From the rumor mill...

When Misty Cummings, nee Croslin, was picked up on January 20, law enforcement officials hoped her arrest would help solve the case of Haleigh Cummings, her one-time step-daughter who disappeared last February. Misty and Ron Cummings were two of five people charged with multiple counts of drug trafficking. Also arrested was Donna Brock from Orlando, who accompanied Misty on a recent trip to the Orlando area and who was affiliated at one time with Texas EquuSearch. Her membership with TES was terminated in late October.

Misty, 18, was baby-sitting Haleigh while her father Ronald Cummings, 26, was working that night. She told investigators she woke up and realized the 5-year-old was gone about 3:30 a.m. There were no signs of forced entry, and the back door was ajar.

The search for answers about the missing girl and the drug case are separate investigations, Lt. Johnny Greenwood of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office said, but officials are hopeful the recent arrests will help them understand more about the Haleigh case.

“Hopefully, something will come out of it on the Haleigh side, but that was not the intention,” Greenwood said. “This was totally unrelated. It was a very good narcotics case.”

Acting on information from a tip, an undercover sheriff’s detective purchased $3,900 worth of drugs from Croslin, Cummings, Brock, Hank Thomas “Tommy” Croslin Jr., 23, and Hope A. Sykes, 18. Brock’s age was not available.

Felony warrants hinted that Croslin was found selling or holding oxycodone and hydrocodone in Putnam and St. Johns counties several times over the past couple of months. The warrant stated that she had or sold over 28 grams of the drugs. ”She [Misty] was involved in all of them,” Greenwood said. “She was the common denominator in all seven buys.”

In my opinion, they are idiots. They have been under a law enforcement microscope since the day that Haleigh disappeared.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Hank Croslin, Sykes and Brock face one count each of the trafficking charge. Hank Croslin’s bail is $100,000; Sykes is $150,000; Brock’s is $250,000 bail.

Ronald Cummings is being held at the Flagler County Jail, on $500,000 bail. Misty and Hank Croslin and Brock are held at the St. Johns County Jail. Sykes is in the Putnam County Jail, said State Attorney’s Office spokesman Chris Kelly. Ronald Cummings and Misty Croslin could face a minimum-mandatory sentence of 25 years in state prison, the Sheriff’s Office said.

Misty Croslin faces six counts of trafficking in prescription medication. She was being held on $950,000 bail, but I learned from a reliable source that her bail was reduced to $500,000. Now comes word that famed bounty hunter, Leonard Padilla, has expressed a strong interest in bailing Misty out of jail. We could only guess what his intention is, but he may be doing it to break her down, something he was not able to do with Casey Anthony while she was in his custody. One of his assistants, Tracy McLaughlin, had a modicum of success. If my source is correct, let’s hope this one’s the charm and that little Haleigh comes home.

READ THE ARREST REPORTS:

 REPORT 1 | REPORT 2 | REPORT 3 | REPORT 5 | REPORT 6

The Wisdom of Solomon

“I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

- The Honorable Judge Stan Strickland

When I awoke Monday morning, I still believed the Anthony trial was at 10:00 am, with a plea of some kind, and a hearing Tuesday afternoon. Somewhere along the line that changed. Had it been at 10, I wouldn’t have been able to go. Because it was changed to 1:30 pm, it posed no problem and I made it a point to arrive at the Orange County Courthouse at least a half hour early, fully expecting there to be a huge crowd fighting to get in. There wasn’t. Is interest waning? As I walked toward the entrance, I asked a cameraman if he knew what floor it was going to be held on. He told me the 23rd, but he didn’t know which room. I thanked him, without missing my stride, and I walked through the main doors into the awaiting arms of security guards and metal detectors.

Once in, I took the elevator all the way to the top. I had never been there before, although Bob Kealing from WESH told me some of the earlier hearings were held in this particular courtroom. He was the first friendly face I spotted as I approached the sparse crowd sitting and standing idly by behind the stanchions and velour ropes that kept us from the entrance. Nearby were George and Cindy, who remained relatively out of reach while we waited for the courtroom doors to open. Bob also told me it was a huge courtroom and reporters were sometimes told to go upstairs to the loge/balcony area that overlooked the room. He said it was very difficult to hear some of the conversations going on because of the room’s scale. Soon after, Kathi Belich arrived and I told her I caught her cold from the last hearing. She apologized and I said I was kidding and that my folks had been sick, too. She said her cold lingered for almost another month after we sat next to each other and she had already had it for a month at that point.

