← 13th Juror Podcast
13th Juror Podcast
The Defense of Casey Anthony
00:39:57
Just when the case seems clear, Casey Anthony's defense turns everything upside down with a version of events no one saw coming. Shocking claims, fractured family dynamics, and disputed evidence collide to cast doubt on what really happened. As the narrative unravels, the truth becomes harder to define—and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:04]
A
Last week, you heard the state's case against accused killer Casey Anthony. A young mother who wanted freedom more than responsibility. A pattern of lies, a trunk that smelled of decomposition, and a toddler's remains found less than half a mile from home. According to prosecutors, the story was clear. Casey Anthony killed her daughter so she could live a bella vita, a beautiful life, without a child standing in the way. The timeline was laid out, the lies stacked up, and the forensic evidence, they argued, seemed to point in one direction. But this week, the defense stands up and tells a very different story. They don't deny the lies. They don't pretend the behavior looks good. They don't argue that Casey handled things the right way. And they don't even claim that someone else is responsible for her child's murder. Instead, they tell jurors Kaylee wasn't murdered at all. They say Kaylee's death was a tragic accident. Inside the family home. There was a moment of panic, followed by a split second mistake. And everything that followed, the lies, the strange behavior, the silence, was not about partying or freedom. It was about fear. According to the defense, this story didn't begin in June of 2008. It began years earlier. And in this version of events, the man who sat in court as a grieving grandfather is no longer just a witness. He becomes the center of the storm. This week, we examine the defense's explosive theory. The allegations that stunned the courtroom, ignited the media, and reframed this case in a way no one saw coming. The prosecution says she chose a social life over motherhood. The defense says this was a tragic accident covered up by a dysfunctional family. But it's the jurors who have the final say. This is the 13th juror podcast where we break down real court cases and put you in the juror's seat. Two sides, the same evidence. You decide what to believe. I'm your host, Brandi Churchwell. Today's episode is Florida vs Casey Anthony, Part 2. The Defense SAM Anytime the life of a child is lost, emotions run high. There's something about the innocence of a child, the life not yet lived, the future that will never unfold, that affects all of us. We mourn who they were and we mourn who they never got the chance to become. The defense knew they were walking into a courtroom already heavy with those emotions from the very beginning. In his opening statement, defense attorney Jose Baez acknowledged the obvious. This is a tragedy. A child's life ended far too soon. But he reminded jurors of something equally important. A tragedy does not automatically equal murder. Baez argued that the prosecution had spent weeks building a portrait of Casey Anthony, not a case against her. They showed the lies, the parties, the tattoo, the behavior that made people uncomfortable. They painted Casey Anthony as irresponsible, immature and selfish. But what they didn't show, he said, is any evidence that Casey Anthony is a murderer. He argued that once you convince someone to dislike a defendant, once you shatter their perception, they begin to look at every piece of evidence through a more sinister lens. But being a liar, he said, does not make someone a killer. The state, he argued, wanted the jury to react, to feel outrage, to judge character instead of facts. But verdicts cannot be based on emotion. They're based on proof. Baez asked jurors to put aside the headlines, the public outrage, and the nickname that followed his client for three years, the most hated woman in America. He told them to focus only on one has the state proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Baez told jurors that when you strip away the emotion, when you stop reacting to the lies and start examining the science and the evidence, the prosecution's case begins to look very different. And the reason for that, he said, is because this isn't a murder case at all. Jose Baez presented a version of events that no one had yet heard inside that courtroom. He said Kaylee's death wasn't premeditated murder. It was a tragic accident. And the reason that they were only hearing this account now, he claimed, was because the real story had been buried, entangled with dark, deeply rooted family secrets that had existed inside the Anthony home long before Kaylee ever disappeared. According to the evidence and testimony they presented, this is the defense's story. The state's entire case was built on one premise. This was murder. But the defense told the jury something radically different. This was not murder, they said. This was a tragic accident. Kaylee Anthony loved to swim. The Anthony home had an above ground pool in the backyard. There were photographs shown to the jury. Kaylee in her life jacket, smiling, splashing and jumping into the water. According to testimony, some