Drowning in a Pool of Lies?







































My first post is now published on Orlando magazine’s Website. Titled, You want Orders with those Fryes?, it addresses the Frye motions Judge Perry ruled on yesterday. Please stop by and say hello. It will be my new digs for the next two months or so, because I am now an “on assignment” reporter for orlandomagazine.com.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I’ll be neglecting my blog. My home is my home and my friends are my friends and that will never change.
Please click the image.
Or click HERE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
Ooooh that smell
Can’t you smell that smell
Ooooh that smell
The smell of death surrounds you- Lynyrd Skynyrd from “That Smell”
On June 27, 2008, Casey Anthony contacted her close friend, Amy Huizenga, about a peculiar odor emanating from her car. The message was clear, and it was confirmed during Amy’s deposition taken on February 14 of this year. Jose Baez asked her about it starting on page 32:
Q: Okay. Now, she sent you a text message in reference to the smell of the car; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And that was on what date, do you recall?
A: I think it’s in here somewhere. I don’t know what day it was.
Q: I can help you if you want to look towards the date for your statement to confirm it.
A. That would be great.
Q: Okay. The 27th. June 27th.
As the interview progressed…
A: Okay. Yeah, the 27th is when she confirmed - - like, when she said it was. But there were definitely a day or two that she had been like, dude, my car smells and I don’t know what it is. Just, like, one of those - - I mean, I think everyone’s had the time you’re like what is that smell. I don’t understand. And she just said it smelled, like, you know, something had died in her car and she had no clue what it is. And I think it was - - she - - it was coming from the engine areaish is what she had said. And then when she - - you know, finally, it was - - she was letting me know she had found it was and that was a squirrel that she figured her dad had run over when he was driving the car.
Q: Let me ask you this - -
A: Yes.
Q: - - do you have any other text messages about the smell or was it just that one text message?
A: I don’t know. You have the text messages.
What’s so important about this exchange is the fact that Casey acknowledged the odor of death in her car, as confirmed by a text message written and sent by her. She also told Amy that the smell had been in the car for at least one day, perhaps two. Was this the start of attempting to pass the blame on to her father?
Q: Okay. Do you know if you spoke about it before the 27th or after the 27th?
A: Before, because the 27th was when she said what it was and there was at least a day, if not two days, that she told me about the smell.
We have now established that Casey freely admitted that the smell of death did, in fact, exist in her vehicle. This leaves us with two possible choices: Casey knew exactly what it was and she was working on an excuse to cover it up, or she had no idea what caused the foul odor.
Let’s fast forward a bit to Amy’s conversation with Cindy, after Cindy picked her up at the Florida Mall. Remember, Cindy called 911 that night and uttered those now famous words, “I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”
Within a week, she changed her tune. “It smelled like something had died in the car. I smelled it. I thought something had died in the car. I didn’t know what it was. It could have been a squirrel. It could have been anything. But when we opened the trunk and we saw the maggots in the trunk with all the pizza and stuff, it was a rancid smell.” (See: http://www.wftv.com/news/16981004/detail.html)
She also told FOX News, “Do me a favor, put a little piece of pizza or any piece of garbage in your car today and leave it shut up for 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 days in this heat and then come back to me in 19 days and tell me what it smells like.” (See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389642,00.html)
What she did was a complete spin. It meant that the smell of death was not really death at all, it was pizza and other garbage found in the trunk that reeked so badly. She told the 911 dispatcher about the smell of death for one reason only: to quickly bring law enforcement to the house. She didn’t really mean what she said. Excuse me. Never mind. Except for one major issue. It wasn’t only the dispatcher she told that to.
Starting from page 52 of the deposition, where Amy dropped Casey off at Anthony Lazzaro’s apartment in Winter Park…
Q: Okay. And then where did you go?
A: I went to the Florida Mall with JP [Chatt] in his car because he wanted to go pick up the new iPhone that had come out while we were gone. And the Florida Mall is fun to walk around in so I tagged along.
Q: Tell me about the conversation when Cindy calls you. What happened - -
A: She called me and asked me - - you know, obviously stated who she was and then asked me if I had seen Casey or Caylee. I was, like, well, I just saw Casey like an hour and a half ago, but I haven’t seen Casey - - or Caylee in a while. And so she proceeded to tell me that, like, she needed to find her, that she was going to be in really big trouble. I believe she mentioned jail for some reason. I don’t recll what the reasoning was why she was going to be going to jail, but just seemed very important that she find her and that she hadn’t seen her in a long time. So that the car - - her car had been impounded for two weeks and that she just really needed to find Casey.
Q: Did she say anything about the smell in the car?
A: I don’t think she said anything about the smell of the car on the phone conversation. She said - - she did later in the car, but not, I don’t believe, over the phone.
AHA! I received an e-mail yesterday afternoon. A very nice person, who shall remain anonymous, wrote this to me:
I read the deposition of Amy. In it, Cindy states to her that the car smelled like a dead body had been in it. She says the same thing on the 911 call later. Then much later she says that she would have said anything to get the police there ASAP. I think saying that to Amy BEFORE the Police might come back to really haunt her.
She makes a very valid point. Continuing with Amy’s depostion:
Q: Okay. So then [Cindy] picks you up at the Florida mall?
A: Yes.
Q: You got in the car and then what’s the conversation like as you’re going to Tony’s house?
A: Well, first it was a, it’s nice to finally meet you because I had yet to meet her at that point. And she told me - - like actually then told me then the whole story of the car impound, that was when she told me about the smell.
Q: What did she say in describing the smell?
