Speaker 1: Lucky Land Casino asking people what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 1: gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in
Speaker 2: my dentist's office more than once.
Speaker 3: Actually do I have to say?
Speaker 4: Yes? You do?
Speaker 3: In the car before my kids pta meeting?
Speaker 5: Really?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 4: Excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 6: I never win?
Speaker 4: And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You could get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot com.
Speaker 4: Play for free right now? Are you feeling lucky?
Speaker 7: Nobri just necesaryfoid? We're gonna be my long eighteen plus
Speaker 7: terms conditions of pluck seems every details.
Speaker 8: Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an
Speaker 8: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to
Speaker 8: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 8: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 8: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 8: Chumbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games
Speaker 8: you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses.
Speaker 8: That's you brighten your day, Lowe actually a lot, so
Speaker 8: sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 8: casino dot com, No pusses every where, every I lost
Speaker 8: e terms.
Speaker 1: Lop to.
Speaker 9: You are now listening to True Murder The most shocking
Speaker 9: Killers in True crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 9: written about them. Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker BTK. Every
Speaker 9: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 9: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,
Speaker 9: journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Speaker 10: Good evening. This is your host Dan Zupanski for the
Speaker 10: program True Murder, The most shocking killers in true crime
Speaker 10: history and the authors that have written about them. The
Speaker 10: twenty eleven Casey Anthony trial came the most sensational news
Speaker 10: story of the year. Time magazine called it the social
Speaker 10: media trial of the century. The twenty two year old
Speaker 10: single mum was charged with three felonies, including first degree murder,
Speaker 10: aggravated child abuse, and manslaughter. When pictures surfaced on the
Speaker 10: Internet showing her at a night club shortly after her
Speaker 10: two year old daughter, Kaylee went missing, the media in
Speaker 10: public went ballistic. Thirty one days passed after Caylee disappeared
Speaker 10: before police were notified, and then it was not mother Casey,
Speaker 10: but her family that called police and they were pointing
Speaker 10: fingers at her. The trial resembled in many ways the
Speaker 10: Roman Colosseum, where crowds thirsted to see lions devour the
Speaker 10: captured prisoner. Internet blogs exploded, just as the Roman crowds
Speaker 10: must have, with demands for execution. The trials. Streaming videos
Speaker 10: and interactive blogs left the public demanding to see an
Speaker 10: embodiment of Caesar give his final thumbs down against their prize.
Speaker 10: Raal jury was another matter. Jurors cried as the evidence
Speaker 10: against her was so thin that they had no choice
Speaker 10: but to find Casey Anthony not guilty. Almost unnoticed, a
Speaker 10: few leading journalists protested the media carnival that became the
Speaker 10: Casey Anthony trial. They objected to the one sided narrative
Speaker 10: informing the court of public opinion forgetting there is a
Speaker 10: difference between someone appearing guilty and the requirement that prosecutors
Speaker 10: need to prove in court. The media's coverage is something
Speaker 10: we should discuss, beginning with did police arrest the wrong person?
Speaker 10: Was the jury right deciding Casey Anthony was not guilty?
Speaker 10: Was Casey's mother involved in a cover up of a
Speaker 10: crime against Kayley, and who was Cindy protecting Casey or
Speaker 10: her husband George. The book that we're discussing this evening
Speaker 10: and the story that we were discussing this evening is
Speaker 10: the media's court of public opinion Casey Anthony, with my
Speaker 10: special guest Keith Long. Journalist and author Keith longcome to
Speaker 10: the program, and thank you for agreeing to this interview.
Speaker 10: Keith Long.
Speaker 11: Thank you so much. Dan. It's my pleasure to be here.
Speaker 11: And I've never heard my own words expressed so well
Speaker 11: as you just did.
Speaker 10: Well, thank you very much. Now, this, as you know,
Speaker 10: and of course anyone that's going to tune into this
Speaker 10: program and hopefully for those who that listen unless they've
Speaker 10: been on another planet, everyone is familiar with this, very
Speaker 10: familiar with this case and this trial and this entire story.
Speaker 10: And it is fair to say that Casey Anthony is
Speaker 10: one of the most reviled persons in America and possibly worldwide,
Speaker 10: but especially America. When you see the extent with Halloween
Speaker 10: Max people going out for Halloween, it's Casey Anthony's. It
Speaker 10: really was a circus and a carnival and very you know,
Speaker 10: obviously interesting story that that fascinated.
Speaker 11: A lot of people to that point, Dan, And I'm
Speaker 11: a research journalist and the article, part of the article
Speaker 11: you quoted from was for my article for Harvard Harvard's
Speaker 11: NIEME Information for Journalism, and my editor for the project
Speaker 11: was Barry Sussman, who was some people recognized the name.
Speaker 11: He was Bob Woodwards and Kyle Bernstein's editor for the
Speaker 11: Washington Post when they exposed the Watergate series. So his
Speaker 11: standards for sourcing for the content of the article were very,
Speaker 11: very high, and I maintained that same high standard for
Speaker 11: my sourcing in my book. And also I might mention
Speaker 11: I as have a backup source for your comment about
Speaker 11: Kasey Anthony being the most reviled and hated person in America.
Speaker 11: Certainly there were two polls down of course, in twenty
Speaker 11: eleven after she was acquitted, found her the most in America,
Speaker 11: and then a year after she had been in seclusion,
Speaker 11: in twenty twelve and a year after her acquittal, she
Speaker 11: was voted again the most stated person in America. So
Speaker 11: you're right on target with your.
Speaker 10: Analysis right now. The thing is is that there's a
Speaker 10: big difference between and we don't want to harp on
Speaker 10: this and go back into this. Can anybody listened to
Speaker 10: this program is not a novice and not a person
Speaker 10: that is coming to this subject and these types of
Speaker 10: conversations for the first time. So let's not deal with
Speaker 10: those people, because there's not any of those really listening
Speaker 10: to this program. I'm sure. Obviously the prosecution didn't have
Speaker 10: didn't present their case in a strong enough fashion or
Speaker 10: a they just did not state their case effectively. Hence
Speaker 10: the jury made the decision to acquit Casey Anthony. So
Speaker 10: let's not go there. They obviously the jury and the
Speaker 10: system and and so some people say, well, you know,
Speaker 10: the system worked or the judicial system. It was a
Speaker 10: circumstantial case. Obviously everyone knows that.
Speaker 11: Can I make one comment about that point?
Speaker 10: Okay? Uh.
Speaker 11: The what was interesting in my research for the trial
Speaker 11: was the jury's uh, there's settlers and didn't make public
Speaker 11: comments about their liberations, about what they thought about Casey,
Speaker 11: why they voted to a quit and the rest of
Speaker 11: them were afraid to say anything public and they've been
Speaker 11: in effectively in hiding Aaron Panallas County, Florida, which is
Speaker 11: the Tampa Bay area roughly speaking on the west coast
Speaker 11: where I live. Uh, And you won't they're trying to
Speaker 11: disguise who they are, the fact that they were members
Speaker 11: of the jury to every level they can and because
Speaker 11: a lot of them got their threats, a lot of
Speaker 11: them were objects of abuse and the derision for their decision.
Speaker 11: But from my standpoint as a research journalist, Dan, what
Speaker 11: they said was what the foreman confirmed in a one
Speaker 11: hour actually I think it was a two hour, two
Speaker 11: part interview on television, was that the jury was not
Speaker 11: sympathetic to the defendant. They did not like a sandem,
Speaker 11: they didn't want to accord and for me as a
Speaker 11: research journalist, that gives credibility for their decision. They cried
Speaker 11: when they voted to acquit. These are emotional reactions that jurors. Example,
Speaker 11: in the OJ case, I speak to bar associations here
Speaker 11: in order, and colleges and law schools, and I compare
Speaker 11: the OJ case to the Casey Anthony case. And of
Speaker 11: course my own opinion is that OJ was guilty and
Speaker 11: that the jury acquitted him despite the fact that they
Speaker 11: the evidence in that case strongly suggested that he was guilty.
Speaker 11: But the difference in terms of the jury is the
Speaker 11: jury was very sympathetic to OJ. In fact, they invoked
Speaker 11: something called jury nullification, which is a recognized legal authority
Speaker 11: that juries have in America to nullify a law by
Speaker 11: trying the law and not the facts. Juries are finders
Speaker 11: of fact, that's the way they're referred to, but they
Speaker 11: can also be finders of law and reject a law.
Speaker 11: That's a recognized right that goes back to Peter's anger
Speaker 11: in Colonel America. And in the LJ case, that's what
Speaker 11: they did. They rejected the law. But in the case
Speaker 11: there was entirely different.