morning she would wake up and ask her grandfather Jojo swim. That was George's cue to take her outside. The pool had a removable ladder that was supposed to come down when swimming was over. Cindy Anthony was described as particularly strict about that rule. Safety first always, according to the defense. On the evening of June 15, Cindy had been in the pool. And this time they said she forgot to remove the ladder. The next morning, June 16, Cindy left for work. The defense said that Casey was Still asleep. When George woke up and began looking for Kaylee. She wasn't in her bedroom. She wasn't in the house. According to the defense, George woke Casey up and asked her, where is Kaylee? The defense told jurors that Casey and George began searching for Kaylee, first inside, then outside. And then, they said, George found her. Kaley was in the pool, unresponsive and lifeless. According to the defense, George pulled her from the water, turned to Casey and yelled, what did you do? Kaylee was tiny, not yet three years old. But the defense pointed out there were no childproof locks on the sliding glass door leading to the backyard. They showed the jury a photograph of Kaylee opening that very door by herself. Their theory was simple. Kaylee woke up, she went outside. The ladder was still attached. She climbed up, and she drowned. Tragic accident. According to the defense, what should have happened next was a call to 911. But they said, that's not what happened. They argued it was already too late. Kaylee was gone. And then the story takes another turn. The defense claimed that George, furious and panicked, blamed Casey for being careless. And instead of calling for help, they said, he made a decision. He helped cover it up. The defense acknowledged that Casey lied to her mother, her friends, her boyfriend, and then to the police. But they argued those lies did not stem from guilt over murder. They stemmed from something much deeper. According to the defense, Casey had been sexually abused by her father, George, from a young age. They argued that lying had become a survival mechanism, a way to function in a household where secrets were buried and appearances were maintained. They said Casey learned early how to compartmentalize, how to smile in public while hiding trauma in private. So when Kaylee died in what they described as a devastating accident, Casey reverted to what she had always done when faced with fear. She lied. The defense told jurors that the behavior the public found so shocking, the parties, the strange calmness, the detachment, were not signs of a killer. They were the coping mechanisms of someone deeply damaged. They did not ask the jury to approve of Casey's behavior. They asked them to distinguish between bad behavior and murder because, they argued, you cannot convict someone of first degree premeditated murder for being immature, dishonest, or psychologically broken. And you certainly cannot convict on outrage alone. For weeks, the prosecution had positioned Casey Anthony as the villain, the young mother who wanted freedom, the liar, the woman who chose herself over her child. But in the defense's version of events, even though they claimed Kaylee's death was a tragic accident, there was a villain in the story. It just wasn't Casey. When Jose Baez delivered his opening statement and accused George Anthony of sexual abuse, the courtroom shifted. George sat beside his wife, Cindy, as the allegations were laid out in front of the jury, not as speculation, but as part of the defense's explanation for any everything that followed. But the defense's portrayal of George as the antagonist did not begin and end with that accusation. They painted a broader picture. A former law enforcement officer, a man obsessed with image and control. A father who, they argued, had secrets of his own. According to the defense, George was not just present the morning Caylee died. He was central to what happened next. They suggested he was the one who reacted first, the one who decided what to do and what not to do. And as the defense began to dissect the family dynamics, the narrative became less about a single tragic morning and more about years of dysfunction simmering beneath the surface. According to Baez, the lies didn't start with Kayce. They were inherited. When George Anthony took the stand, the question that had already shaken the courtroom and was put to him directly. Had he sexually abused his daughter? George denied it. He told the jury he had never been anything but a loving, attentive father. But the defense wasn't finished. Jose Baez began his cross examination. It was pointed, methodical and relentless. He pressed George on inconsistencies, on prior statements, on timelines, on what he did and did not do the morning Kaylee disappeared. As the questioning intensified, the tone in the courtroom shifted. The jury watched George's demeanor change. His answers grew shorter and sharper. At times, he spoke over Baez. At other moments, his responses carried an edge of irritation. When pushed, he pushed back. His voice rose and his composure wavered. It was a stark contrast to the image jurors had previously seen. The soft spoken grandfather pleading for his granddaughter's