A: She said that it smelled - - it was the most horrible smell that she had ever smelled and that they were terrified that it was either Casey or Caylee in the car - - in the trunk until they got it open. But that was - - that her fear and she was barely controlling, like, emotion in saying that. Like, it was - - you could see that that was still something [t]hat she remembered being upset about that that thought was in her mind.
Q: Did she say she smelled the car or did she say George smelled the car?
A: Both of them. I believe they were boh there.
Q: Okay. So she’s telling you this on the way to Tony’s house?
A: Yes.
If it wasn’t the odor of death, what prompted George and Cindy to immediately think of Casey and Caylee’s well-being? Here are two snippets quoting George and Cindy’s own words from a transcript of the HLN program, Nancy Grace, dated November 17, 2008:
GEORGE ANTHONY: You guys don’t know! The person who was in the back of my granddaughter’s (SIC) car is not my granddaughter!
CINDY ANTHONY, GRANDMOTHER OF MISSING TODDLER: My husband is a deputy sheriff. Years ago, he was a homicide investigator, as well. And the first thing he thought was human decomposition. I’m a nurse. I thought human decomposition.
It’s interesting, to say the least. Ooooh that smell!
Reference: Huizenga Depo 2_11
I have been following Casey Anthony’s every move for the past 2½ years, but I am no stalker. You can’t stalk someone who lives in jail and makes an occasional visit to the courthouse, where I go to see her in person. We have never spoken, though our eyes have met and I believe she knows who I am. Casey is a big part of my life, but probably not for much longer.
My immersion into the Anthony saga is not normal, I know. You’re probably sick of hearing about Casey Anthony, who is to go on trial this month, but her name is always on my mind. I’m 58 years old and take care of my elderly parents and two cats, working from home as a freelance Web designer. I would go stir crazy if not for outside interests that stimulate my mind and get me out of the house. I have a laptop and loads of free time. I love to write. I have a blog, marinadedave.com.
It was never my intention to become a crime blogger. Casey just happened to come along at the right time for me, when I was immersed in blogging about a passion of mine that, frankly, makes my fascination with the Anthony case seem normal.
You don’t get the moniker “Marinade Dave” for writing about a murder mystery; you get a nickname like that honestly. I used to make a marinade I sold in local markets, and in 2004 I started blogging about marinades and marinating tips. About 5,000 marinade lovers visited my site every month.
But there is only so far you can go with a blog on marinades, and I had reached my limit with it just as the story of the “Tot Mom” erupted into a national media frenzy in July 2008. That’s how CNN talk show host Nancy Grace referred to Casey during the early days of the mystery surrounding the disappearance of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. In October 2008, Casey was indicted for first-degree murder while the search for Caylee continued.
The leap from blogging about marinades to blogging about the Anthony case does seem like a giant one, but it actually began as a small step. I just didn’t know at the time that I had put both feet in quicksand.
In November, while working as a videographer, I found myself in the vicinity of Jay Blanchard Park in east Orange County where a search operation was under way. I decided to stop by, and there I met an affable Leonard Padilla, the bounty hunter who had posted bail for Casey after she was first arrested on child-neglect charges, and members of a dive team searching the Econlockhatchee River.
I asked questions, took notes and shot video and a few photos, then went home to my computer. “The Search for Caylee takes a nose dive” was my first blog on the case, complete with visuals.
The blogosphere is not normal, either, and therefore, it is the perfect place for a guy like me. Through search engine optimization, key words and the power of Google, virtual unknowns like me can be read by thousands of people. My blog gives me some sense of legitimacy as a journalist, despite not working for a recognized media outlet. I’m on my own, but thanks to the Internet my voice is heard.
My first Anthony story brought me new traffic, exciting exchanges on my site’s forums and fresh inspiration. The next thing I knew, I was hip-deep in the quicksand.
On several occasions I drove to the home of Casey’s parents and to the nearby wooded area where the remains of Casey’s daughter were found in December 2008. At both places I shot videos and photos for my site. I attended the memorial for Caylee Marie at First Baptist Church of Orlando in February 2009, delivering hundreds of messages of condolences my readers asked me to pass along to the slain toddler’s grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony.
Since the beginning of the ordeal I have felt sorry for George and Cindy. They have lost a beautiful grandchild and have had to deal with the torment of not only knowing that she was murdered but that their daughter is on trial for that heinous crime and she could be executed for it.
Altogether I’ve written more than 200 posts on the Anthony case, covering everything from my thoughts on possible motivation that could have led Casey to kill her child (“Caylee’s Murder: Premeditated and pretty stupid, too”) to the irony I found in comments from some professed “good Christians” who wanted vigilante justice (“Casey Anthony must die!”) to the intricacies of various legal maneuvers in the trial (I have amassed a small library of law books).
Somewhere along the way my blog, which now attracts about 100,000 visitors a month, got the attention of the judge who originally oversaw the Anthony trial. I would have never known this had he not complimented my work, and I’m sure he wishes he now had kept that comment to himself.
While researching the media’s coverage of the Anthony murder case, Judge Stan Strickland read some blogs, including mine. He apparently thought mine was fairminded, and he told me so in his courtroom after a hearing—the first of about 30 I have attended in the case—in October 2009. That remark and a personal phone call to me while I was ill led Anthony’s attorneys to seek his removal from the trial, claiming Strickland was biased against their client.
Instead of fighting the claim, Strickland stepped down in April 2010 to avoid giving the defense ammo for an appeal. While the recusal was good for marinadedave.com, bringing to it thousands of new visitors, it also torqued the lunatic fringe that follows the Anthony case.