Speaker 10: Well, you know, I don't want to go too much
Speaker 10: on a detour, but you have me at OJ. Okay,
Speaker 10: So here's my analysis of the OJ Simpson case. And
Speaker 10: we're just going to put it out there and we're
Speaker 10: not going to spend too much time on this. But
Speaker 10: this is the way I looked at This is hard, hard,
Speaker 10: and long. I wish I would be looking at it
Speaker 10: right now instead of back in ninety three, ninety four
Speaker 10: or whatever it was when it first happened. And then
Speaker 10: the trial Robert Shapiro part of the dream team of
Speaker 10: ten lawyers at one hundred thousand dollars a month that
Speaker 10: OJ was able to hire court and as well as
Speaker 10: Henry Lee to sit on the forensic fence for the defense,
Speaker 10: and that costs a lot of money as well, and
Speaker 10: a lot of anyway, a lot of discussion to be
Speaker 10: able to get Henry Lee to be able to sort
Speaker 10: of lean on the fence. And again, please let's not
Speaker 10: go down that detour talking about that. But ten lawyers
Speaker 10: and Robert Shapiro quit during a trial because of what
Speaker 10: Johnny Cochrane how he wanted to address the jury. And
Speaker 10: according to my information, Shapiro quit, and this is pretty rare.
Speaker 10: He quit because he didn't like what Johnny Cochran was
Speaker 10: going to do with the jurors. And he planned and
Speaker 10: did say are you willing you black people in this
Speaker 10: jury willing to go back into your black communities? Being
Speaker 10: the person that handed this decision in this unfair racist
Speaker 10: LA Police Department and with the Mark Furman and inadequate,
Speaker 10: I mean, how could you? How can you go toe
Speaker 10: to toe with ten of the best defense lawyers in
Speaker 10: America with expertise in every know That's the way I
Speaker 10: looked at the O. J. Simpson case. Well, sure is
Speaker 10: just regular folks that have nothing better to do and
Speaker 10: are silly enough to want to be on a juror
Speaker 10: a be a jur I think it's silly to go
Speaker 10: through murder trials and have to see crime scene photos
Speaker 10: and under the guys that you're doing something for your
Speaker 10: for your community or for your country. I mean, I
Speaker 10: don't know anyway, sorry, but you had.
Speaker 11: You have to invite me back and we can talk
Speaker 11: about that, your your opinions that have provoked a lot
Speaker 11: of thoughts and and very interesting discussion for me. But
Speaker 11: as you say, we don't want to do it tonight,
Speaker 11: but a very interesting subject.
Speaker 10: Now. The thing is with Casey Anthony, and I might
Speaker 10: as well get this out there right now. What you
Speaker 10: really start your your article with is that you know
Speaker 10: there was a media circus, uh, you know, the irresponsible media,
Speaker 10: and we can say name some names. Nancy Grace was
Speaker 10: unbelievable during this, but there was other names as well. Again,
Speaker 10: this is not really in dispute that the media. There
Speaker 10: was some irresponsible members of the media rushing to judgment.
Speaker 10: And what I wanted to say too is I had
Speaker 10: and I guess I was part of that media circus too.
Speaker 10: I had Diane Fanning on Saint Martin's Press, Mummy's Little
Speaker 10: Girl and the story of Casey Anthony prior to the trial.
Speaker 10: And that was interesting to me because I had not
Speaker 10: seen that, especially in a murder trial that was you know,
Speaker 10: upcoming soon, soon to come, and yet a book was
Speaker 10: out prior to the trial, and then it was very
Speaker 10: interesting tell us about that. What was your conversation with
Speaker 10: Dan Fanning wrote the book, and so what was your
Speaker 10: conversation with her, like what was the kind of things
Speaker 10: that you had to discuss and tell us?
Speaker 11: Well, it was a short discussion. I was, I told
Speaker 11: her interested in the subject and my research and so forth,
Speaker 11: and she basically just pointed out that she was writing
Speaker 11: her story before the verdict came in and before all
Speaker 11: the evidence was in, but she felt compelled to write
Speaker 11: about the story because it was the center of attention
Speaker 11: in America and certainly on TV. And she was you know, basically,
Speaker 11: she was not We didn't get into a lot of
Speaker 11: discussion or conversation. It was just kind of a touch
Speaker 11: base conversation two journalists that her think about the same subject.
Speaker 10: Okay, Yeah, And I was surprised myself too to be
Speaker 10: able to you know, have her back on and discuss
Speaker 10: how she felt, you know, about writing a book and
Speaker 10: then having this looking like a foregone conclusion and then
Speaker 10: certainly not. The other thing that I have is that
Speaker 10: if you say that in the court of public opinion,
Speaker 10: Casey Anthony was you know, it was a rush to judgment,
Speaker 10: obviously attacking her character, and it was everyone knows it
Speaker 10: was a circus. But what are you saying about it
Speaker 10: when you're saying about Casey Anthony's innocence? Why can't you
Speaker 10: just why are you not content to just leave it there?
Speaker 10: Why are you compelled to? And we won't get to
Speaker 10: that point yet, but let's let's just talk about why
Speaker 10: are you at least not just compelled to talk about
Speaker 10: and analyze and dissect why Casey Anthony really you know,
Speaker 10: of course she was acquitted by the juror why is
Speaker 10: she not guilty? Right?
Speaker 11: It's a you know, that's a fundamental pivotal question and
Speaker 11: point about the whole subject, dan uh And and what
Speaker 11: attracted me to the story, the one sided narrative of
Speaker 11: the subject as a journalist, and I kept looking for
Speaker 11: a journalist guideline, not a analyst guideline or commentator, but
Speaker 11: a journalist guideline. When you take a story subject, you
Speaker 11: may be given marching orders by your editor to say, Okay,
Speaker 11: here's the story. The evidence looks overwhelming against this person,
Speaker 11: and we're going to cover this story, and we're going
Speaker 11: to show this evidence in our article or in our piece.
Speaker 11: But we also have to show the other side. Sometimes
Speaker 11: it's towards the end of the article, and sometimes it's
Speaker 11: a fraction of the space of the whole article. But
Speaker 11: at least you hear as strong and as compelling a
Speaker 11: presentation for the other side as you can muster, as
Speaker 11: you can find as a journalist and as a reporter.
Speaker 11: And I kept waiting to find that in some kind
Speaker 11: of journalistic outlet, and it was never there. And so
Speaker 11: I talked to Barry Suspen and he felt that it
Speaker 11: was a media circus. But he said, look, he said,
Speaker 11: you can present me your story, but I'm going to
Speaker 11: need strict sourcing, and you're going to have to convince
Speaker 11: me before I publish it. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism
Speaker 11: is a very respected, top of the line operation, and
Speaker 11: they are not going to put anything out there that
Speaker 11: is strongly sourced, strictly sourced, and credible. And I accepted
Speaker 11: that standard, and he was very happy to publish. And
Speaker 11: so to answer your question, why don't I just leave
Speaker 11: it by a statement for an argument that Casey Anthony
Speaker 11: is innocent and let it go of that. There's much
Speaker 11: more involved in this story, the media and the public.
Speaker 11: And here again then you can recall the scenes at
Speaker 11: the courthouse where jerked or fighting amongst themselves to get
Speaker 11: in line so that they could be a witness to
Speaker 11: what everybody understood and believed would be a execution decision,
Speaker 11: or at least a guilty decision for this defendant. And
Speaker 11: that's why I said in my piece that it resemble
Speaker 11: the days of the Roman Colosseum. Well, that's not America.
Speaker 11: That's not the America that I live in or want
Speaker 11: to do it. And of course she was the object
Speaker 11: of bullying, but everybody is so convinced because of her
Speaker 11: behavior after the death of her daughter that she had
Speaker 11: to be guilty. Nobody would the consensus is, and not
Speaker 11: an unreasonable consensus, but the consensus is nobody could witness
Speaker 11: or find the death of their two year old daughter
Speaker 11: and then not report it. And she never reported it.
Speaker 11: It wasn't her that that eventually determined that the child
Speaker 11: that died. It was the body was found six months later,
Speaker 11: and it wasn't her that reported the death to police.
Speaker 11: It was her mother. Police arrested her.
Speaker 10: So let's you know what, let's let's not you know,
Speaker 10: that's the thing is, let's not go too much into
Speaker 10: rehashing the evidence, because then we can have we can
Speaker 10: have a fire firestorm here of well, that's not exactly
Speaker 10: how I went down, and we can you know, retry
Speaker 10: the case here to a certain degree. What I would
Speaker 10: like to look at is and of course, again I'm
Speaker 10: not trying to edit what you're trying to say here. Again,
Speaker 10: I can agree that that everything that everybody that's listening
Speaker 10: to this program witnessed for themselves as well, because it
Speaker 10: dominated everything. Is that it now in hindsight or if
Speaker 10: they were to look at it, say the next person
Speaker 10: or the next person or the next person, because you know,
Speaker 10: the judicial system of America sometimes gets it wrong. That
Speaker 10: if you have this media circus and it's wrong now
Speaker 10: people think that Casey Anthony is guilty and beat the
Speaker 10: murder rap and the jury was silly and it was
Speaker 10: nonsensical and the defense through you know, through conjecture, and
Speaker 10: again that's a big word. And I can have the
Speaker 10: definition of what conjecture is is that that the father, George,
Speaker 10: was the killer. But again he hasn't been tried. He
Speaker 10: was that Any and all involvement in this was investigated
Speaker 10: by the police. There were no charges laid. There are
Speaker 10: no there was no talk of charges to be laid.