safe return in those early news clips. Whether it was grief, frustration or anger at the allegations themselves, the defense had accomplished something important. They had introduced doubt about George's calm, controlled image. And in doing so, they reframed him, not just as a witness, but as someone whose credibility was now under scrutiny. It was through that lens, questioning George's credibility and character, that the defense began introducing additional pieces of evidence they argued the jury needed to consider. They pointed to past fractures in his marriage, financial strain, gambling issues, a period when George temporarily moved out of the family home. They revisited arguments between George and Cindy, moments when George seemed determined to catch Kayce and lies only to be told by Cindy to let it go. The defense suggested a pattern Tension, control and secrets simmering beneath the surface long before June of 2008. And then they introduced something more personal, an allegation they described as the ultimate betrayal. While Kaylee was still missing, while the country watched George Anthony on television pleading for his granddaughter's safe return, the defense revealed that he was involved in a relationship with another woman. Her name was Crystal Holloway. She was a volunteer who became involved in the search efforts for Kaley in the early days of the investigation. Through those efforts, she met George Anthony. According to the defense, the relationship between George and Holloway became personal and eventually romantic, while Kaylee was still missing. To the jury, the timing mattered. The country had watched George Anthony give emotional interviews. They had seen him plead publicly for his granddaughter's safe return. They had seen him appear grief stricken and desperate. And yet the defense revealed that during that same time period, George was engaged in an affair. But the defense didn't stop at the existence of the relationship. They called Crystal Holloway to the standard. Holloway testified that during their relationship, George had made statements to her about what happened to Kaley. She claimed he told her Kaley's death had been an accident, that she had drowned, and that he had covered it up to protect Casey. Those statements were explosive. However, when pressed, Holloway admitted that she had not come forward immediately with this information. In fact, she acknowledged that she had previously told investigators that she she didn't know anything about Kaylee's death. Prosecutors challenged her credibility by suggesting she may have been motivated by personal feelings or resentment after their relationship ended. They also revealed that she had been paid $4,000 to give this story to National Enquirer, suggesting that her motivation was financial as well. George Anthony took the stand again and categorically denied ever making those statements. And when the prosecution pulled up her original statement, it showed that Holloway had actually told police that George believed it was an accident and that Casey had tried to cover it up. But by the time this came out on cross examination, the damage seemed to have been done. The defense argued that Holloway's testimony wasn't about proving exactly what happened. It was about raising doubt. If George had been unfaithful while publicly presenting himself as a grieving grandfather, if he had confided something different in private, then perhaps he was not as transparent as he appeared to the jury. It became yet another layer of complexity, because now the question wasn't only whether Casey had lied, it was whether George had lied, too. The defense also focused heavily on the duct tape. When Kaylee's remains were recovered, duct tape was found in the area of her skull. Prosecutors had argued that the tape was placed over her mouth and nose, that it was the murder weapon. But the defense zeroed in on something more specific. The brand testimony established the duct tape recovered was not a common generic role. It was a particular brand, one that featured a distinctive logo printed directly on the tape itself. That detail was important because during trial, the defense introduced video footage taken during one of the volunteer search efforts organized while Kaylee was still missing. In that footage, George Anthony is seen at a table speaking with volunteers. And sitting behind him on that table, clearly visible, is a roll of duct tape, the same brand, the same logo printed across it. The defense argued that was significant, that if this specific tape was present at the Anthony home during the search efforts, it could not be tied exclusively to Casey. They went a step further. Investigators had also recovered a piece of that same distinctive duct tape attached to the gas cans in George's shed. At one point, George suggested that Casey must have placed that tape there when she used the gas cans. But the defense challenged that. They pointed out that George had previously handled those same gas cans and that, according to prior statements, the tape had not been there before. So the question became, who placed it there? The defense did not have to prove George used the tape on Kaylee. They only had to show that the