I have a small group of haters watching my site, but what a loud and rowdy crowd it is. They are of the mindset that Casey and her whole family should be taken out and shot, with their bodies left to the vultures. And if you don’t agree, or you believe in due process, or you keep them from posting their Jerry Springer-esque tirades on your forums, like I do, well, they get nasty.
The vitriol my haters have directed at me is of the cheap-shot variety: I have AIDS, I’m gay, I hate gays, I’m into child porn, my teeth are rotten and I smell bad. If only their harassment ended at name-calling. My home address has been posted on various Anthony related comment fields on the Internet, an oblique suggestion to do me harm, I believe. Posts on other blogs about the Anthony case make it quite clear that I’m being watched when I attend courthouse hearings. Last year an animal control officer stopped by my house, saying an anonymous e-mail had accused me of hoarding pets. (My cats would never stand for it.) My personal e-mail accounts and blog have been hacked.
Normal people would not do such things, but the blogosphere is kind of like the wild, wild West, only worse. There are no rules or codes of conduct. Hiding behind screen names and avatars, blog readers are emboldened by their anonymity to sling virtual mud in the comment forums.
But there’s no better place to throw something out there to see if it’ll stick. Between myself, my contributors and people on other blogs and forums, we have come up with some interesting theories in the Anthony case. For example, back in 2008 the last two houses on Hopespring Drive, where George and Cindy live, were occupied by a woman whose first name is Zenaida and a man whose last name is Gonzales. Put those two names together and you get the phantom nanny (with a “z” at the end of the last name) Casey accused of running off with Caylee. The backyard property lines that separate the two homes point directly to the spot where Caylee’s remains were found. If you type 8905 Suburban Drive in Google Maps, it takes you to the same spot, though there isn’t a house at that location. It’s all woods along that street.
Why 8905 as a street address? August 9, 2005, or 8-9-05, is Caylee’s birth date.
I don’t buy into such theories that suggest the plot to kill Caylee involved such intricate planning as expropriating neighbors’ names and using a birth date as some sort of code.
Still, it’s the bizarre that makes this case so engrossing to my readers and me.
But it will end, sometime in the next month or two probably, and when it does, I will have to move on. I imagine many of my readers will, too. I don’t see myself going back to writing about marinades, though.
That wouldn’t be normal for me anymore.
I originally published this in April 2009. I think, as Casey awaits the start of her trial, less than a month away, it is worth another look, especially with psychologists Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and Dr. William Weitz figuring so prominently in the picture. Please remember that Casey has not been tried in a court of law. Therefore, she has not been convicted of murder.
I resourced a number of clinical studies that can be referenced through the link at the bottom of this post. Did I plagiarize? No, but I borrowed heavily because I am not a psychiatrist, nor am I a psychologist. I have interpolated and interpreted those documents and condensed them into one - in my own words. Hopefully, this will render a more palatable post that’s easier to read and mentally ingest. You can digest it in the privacy of your home or workplace, and you can egest it in the comments section.
Murder is considered to be an unthinkable crime by most societies on earth, but when parents kill their own children, it rattles and shakes the foundation of humanity. It is the lowest of lows, the worst form of all crimes imaginable. Casey Anthony will go on trial for first-degree murder in the death of her not quite 3 year old daughter, Caylee. If found guilty of the crime, she faces her own sentence of death. This is not intended to place guilt or innocence on her. It is a study in filicide, the murder of one’s own children.
Because of a lack of understanding, most of us are immensely shocked by the pure nature of filicide. Although considered uncommon, it is one of the leading causes of child deaths in civilized societies throughout the developed world. In a 1995 poll taken of 25 countries, it indicated that the homicide rate for children under 1 year old was greater than the rate for adults. Large-scale studies have shown that younger children are most at risk, especially those under 6 months old. After that age, the risk lowers steadily, but increases again in adulthood.
In order to make sense of this crime, large scale population studies of filicidal offenders have been performed and remarkably, rates of infanticide (child murder in the first year of life) parallel suicide rates. Based on their studies, the existence of several groups and classifications have been determined for filicide, and each classification has distinct characteristics and factors that drive parents to kill. Because of these reviews and publications, we will explore the different types, paying particular attention to maternal filicide, which is defined as a child murdered by the mother. My goal is not to elicit sympathy for Casey; it is to offer explanations for why she might have done it. Remember, until a jury decides, she is innocent in the eyes of the law, the only thing that matters. Please bear in mind that in some developing countries, the preference for male children may lead to selective killings. Think China. Religious, cultural and legal differences across borders will vary some of the research findings in some studies. Also, one country’s decision to send someone to prison may be different than another country’s choice to send someone to a psychiatric hospital. Because actions vary greatly, all I ask is that you maintain an open mind. Although specifically dealing with maternal filicide, this article is not just about one person.
Motive
In 1969, psychiatrist P.J. Resnick looked into 131 case reports from world literature on child murders by both mother and father from the years 1751 - 1967 and wrote his article based on the apparent motives for the acts.The five categories he came up with in this system are “altruistic” filicide (64 cases, 48.9%), “acutely psychotic” filicide (28 cases, 21.4%), “unwanted child” filicide (18 cases, 13.7%), “accidental” filicide (16 cases, 12.2%), and “spouse revenge” filicide (5 cases, 3.8%). Resnick described cases of altruistic filicide as murders committed out of love. The mother believes it is in the child’s best interest. A suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world or she feels she is saving the child from a fate worse than death. In acutely psychotic filicide, the parent kills the child under the influence of severe mental illness or a psychotic episode. Here, a delirious mother or psychotic mother kills without any comprehensible motive. It may be merely following a command hallucination to kill.
In accidental or fatal maltreatment filicide, death is not the expected outcome. It results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome. Unwanted child filicide occurs when mothers, for reasons such as illegitimacy or uncertain paternity, kill their child through acts of aggression or neglect. It could also result from a mother thinking of her child as a hindrance. Spouse revenge filicide happens when the mother kills to emotionally harm the child’s father.