Speaker 10: The judge in the trial, the presiding judge in the trial,
Speaker 10: said he felt this is after the trial, that there
Speaker 10: was ample evidence to convict Casey Anthony. There's been talking
Speaker 10: of jurors not really paying attention to certain evidence, and
Speaker 10: again that's just some kind of story because I I
Speaker 10: don't have that evidence. I don't have that.
Speaker 1: Lucky Land casino, asking people what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 1: gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in
Speaker 2: my dentist's office more than once.
Speaker 3: Actually do I have to say?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 10: You do?
Speaker 3: In the car before my kid's PTA meeting.
Speaker 1: Really yes, excuse me, what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 4: I never win and tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You can get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot
Speaker 1: com play for free right now?
Speaker 4: Are you feeling lucky?
Speaker 7: Nope, We're not necessary. Void Web were gonna be my
Speaker 7: long eighteen plus terms and conditions of plus you what's
Speaker 7: every days?
Speaker 6: Wait, the Lucky land Slots. You can get lucky just
Speaker 6: about anywhere.
Speaker 5: It's your captain speaking. We've got clear runway and the
Speaker 5: weather's fine, but we're just going to circle up here
Speaker 5: a while and get lucky. Oh no, nothing like that.
Speaker 5: It's just these cash prizes add up quick. So I
Speaker 5: suggest you sit back, keep your trade table up right,
Speaker 5: and start getting lucky.
Speaker 6: Play for free at Lucky Landslots dot com. Are you
Speaker 6: feeling lucky? No purchase necessary, void where? But in my
Speaker 6: law eighteen plus terms and conditions applying any website for details.
Speaker 10: I don't know what kind of evidence that would be,
Speaker 10: you know, overwhelming to me? So of that, so maybe
Speaker 10: I shouldn't even have said that. Let's discount I said
Speaker 10: anything about the jury. Jury. But getting back to this
Speaker 10: situation here, just because jurors.
Speaker 11: I can add the Attorney General Pam Bondi that quote
Speaker 11: nobody there's nobody else in the world that could have
Speaker 11: done this to Kayley except Casey Anthony. But she said
Speaker 11: it before the trial even began.
Speaker 10: Yeah, but that's called politics, isn't it. Because everybody's trying
Speaker 10: to get elected and re elected and make political points.
Speaker 10: Because so that's it's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible, and it's
Speaker 10: it's not a yeah, it's it's wrong. It's wrong for
Speaker 10: people to but it is a good example in the
Speaker 10: analysis is that I think people shouldn't judge people by
Speaker 10: their posts say this behavior a couple of days later, necessarily,
Speaker 10: But then again, this is the age that we are
Speaker 10: in where there's video of almost everything, and you have
Speaker 10: people like Nancy Grace who should know better, she's a
Speaker 10: former prosecutor, and yet you know, television stations should be
Speaker 10: more responsible. Publishing companies certainly don't, as per typical published
Speaker 10: books before trials are finished, trying I mean, the only
Speaker 10: reason you would do that is try to capitalize on
Speaker 10: the momentum, capitalize on that furor by being the first right,
Speaker 10: Isn't that What else other motivation would that be? Since
Speaker 10: they don't do that.
Speaker 11: In the case of hl N, and that's the station
Speaker 11: that Nancy Grace is on, they have, in my opinion,
Speaker 11: a kind of a business model that has been very
Speaker 11: successful for them, very lucrative for them. Business model is
Speaker 11: pretty apparent to me and I don't say this because
Speaker 11: I have any feeling because of the way they cover
Speaker 11: this particular trial at all. I really don't, just as
Speaker 11: an objective evaluator. Their business model is to find an
Speaker 11: accused that can attract national tension and then to bullieve
Speaker 11: the accused up one side and down the other, unrelated
Speaker 11: and that's their business model, and it's very successful to
Speaker 11: a certain audience. And for me, I only say that
Speaker 11: just to acknowledge it and to be aware of it
Speaker 11: so that when I Channel Surf and run by the station,
Speaker 11: I just kind of understand that's what I'm going to see.
Speaker 10: Well, you know, our beloved corporation in Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Speaker 10: This is their side. This is the way they deal
Speaker 10: with both sides of the story. They present their story
Speaker 10: and then and they ask the opponent in this story,
Speaker 10: the bad guy in this story, the subject or target
Speaker 10: of their investigation or the documentary, if they'd like to
Speaker 10: appear on camera, and they don't get any response, So
Speaker 10: they show up at the office, or they show up
Speaker 10: at his home, or they try to get him in
Speaker 10: the parking lot running away from a cameraman and a
Speaker 10: reporter with a microphone. You know the same thing. It's irresponsible, really,
Speaker 10: But what I wanted to get to is that you
Speaker 10: have accused somebody of murder other than Casey Anthy. You
Speaker 10: said Casey Anthony. Is you believe Casey Anthony did not
Speaker 10: commit this murder? So tell us I won't put words
Speaker 10: in your mouth. Tell us what you believe about Casey
Speaker 10: Anthony and her actual guilt. Let's guilt under you know,
Speaker 10: a higher court will say, and who did do this murder?
Speaker 10: And then well, I'll have some questions for.
Speaker 11: You, sure well as far as the acquitted defendant is concerned.
Speaker 11: I approached the question and the subjects as a journalist,
Speaker 11: as a research journalist, and I let the research and
Speaker 11: the texts tell the story. And uh, in this case,
Speaker 11: as we've already mentioned the fact that the jury jury
Speaker 11: was unsympathetic to her, but they acquitted her as a
Speaker 11: research journalist, that's a very powerful fact. If and I
Speaker 11: only mentioned the old j jury just and you and
Speaker 11: I agree on that. I think I only mentioned that
Speaker 11: as a comparison somebody that the public believe is guilty
Speaker 11: and the jury acquitted them. But in that case, the
Speaker 11: jury was sympathetic to the defendant. In this case that
Speaker 11: didn't exist. They didn't like her, they didn't want to.
Speaker 10: But if they're using it as if you're using O. J.
Speaker 10: Simpson as a litmus test, is an extraordinary case, and
Speaker 10: the case of Anthony is an extraordinary case. But they
Speaker 10: are not apples and apples. They're apples and something else.
Speaker 10: Just because you know, you're you're drawing, you're taking, you're
Speaker 10: making an inference because just because the jury, again you
Speaker 10: say unanimous that they were unsympathetic, Well, why would they
Speaker 10: be sympathetic to her? No one was. I mean, that's
Speaker 10: so that's pretty easy. The odds are against twelve ordinary
Speaker 10: people being sympathetic to her. She's in court accused of something,
Speaker 10: so again sympathy, unsympathetic. But then you say, well they
Speaker 10: but they still acquitted her. Well, of course, because they've
Speaker 10: been instructed or the prosecution was ineffective, or the defense
Speaker 10: was effective, and the defense could have been effective. In
Speaker 10: the conjecture, I mean, it happens.
Speaker 11: Yeah, And as a as a as a researcher, what
Speaker 11: what impressed me about that fact, that single fact was
Speaker 11: was was that the jury felt compelled to follow the
Speaker 11: judges instructions, and the instructions of the law as it's
Speaker 11: written and come up with a decision based on the law,
Speaker 11: and that the jury was the jury decision, and the
Speaker 11: jurors themselves represented a tremendous achievement for American justice in
Speaker 11: and of itself, just that fact, the fact that they could,
Speaker 11: in the face of huge hostile a huge hostile environment
Speaker 11: against the defendant, could stand up and say, I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: The law says, if there's a reasonable doubt, I must acquit.
Speaker 11: And that's exactly what they did. And then they went
Speaker 11: into hiding to protect themselves from the hostility of some
Speaker 11: members of the public at their decision. So, as a
Speaker 11: research journalist, what impresses me is irony in truth. Truth
Speaker 11: is stranger than fiction. You couldn't write a story like
Speaker 11: this and have anybody to believe it at all possible
Speaker 11: that these twelve girds could be subjected to the hostility
Speaker 11: and the probrium of their culture. And yet when you
Speaker 11: look at the facts of it, understand they upheld the
Speaker 11: law that ultimately protects each of us as an individual
Speaker 11: in this country. How impressive is that and how.
Speaker 10: Well it is? You know, I'm not impressed. I'm not
Speaker 10: impressed with the system we'll say again example, I wasn't
Speaker 10: impressed with the judicial system in the decision, the O. J.
Speaker 10: Simpson decision, I wasn't just And so there are I mean,
Speaker 10: I probably could name a few decisions that I wasn't
Speaker 10: I wasn't happy with, and I didn't agree with. So
Speaker 10: I mean, that's that's just the way, that's just the
Speaker 10: way things are. But I can't see how you know,
Speaker 10: they could have been presented a not enough conclusive evidence,
Speaker 10: and that's a reasonable doubt as well. I mean, and
Speaker 10: it all it takes is one juror, and so.