tape, like so much else in this case, was not exclusively connected to Casey. If that roll of tape was accessible in the home, if George had handled it, if the same brand appeared in multiple places under his control, then the certainty the prosecution relied on began to soften. For the defense, this wasn't about proving George committed a crime. It was about raising reasonable doubt. Because if the duct tape could not be definitively tied to Casey, if it could have come from anywhere inside that home, then the state's theory of premeditated murder became less airtight. The duct tape evidence, according to Baez, pointed to only one person. Baez also turned his attention to inconsistencies, particularly those involving George and Cindy and the location where Kaylee's remains were ultimately found. The prosecution had argued that the proximity of the remains less than half a mile from the Anthony home pointed directly to Casey. Who else, they suggested, would choose a location so close? But the defense said that conclusion wasn't as simple as it sounded. They began with a neighbor who testified that Casey borrowed a shovel from him within a day or two of Kaylee's disappearance. This, the state implied it was a failed attempt to conceal Kaylee by digging a grave in the backyard. But on cross examination, the neighbor admitted that When Casey returned the shovel, she didn't appear sweaty or exhausted, not like someone who had been digging in the Florida summer heat. And the defense pointed out something else. There were shovels inside the Anthony garage. If Casey had truly intended to bury her daughter, why borrow one from a neighbor and risk creating a witness? The prosecution argued that once Casey realized she couldn't bury Kaylee in the yard, she disposed of her in the wooded area nearby. But the defense focused on that wooded area. They called Dominique Casey, a private investigator hired by the Anthony family. He testified that In November of 2008, one month before Kaylee's remains were discovered, he had searched that very stretch of woods. He said he had been directed there by a psychic that Cindy Anthony had consulted. Lead detective Yuri Melish acknowledged that Cindy told him she had people searching that area. Yet when questioned about it at trial, the defense suggested Cindy was less than forthcoming about sending anyone there. Baez asked jurors to consider the odds. What are the chances that searchers were combing the exact spot where Kaylee would later be found? And found nothing. Then the defense did something no one saw coming. They turned their attention to the man who found Kaylee's remains. And they suggested he might be more than just a witness. And suddenly, it felt like the entire case was about to turn upside down.
- [20:05]
B
As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises, like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's the surprise you will like with Progressive. Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressivecommercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations.
- [20:38]
A
In the prosecution's narrative, Roy Kronk was simply a utility worker who stopped along the roadside on December 11, 2008, and noticed something. He discovered a skull. He called it in, deputies arrived, and that was it. But the defense presented a different timeline. Cronk had been in that same area before. In August of 2008, four months earlier, Cronk was in the area with co workers when he said he believed he saw a skull. As they walked toward where he saw it, the men saw a snake and were distracted. Later that afternoon, Kronk called 911 to report that he believed he had seen a skull in the woods. He called again the next day, providing additional details. On August 13, a deputy met him at the location. They searched, but did not find remains. Cronk later testified that the deputy had been dismissive and rude and the search ended without results. Meanwhile, the search for Kaylee continued. A $250,000 reward was announced for information leading to her return. The defense suggested that reward became Kronk's motivation. They called his co workers and even his estranged son, who testified that Kronk had talked about being rich and famous. He even told them to watch for him on television. Then came December 11th. Kronk returned to the same location and again reported finding remains. This time, deputies responded and located Kaylee's skeletal remains. But Baez highlighted discrepancies. Initially, Cronk stated that he had lifted a bag and a skull fell out. Later, he revised that account. He also did not immediately disclose that he had previously reported the same location months earlier. To the defense, that omission was significant. They argued that if Cronk knew the location of the remains for four months and had returned multiple times, then he had access to that scene long before law enforcement had secured it. And if that were true, they suggested, the integrity of the scene was compromised. Baez went further. He described Kronk as unreliable, motivated by money. A man whose actions created doubt about what happened in those woods and when. Because if the scene itself could not be trusted, then neither could the conclusions