Resnick’s review on world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide found most of these mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, which is a “loss of contact with reality,” prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts.
Impulse to Kill
Although useful, one of the problems with classifying the motives of filicidal parents is that the motive is almost entirely procured by police and forensic psychologists, mostly at a time when the offender is likely to be very vulnerable and highly defensive. The individual is concerned with criminal charges. Some doctors feel a classification based on the origin of impulse to kill is more objective than simply basing it on motive, which may be more subjective, over-determined or defensive. The impulsive system is not widely recognized because it lowers a mother to a primitive level and looks at sophisticated motives such as revenge or altruism as inappropriate.
Because most modern classification systems focus on the characteristics of the female parent, a six-year study was done of 89 women remanded to a prison under the particular charges of murder or attempted murder of their children. In this study, six categories unfolded:battering mothers, mentally ill mothers, neonaticides, retaliating women, unwanted children, and mercy killing. These categories are similar to Resnick’s, with the exception of the exclusion of the “acutely psychotic” classification and the addition of “mercy killing” which is basically nothing more than euthanasia for a sick and suffering child. In the studies, three most common identifiable groups emerged: neonaticides, battering mothers and mentally ill mothers.
Neonaticide
Resnick coined the term neonaticide to describe the killing of a child less than 24 hours old. This group is the most clearly defined and it is the one that mostly differs from the other groups. It is the largest group. Neonaticide is almost exclusively carried out by women. The mothers are younger, rarely married, poorly educated, have a low level of psychiatric disorders and psychosocial stressors, no history of criminal behavior and do not attempt suicide after the murders. They generally do not seek out abortions. They conceal and do not acknowledge their pregnancies and are sometimes motivated by a feeling of shame and guilt because of the fear of child-rearing out of wedlock. So why don’t these women just get abortions? There are major differences between the women who get abortions and those who commit neonaticide, with passivity being the most important separating factor. Most women who commit neonaticide have made no plans for the birth and care of the child and their decisions are primarily based on denial and disassociation.
Accidental Filicide/Battering Mothers
This is the second largest group. Though not as clearly defined as neonaticide, some similarities can be seen. Unintentional deaths result from child abuse. There is no clear impulse to kill, but there is a sudden impulsive act characterized by a loss of temper. In case studies of large groups of filicidal mothers, these mothers suffered the greatest amount of social and family stress, marital stress, and housing and financial problems.
Mentally Ill Filicides
Though the least common, mentally ill filicides are the most complex. The intensity of the suffering perceived in the mother’s delusional state is so great that the murder seems rational to them. Most of these women are older, in their late 20s - early 30s, are generally married, are not under a lot of stress, and their children were older. Because of this, killing a child older than one year indicates a much more profound disruption in emotional or mental status than does the killing of a newborn.
About 10-22% of adult women suffer from postpartum depression within the first year after the baby’s birth. The “postpartum onset specifier” includes fluctuations in mood and a preoccupation with infant well-being that can range from over-concern to delusional, and the presence of delusional thoughts significantly increases the risk to the child. Infanticide is most often associated with postpartum psychotic episodes that are characterized by inner hallucinations that command the mother to kill or that the child is possessed. Severe cases seem to occur in from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 births and the risk increases in women who have experienced prior episodes. Once a woman has postpartum depression, the risk with each subsequent delivery increases 30-50%.
In studies, the majority of mothers had displayed psychiatric symptoms prior to filicide and just under half had previously received in-patient psychiatric treatment. While mentally ill filicidal mothers generally have psychiatric histories, they don’t, as a rule, have any history of child abuse and they usually describe having experienced a clear intention to kill. In all studies, drug and alcohol impairment were rarely seen as a consequence, but that’s not to say that substance abuse did not ever factor in.
Methods used by mothers to kill their children differ greatly from most homicides and this is where vast differences in gender occur. In contrast to domestic homicides of adults, women do not use knives or guns to murder their victims. Maternal filicide is usually committed using “hands on” methods that entail close and interactive contact between mother and child; methods such as shaking, beating, suffocationor drowning, and some indirect methods such as arson or drowning while the child is asleep or sedated. In cases of paternal filicide, fathers are more likely to use methods like striking, squeezing, or stabbing, and they are more apt to use weapons. Suffocation, strangulation and drowning are the most common causes of neonaticides.
Interestingly, drowning was high on the list of methods to kill. So was suffocation. In my fictional account of what may have happened to Caylee, I took drowning into account long before I researched this article. Of course, we are all aware of the (inferred) suffocating duct tape found secured to Caylee’s mouth. (Remember, the jury will decide who put it there.)
If we study the general population of filicidal mothers, we find that they were often poor, socially isolated, full-time caregivers, who were victims of domestic violence or they had other relationship problems and socioeconomic disadvantages. Certainly, Casey had problems with her parents and she had no money of her own. What’s puzzling in her case is that she had no history of abusing her child and by all accounts, seemed to be a devoted mother. Friends and family concur.
Persistent crying or other child factors were sometimes the cause for filicides. Some mothers had previously abused the child, while others were mentally ill and devoted to their child. Neglectful or abusive mothers were sometimes substance abusers and many of them had elements of psychosis, depression, or suicidality, the taking of one’s own life.
