published Monday, July 18th, 2011

Elaborate plans made to keep Anthony safe

Casey Anthony, center, walks to a SUV with her lawyer Jose Baez after her release from the Orange County Jail in Orlando, Fla., early Sunday, July 17, 2011. Anthony was acquitted July 5 of murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
Casey Anthony, center, walks to a SUV with her lawyer Jose Baez after her release from the Orange County Jail in Orlando, Fla., early Sunday, July 17, 2011. Anthony was acquitted July 5 of murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

ORLANDO, Fla. — Casey Anthony’s whereabouts for her first week of freedom were a closely guarded secret today, known only to a select few as she tries to start a new life after being acquitted of killing her daughter. One of her lawyers says an elaborate plan was made to protect her from people with “the lynch-mob mentality.”

Her options for starting a new life could be limited by lawsuits pending against her, the scorn of multitudes who think she was guilty of the killing and a criminal record from her convictions for lying to police. She walked out of jail on Sunday, shortly after midnight.

Her attorney Cheney Mason told NBC’s Today Show today that he’s confident in Anthony’s safety, but declined to answer questions about where she was.

“She’s gone, she’s safe and elaborate plans had to be made to keep the people away from her,” Mason said. “Her life is going to be very difficult for a very long time as long as there are so many people of the lynch-mob mentality.”

Asked about how Anthony was paying for her fresh start, Mason replied that many volunteers have offered their help.

Her notoriety could also help her earn money. Experts who have helped other notorious defendants through rough times say she will have opportunities, but it won’t be easy for the 25-year-old, who was found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, but convicted of lying to investigators.

In response to a question about whether Anthony planned to cash in on her fame, her lead attorney Jose Baez told Fox News Channel late Sunday that she has “certain rights as an individual in this country.” Attorneys planned to handle Anthony’s affairs in a “dignified manner,” he said.

“If she decides she wants to speak publicly about it, she’ll make that decision,” he said.

Baez and other attorneys didn’t respond Sunday to email and phone messages left by The Associated Press, nor did a lawyer representing her father and mother. And in the Fox News interview, Baez declined to talk about his client’s whereabouts or state of mind.

Another former Anthony lawyer, Terry Lenamon, said he had no clue where she was headed, and that probably only a few people close to her knew.

“I wouldn’t want anyone to know,” he said. “I think she needs to go underground and I think she needs to spend some time to get her life back together.”

Anthony’s July 5 acquittal shocked and enraged many around the country who had been following the case since Caylee’s 2008 disappearance. Anger has spilled onto social media sites and elsewhere. Her legal team said on Friday it had received an emailed death threat.

Anthony did not report her daughter’s disappearance for a month and was arrested after telling a string of lies about the case to police. Caylee’s remains were found in December 2008 near the home Casey Anthony shared with her parents.

Prosecutors alleged that Anthony suffocated her daughter with duct tape because motherhood interfered with her desire for a carefree life, but her lawyers said the girl drowned in an accident that snowballed out of control. Some of the jurors who acquitted Anthony said they believe she bears some responsibility for her daughter’s death but that prosecutors failed to prove that she murdered the child.

Anthony had remained in jail to finish a four-year sentence for lying to investigators. With credit for the nearly three years she’d spent in jail since August 2008 and good behavior, she had only days remaining when she was sentenced July 7.

Her public vilification did not ease with her release from jail. “A baby killer was just set free!” Bree Thornton, 39, shouted as the SUV left the jail.

It won’t be impossible for Anthony to get a fresh start, though it will be difficult, said Los Angeles-based attorney Thomas Mesereau. His clients have included the late singer Michael Jackson when he was charged with child molestation and actor Robert Blake when he was charged with murdering his wife.

Anthony could accept requests for paid interviews, or a benefactor may be able to help her in the short term, Mesereau said.

“When you have that degree of celebrity, there is usually somebody who would like to get involved,” Mesereau said. “The problem is trusting anyone. People are willing to leak things to the media. They’re willing to be paid off for information. It’s very difficult to find people whom you can trust.”

Casey Anthony’s relationship with her parents is strained. During trial, Anthony’s defense attorneys argued that her father, George Anthony, molested Casey as a child and covered up Caylee’s death. He has denied both claims, and neither has been substantiated.

