of decomposition affecting the comparison, and she seemed unimpressed with the idea, but when I suggested that she call the manufacturer to determine whether the tape had ever been made with only polyester, she did not seem willing to investigate the matter more fully. It took me six months, a dozen calls, and actually sending a sample of the tape to the manufacturer to establish what I’d been suspecting since I first read Lowe’s report: the tape from the crime scene had originally been manufactured as a cotton/poly blend, and the cotton had merely decomposed. As such, it was a match to the tape from the gas can.

The duct tape was the smoking gun, or as close to it as we were going to get. It was the primary piece of evidence that led me to the firm conviction that Casey had committed premeditated murder. In my opinion, its position over the nose and mouth was no coincidence; it was murder. The jawbone being in the position it was, anatomically correct on the skull, proved this. For the jawbone to stay in place after decomposition, the tape had to be there before the decomposition began.

Part of interpreting a crime scene is eliminating things that don’t make sense. You hope to convince jurors to use their common sense as well. So is there any reason someone would put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a
dead
child? Only if someone wants to make it look like a murder. But why would anyone want to do that?

People don’t make accidents look like murder unless they are covering something up. If Caylee had died accidentally and Casey didn’t want to take any responsibility, maybe Casey thought staging a murder that could be blamed on Zanny or a stranger could get her off the hook. That way, she’d be able to argue that someone else had abducted Caylee, suffocated her with duct tape, and dumped her in the swamp. But why do that, since the accident wasn’t a crime?

Still, I didn’t really buy her using the duct tape as a cover-up. In my mind, the only reason there was duct tape on Caylee’s nose and mouth was to keep her from breathing. Preventing someone from breathing means premeditation, plain and simple. When I thought it through, it was the only reason that made sense to me.

There was one rather odd item of evidence from the scene. About a foot from Caylee’s remains was a red Disney World bag. Neither the bag nor its contents was ever tied to anyone involved in the case, but they’re odd enough that they bear mentioning. Inside the bag was a Gatorade bottle with a murky translucent liquid inside. When the bottle was opened at the lab, also found inside the bottle were a syringe and its wrapper. The liquid contents of the bottle were tested and found to be consistent with a cleaning product that contained trace amounts of chloroform. Dr. Michael Rickenbach, who had separately confirmed Dr. Vass’s findings of chloroform in the trunk of Casey’s car, attributed the chloroform in the bottle to a component of the cleaner.

Even odder was that the liquid, in small amounts, and the syringe showed the presence of four testosterone compounds. When I received Dr. Rickenbach’s report, I did a little Internet research and discovered that the combination of compounds was found in a male hormone supplement that a young man might take to enhance muscle mass or an older one might be prescribed as a hormone supplement that is available legally only by prescription. I tried to trace the syringe through the manufacturer, but the items could not be tracked to the direct purchasers. We wondered if maybe it was tied to something George had been prescribed, but we found no evidence of it. Just a big ole red herring. Still don’t have any idea how it got there or if it was related, but I sure would like to know.

The final items were Caylee’s bones and hair. There was the formal matter of identification to be determined. One of the bones was transported to the FBI lab, where a portion of the marrow was removed and tested. The results were compared with a DNA test that had been performed on Caylee’s toothbrush a month before as well as with Casey’s genetic profile. A positive identification was made: the remains in the woods were Caylee Marie Anthony.

That would appear to be the end of the forensics on the crime scene, but sometimes peculiar things can be found in looking deeper into test results. For purposes of elimination, DNA samples were taken from Cindy, George, and Lee Anthony. Having done as many of these as I have, I am able to read and compare the profiles pretty well. The cops had always wondered if Lee or George was Caylee’s father. They like to think the worst of people sometimes, and their opinion of the Anthonys was not great anyway. One look at the DNA profiles and I assured them there was no way. I had in the past been involved in two cases where these types of elimination tests of relatives had exposed some unpleasant surprises to men who thought they were the father of someone they weren’t. One, tragically, was the father of a seventeen-year-old girl who had been murdered. Ever since then, I’d gotten in the habit of checking these things.

When I looked at Casey’s profile, she checked out as the child of George and Cindy. Likewise, neither George nor Lee was Caylee’s father.

Caylee’s hair was the last to be examined. When it arrived, Karen Lowe was out of the lab so the case was assigned to Stephen Shaw, another hair and fiber analyst. The hairs on the body matched the hair from the trunk, in length, color, and microscopic characteristics, and they both had the death band. The only difference was that the hair from the swamp showed more advanced decomposition—after all, it had been there for almost six months.

E
VEN THOUGH WE DIDN’T LEARN
volumes from the remains, their discovery impacted every aspect of our case—especially our decision to seek the death penalty. Once Caylee’s remains were found and analyzed, we had to make a sober assessment of the story the evidence was telling us and readdress the penalty issue.

A couple of months earlier, our decision not to seek the death penalty had been based largely on the fact that we did not have a body and didn’t know exactly how Caylee had died. The discovery changed our decision on every level. A lot has been said about the decision to seek the death penalty, both before and after the trial. The death penalty is a visceral issue, and oftentimes it may feel as if the decision to seek the death penalty is made viscerally. Nothing could be further from the truth, no matter how horrific the crime. There are always arguments on both sides, but in the end the decision is always reached after we’ve weighed every aspect of the case. Such was the case with our eventual decision to pursue the death penalty against Casey Anthony.

In terms of the discussions that went into making this decision, the story behind those belongs to State Attorney Lawson Lamar. Lawson made the final decision and as such it was his to reveal as he saw fit. The questions he asked during our discussions and the answers we gave are kept in confidence. At the end of the day, only he knows why he made the decision that he did. I do, however, think I can help the public understand how the decision was reached by sharing my thought process.

First, consider the law. By Florida law, the death penalty is a possible sentence for any first-degree murder. But before the penalty can be imposed, certain additional factors must be present, and these were the factors that we considered when first making the death penalty decision prior to finding the remains. These factors are called “aggravating circumstances.” They are very specific and precisely laid out in Florida’s death penalty statute. Some circumstances depend upon facts about the victim: was she a young child, elderly and infirm, or a police officer or government official? Some deal with the issue of why the crime was committed: was it for financial gain, to eliminate a witness, or to disrupt the functioning of government? Some relate to how the crime was committed: was it committed during another felony, was it coldly planned in advance, was it torturous and cruel, involving conscious suffering by the victim? The last group of circumstances looks at the defendant’s criminal record: was the defendant ever in prison, on probation, or does he or she have a past history of conviction for violent crimes?

There are certain cases in which, while the defendant may be guilty of first-degree murder, none of the aggravating circumstances are present. The death penalty can never be applied to these people. There are other defendants whose cases are so horrendous that the death penalty must always be an option. For those in the middle of the spectrum, it is not merely the existence of the aggravating circumstances that must be considered, but the weight of them.