Speaker 11: Well, the cow was eight to four and the first
Speaker 11: vote to equip and eurie watchers and trial consultants and
Speaker 11: people who follow the courts will tell you that that
Speaker 11: is a pretty strong vote on an initial vote, especially
Speaker 11: on a murder trial like this that attracted so much attention.
Speaker 11: And the ultimate decision was unanimous, and as I said,
Speaker 11: it was not out of sympathy to the dependent. And
Speaker 11: the other thing about the researching in this case. It
Speaker 11: may surprise you, but I read the testimony of all
Speaker 11: of the friends associates, and I should say the interviews
Speaker 11: as well as the testimony with police, all of her friends, associates, colleagues,
Speaker 11: people that she went to school with. Anybody and everybody
Speaker 11: that was around her when both before her child was
Speaker 11: born and after when she was raising Kayley, and the
Speaker 11: police interviewers would bait them. They were trying to say, Okay,
Speaker 11: she was not a good mother, she slapped Kaylie, right,
Speaker 11: or she was abusive, or she was neglectable. Right, you know,
Speaker 11: kind of almost leaning in saying right. And what do
Speaker 11: you suppose all these people said in an environment where
Speaker 11: nobody wanted to be associated with defending her, and what
Speaker 11: every one of them said was that she was an
Speaker 11: ideal mother with no exception. Okay, they went into they
Speaker 11: went into detail.
Speaker 10: They was that's fine, But you know the thing is
Speaker 10: that's this that's a character. You know, somebody's summing up
Speaker 10: someone's character and by their estimation and friends, and I
Speaker 10: have lots of friends. You have friends and acquaintances and people.
Speaker 10: I'd hate to see what people would say under those circumstances.
Speaker 10: I see that the strongest evidence, like you say, is
Speaker 10: the jury with all that hostility, thinking of the consequences
Speaker 10: of their decision and then what they might have to do,
Speaker 10: like going into seclusion and being hated and so yeah,
Speaker 10: that that's evidence because that makes logical sense that people
Speaker 10: would take in their own safety into consideration in their decision,
Speaker 10: whether they wanted to or not. Biases natural and self
Speaker 10: and survival is natural, and the other you know that.
Speaker 10: The the other thing is that the the the jurors
Speaker 10: as well listen to the information and made their major
Speaker 10: decision under the judge's directions. So they but they still
Speaker 10: have to be that is evidence in itself. Please make
Speaker 10: another because I have to come back with this train
Speaker 10: of thought here gather my thought here, Well I.
Speaker 11: Can I can add this and the way my storylined
Speaker 11: uples that confirms her innocence and one of the kind
Speaker 11: of the pivot points of this information I just said
Speaker 11: about all her friends, everybody, and they were vouching for her.
Speaker 11: But the thing of it is what people what changed
Speaker 11: people's minds about the innocence or guilts of the defendant
Speaker 11: was her behavior after her daughter died. And as a researcher,
Speaker 11: that is important to me, that's important thing to know.
Speaker 11: That's the kind of a point of departure. And so
Speaker 11: they also talked to her character as a person independent
Speaker 11: of any descriptions of her as a mother, and they
Speaker 11: said that she was everybody's mom. She would tell she
Speaker 11: would take care of people, she would when she was
Speaker 11: around them. She was that kind of a person. She
Speaker 11: was not a narcissistic person.
Speaker 10: See that's what I was talking about. Though, you know,
Speaker 10: we can make these you know, she wasn't a narcissistic person. Again,
Speaker 10: we get into you know, sofa of psychiatry here, you know,
Speaker 10: couch psychiatry, home psychiatry. These friends and their testimony is valuable,
Speaker 10: but it's not really as strong as the other evidence
Speaker 10: that used to convict her or to acquit her. And
Speaker 10: the thing is is that the friend, how many serial
Speaker 10: killers are married and their wife has no idea of
Speaker 10: the horror that this guy's perpetrating on the nation, their
Speaker 10: eight bodies or ten victims or whatever it is. So
Speaker 10: in and itself, you know that the friend says that
Speaker 10: she's a great mom. That's fine. Maybe she was a
Speaker 10: great mom till that one week or that incident, whatever
Speaker 10: that is, or that one month. A lot of people
Speaker 10: take a sharp departure from their normal typical behavior after
Speaker 10: thirty years, twenty years, fifty years, many years.
Speaker 11: So let's the point.
Speaker 10: I mean, because we only have so much time. Let's
Speaker 10: concentrate on the evidence that you have. You know, I
Speaker 10: know that the defense put forward the same argument that
Speaker 10: George and the drowning. But I want to hear actual evidence.
Speaker 10: I want to hear strong evidence. And let's discuss that,
Speaker 10: because that would take two hours. So let's talk about
Speaker 10: the strong evidence. You are accusing a man. You say, listen,
Speaker 10: the court of public opinion crucified this woman, and now
Speaker 10: what are they going to do? And she's still in
Speaker 10: hiding and she's still reviled. But aren't both of us
Speaker 10: doing this? And that's why I'm giving you a rough
Speaker 10: ride on this one. Aren't we both doing this? And
Speaker 10: aren't you in accusing George of a murder? He's not
Speaker 10: been charged, he was investigated. Like I said before, I mean,
Speaker 10: aren't we doing the same thing. What if the show
Speaker 10: takes off and four hundred thousand people listen to this
Speaker 10: program and go, oh, well, shouldn't we retry George? Shouldn't
Speaker 10: there be another retrial, shouldn't George be prosecuted? Shouldn't we
Speaker 10: go hunt down George?
Speaker 11: Yeah? And they as far as George, which is our father,
Speaker 11: is concerned, I don't assert in the book that he
Speaker 11: murdered Kayley. What I assert that he is responsible for
Speaker 11: taking Kayley, putting her in a double laundry bag, and
Speaker 11: placing her in the woods where she was later found
Speaker 11: six months later. And also I know that there is
Speaker 11: suspicion that and here I use the words suspicions that
Speaker 11: George had a motive for negative feelings toward Kayley and
Speaker 11: possibly killing her. And what do you suppose that that
Speaker 11: suspicion is all about? It goes back to the relationship
Speaker 11: in this family, which been commented about even by people
Speaker 11: that don't like the defendant, as a very dysfunctional family,
Speaker 11: very odd.
Speaker 10: Family in terms of their Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you
Speaker 10: know the thing is, dysfunctionality is more commonplace than not commonplace,
Speaker 10: I mean. And besides, what does even dysfunction mean? Anything
Speaker 10: out of the ordinary, anything out of perfection, which doesn't occur.
Speaker 10: Let's just see what, you know. I want to know
Speaker 10: what exactly the evidence is that of his involvement, That's
Speaker 10: the thing. And if right, I want to hear the evidence.
Speaker 11: Of that, sure, absolutely, obviously it's germane to the whole subject.
Speaker 11: And of course, the manner in which the body was
Speaker 11: found in there woods, just walk or so away from
Speaker 11: his home, was wrapped in bags. The bags were tied.
Speaker 10: With duct tape.
Speaker 11: And it so happens that George was the one that
Speaker 11: buried family pets and double plastic bags taped at the
Speaker 11: top the duck bates in their family history. But this
Speaker 11: was a method of disposing of bodies, in this case
Speaker 11: pets that George preferred and that George used in the past,
Speaker 11: and this is the way the little girl was found
Speaker 11: not far from his home. So there is a connection
Speaker 11: there between the discovery of the body and George. And
Speaker 11: of course there is incontrovertible evidence at trial that George
Speaker 11: lied on the stand about his activities while Kaylee was missing.
Speaker 11: For example, he had a mistress while Kaylee was still missing,
Speaker 11: and the whole country was looking for Kaylee around Forda anyway,
Speaker 11: and everybody was concerned about her. He was having a
Speaker 11: play with a mistress, and when he was asked about
Speaker 11: it at trial, he lied. And the reason we know
Speaker 11: he lied was because there was evidence presented that there
Speaker 11: was a guard gate at the mistress's place that recognized him,
Speaker 11: that logged him in multiple times, which he denied. There
Speaker 11: was a cell phone text of amorous comments between him
Speaker 11: and the mistress. And what's more interesting, the mistress says
Speaker 11: that he in effect confessed to her before Kaylee was found,
Speaker 11: that Kaylee died and that he knew how she died.
Speaker 10: So this is what what?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 10: What? What? Okay? This this is this is some news
Speaker 10: for me. What did police do with this? Where when
Speaker 10: did this come out? And why was this evidence? Tell
Speaker 10: us about this evidence? In terms of this, mistress said
Speaker 10: what to who? Who's who? Is this? This confession story
Speaker 10: given to.
Speaker 11: Well, I was given to the mistress and she testified
Speaker 11: to it at trial, okay. And the statement was that
Speaker 11: Kayley died in an accident that snowballed out of control.