In psychiatric studies, filicidal mothers had frequently experienced psychosis, depression, suicidality, and prior mental health care. Their mean age was in the late 20s range. Some were diagnosed with personality disorders and some had low intelligence. Significant life stresses were often noted. In a recent study of mothers found not guilty by reason of insanity in two U.S. states, it was found that the mothers were often depressed and frequently experienced auditory hallucinations, some of a command type. Over 1/3 of the homicides occurred during pregnancy or the postpartum year. Almost all of the mothers had altruistic or acutely psychotic motives. In New Zealand, a small study that interviewed mothers after their filicides found that psychotic mothers who had committed filicide often killed suddenly without much planning, whereas depressed mothers had contemplated killing their children for lengths of time prior to their crimes.
In prison studies, filicidal mothers were frequently unmarried, unemployed and had limited education and social support. Economic, social, partner relationship problems, primary caregiver status and difficulty caring for the child were frequently mentioned as causes. Let me ask you, does this sound like anyone you’ve read about lately, someone who will may be added to this list?
In closing, let me say that there are other factors involved in maternal filicide and to go deeper than I have here would be boring and somewhat senseless because they are not really related to the Casey Anthony story. Areas of study include more in-depth looks at previous psychiatric symptoms, intrapsychic processes that include delusions, environmental stress and social isolation. I can’t justify taking up any more of your time, but I may offer another post on the legal process and how we may predict it.
In spite of large scale and individual case studies, filicide will always remain one of the world’s most reprehensible offenses. Cases like Casey Caylee continue to shock and awe communities and nations, especially when there are seemingly no salient reasons for the offense. While these studies have revealed several groups, patterns and risk factors, prediction - even by the closest of friends and relatives - is extremely difficult, no matter how much knowledge and organization has been gained. Where you may have a proclivity to blame Casey’s parents for her outcome, please understand that many underlying and complex factors are at play that go completely unnoticed. There is much more to a filicide than casually placing blame on someone else, especially if you have no understanding or training of the psyche of the human mind. If you had any trouble deciphering some of the above psycho-babble, there’s a reason for that. It means I did my job, because as much as you may think you know about Casey’s mind, you don’t. Don’t worry, neither do I.
To view references, please CLICK HERE
I have been a little under the weather lately, but in all honesty, I had planned on writing about the Frye hearings and how I believe the judge will rule and why. Now, with so much attention focused on the impending 48 Hours Mystery program that’s scheduled to run this Saturday night, I feel compelled to proffer my thoughts on the matter. On the show, a mock trial jury acquits Casey Anthony of first-degree murder.
I recently wrote about a motion filed by Cheney Mason that accused Judge Perry of bias in favor of the state. On Fool’s Mate, I explained how useless the motion was. In my opinion, it was a feeble attempt to intimidate another judge into stepping down and it failed miserably. Belvin Perry, Jr. is going nowhere until this trial is over, but once again, I see the defense testing the judge’s fortitude, determination and resolve.
Yesterday, Orlando attorney Richard Hornsby published a new article on his blog that focuses on one particular aspect of the CBS piece - whether Jose Baez may have inadvertently waived attorney/client privilege because of a jury consultant who aided the defense. At issue is whether he was paid or not, and if so, by whom. Did CBS pick up the tab? Will we ever know? I strongly encourage you to read it because it is the most brilliant essay to date on this very strange and convoluted saga.
Early on, when this case was still in its infancy, Jose Baez successfully argued against a State motion requesting the imposition of a gag (or suppression) order. That was way back in November 2008. Judge Strickland said he would issue one as the trial nears. A few months ago, Judge Perry said he would impose one, too, as the trial draws nigh. With less than a month to go, when does His Honor plan on ordering one? I can’t think of a better time than now.
The law.com Website’s legal dictionary describes a gag order as:
“a judge’s order prohibiting the attorneys and the parties to a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking to the media or the public about the case. The supposed intent is to prevent prejudice due to pre-trial publicity which would influence potential jurors. A gag order has the secondary purpose of preventing the lawyers from trying the case in the press and on television, and thus creating a public mood (which could get ugly) in favor of one party or the other. Based on the ‘freedom of the press’ provision of the First Amendment, the court cannot constitutionally restrict the media from printing or broadcasting information about the case, so the only way is to put a gag on the participants under the court’s control.”
What this means is that the judge is powerless to stop media from running stories about the case, but he can stop everyone directly involved (meaning attorneys) from talking or writing about it. This would include investigators on both sides of the aisle. While CBS or any other media outlet would not be bound by law to kill a story, the legal implications should, nominally, deter editors and news directors from publicizing further stories based on inside sources or whatever means are still available. At the same time, it would have no effect on information garnered prior to the order, like Saturday night’s program.
On May 9, Judge Perry and all counsel affiliated with Case No. 48-2008-CF-015606-O will assemble inside a courthouse outside of Orange County. Its sole mission? To pluck a jury of Casey’s peers, who will then sit in judgment of her the following week, in what many consider the trial of the 21st century; still quite young. The jury will come to Orange County, where it will be sequestered. If this proves to be problematic, the judge will attempt to seat a jury from home, and if all else fails, somewhere else - until the job is done. Right?
Well, there may be some complications that could, quite possibly, quagmire the will of the people of the great state of Florida.
In May of 2009, Jose Baez requested a change of venue. This is a legal term for moving a trial to a different location. In a high-profile case like this, it could be next to impossible to seat a fair and impartial local jury due to the widespread publicity in print and broadcast media. However, a judge has other options. He could deny the motion and remain at home, risking a retrial on a post-conviction appeal, or he could deny the motion and attempt to seat a jury from a demographically similar area. Since the Rodney King case, courts have focused on efforts to ensure that demographics from another community are as similar as possible to the demographics of the community in which the criminal offense allegedly occurred. Although it’s only a jury that will be brought to Orange County in order to save taxpayers millions of dollars, it’s intent is to satisfy all parties without any of the bias stirred by so much local publicity. That’s the goal, anyway, but I see something else… an ulterior motive by the defense.