What is known is that Casey Anthony still faces a slew of legal problems even though the criminal charges have been resolved. She has been sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars by a Texas group that searched for Caylee in the weeks after she was reported missing, and prosecutors are seeking to recoup the cost of their investigation into Caylee’s disappearance.

Anthony also is being sued for defamation by a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez who claims she has been harassed and unable to find work after Anthony alleged Caylee was kidnapped by a baby sitter with Gonzalez’ name. The woman’s attorneys had wanted to depose Anthony before she left jail, but the deposition was rescheduled for October.

Any of those civil cases could put a major dent in any money Anthony receives for writing a book, signing a movie deal or doing interviews. Anthony is broke, and her defense team was paid for with taxpayers’ money after $200,000 she received from ABC News was spent.

Several book publishers contacted by The Associated Press said they knew of no memoir that was being shopped around and consider her too tainted to sign a deal.

Anthony could avoid the potential liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lawsuits by filing for bankruptcy, though plaintiffs would probably attempt to keep her on the hook for damages if she signs lucrative deals after filing, said R. Scott Shuker, an Orlando bankruptcy attorney.

An important step in building a new life is getting psychological help to cope with her notoriety, severed family ties and newfound freedom, said attorneys with clients in similar circumstances.

“Everything she has been through, that’s more than most people can deal with in a lifetime,” said Daniel Meachum, an Atlanta attorney who has represented football player Michael Vick when he was convicted of dog fighting and actor Wesley Snipes when he was convicted of tax evasion.

Media relations expert Marti Mackenzie, who specialized in legal cases, said it’s important for Anthony to make some kind of public statement soon. She said a standard news conference is out of the question, but Anthony needs to say she made terrible mistakes, that she is grateful to her defense team and that she has thought about what happened every day of her life in jail.

“In traditional public relations language, it’s called feeding the beast,” Mackenzie said. “Even if you don’t give the beast a full meal, you respond. Because once you’re part of media scrutiny ... how it is handled once the case is over will help to set a tone.”

about Associated Press...

The Associated Press

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
JoeHill said...

While we focus our gaze on Casey Anthony, a committee hearing in the House of Reps is casting theirs on the Fair Labor Standards Act, which establishes a minimum wage and overtime pay for hardworking people who have been falling behind for decades.

July 18, 2011 at 2:41 a.m.
johnnyhurst said...

The Walnut street bridge has become a scene of "The War Zone" once again.

July 18, 2011 at 6:15 a.m.
bigbearzzz said...

The USA Women's Soccer Team gave it away to Japan....bummer.

July 18, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

very true, l4f.....the left believes businesses exist to hire employees, and profit is not really a factor.

it's america, wildman, they can decorate anyway they want. i'm from up north, it doesn't bother me.

i hope this is the last casey anthony piece in this paper.

it's cliche, but, she's made her bed and she has to lie in it.

July 18, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Some of the disguises and name changes Casey is considering.

July 18, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
dao1980 said...

How funny, some folks walk or saunter, but according to the headline, this chick "slips".

July 18, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
eastridge8 said...'s called freedom of speech/expression...ever heard of it?? The owners can decorate anyway they want!!

harrystatel...I vote for Daisy Ducttape...I'm sick of looking at her face!! Maybe she could move to Iran/Iraq, she'd blend right in...perfect place for her...H*LL on earth for women!!

July 18, 2011 at 9:58 a.m.
Humphrey said...

"people here are proud of their CONFEDERATE HERITAGE"

what is that exactly?

July 18, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
dude_abides said...

it's america, wildman, they can decorate anyway they want. i'm from up north, it doesn't bother me. -SeaMonkey

Could someone decorate a building like a Mosque, SeaMonkey? Apparently not, if your man Herman Cain has a say! How do you mitigate those two problems in your head, SeaMonkey? Sounds like Cain doesn't believe in the same America you do. Wasn't this apparent when you went to his 40 person rally all the way down in Atlanta?

July 18, 2011 at 10:49 a.m.
stingking4 said...


July 18, 2011 at 11:20 a.m.
Humphrey said...

So "confederate heritage" means pictures of the national cemetery?

July 18, 2011 at 12:08 p.m.
Leaf said...

I thought confederate heritage meant slavery?

July 18, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Sweet H&K UMP .45!