Speaker 11: Is what he told her. And of course this is
Speaker 11: you can put this in the context of a man
Speaker 11: whose daughter is on trial and who's he He is
Speaker 11: testifying against her capital murder and he's lying on the sand,
Speaker 11: not just about his statement to his mistress, but the
Speaker 11: fact that she was even even was his mistress. And
Speaker 11: so you have to ask yourself at some point in time,
Speaker 11: why would he do that? Why would he lie about
Speaker 11: having a mistress when the effect was to was to
Speaker 11: incriminate his daughter? Whose face the death ped I mean,
Speaker 11: let's face it, if he admitted to having a mistress,
Speaker 11: that's not the end of the world for him. Why
Speaker 11: would he do that? Why would he uh, why would
Speaker 11: he lie about it?
Speaker 10: You know? The thing is if you, if you, if
Speaker 10: you have to say why did he do this? And
Speaker 10: then and then make a supposition or a proposition that
Speaker 10: that this is why he did that, then again that's unfair.
Speaker 10: In it's you can call it a lot of things.
Speaker 10: You can call it conjecture, you can call it.
Speaker 11: You know, well, it's just that for me, Well, okay,
Speaker 11: it's a it's an open question that I'm asking. And
Speaker 11: the reason I'm asking it that way, I'm not asserting
Speaker 11: that he murdered anybody. But I am trying to present
Speaker 11: a balanced narrative. I'm trying to present a balance narrative,
Speaker 11: the one side of narrative of his story.
Speaker 10: Tell me about the tell him, tell us about the mistress. Though,
Speaker 10: what if this is if this is well, this could
Speaker 10: be crucial evidence. This testimony here.
Speaker 1: Lucky land Casino asking people, what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 1: gotten Lucky.
Speaker 2: Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in
Speaker 2: my dentist's office more than once.
Speaker 3: Actually, do I have to say?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 3: You do in the car before my kid's PTA meeting?
Speaker 5: Really? Yes?
Speaker 4: Excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 6: I never win?
Speaker 4: And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You could get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot
Speaker 1: com play for free right now?
Speaker 4: Are you feeling lucky?
Speaker 7: No, we're not necessary for my long eighteen plus terms conditions.
Speaker 4: Plus what every to get here.
Speaker 10: That you know was an accident got out of control? Again,
Speaker 10: if you ask the question, why would this mistress make
Speaker 10: up a story like that that you know, on the
Speaker 10: face of it seems kind of feasible and doesn't sound
Speaker 10: like a fantastic opportunistic story. Again, tell us about the
Speaker 10: actual trial and what did they do with her as
Speaker 10: testimony and the cross examine and direct vote. What was
Speaker 10: the result of this? Why is it? Why was this
Speaker 10: not more important?
Speaker 11: Well? That's you know, that's the backstory Dan, about this,
Speaker 11: about how this whole story has been a one sided
Speaker 11: narrative on the part of everyone involved in it practically
Speaker 11: except her defense team, and that is the police. It's
Speaker 11: not a surprise to people at follow crime story is
Speaker 11: that when a high profile or celebrity involved crime is committed,
Speaker 11: they want to find a solution. They need somebody to prosecute.
Speaker 11: The prosecutor. A lot of them are elected, a lot
Speaker 11: of them use those cases. I won't mention Jeff Ashton's
Speaker 11: name as the stepping stones a higher political office, and
Speaker 11: I think that's actually what he did in Orange County, Florida.
Speaker 11: But I'm just saying that you go after a suspect,
Speaker 11: and you tried what the prosecutor does. He's obligated to look,
Speaker 11: to seek and to obtain justice. But the way the
Speaker 11: system works, too often, he said, they look for somebody
Speaker 11: to convict, and they look for leverage to use against
Speaker 11: that person to gain a conviction by a jury of peers.
Speaker 11: And sometimes that means you just zero in on one
Speaker 11: person who looks like a ripe vulnerable target and ignore
Speaker 11: the other people in the case. Perhaps George, that should
Speaker 11: be investigated. You said on several times George was investigated,
Speaker 11: or maybe he wasn't. Well, the truth is he wasn't.
Speaker 11: I watched the videotaped interrogations. I watched, I read the transcripts.
Speaker 11: He was given a pass. He won't.
Speaker 10: Let me ask it. Let me ask this question though
Speaker 10: the whole story starts. You know, again, explain this to
Speaker 10: me then, But we're giving this this your logic on
Speaker 10: this story. Here, Casey Anthony is not at her family's home,
Speaker 10: she's somewhere else. There's the car at the impound and
Speaker 10: the parents get a call, and then there's the smell
Speaker 10: of death. Didn't he confirm that smell of death even
Speaker 10: though the mother was the first person to give us that.
Speaker 10: I mean, I don't understand how. Again, you don't have
Speaker 10: to give me a motive, but you got to give
Speaker 10: me how this makes logical sense when it started. Explain
Speaker 10: this for me.
Speaker 11: Sure, absolutely, the smell of death was in the trunk
Speaker 11: of Casey's car. Sure, and that was discovered. That was
Speaker 11: identified about two and a half weeks after the day
Speaker 11: we know that Katie died.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 11: As it turns out, incidentally, Henry Lee was one of
Speaker 11: forensic examiner, is very prominent forensic scientist who was on
Speaker 11: the OJ case. He's also on this case for the
Speaker 11: dependent and his conclusion was that there was no human
Speaker 11: decomposition in the trunk of the car after he examined
Speaker 11: the trunk. So I just throw that in as a
Speaker 11: as a as a reference point, human decomposition is very
Speaker 11: difficult to distinguish from animal decomposition. That is what Henry
Speaker 11: Lea said, That's what a lot of experts in this
Speaker 11: subject saying. But also, it wasn't detected. It wasn't detected
Speaker 11: until almost three weeks after the death of Kayley. And
Speaker 11: so you know, for anybody to assert that Casey was
Speaker 11: driving around with her dead daughter in the trunk of
Speaker 11: her car for three weeks, you have to ask the question,
Speaker 11: is I do why wasn't there an order before three
Speaker 11: weeks or two and a half weeks somebody would have smelled.
Speaker 10: And and it wasn't in it? How long was it
Speaker 10: in the impound though?
Speaker 11: There was picked up almost a month after the death
Speaker 11: of the daughter.
Speaker 10: And that's why you know, you know, you've seen a
Speaker 10: junk yard before, though, write or an impound. I mean,
Speaker 10: is it possible. Isn't it possible that that smell might
Speaker 10: not have been detected just because where you are and
Speaker 10: who's near you know, no number of cars.
Speaker 11: If you put a dead body or of anything and
Speaker 11: that animal or any or anything in the trunk of
Speaker 11: the car within a few days, you're going to be
Speaker 11: You're going to have the putrid odor from that carcass
Speaker 11: and uh, that's just the way it is.
Speaker 10: And so.
Speaker 11: The fact of the matter is that she abandoned the
Speaker 11: car on a street near the street. She didn't try
Speaker 11: to hide it. She chose to abandon the car near
Speaker 11: the street where her mother drove to work every day.
Speaker 11: So one of the things that anybody researching the case
Speaker 11: obactively looks at is well, was she hiding, was she
Speaker 11: exhibiting consciousness of guilt? Was she was she trying to
Speaker 11: cover anything up? And you look at her and you
Speaker 11: go into the lies that she told to police about
Speaker 11: where Kaylie was and about where she worked. These are
Speaker 11: lies that the police confirmed her lies at the snap
Speaker 11: of the finger. She said she worked at Universal Studios.
Speaker 11: So they call up Hr, and Hr says, I'm sorry,
Speaker 11: she had worked in three years. And she says, well,
Speaker 11: the nanny, this fictitious nanny that she invented, who had Kaylee,
Speaker 11: according to her, lived in this part. And so they
Speaker 11: go to the apartment and the apartment's been vacant for
Speaker 11: six months. Yeah, so I mean, these are not lies
Speaker 11: to protect herself. And then the why well.
Speaker 10: Wait, wait a minute, How why are these why are
Speaker 10: they're not lies? To protect herself.
Speaker 11: Because they expose the fact that she's telling lies. In
Speaker 11: other words, she says she works at a place that
Speaker 11: she knows. Hr is going to tell them she hasn't
Speaker 11: worked there for three years. And she tells them that
Speaker 11: the nanny has a child, lives in this apartment. That's
Speaker 11: where she's been with the nanny, and they go to
Speaker 11: the apartment. It's been vacant for six months.
Speaker 10: So she's doing this to She's doing this too for
Speaker 10: what reason though? The police are looking at her with
Speaker 10: suspicion because her parents are accusing her as well, are putting,
Speaker 10: you know, the possibility that she did this, and so
Speaker 10: then she is purposely she's purposely saying, listen, I work
Speaker 10: at Universal, so that Universal can say, no, she hasn't
Speaker 10: worked here for years, and then well, where's the child?
Speaker 10: Where did you leave the child? Well, at this nanny,
Speaker 10: but the nanny doesn't exist. Tell me why she on
Speaker 10: earth anyone would do that.
Speaker 11: That's the whole point. The point is that we and
Speaker 11: me and everyone is judging her as if she should
Speaker 11: behave the way we behaved. There were two psychiatric there
Speaker 11: were three psychiatric evaluations of her detailed and at length.