Granted, the wheels of justice are not always round. In the United States, a defense has every right to utilize any and all means available to exonerate their client as long as they abide by the laws of the land; in this case, state statutes and rules of criminal procedure. During Casey’s trial, her defense won’t have to prove she didn’t murder her daughter, guilt falls squarely on the prosecution. Prove it, in other words. In the meantime, the defense can do what it wants to diffuse the charges brought against her, meaning it could try to taint a jury throughout the state until a gag order is in place. Is it fair? Of course not, but it’s not illegal, and appearing on TV isn’t, either. Is the defense taking advantage of the present situation? You bet, but in all sincerity, is it really all that sinister?
Let’s say the location of a potential jury is demographically similar to Orlando and Orange County. Let’s say this area, because of the similarities, has a daily newspaper like the Orlando Sentinel and the requisite network television affiliates, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, including independents and radio stations. We can pick anywhere in the state, like Miami or Tampa or Jacksonville or Tallahassee. Why not throw Ft. Myers into the mix?
Eenie, meenie, miney moe, pick a jury, friend or foe.
Okay, let’s say Tampa. No, I don’t have a clue, so don’t ask. The population of Hillsborough County is 1,229,226 according to the 2010 census. The population of Orange County is 1,145,956. For the sake of argument, that’s close enough. Tampa has its own newspaper, The Tampa Tribune, and lots of TV and radio stations. I’m not discussing whether it’s too close to Orlando or not because, as you shall soon see, it won’t matter.
One of the most prevalent aspects of today’s world is that we are very much a global community. What just took place in Peoria, Illinois can be read and seen within minutes of the story breaking. We live in a digital world, and news travels as quickly as thunder catches up to lightning. Not only do we have tons of reliable sources available, we have a more powerful tool today - the Internet. I remember when small town newspapers offered communities intimate coverage of what was going on in their respective neighborhoods. Dora Holsopple made pancakes for her grandchildren after church services on Sunday. Mildred Holcombe’s dog bit the paper boy, Teddy Harvey’s son. Roy Kronk found the skeletal remains of a missing toddler. Odds are, you heard about the last one as quickly as I did, whereas, 30 years ago, you may not have heard about it at all. In today’s society, it’s darn near impossible to plug up holes that spill news and gossip from just about anywhere. That leads me directly to Casey’s defense. Remember, Jose Baez & Co. can do whatever it takes to free their client as long as it’s within the confines of law. Playing dirty may be an issue to you or me, but all things are fair in love and war - in this case love being Casey’s innocence, whether she is or isn’t. And while the defense cries foul over leaked information pertaining to their client, they are more guilty of doing it than anyone or anything else. To me, it’s more of a risk because if a jury is eventually seated, which should be the case, the defense cannot base an appeal on what they, themselves, did from the start. To me, it’s a big gamble. So is Saturday night. To understand the full extent of what the program probably entails, we have to wait until then to watch it, but meanwhile, in its description of a mock trial, therightjury.com states:
“A mock trial is a more in depth, formal, and extensive focus group which also tests the effect of opening and closing statements on the jury. In a mock trial, jurors will be exposed to opening statements, closing arguments, crucial witness testimony, and any evidence or demonstrative evidence which is important to the case. During mock trials, however, the attorneys play themselves, with one attorney from the firm playing the opponent and advocating accordingly. Should the attorney wish for his/her client and/or star/expert witness to be examined in front of the jurors, then the actual client and/or star/expert witness must be present.”
In Casey’s mock trial, she wasn’t present, but it seems so hypocritical, doesn’t it? While the defense complains about bad publicity, they go on national media exposés for the entire state to see. I strongly contend that they are doing their utmost best to taint a jury pool throughout the state for one reason only: to ensure that she will never be able to get a fair trial anywhere. God knows, media outlets are just about everywhere in Florida. So are antennas and cable channels. There’s also the Internet and satellite dishes. In my opinion, this defense knows exactly what it is doing. With so much at stake, Judge Perry said he would impose a suppression order before the trial begins. When? I say, the time is ripe. Slam the door shut! It’s getting stale. As much as I hate to see this sort of order coming for the sake of freedom of the press and what we are still allowed to disclose, there’s no better time than at the next hearing. This, on the precise Friday - one year ago - that Cheney Mason fired off a motion to dismiss the trial judge. Oh yes, I remember it well, but let’s not go there. It makes me gag.
A Michigan inmate has asked Judge Perry to have Jose Baez removed from the case.
CURTIS JACKSON
This morning, April 5, the Orange County Courthouse issued this statement regarding the motion filed yesterday with the Clerk of Courts:
Please see attached Motion (Defendant’s Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel) in the State vs. Casey Anthony. It is not filed by Casey Anthony.
It is filed by an inmate in Michigan.
He also wrote a letter to Linda Drane Burdick on June 8, 2010.
Today’s hearing took only 10 minutes. It was almost a love fest between Cheney Mason and prosecutors. Gone were the bitterness and confrontational attitude of the defense attorney toward Judge Perry. Yes, today was a new day. Noticeably absent from the courtroom was Jose Baez. The most shocking part of the morning came from something only a trained eye would notice… the lost look on Casey’s face…
NO PAD! NO PEN!
In his court game of chess, Cheney Mason was the first to yell…
CHECK
That was nearly a year ago. Certainly, the recusal of the Honorable Stan Strickland is not so far in the distant past that we would forget what Casey Anthony’s defense team is forever up to. Would they have the audacity to do it again? For the past two-and-a-half years, we have watched them throw everything in their arsenal at the wall of justice in hopes that something sticks. Why not? They have a right to do that, but is Mason now trying to force Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. against the same wall? Are they backing him into a corner with only one way out?