July 18, 2011 at 2:04 p.m.
rolando said...

Libertarian4Free -- I have been to Arlington Cemetery many times and was not aware that Memorial was there. Most interesting. Thanks for the cite.

One question, the graves were being decorated with Battle Flags. I suspect that may be traditional, but seems deliberately incendiary. Why not one of the true CSA flags?

July 18, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
rolando said...

The only thing overplayed is the "slavery" connection as the cause of war, wildman. There is ample evidence in the publications of the era to indicate other causes.

But then the North won and we all know the winners write the histories...but they shortly imposed their own form of "slavery" on the South, didn't they?

The detestation for them and their policies lingers...

July 18, 2011 at 4:21 p.m.
johnnyhurst said...

My folks have been from Tennessee dor two hundred years and were known as Homemade Yankees, we had a place over in West Tn called The Hurst Nation. The Hursts were arch enemies with That Devil Forrest. They used rebels executed corpses as mile markers.

Despair for the children who lie now in bed. The widow, the aged the soldier who bled. For out of the "Nation" comes a sickness and curse -God save us all From the demon called Hurst.

Like vandals of old through our land theydid ride With Hunger and Death always close by their side. Came Terror, his herald -but the wailing comes first . . . We know he is coming, That demon called Hurst.

July 18, 2011 at 5:25 p.m.
rolando said...

What newspaper would publish their photo if they did, wildman? The National Inquirer? Everyone would assume it was PhotoShopped...

So, sadly, I must answer, "I have no idea."

July 18, 2011 at 5:27 p.m.
johnnyhurst said...

New History for me

July 18, 2011 at 5:43 p.m.
johnnyhurst said...

Dont you realise how dangerous cl is wildman? No thanks. Didnt realise there was a stono rebellion. My bad

July 18, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.
Legend said...

rolando said...

The only thing overplayed is the "slavery" connection as the cause of war, wildman. There is ample evidence in the publications of the era to indicate other causes

other cause? for war? Isn't that true for EVERY war ever fought? Do you really think Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan so the people of those two countries can enjoy America's freedoms?

States rights for the south meant the right to continue the practice of human bondage AKA slavery*.

July 18, 2011 at 6:31 p.m.
rolando said...

So you have bought into the "slavery" schtick, wildman. It is in a number of OUR constitutions, too, you know.

I presume you also know that that "peculiar institution" was first abolished in the states in rebellion then, finally, in the rest of the slave-holding states and the US in general.

Says a lot about what the fighting was really about, doesn't it?

And if the winner does not write the history books, who does? Do you accept our version of WW2 as gospel?

You say little of the North's enslavement of the South...perhaps because they don't teach that in schools using the North's version of history.

Generally, Southerners could not vote, they had no Representation, they could not hold jobs or run for public office at any level except by permission, and all the other things our constitution forbade to slaves...and perhaps the indentured, if memory serves.

For all intents and purposes, the Northern Legislature turned the South into a separate, subservient, conquered, occupied foreign nation. They ruled it with a military iron hand. They certainly weren't welcomed back as the prodigal son.

Nothing in our constitution forbade or forbids state[s] from leaving the United States to form another nation. The states did not and have not become the property of the United States to treat with as it will.

July 18, 2011 at 6:34 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, Legend, since slavery was the heart of Southern industry -- with no substitute available, suitable or not -- what else were they to do? Their financial basis depended on it, whether they wanted it or not. No tractors, etc available, you see...nothing but manpower.

Nutshellish -- The Northern-dominated Legislature refused to allow the Southern agri-businesses to ship their products -- cotton mostly -- directly overseas using foreign shipping. Northern shipping magnates and their lobbyists were hard a work making sure it never happened.

So all products exported had to be shipped from Northern ports using Northern shipping at Northern shipping rates. They were strangling the South financially, of course, and reaping huge profits.

[King George did much the same to "his" colonies. All goods had to go through English ports, in English ships, at English rates, etc...which prompted a git of an uprising. So the South had not just a precedent to follow but a mandated duty, you see. It is written right there in one of our Documents of Freedom.]

That's just ONE "additional cause" for was with England as it was for the North.