Speaker 11: Two of them were published, which I read, one by
Speaker 11: a psychiatrist, one by a psychologists. Their conclusion is that
Speaker 11: her statements of molestation by her father at a very
Speaker 11: young age very often were consistent with their evaluation of her,
Speaker 11: which they concluded she was not diagnosable with any kind
Speaker 11: of mental illness whatsoever. And and so then you compound
Speaker 11: that abuse with the traumatic death of her child, who
Speaker 11: she had bonded with again, she says, at the hands
Speaker 11: of her father, and you have a traumatic experience and
Speaker 11: a traumatic reaction. That explains her behavior. That explains why
Speaker 11: she invents these fictitious things and things that don't make sense.
Speaker 11: That explains why she functions to the extent that she
Speaker 11: can have pictures taken at a nightclub. But she was
Speaker 11: at the nightclub because her boyfriend worked there. If he
Speaker 11: had worked at a T shirt sales factory in Orlando somewhere,
Speaker 11: at someplace on some corner, she would have been there.
Speaker 11: She was there because he was there.
Speaker 10: Yeah. See, the thing is I could say that I
Speaker 10: can give you that a person's behavior captured in a
Speaker 10: snapshot on a Facebook page by someone maybe they're smile
Speaker 10: for a photo. I probably could have been seen smiling
Speaker 10: for a photo a day or two after my best
Speaker 10: friend's funeral, so taken out of context, I don't think
Speaker 10: that that should be Again, I don't think that's evidence.
Speaker 10: I think that's again open to interpretation. It's subjective, or
Speaker 10: it's inconclusive. It's inconclusive evidence. So but I can't say
Speaker 10: that now that I'm going to give you credit for
Speaker 10: your explanation because you lost me on it, and it
Speaker 10: doesn't make any difference if I agreed with you, because
Speaker 10: all it is is that again, it's a tenuous, tenuous
Speaker 10: link that you put these things together. So I'll just
Speaker 10: give the person credit for the behavior. Cannot be judged
Speaker 10: by a photo or a video or somebody said she
Speaker 10: looked normal to me, you know.
Speaker 11: So let's I do admit that you're putting in a
Speaker 11: very difficult situation where I'm having to prove the innocence
Speaker 11: of somebody that everybody hates at the top fertile to
Speaker 11: get over. But I accept that that's the reality, and
Speaker 11: and so I accept that, but it's it's tough to proven.
Speaker 10: Well, the thing is, I look less at at motive
Speaker 10: than some people because again, motive can be put together
Speaker 10: to sound pretty good based on our supposition anyway, you know,
Speaker 10: it can be especially now I'm affected by what happened
Speaker 10: in the media and all the information and the emotion
Speaker 10: my my natural bias. So then when I a motive
Speaker 10: is put forward, well, geez, that makes sense, but makes
Speaker 10: sense to my pre according to my preconceived thinking. So
Speaker 10: the thing is is that again you can I'd like
Speaker 10: to hear what the motive was for this, and to
Speaker 10: hear exactly I mean this drowning. I want to hear
Speaker 10: evidence of this drowning because I can't see how forensically
Speaker 10: there there wasn't the ability to determine more about this
Speaker 10: supposed an incident. Tell me a little bit more about
Speaker 10: that evidence and that again that theory.
Speaker 11: A lot of people Dan don't know where that story
Speaker 11: came from. It came from Casey Anthony in her interview
Speaker 11: with the psychiatrist, and she had not told her own
Speaker 11: defense attorney about what happened to Kaylee in the backyard
Speaker 11: swimming pool in June sixteenth, two thousand and eight for
Speaker 11: over a year because she was in denial. She was
Speaker 11: in denial when she made up the story about a
Speaker 11: fictitious Danny. She was in denial of what happened to Kaylee.
Speaker 11: She said when she was first arrested that she feels
Speaker 11: Kaylee is close even though she had seen her dead
Speaker 11: in her father's arms in the backyard. So she was
Speaker 11: in deep, deep denial. And the people that worked with
Speaker 11: PTSD soldiers with parents that experien in'st traumatic loss of
Speaker 11: a child and who have other issues, they say that
Speaker 11: this denial is typical and the disconnect between the way
Speaker 11: people are and the reality is that people expect someone
Speaker 11: to behave the way normal people do. They I can't
Speaker 11: tell you how many women, especially have told me if
Speaker 11: my daughter died, there's no way I wouldn't.
Speaker 10: Report it to the police.
Speaker 11: Of course, yes that's true, that's true for me. But
Speaker 11: nobody's been in a situation where they were abused by
Speaker 11: the person that showed you your dead daughter for years
Speaker 11: as a child. And also the role of her mother
Speaker 11: in this in denying the abuse. And then there's a
Speaker 11: whole story thread Cindy's role and whether she covered up
Speaker 11: not only the abuse of her husband to her daughter,
Speaker 11: but the role George played. And there is the parents
Speaker 11: of Kayley and the placement of Kaylee in the woods.
Speaker 10: Okay, before we get to indicting Cindy here now as well,
Speaker 10: I want to I want to say one thing here.
Speaker 10: It's the same argument I was saying to you. In hindsight,
Speaker 10: a psychiatrist or a psychologist analyzes the situation and goes, well,
Speaker 10: you know, this happens quite often. We've seen it before.
Speaker 10: PTSD in the act completely out of character, and they're traumatized,
Speaker 10: and hence this is this of the odd odd odd behavior.
Speaker 10: But here's the thing I know from the murder trial
Speaker 10: that I was involved in. I'll and I know this
Speaker 10: forever and ever. It comes from the defense lawyer's mouth.
Speaker 10: Casey Anthony could have told her lawyer four or five
Speaker 10: different tales. She also told her lawyer the tale of
Speaker 10: that we just talked about that seemed to be ridiculous.
Speaker 10: But the lawyer didn't call her on it, didn't force her,
Speaker 10: didn't cross examiner in his office. She had that story,
Speaker 10: she stuck to that story, and let me say, a
Speaker 10: year later she had this other story. She could have
Speaker 10: crafted the story. And I can dare say because from
Speaker 10: my experience, and it wouldn't be the first lawyer that
Speaker 10: did it, they encourage the crafting of a more reasonable story.
Speaker 10: And again, there is only so many options. And if
Speaker 10: you feel that your role in society is to defend
Speaker 10: your client to the best, absolutely the best of your ability,
Speaker 10: and then you look at whether you're supposed to lie
Speaker 10: on your client's behalf or have your client lie or
Speaker 10: perjure themselves on the stand regardless one of the main
Speaker 10: the tenant, the main tenant, it really should be the
Speaker 10: main tenant. And I would believe it is according to
Speaker 10: society that you're not to tell a lie on behalf
Speaker 10: of your client. So if you're not, you're not obliged
Speaker 10: not to tell a lie. Then you have to determine
Speaker 10: the truthfulness of your client's story. But just like you said,
Speaker 10: this could be normal behavior, this could be this is
Speaker 10: what happens in PTSD from the abuse again that we
Speaker 10: don't have empirical proof occurred. And then he could have
Speaker 10: crafted a story together her trotting out different stories till
Speaker 10: they got a story that seemed to be the story
Speaker 10: that could work to defend her. Isn't that a possibility?
Speaker 11: Yes, it's definitely is a possibility, and it's something that
Speaker 11: needs to be considered and looked at and evaluated and
Speaker 11: so on and so forth, And as a research journalist,
Speaker 11: that's what I do. And in the case of the
Speaker 11: psychiatrists who's published reports or depositions by the prosecutor about
Speaker 11: their subject, they found that everything in their reports was
Speaker 11: and they go in to detail. They have things like
Speaker 11: an MMPI, which is a gold standard of evaluating a person,
Speaker 11: and she passed that within completely ranges. And there's two
Speaker 11: of them that did this, and one of them asked
Speaker 11: and pleaded with the prosecutor not to tell him that
Speaker 11: because he didn't want to be associated with her. So
Speaker 11: what I find throughout is an accused who has a
Speaker 11: lot of people defending her objectively, like her friends, like
Speaker 11: her colleagues, like these psychiatrists, and nobody wants to do it,
Speaker 11: but they end up defending her anyway because they're compelled
Speaker 11: to do that. And I could add the jury, and
Speaker 11: they're all compelled to do it by nothing other than
Speaker 11: an attachment they have to the truth. And I can
Speaker 11: tell you for certain that the one sided narrative of
Speaker 11: the media and in the public commentary was a incomplete
Speaker 11: narrative of this story. And what I want to do
Speaker 11: is complete that narrative. I want to present balance to
Speaker 11: this story so that people can make the decision that
Speaker 11: they need to make. But what I find fascinating is
Speaker 11: so many people with no interest and no predisposition, and
Speaker 11: no liking of this defendant. Nevertheless, from a jury, from
Speaker 11: her friends, from the psychiatrists, they still defend her. And
Speaker 11: that is fascinating to me.