Judge Perry is a smooth operator, so smooth, in fact, that he always comes prepared to hearings with his own powerful set of weapons - case law. He’s well educated in the courthouse games lawyers play and he seems to have some sort of mental telepathy, as if he knows beforehand what tack the defense will take on any given day. It’s almost mystical, because we are left to wonder how he did it. How could he possibly know all that? The man is shrewd. He easily wipes the excess dirt off the wall without missing a beat, and the defense is oftentimes left with mud on their faces. Does this mean he’s biased, as Mason recently charged?
Much to the dismay of common folks like you and me, the court has had to put up with a wide range of oddball motions filed by this defense, so nothing is surprising. One such absurdity was a motion to disqualify the state attorney’s office. Huh? How could an assistant state attorney possibly represent the state if the entire office is disqualified? Case dismissed for lack of state attorneys! Of course, there are more like this one, but that’s not important.
On April 16, 2010, Cheney Mason filed his shot heard ‘round the judicial world demanding that the trial judge step down. In DEFENDANT, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, he wrote, “The Defendant, Casey Marie Anthony, reasonably fears that she will not receive a fair trial because of the conduct and apparent prejudice and bias of the judge…” The motion cited several reasons. Most were centered around me, my blog, and three articles I wrote a full year before. The exchange between the judge and myself was precisely six months later.
In his ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Judge Strickland made several points, two of which were:
We all know the outcome of Mason’s first chess game at the Orange County Courthouse soon after joining Casey’s team. In any event, my point is not to rehash the past. It’s to look into recent defense moves and what the future may hold.
COMES NOW, Cheney Mason, criminal defense attorney, recently filed a motion for a rehearing, aptly titled, MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS. Judge Perry had earlier ruled on the defense MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. The defense argued that Casey should have been read her Miranda rights when law enforcement personnel were initially summoned to the Anthony home due to 911 calls made by Cindy Anthony. The judge decided Casey was not a suspect at the time and was, therefore, a witness to a possible kidnapping. You don’t Mirandize witnesses. The new motion also included the MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO GEORGE, CINDY, LEE ANTHONY, MAYA DERKOVIC, ROBYN ADAMS, AND SYLVIA HERNANDEZ, defining Casey’s 6th Amendment right to counsel and the improper use of agents of the state. In this case, the judge ruled that George, Cindy and Lee, by their own admission, were desperately seeking Caylee and wanted every bit of help they could muster, especially from law enforcement. Obviously, Casey was doing a lousy job of running her own investigation into the disappearance.
Although I feel that the crux of this defense motion for a rehearing lays in possible ramifications later on, such as an impetus to file an appeal if the defendant is found guilty, it extends into other areas as well, and that’s where we come right back to the succinct possibility that the defense will file yet another motion to disqualify the trial judge. What? Deja vu all over again? Admit it. It’s a nervous feeling running down your back.
In order to request that the judge step down, a couple of factors are problematic for the defense. In Judge Strickland’s case, he most certainly did not have to go, but he understood that the prevailing issue would remain if he denied the defense their request, as he so stated in his order. Every subsequent motion the defense lost could be grounds for an appeal. What caught us off guard now is the fear that Mason may be up to his old tricks. While certainly an option, it’s not easy. Here’s the statement Mason made in his motion that rattled nerves:
c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.
Shades of dismissal! Well, no, not really. Under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.
If this is the route Mason is considering taking, he should be mindful of the fact that a statute related to judicial disqualification exists. He should surely remember F.S. §38.10 from last year:
Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith. However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.
In a nutshell, it explains something about a judge if he/she is prejudiced. Does Judge Perry fit the mold? Is he in favor of the adverse party as Mason claims in so many words? Well, it doesn’t really matter. After Judge Strickland willfully stepped down, and he could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Perry cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Mason claims. The only way it would work is if Perry admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission is just recorded in the court minutes and the trial proceeds on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different now.
One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as Mason is claiming in his rebuttal motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein)
What effectively worked in the Strickland recusal was his personal relationship with me. Although the defense clearly distorted the facts, it did proffer a basis for the motion. In Perry’s situation, it’s purely judicial in nature. And laughable.
§
Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake. Rule 2.160 has something else to offer to save Mason from a mea culpa moment if he chooses to stay on top of his game. Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!
When Judge Strickland disqualified himself due to alleged bias, and I use that term loosely, his successor, Judge Perry, cannot be disqualified on a successive motion by Casey’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Perry is allowed to toss out any new dismissal motion. By golly, he was even brazen enough to tell the defense that, “No other motions for rehearing shall be considered,”¹ after the defense filed its MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.
What nerve. It looks like the Teflon judge has Mason backed into a corner. King takes pawn.
CHECK
Orlando Magazine published a brief interview with Dr. Jan Garavaglia by the editor-in-chief, Mike Boslet. I think it’s definitely worth a read. She will be a crucial expert witness for the State in the upcoming Casey Marie Anthony trial.
The Story of a… Medical Examiner
You can set up an account over there to comment, or you can return to this post and comment here. Your choice!
In open court two weeks ago, Cheney Mason bluntly said that Casey Anthony was not read her Miranda warning until October 14, when she was indicted on a first-degree murder charge by an Orange County grand jury. He said it on two separate occasions that day. Interestingly, no one from the State Attorney’s Office questioned his statements. No one objected. As a matter of fact, none of the law enforcement officials, including Cpl. Yuri Melich, Sgt. John Allen, and Cpl. Eric Edwards, testified that Mason was wrong. Why?
Today, I present Casey’s version. I realize her words cannot be trusted and nothing should be taken seriously, but why would she say something about being read her rights if it did not take place?