drawn from it. For the defense, this wasn't about proving Roy Kronk planted evidence. What he found in those woods may be real, but can you be certain of how it got there? Or has the scene itself now been compromised? And while the defense chipped away at the credibility of others involved in this case, they also turned the jury's attention towards something else entirely. Casey Anthony as a mother. Because if the state's theory was true, if this was a calculated, premeditated murder, then the defense argued there should have been signs, red flags, history, warnings that something was wrong. But witness after witness took the stand and described something very different. Friends testified that Casey was attentive with Kaylee, that she played with her, fed her, bathed her, that she rarely went anywhere without her. Tony Lazzaro, her boyfriend at the time, described seeing Casey care for Kaylee. He said she seemed patient, loving, engaged. Other friends echoed the same sentiment. They did not describe neglect. They did not describe anger. They did not describe resentment toward her child. They described a young mother who appeared devoted. The defense emphasized that there were no prior reports to Child Services, no documented history of abuse, no medical records suggesting harm, no witness who ever saw Casey mistreat her daughter. If Kayce Anthony had been planning to murder her child, the Defense asked, where were the warning signs? Where was the pattern of cruelty? Instead, jurors heard testimony that painted a picture of a mother who may have been immature, who may have lied, who may have made poor decisions, but not one who was violent, not one who was abusive, and certainly not one who had ever harmed her daughter before. For the defense, this was critical because premeditated murder requires intent. And intent, they argued, would have left footprints. After challenging George's credibility, after reframing the family dynamics, after presenting witnesses who described Casey as a loving mother, the defense turned to the science. Jose Baez gave it a name. Fantasy forensics. He told jurors that the state had built a murder case not on hard proof, but on interpretation, on inference, on creative connections presented a certainty. He started with the trunk. Baez told jurors that this trial was going to be twice as long because of testimony presented about the car. But the car, he argued, told them nothing about how Kaylee died. The only role the car played, he said, was how she may or may not have been transported at some point. But nothing that was found in or around that car can point them toward a murder or a cause of death. No blood was found, no trace DNA tying Kaylee to the trunk. Swabs taken from inside the vehicle did not reveal evidence of a body. Body. The prosecution had also leaned heavily on one strand of hair that was found in the trunk, a single hair that analysts testified showed what they called a decomposition band, sometimes referred to as a death band. But Baez reminded jurors, out of hundreds of hairs tested from that vehicle, only one displayed that marking. 1. He argued that if a decomposing body had been in that trunk, there would be more than a single strand showing signs of postmortem change. And even then, he said, the science itself was unsettled. The analysts who testified about the so called death band later conducted studies examining environmental effects on hair. The defense suggested that even they were still trying to validate their own conclusions. Neither expert could say how long that hair had been in the trunk. They could have been there for days, it could have been there for years. And the marking itself, the defense argued, it could be caused by environmental factors, not necessarily death. Then Baez turned to what he openly mocked as the most dramatic part of the state's the odor evidence. Dr. Arpad Vass had testified about air samples collected from the trunk and compounds he believed were consistent with human decomposition. Baez was openly dismissive. He told jurors this was not established forensic science. It was an experiment, a science project. He suggested from a man promoting a machine that had never been used before in a criminal courtroom to prove murder. He pointed out that the methodology had never been accepted as standard practice, that this was the first time this type of air sample analysis had been presented to a jury as evidence of homicide. And then there was the chloroform. The prosecution had argued that elevated levels of chloroform found in the trunk supported a theory that Casey researched and used it to incapacitate Kaylee. But Baez countered with testimony from an FBI chemist who stated the chloroform levels detected were not shockingly high and could be consistent with common household cleaning products. To the defense, that detail was crucial, because if chloroform could be explained by something ordinary, if the hair evidence was inconclusive, if there was no blood, no tissue, no definitive biological proof of a body in that trunk, then what remained? Baez called it nonsense, absurd, desperate. He told jurors that the state had stitched together speculation and called it science. And he urged them not