Speaker 10: The thing is, though, what do you make of the
Speaker 10: presiding judge, because it's just earlier this month, coming out
Speaker 10: publicly again, what reason would he have for this? And
Speaker 10: what do you conclude from this? What are your thoughts
Speaker 10: about the judge and the presiding judge coming out and
Speaker 10: saying that there was ample evidence for the jury for
Speaker 10: them to make a that you basically saying I believe
Speaker 10: she was guilty.
Speaker 11: Yeah, definitely. And Judge Belvin Perry, he took over the
Speaker 11: case from Judge Stan Strickland, and Judge Strickland was excused
Speaker 11: from the case. It's a polite way to put it,
Speaker 11: because he was calling up a blogger who was saying
Speaker 11: that she was guilty, and he was the judge on
Speaker 11: the signed to this case originally, But he was calling
Speaker 11: up a blogger who was, like everyone was saying that
Speaker 11: she was guilty before the trial even began, and he
Speaker 11: was telling his blogger to keep up the good work.
Speaker 11: I'm on your side. So when this finally got out,
Speaker 11: he was kicked off the case. So that's how Judge Perry. Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 11: But the whole I mentioned that because the whole institutional apparatus,
Speaker 11: the prosecutor, the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the former prosecutors
Speaker 11: that were on hl N, like Sidney Hanowitz, and at infinitum,
Speaker 11: everybody was beating up this accused person. Both before the
Speaker 11: trial began and during the trial. There wasn't anybody who
Speaker 11: was arguing her. The narrative of her possible innocence. Jose
Speaker 11: Bias's book was titled Presumed Guilty. That's an appropriate title.
Speaker 11: That's the reality of them. And so Judge Perry, the
Speaker 11: whole institutional apparatus of those that prosecute people HLN is
Speaker 11: kind of a caricature of that. They were all invested
Speaker 11: in getting a conviction. And Judge Perry just couldn't quite
Speaker 11: accept the fact that his courtroom acquittor and I take
Speaker 11: the exact opposite point of view. I think the jury
Speaker 11: was and I think the defense case and winning the
Speaker 11: acquittal was a epitome of the American justice system and
Speaker 11: defending the rights of an accused when there is no guilty,
Speaker 11: there is no provable build in a court of law
Speaker 11: within the four corners of the courtland.
Speaker 10: You don't think it's irresponsible though, to point fingers at
Speaker 10: Cindy possibly and especially directly at George in light of
Speaker 10: no criminal charges. Do you think it's responsible?
Speaker 11: Well, here's what I think. All I'm saying is, I'm
Speaker 11: taking the words of cases to her published in her
Speaker 11: published comments. To the psychiatrists who evaluated those comments, they
Speaker 11: have things called malingering in their evaluation, and they concluded
Speaker 11: that she was not malingering. And the psychiatrists ask, is
Speaker 11: there any reason that you don't believe what she told you?
Speaker 11: She said, there's no reason for me not to believe
Speaker 11: what she told me. So her story is, which has
Speaker 11: not been told, her father presented her with the dead
Speaker 11: child at her home when they were alone together, and
Speaker 11: he took the child and disposed everywhere was found. As
Speaker 11: far as she knows, he disposed of it there. And
Speaker 11: also we have the objective that Cindy had reason to
Speaker 11: understand that the issues going on in their home were
Speaker 11: affecting Casey and were making her vulnerable to suspicions, and she,
Speaker 11: instead of defending her daughter, chose to side with George.
Speaker 11: She sat with George during the trial. And there are
Speaker 11: a number of details about Cindy's behavior that I'm going
Speaker 11: to lay out in the book that suggest that she
Speaker 11: was much more knowledgeable of George's role than she told police.
Speaker 10: Now I know I didn't, I said, I don't really
Speaker 10: care about motive. But why would George if Kaylee drowned,
Speaker 10: why would he present the body to Casey?
Speaker 11: The a theory, one theory for George's role in this
Speaker 11: was that George feared that Kaylee was his child.
Speaker 10: And then where where's the where's the evidence? When? When
Speaker 10: did he say this?
Speaker 11: This is just the theory though I said, it's the theory, okay,
Speaker 11: that that it's one theory to explain the behavior of George.
Speaker 10: And we have for the.
Speaker 11: Allegation of abuse Casey Anthony. And what I'm talking about
Speaker 11: is the narrative of Casey Anthony's side of events that
Speaker 11: has not been told, and so she says that George
Speaker 11: abused her. These psychiatrists say that everything in their evaluation
Speaker 11: of her is consistent with somebody who had been abused
Speaker 11: by her father.
Speaker 10: The thing is, isn't it Is it dueling psychiatrist? Though
Speaker 10: it wasn't it? You know it? Can it be possible
Speaker 10: because I've seen in numerous numerous cases the psychiatrist is paid.
Speaker 10: That psychiatrist is well known for primarily working for defense.
Speaker 10: You know, these guys get sort of reputations and they're
Speaker 10: asked to do things. I mean, this is this is
Speaker 10: not uncommon. I mean, there are some people that are.
Speaker 11: For hire, that's right, And in this case, that's one
Speaker 11: thing I looked at. There was a psychiatrist, doctor David Danziger,
Speaker 11: who primarily is used by prosecution by the prosecution witness.
Speaker 11: And the other side was a psychologist, doctor William White
Speaker 11: Wi t Z. He was primarily used by defense. The
Speaker 11: reason they were both called by the defense was that
Speaker 11: they were called in by the court and by the
Speaker 11: prosecution to evaluate her when she was first arrested for
Speaker 11: so they were I had interviewed her at the court's
Speaker 11: request for competencies, competency issues. I was they had no
Speaker 11: money to go out and hire anybody, so he asked
Speaker 11: them to sign on for this case. Doctor Danziger is
Speaker 11: the one that pleaded not to be deposed because he
Speaker 11: didn't want to be associated in any way with defending her.
Speaker 11: And he said that before the deposition, and the prosecutor,
Speaker 11: Jeff Ashton, said, I'm sorry, you're going to be deposed.
Speaker 11: You're going to tell me what you found. And that
Speaker 11: was later published by order of Judge Calvin Perry. And
Speaker 11: so to answer your question, you've got actually, as it
Speaker 11: turns out, because of the lack of money by the
Speaker 11: defense team, you had actually a balanced evaluation. As it
Speaker 11: turns out, one prosecution psychiatrist, if you will, one defense psychiatrist,
Speaker 11: and they both concurred. They both looked at each other
Speaker 11: as evidence and became to the independent conclusion. And again,
Speaker 11: what I'm doing is taking Casey said and what is
Speaker 11: supported by independent in this case, psychiatric evaluation and just
Speaker 11: stating it. That's all. When you say I'm indicting George,
Speaker 11: no molt, sir, I'm not indicting George. This is what
Speaker 11: Casey's doing.
Speaker 10: Happened.
Speaker 11: She has a right to say what happened.
Speaker 10: Well, you know, I was I was involved in a
Speaker 10: murder trial. And it's again it's not apples and apples,
Speaker 10: But I mean what the killer said was that he
Speaker 10: accused his stepbrother of sexually assaulting him for a period
Speaker 10: of years. Again, no criminal charges were ever laid. The lawyer,
Speaker 10: defense lawyer got to say that without an interruption by
Speaker 10: any prosecute by the prosecution at all, and it was
Speaker 10: it was repeated. Then it was an allegation by the
Speaker 10: killer that when he was in a interview room with
Speaker 10: a camera on and to two cops customarily that's supposedly
Speaker 10: a couple of gun and put put it to his head.
Speaker 10: And then the defense lawyer was asking the witness, which
Speaker 10: happened to be me, why didn't report it to the police.
Speaker 10: So you can see that some of the stuff can
Speaker 10: allegations can be unchallenged. Thinks things can be said. You know,
Speaker 10: it was a Casey Anthony could said a lot of things.
Speaker 10: She said again she lied, But then again we have
Speaker 10: a reason for her being this series of lies. Again, okay, okay,
Speaker 10: there's a logical reason. And if we listen to what
Speaker 10: your explanation is, and then we then at some point
Speaker 10: have to take what she says as gospel. And again
Speaker 10: and this other man is a police officer, and again
Speaker 10: he had a mistress. Again, some people want to judge
Speaker 10: people by ethics or their moral code. Well, you know,
Speaker 10: we can't do that. That's luckily the court's try not
Speaker 10: to do that. So but again you're you're asking people
Speaker 10: to believe her on these things that you believe or
Speaker 10: or seem more sensible to you though that fit into
Speaker 10: the the logical uh you know nexus, you know.
Speaker 11: So it's actually, as I said before, it's trying to
Speaker 11: prove somebody is innocent, is say, sometimes it seems an
Speaker 11: impossible sure, and trying to do it in the context
Speaker 11: of a public environment where nobody believes she's innocent anyway,
Speaker 11: makes that virtually an impossible choice. So what my task
Speaker 11: is as a research journalist is to simply introduce balance,
Speaker 11: using sources that are published and using in this case,
Speaker 11: the words of the acquitted defendant herself.
Speaker 10: I see. So what you're really trying to do is
Speaker 10: that you're trying to put a lot more information out
Speaker 10: there regardless and say, listen, this is what I am
Speaker 10: looking at. I'm looking at much more information, so that
Speaker 10: your first priority is to provide much more information. Again,
Speaker 10: so you say, because so you can have a more
Speaker 10: balanced look at this perspective because there wasn't a balanced perspective.