July 18, 2011 at 6:50 p.m.
Legend said...

johnnyh said: The Walnut street bridge has become a scene of "The War Zone" once again.


johnnyh, try keeping up with the updates.

wdef 12 excerpt

the call of shots fired on the Walnut Street Bridge. Some on-lookers reported to police that there were children with fireworks which is believed to be the source of the shots fired call. Police are currently reviewing video from cameras in the downtown area to see if there’s footage of anything not found by officers working in the area. At this point, the call has been unfounded until new evidence or a victim can be located.

July 18, 2011 at 6:51 p.m.
Legend said...

rolando said... Well, Legend, since slavery was the heart of Southern industry -- with no substitute available, suitable or not -- what else were they to do? Their financial basis depended on it, whether they wanted it or not. No tractors, etc available, you see...nothing but manpower.

But you're the one who keeps shouting slavery had nothing to do with the war between the states. Now you're saying, slavery DID in fact played a role in the civil war? Which is it? Can you make up your mind?

July 18, 2011 at 6:55 p.m.
rolando said...

Sorry, wildman, what does search and seizure have to do with the topic? You lost me. Did you mean to type 14th? That came well after the war ended, not before. Long history about the Northern machinations to get that one passed, too...physically barring entry to the Senate of Senators opposed to the Amendment, the South was represented by handpicked representatives have no connection with the South, etc.

Again, you lost me with the "jobs" jump. You mean the shipping of product overseas? We were a fertile farmland at that time with a large surplus of cotton which required manpower to plant, grow, and pick. With the manpower, cotton would be grown here; without manpower, it wouldn't.

July 18, 2011 at 7:05 p.m.
Humphrey said...

What a load of BS - who was picking that "product" of cotton? Slaves. The whole economic structure was based on slavery. To deny that is a fool's errand.

If you know your history, you know that there were several units from Tennessee that fought to preserve the USA in the civil war. Among my ancestors, one branch had four that fought for the union, another branch had one that fought for the successionists. Others in my family that didn't fight moved supplies for the union. They supported the union because they supported this USA and because they didn't own slaves and they didn't support slavery. It is harder to understand the one who fought for the south. He didn't own slaves either, or live in a region of Tennessee (from the East Tenn. hills)that held a lot of slaves. We think he was doing what he thought was right - that some fought for the south because they believed the rhetoric of the time that they were "defending" their honor or homes or whatever. You know what? That was propaganda from the rich folks who were making money from slaves picking cotton who were being "strangled financially" (really, you don't understand that was based on slavery??). It was probably a lot like today, where you had some young people who were gullible enough to get caught up in the propaganda from the rich to go off and fight their wars for oil and wealth. That's happened throughout history, poor people fighting wars for rich people's interests.

But here is the thing. The rebels were traitors. They were fighting against the USA. And any denial that it was over slavery is obfuscation. "Southern agri-business?" That WAS slave working plantations! Oh yeah, the rebels got beat. They were whipped. They did not win. They lost. And that is a good thing, because today the USA still exists and slavery does not. Because those confederates LOST. The question is, what is the psychology that romanticizes the time, does mental gymnastics to defend it, tries to find excuses for the confederate battle flag? What is the need to fly the flag of losers? The reason I think was because that flag was re-born during the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. It was held by anti-segregationists as a message of intimidation. I mean that is absolutely clear, unquestionable if you look at the videos and pictures from a few decades ago. It was held by jeering mobs that protested laws (that they saw as federal interference) that required segregation. Once again, "states rights' was a euphemism for treating black folks as less than human. The idea that if the majority of people wanted to treat them unequally, then the Federal government had no right to tell them that they could not. Outside agitators.

July 18, 2011 at 7:08 p.m.
Humphrey said...

There is no denying this history of that flag. None at all. Any attempt to dress that flag up as something that represents a message besides "white folks are better than black folks" is full of smack. It may be a lie that you are believing yourself as you spin it, but it is a lie. Raw materials and agri-business? SLAVERY is what you are talking about, plain and simple. SOUTHERNERS COULD NOT VOTE DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THEY WERE TRAITORS WHO TOOK UP ARMS AGAINST THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND TRIED TO DESTROY THE USA. It is a flag of racists, traitors, and losers. It is a flag that flies over the wrong side of history, and has for over a hundred years.

July 18, 2011 at 7:09 p.m.
rolando said...