to convict based on what he described as forensic fantasy. To drive the point home, the defense did something simple. They asked. One by one, witnesses were questioned about the smell in the trunk. Did you smell anything? And as it turns out, many didn't. Several law enforcement officers testified that they did not notice an odor consistent with human decomposition. One of Casey's friends said she rode in the car during the month Kaylee was missing and never detected anything unusual. Tony Lazzaro testified that when Casey ran out of gas and he came to pick her up, he didn't notice a smell. He told jurors that Casey even placed the gas cans in the trunk while he was there. She didn't act secretive. She didn't try to keep him away from the car. Then there was Cindy Anthony. Jurors had heard the now famous 911 call. Cindy telling dispatchers it smelled like a dead body. Body had been in the trunk. But on the stand, Cindy walked that statement back. She testified that she made that comment to ensure police responded quickly, not because she was certain of what she had smelled. The defense pressed George Anthony as well. George had testified that the odor in the trunk was unmistakable, something he recognized from his time in law enforcement. A smell you never forget. But Baez pointed out something else. If George truly believed he smelled a decomposing body, why did he simply go to work that afternoon? Why wasn't there immediate panic? Why no emergency call from him? The defense wasn't claiming there was no smell at all. They were arguing that it wasn't what the prosecution said it was. Because when the car was retrieved from the tow yard, there was something else inside the trunk. A bag of trash. It had been sitting in the Florida heat and for nearly two weeks. When the tow yard manager opened the trunk, he found the bag heavily decomposed, so much so that it was infested with maggots. He removed the bag and threw it into a dumpster before the Anthony family took possession of the vehicle. Later, law enforcement recovered that trash bag and brought it back to the station. But instead of preserving it in its original state, the contents were placed in a drying room to air out before being analyzed. The defense argued that whatever that bag originally contained, whatever odor it produced, was fundamentally altered by the way it was handled. If the smell in the trunk came from decomposing garbage, Baez argued, the ability to prove that was destroyed. He suggested that by drying it out, investigators eliminated the chance to determine whether the odor was from household trash or something more sinister. And he didn't just call it sloppy. He called it suspicious. To the defense, this wasn't just about science. It was about whether the investigation had been conducted in a way that protected the integrity of evidence or in a way that supported a narrative already in motion. So if this was truly an accident, if Kaylee drowned in the pool, what about the computer searches? Prosecutors had presented testimony that forensic analysis of the Anthony family computer revealed searches for the word chloroform not just once, but multiple times. Google searches, Wikipedia searches, even the phrase how to make chloroform. The browsing history had been deleted, but analysts testified that through forensic recovery, they were able to locate remnants of those searches on the hard drive to the state. This was powerful, they argued. It showed premeditation, research into a chemical capable of rendering someone unconscious. Then Cindy Anthony took the stand and stunned the courtroom. Cindy testified that she was responsible for the chloroform searches, not Casey. She claimed that In March of 2008, months before Kaylee disappeared, she had been researching something related to her dog. She said she initially searched for chlorophyll, believing her dog may have been poisoned from eating bamboo leaves in the backyard. From there, she said, her search terms drifted chlorophyll to chloroform. She also attempted to explain other alarming terms recovered from the computer, including neck breaking. Cindy testified that that phrase appeared as a pop up while she was browsing, not something she intentionally searched. The prosecutors challenged that explanation. Digital forensic testimony indicated that the chloroform searches occurred at Times when Cindy was logged into her computer at work, not at home. Analysts further testified that the term neck breaking had been manually typed into a Google search bar, not generated by a pop up. The timeline, according to the state, pointed back to Casey. The defense, however, offered yet another explanation. At the time of those searches, Casey was dating Ricardo Morales. Baez displayed an image posted on Morales MySpace page, a photo of a couple dining together, with the caption, win her over with chloroform. Baez suggested that the phrase caught Casey's attention, that she may have searched the term out of curiosity, not intent, not as part of a murder plot, Just a young woman clicking on something provocative she saw online. And without proof that chloroform was ever purchased, created or used, the defense argued, the searches alone were not enough to prove murder. By