In a court of law, what is testified to is what stands. No one said a word negating October 14.
Many thanks to nan11 for the remarkable find, and to SnoopySleuth for bringing it to my attention. To watch and listen to the entire 10 minute video with her brother Lee, please CLICK HERE. It’s right around 5 minutes, 30 seconds in.
Casey To Lee: I Was Read My Rights - Casey Anthony Extended Coverage News Story - WESH Orlando
Casey Anthony’s defense team has filed a lot of motions; too many to some, but plenty of them have been denied without prejudice by the presiding judge. With prejudice and without are fairly cut and dry. With prejudice means that once a judge rules, that’s the end of it; dead in the water, leave it alone and give it a rest. In other words, it’s a final disposition. Without prejudice means that the present form is not good enough to rule positively on, but the motion can certainly be filed again after tweaking and rewriting it. In other words, similar, but not identical. It leaves a party free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action. That’s not to say the latter outcome would be any different, but it leaves the door open for further explanation and review. A lot of the motions ruled against the defense by Judge Stan Strickland were ordered without prejudice. In my opinion, one of the reasons why Jose & Co. wanted him off the bench was made clear after Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. took over. Many of those motions turned down by Judge Strickland were refiled. They expected the new judge to be more favorable in his rulings. Unfortunately for Casey, Judge Perry didn’t overturn a single one of them, so they did nothing to help her cause.
In light of Judge Strickland’s rulings, I want to discuss something that’s been weighing on my mind - without prejudice, of course. Actually, there are two things, the other one being George and Cindy and where they sit in the courtroom; but first, I come to Judge Strickland’s defense - not that he needs it or anything.
Of late, I have been reading comments on blogs, including my own; personal testimonials that praise Judge Perry for keeping this trial on track; that he is expediting the schedule. Consequently, and because of him, the trial will start on time - his time. That’s simply not true. Not to take away from him or his regimented structuring at all, but the facts in this case are, in fact, facts, and facts don’t lie. Just where has Judge Perry sped up the process as it relates to deadlines and the like?
On March 5, 2010, just over a year ago, Judge Strickland affixed his name to an amended order setting deadlines. It’s titled [the] AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. On February 7 of this year, Judge Perry wrote his ORDER MEMORIALIZING STATUS HEARING. Please make a mental note that these are orders written by both judges.
Judge Strickland wrote: Depositions of law enforcement officers or employees shall be completed by September 30, 2010.
Judge Perry wrote: Depositions of Law Enforcement Persons: Defense anticipates completion of all depositions by the February 18,2011 deadline.
That’s a four-and-one-half month discrepancy, folks, and Judge Strickland stepped down six weeks after his deadline order. Who reset the deadline? Please understand that this, in no manner, disparages Judge Perry. This is a complex death penalty case and tentative deadlines are meant to be broken. Recently, a very prominent attorney told me, “So much misinformation is out there,” and this stretches beyond the mundane aspects of this case.
Another good example of this is Judge Strickland’s original deadline for the depositions of defense expert witnesses. The date he set was February 28, 2011. Judge Perry extended it a bit to March 11, 2011 for the final one - Dr. Werner Spitz.
On a side note, we now know Dr. Spitz will argue that Dr. G’s autopsy results are flawed. We will look more into this aspect at a later date, but meanwhile…
Judge Perry said, by hook or by crook, this trial will commence to start on May 9, 2011. It’s etched in stone, but lest you think that he is speeding up what the defense tries to set back, guess again. While Judge Perry keeps both sides on course, it was Judge Strickland who set the trial date of May 9, 2011. I show you Exhibit A, right on schedule:
I remember when I told readers of my blog that I was going to attend my first hearing. It was back in mid-October, 2009. Everyone told me to sit on the prosecution side. If you sit on the defense side, it means you support the defense. I said, no it doesn’t, this isn’t like a wedding, where friends of the bride and groom sit on their respective sides. Oh yes it does, I was lectured. Well, I’ve always been the independent sort, and I told them I will sit wherever I want. It so happens that upon entering the courtroom, the only seat available was next to George and Cindy on the, you guessed it, defense side. That awarded me the opportunity to say a few words to George when the hearing was over, and I’m glad I did. As a writer, I try to remain neutral, although it’s downright impossible at times.
Nowadays, almost all I ever read, over and over and over again, is that because George, Cindy and Lee sit behind their daughter, it means they have “thrown their granddaughter under the bus.” They are not interested in justice for Caylee. At all. That brings me to one very important thought. It’s actually two separate pieces of the whole, but I think it’s worth pondering. No, I am not setting this in stone; let’s just say it’s a fresh perspective that most people haven’t given much thought to, if any at all. Please keep in mind that keeping an open mind usually means everything is not always hidden behind Door Number One. Answers can come from anywhere, and they usually do.
Suppose the Anthonys are seeking justice for their grandchild, but they just don’t like the fact that the state of Florida wants to kill Casey. Hey, life is okay, but death? No matter what your child has done, and I want you to think hard and heavy about this, would you beg the state to kill your child? No matter what? If you honestly answer no, then you will you understand why they refuse to support the prosecution. THEY WANT TO KILL MY DAUGHTER!!! To be realistic, I doubt that you could execute your own child. I couldn’t, because…
Personally, I am against the death penalty. My beliefs are my own and so are my reasons, but if you ask me why I feel the way I do, I will gladly explain my position. With that in mind, has anyone EVER asked George and Cindy what their positions are on the death penalty? If not, what if they feel the same way I do? Why would they want to support the state by sitting behind them? I wouldn’t if it were my child, but she’s not, and it’s not my call.
Think about how you would feel as poison flows into your child’s veins. Without prejudice, of course.