Keep reading, will get to it. The cause was just like the cause King George gave us. Forcing us to use their shipping to ship our stuff at their rates. Major cause, that. Long term, too. Same thing applied for shipping of machinery coming this way...very high tariffs for machinery. Northern industry charged the South more for machines than could be bought overseas. That's why the South had little modern technology needed for a long run war...repeating rifles, for instance.

July 18, 2011 at 7:11 p.m.
rolando said...

Depends on your definition of traitor, Humph. Allowing the North to literally strangle, then forcibly rape the pre-war South smacks of "traitor" to me.

You are certainly hung up over a flag; I can see spittle flying with each outbreak of rage you express. Not sure where that came from you even know? Or care, so long as you can rant?

Please, Humph, we are having an adult conversation or two here while avoiding baggage-loaded words at the same time -- and being fully aware of what words are replaced. Try to follow suit, would you?

July 18, 2011 at 7:17 p.m.
rolando said...

Oh yeah, Humph. Lincoln intended none of those reparations demanded by the Northern Legislature once he was safely dead. His plan was to repair the breaks and welcome the South back into the fold.

Which is why I sometimes wonder if Booth wasn't a Northern sympathizer in disguise... Our Legislatures were as dirty then as now.

July 18, 2011 at 7:20 p.m.
johnnyhurst said...

I posted that at about 5 am Legend, and didnt get to see any updstes thoughout the day as I was at work

July 18, 2011 at 7:29 p.m.
Humphrey said...

yes, Lincoln wanted to repair the nation. You did a wonderfully Adult job of refuting what I wrote. Cognitive dissonance?

July 18, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
rolando said...

Frankly, Humph, being familiar with your rants in the past, I didn't read it in its entirety.

You have an emotion-driven mindset. Which is your right, of course. But it is my right not to respond to emotion-driven drivel if I so choose; I did so choose.

You act as if slavery was illegal at that time. It wasn't. It was absolutely legal for one man to own another as if he were cattle. It was in our constitution at the still is except it is overwritten.

The days of legalized slavery as such are gone.

July 18, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.
Humphrey said...

Ad hominem followed by straw man.

July 18, 2011 at 9:45 p.m.
rolando said...

Stating facts is never a personal attack. Nor are facts easily refuted.

You ranted. Slavery was legal.


July 19, 2011 at 2:49 a.m.
Humphrey said...

It was first an Ad Hominem because you attacked the arguer, not the argument. It doesn't matter if you consider the "attack" a fact or not ("you ranted" is your personal opinion of course). It doesn't matter if the "attack" is particularly harsh or mean or anything of that sort. What matters logically is that you focused on the arguer rather than the argument, which is by definition a logical fallacy.

And frankly, your statements about "spittle" and ranting are completely baseless. You might imagine such things, but such a tone is your imagining not reality.

Your second statement "slavery was legal" is a strawman argument because it doesn't address the issue - flying the confederate flag today. Slavery is not legal today. It was not legal in the 1950's and 1960's when the confederate flag was used in the fight against the civil rights movement. The meaning of flying the rebel flag today has evolved considerably since slavery was legal in some states. Your comment is a red herring. And it is also incorrect (it is a mistake to argue over strawmen, but here I go) I did not "act as if slavery was illegal at the time," I acted as if slavery was IMMORAL at the time, and it was. And there were certainly people at the time who realized so - thus actions such as economic reprisals against cotton raised with slave labor was a matter of moral choice that you chose to frame as an economic attack against "agri-business." You state that the plantation owners had to use slave labor because they did not have modern technology. Tractors and so on. In this way, you are arguing that slavery is acceptable if there are not other means to get rich. And that it was OK because slavery was legal, and so our "modern" views of it are besides the point. But I disagree. It was morally wrong then as it is now, and there were people at the time realized it. And they made choices. Some chose to fight against slavery, others chose to defend it. The romanticism attached to the confederate battle flag today celebrates those who chose to defend it, and using euphemisms under the excuse of avoiding "baggage laden words" doesn't change it.

July 19, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.
jayhay182 said...

What do any of these comments have to do with the Casey Anthony story?

July 19, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.
fedup350 said...

Wow, some people (Humphrey) have a lot of time on thier hands.....

July 19, 2011 at 5:04 p.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

"Bottom rail on top.."

July 21, 2011 at 8:54 a.m.
please login to post a comment

Other National Articles

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.