the time the defense rested, the story looked very different than it had just weeks earlier. The prosecution had presented a calculated murder. A young mother who wanted freedom. Chloroform, duct tape, a body in the trunk. But the defense asked the jury to see something else. A tragic accident, a dysfunctional family, a flawed investigation. Science that they argued, stretched beyond certainty. They said that circumstantial cases require jurors to connect the dots. But this, they argued, went beyond connecting dots. Baez said that the prosecution in this case is asking the jurors to speculate, and speculation isn't what's required by law. The defense did not ask jurors to like Casey Anthony. They did not defend her lies or excuse her behavior. They acknowledged it. But they asked a narrower question. Not is she a good person? Not did she lie? Not did she act strangely? The question was this. Did the state of Florida prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony intentionally murdered her daughter? The defense argued they did not. No blood in the trunk, no DNA tying Kaylee to that vehicle. A single strand of hair, A controversial air sample, test search terms open to interpretation. A discovery scene clouded by inconsistencies. And beneath all of it, a family with fractures that ran deeper than anyone on the outside realized. But most importantly, there was no definitive cause of death. No matter how much the prosecution tried, the defense argued they could not prove how Kaylee Anthony even died. According to the defense, this was not a case about proving innocence. It was about proving doubt. And if even one juror could say, I'm not certain, then the law required only one outcome. In his closing arguments, Bias told the jury that if this were a case about lying or behaving strangely or even improper disposal of a body, there would be a different expectation on the verdict. But he said these are trumped up charges by a prosecution that refused to see anything other than what they chose to see. And the only just verdict is a not guilty. After three weeks of testimony, after 33 days of witnesses, science accusations and cross examinations, the case was finally in the jury's hands. 12 men and women were sequestered, cut off from the noise. No headlines, no commentary, no public outrage, just the evidence. They deliberated for more than 10 hours over two days. Outside the courthouse, cameras lined the sidewalks. Protesters gathered. The Nation waited. On July 5, 2011, the jury filed back into the courtroom. Casey Anthony stood as the clerk began to read. We the jury find the defendant not guilty. Not guilty of first degree murder. Not guilty of aggravated child abuse. Not guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child. The courtroom was silent for a split second, as if the words hadn't fully landed. Then the reaction began. Gasps, whispers, and utter shock filled the gallery. Outside, the crowd erupted in anger. Across the country, viewers stared at their televisions in disbelief. How could this happen? How could a case that felt so certain end this way? But inside that courtroom, the standard was not public opinion. It was reasonable doubt. Casey Anthony was convicted on only four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to law enforcement. She would later be released for time served, and the verdict would become one of the most controversial and more modern American legal history. But the story doesn't end with the verdict because years later, new information surfaced. Internet search history from the day Kaylee disappeared. Data that was missed and not introduced at trial suggested additional activity on the Anthony family computer, activity that some believe could have changed everything. We'll go over what was searched and what. Why the jury didn't get to hear it. And if they had heard it, would the outcome have been different? Next week, we step beyond the jury box to take a look at the shocking information jurors never got to consider and the questions that still linger. We'll also look at where the key players stand today. Casey Anthony, who largely withdrew from public life after her acquittal, has reemerged in recent years, granting interviews, participating in documentaries, and sparking fresh controversy with news new claims about what happened inside that home. George and Cindy Anthony have also spoken publicly, including participating in a documentary special where both submitted to polygraph examinations. What were the results? Did they pass? And did those tests clarify anything or deepen the divide? And finally, we'll examine explosive court filings from a former defense insider who made shocking allegations about what Casey may have admitted. Behind closed doors and how her defense was funded. More than a decade has passed, but the nation still mourns the loss of a beautiful little girl while her mother is still surrounded in controversy. The jury rendered its verdict, but the court of public opinion is still deliberating. Thirteenth Year is an Audio Chuck production hosted by Brandi Churchwell. Ashley Flowers is executive producer. You can follow 13th Juror on Instagram. 13th year podcast I think Chuck would approve.