Speaker 11: I'm kind of in the same camp as Barry Sessman,
Speaker 11: as also Howard Kurtz, who said on several occasions he
Speaker 11: wouldn't cover the trial on his reliable sources, as CNN
Speaker 11: program which looks at the media, very highly regarded program
Speaker 11: because of the biased reporting on this case. And also
Speaker 11: Jeffrey Tuban, there's a CNN legal analyst, very highly regarded.
Speaker 11: He made comments that the media owes Casey Anthony an apology.
Speaker 11: So my role is kind of with them, and that
Speaker 11: is I'm looking at this as a journalist and saying,
Speaker 11: this has been an unbalanced narrative for sure, and we've
Speaker 11: got all this information out there that would support the
Speaker 11: jury's decision, an unsympathetic jury's decision, to support what her
Speaker 11: friends said about her, to support what the psychiatrists said
Speaker 11: about her that nobody is listening to. And as a journalist,
Speaker 11: that's my job, that's.
Speaker 3: My role.
Speaker 10: Right now. Tell us about the status of the book itself,
Speaker 10: and again the title.
Speaker 11: The Court of Public Opinion Casey Anthony, And you're asking
Speaker 11: to kind of spill my guts a little bit on
Speaker 11: this subject. I have a literary agent who went to
Speaker 11: Simon and Schuster, went to Penguin Books, went to all
Speaker 11: the major publishers with whom he has connections, and he
Speaker 11: was told that nobody is going to publish any book
Speaker 11: defending this individual. It's a quidded dependent because everybody believes
Speaker 11: she's guilty. Okay, So these this is the publishing industry
Speaker 11: in America. They don't want a point of view contrary
Speaker 11: to the consensus in America. It's a sad commentary. It's true,
Speaker 11: but it's unbelievably sad. And so I've got to protect
Speaker 11: the publisher I've got to protect their financial interest and
Speaker 11: rease date and their name is something that they're in
Speaker 11: control of, and I just have to leave it at that.
Speaker 11: But it's because of this extraordinary circumstance. Without that circumstance
Speaker 11: of the institution of the publishing industry refusing to even
Speaker 11: read my proposal, I wouldn't be in that situation. But
Speaker 11: as I told Barry, when the article was published and
Speaker 11: we got the reaction, it got the most reaction in
Speaker 11: the history of Harvard's media watchdog program, I said, I'm
Speaker 11: embracing it. And that's exactly what I'm doing.
Speaker 10: So I can sort of answer that question. The book
Speaker 10: is on hold, till Am said.
Speaker 11: I can't say anything about it to protect the publisher.
Speaker 10: Okay, Okay, that's valid. So anyway, so this is what
Speaker 10: people will know.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 10: Do you have a website that to people might be
Speaker 10: able to contact you or to interact with you, Facebook
Speaker 10: page something.
Speaker 11: Yeah, it's writer Keith like writer Keith dot com.
Speaker 10: And you welcome people contacting you obviously, Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 11: I invite their criticism, comments, support ideas.
Speaker 10: Always. Like you say, the Nieman article really elicited a
Speaker 10: lot of response strong.
Speaker 11: Yeah, build records and for reader response and not surprisingly,
Speaker 11: and it should took the position to ask people to
Speaker 11: always reserve a part of their judgment process for a
Speaker 11: balanced source of information to what you're listening to, especially
Speaker 11: being presented by the media.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's you know, it's very interesting too that the
Speaker 10: way you've presented this case as well. Again, I have
Speaker 10: to applaud you at least for well not at least,
Speaker 10: I have to applaud you for being able to have
Speaker 10: this bull's eye on your head here the discouragement of
Speaker 10: the mainstream media, even though this deserves to have a
Speaker 10: numerous books to have be written about it, given the
Speaker 10: attention that the trial had, and especially with the acquittal
Speaker 10: and again a fairly strong acquittal, that there wouldn't be
Speaker 10: at least a publisher thinking just of the bottom line
Speaker 10: and saying, geez, you know this, this is a controversial book,
Speaker 10: but there wasn't acquittal, and and you know, you sound
Speaker 10: like a very responsible and you and you read like
Speaker 10: a very responsible, sensible person. You're not a Nancy Grace
Speaker 10: of this subject here. You're not, you know, again, sensationalizing
Speaker 10: something that's already got enough sensation to it already. So
Speaker 10: I applaud you for taking this stance and being strong
Speaker 10: and in your conviction, and because you do sound very
Speaker 10: very reasonable in your argument. And so I applaud you
Speaker 10: for taking this because I know that you would be
Speaker 10: the victim of derision. And it's a rough ride taking
Speaker 10: this position.
Speaker 11: I know that I appreciate that. And of course there's
Speaker 11: a really my bottom line motivation, and what prompted me
Speaker 11: to begin to look at the story was really a
Speaker 11: belief in the American people and in our culture that
Speaker 11: is better than the media is serving us. And the
Speaker 11: characterization that I used earlier of the bullying, the bullying
Speaker 11: business potle that I see in HLN for example, and
Speaker 11: of an accused that to me is a mathemat to
Speaker 11: what the American people and the Canadian people, and the
Speaker 11: Mexican people and everybody need to stand for and stand
Speaker 11: up against the fact that anybody can be robbed of
Speaker 11: the presumption of innocence when they're on trial for their life.
Speaker 11: At the end of the day, there's no reason to
Speaker 11: do that. If the evidence is there. You have to
Speaker 11: have belief in the system that it will prevail. And
Speaker 11: you can go back to old Jay and like you say,
Speaker 11: everybody said it's karralative big day. Maybe it is, but
Speaker 11: that's a separate subject. In that case, I'd be happy
Speaker 11: to talk to you about it sometime. But in this case,
Speaker 11: there is the possibility that a innocent person is being
Speaker 11: hounded and presented from the freedom that everybody in this
Speaker 11: country has protected has as a right, as a protected life,
Speaker 11: life and the pursuit of happiness in the face of
Speaker 11: illegal acquittal, and there's the possibility that maybe there's an injustice,
Speaker 11: and that as long as there's that possibility, the obligation
Speaker 11: of journalists is to at least present a balanced two
Speaker 11: of that story.
Speaker 10: Well, it is a also a a story that it
Speaker 10: should be a warning to journalists and to it's a journalist.
Speaker 10: And I guess broadcasters that you know, if you rush
Speaker 10: to judgment, you might look like, you know, you might
Speaker 10: look very very wrong on this righteous side that you're
Speaker 10: trying to present yourself as you know in that there's
Speaker 10: a reason why publishers didn't publish books till the outcome
Speaker 10: of that book or of that case occurred. Kensington Press,
Speaker 10: for example, will not publish any books till the verdict
Speaker 10: has been done. So that's and you know, and I
Speaker 10: mean they're not so they represent journalists every you know,
Speaker 10: day in and day out, and they were and that's
Speaker 10: their policy to do that. And and broadcasters, uh, and
Speaker 10: people that have gone through journalism courses and schools and
Speaker 10: have been taught and work at agencies should know a
Speaker 10: lot better. So I think this the bottom line of
Speaker 10: these corporations. I don't think they have journalism as their foundation.
Speaker 10: And doing things like Nancy Grace yaking and yapp and
Speaker 10: and accusing and and this is not the first time
Speaker 10: she has done harm to a to and again a
Speaker 10: person that was acquitted, you know, it's legend her behavior
Speaker 10: and it doesn't end, you know, so it's it's it's
Speaker 10: a story that people should really pay attention to because
Speaker 10: there are so many wrongful convictions in the US and
Speaker 10: the same kind of misdirected media, misinforming media and irresponsible
Speaker 10: media could do a story where the outcome could be
Speaker 10: much different and people could be, you know, something that
Speaker 10: they could regret for the rest of their lives. The
Speaker 10: people it seems here that believed Casey Anthony was guilty
Speaker 10: before still believe Casey Anthony is guilty and they're going
Speaker 10: to stick to that. I believe, But again, I think
Speaker 10: it is important. That's why I've had you on the
Speaker 10: program here to at least give you the opportunity to
Speaker 10: to tell your side of the story and to state
Speaker 10: your case. And you've done it effectively.
Speaker 11: I think I've pawed you very much for giving me opportunity.
Speaker 10: Well, well, thank you very much, and please get back
Speaker 10: get a hold of me when the book actually does
Speaker 10: come out, too, because that's going to be another story
Speaker 10: in terms of the response and everything surrounding that. And
Speaker 10: of course I want to be really brushed up on
Speaker 10: this and re examine this entire case and read your
Speaker 10: book and look at this much more carefully, and then
Speaker 10: have you back on and we can talk about it again.
Speaker 10: So I want to thank you very much for this
Speaker 10: interview Keith Long talking about the Court of Public Opinion
Speaker 10: Casey Anthony with my special guest journalist and author, Keith Long.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much, Keith, have yourself a great evening,