I am very grateful we are not getting coverage of this. All I want to emphasise here though, is that it is so very important to let the courts work this out and not allow public opinion to influence the process.
In Australia, we learned this very important lesson with the Azaria Chamberlain case. That's the one where the baby went missing at Uluru, in the centre of Australia, while the family were camping there. The mother, Lindy, reported seeing a dingo coming out of the tent where the children slept and said she thought it had something in its mouth. She immediately checked the tent and found 9 week old Azaria missing. The two older boys were unhurt.
At first she got sympathy, but it didn't take long for public opinion to start saying things that should never have been said. The first inquest clearly said that it was a dingo. Then under pressure from the media and the police in that state, a second inquest was ordered. The police investigation then turned the searchlight on the family. Lindy was eventually convicted of murder, but the combination of prosecution case coupled with the defence just did not make sense. No motive was ever put forward that seemed to fit. They could have had a really good defence if they had pleaded that Lindy had postnatal psychosis and didn't know what she was doing. it was what a lot of people were thinking, but by this time there were so many rumours about this case that much of what was being printed was utter rubbish.
Lindy is now free from jail and exonerated. Her story was at last proven true when, after some years, the baby's matinee jacket was found in a place where it could not have been, according to the prosecution case. It took a lot more years to get Lindy a pardon, a shameful amount of time really.
This case changed a lot about how our police here and our media handle high interest cases. What it has taught us is to never judge hastily based on public opinion.
I was one of those who thought Lindy was guilty, based on the information available to us thanks to the media. However, I did not believe she was deserving of jail, there just did not seem to be enough of a case for her deliberately, maliciously, killing a baby. An accident, maybe, or a psychotic break. But if so - why did they not say so? Because, of course, she was innocent.
The forensic evidence seemed compelling, but it later was shown to be done so badly, the tests gave false positives for blood. And the pathologist threw out the evidence, did not even take photos! These days, better records are kept.
When the forensic evidence was shown to be faulty, it was the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle and the entire case was turned on its head.
After all this - we have learned to go very carefully in any discussion we might have, even if the case seems so open and shut. There is always more that we are not told. More, that is not even presented in court.
This Anthony woman may be guilty, or she may be right when she says she was herself molested by her father. I agree from the sound of what you report, the stories are not adding up - why not mention it earlier, and why leave your child with someone you know to be abusive? But we can't convict on this apparent inconsistency. We do need to let the courts work it out, and not influence the process. And I am here to tell you - public discussion like this CAN and DOES influence the process, and can reduce the probability of true justice.
Sorry to be a party popper - but I do think it is important to go carefully.
Marg