A bench sat outside the courtroom and several people filled it. Among those people were two women. One looked at me and smiled. She asked if I wasMarinade Dave. I said, yes, I am. Gee, I almost felt like a silly-ebrity. We had a nice little chat and I asked her how she knew about me, not out of vanity, but because she recognized me. “We’re on Websleuths.”

“Oh, yes, I go there sometimes.” I try to go to all of the sites to read and learn, and when a cluster of hits come into my blog from a particular site, I like to see what the commotion is all about, good or bad. I am quite familiar withWebsleuths and it was nice to meet a real sleuther, even if there is no such word. She goes by the name littlemisslegal. Unfortunately, I neglected to mention Tulessa, a very nice person I am familiar with. There may be more, but sometimes I get forums mixed up. Anyway, there’s more I could write, but enough of the informalities. I just wanted you to get the feel of the small crowd while we waited with anticipation to enter the courtroom.

As a guard unlocked the door for the prosecution and defense attorneys, we were let in soon after. Bill Sheaffer was allowed to follow the team of lawyers and he was all smiles as I approached him and shook his hand. This time, the State sat on the left, with the defense on the right. As I said in the past, you sit where you find a seat and this time, I parked directly behind Bill Sheaffer and Kathi Belich on the prosecution side. When I sat down, I did not pay particular attention to where the case attorneys were.

The room was vast compared to the other hearings I attended, and it had a high ceiling that was three stories tall. In bold, deep and perfectly chiseled letters were the words EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW set high above the judge’s bench. This was, no doubt, the county’s trophy room and I have no question this will be the room where Casey will sit when she is brought to trial for murder. Though not too opulent or magnificent, it had a very commanding presence that told you this was not a simple traffic court.

Suddenly, a side door opened and Casey walked in, flanked by a sheriff’s deputy and the now familiar court bailiff, the same one who called me in front of the judge. I heard no clink, clank of shackles as she walked to her seat where Jose and Andrea waited patiently. With constant whispering back and forth for the fleeting moments we all had, it came to a halt as those two big words were spoken, ”ALL RISE.”

Judge Strickland reminds me of the type of guy who would, outside of a courtroom, hush people and tell them not to make a big fuss over him, but such are the formalities of his position as a circuit court judge; all judges, actually. He has such a nice demeanor and he goes out of his way to excuse himself and apologize for minor interruptions he might cause, although it is his court. He would probably correct me and say this is the people’s court. He exudes nothing of the sort that gives pause to believe he is overtly in charge, but you would want no other captain of the court ship he commands. He is a natural and it is he, the man, that garners such respect, and all attorneys I have spoken to have nothing but praise for him. Today was going to be a testament to his fairness.

As soon as we sat back down, court was in session. I should point out that these were individual seats, not benches, and each one was cushioned. I had no problem with hearing Judge Strickland, but Bob had warned me that it was tough to hear in there, and when State Attorney Frank George spoke, none of us could hear a word. Whatever he said went by the wayside until after I got to watch the videos. Some things I could distinguish between the 13 counts Casey was charged with, but that was about it. Jose Baez was clear, Andrea Lyon was clear, and so were Linda Drane Burdick and Jeff Ashton. I heard Casey loud and clear, too. Casey entered wearing a loose fitting light blue dress shirt and gray slacks. Her longish dark brown hair was pulled tightly back into a ponytail. One of the first things I noticed was that her face looked gaunt. Quite clearly, she had dropped enough pounds since the first hearing I attended. I turned to Drew Petrimoulx, a WDBO Radio journalist, sitting to my right and quietly asked him what he thought. Yes, he agreed, she looks like she dropped more than just a few pounds. When she spoke, it was the first time I ever heard her soft and feminine voice. On the street, you would never think by the sound of her that she could possibly be facing horrendous charges like she is. Her voice was delicate and frail, not like the monster she is made out to be.

Judge Strickland called Casey and her two attorneys to the podium. Jose told him that she was ready to plea to the court, and plea she did. Prior to Monday, Casey had filled out a plea form and the judge had it in his possession. From that point, it was up to the defense and prosecution to argue over elements of the 13 third-degree felony charges before the judge would ultimately decide her fate. After a few more words from Jose, Casey was sworn in. Judge Strickland made sure she understood all of the charges she had decided to plead guilty to, that she was in complete control of her faculties, and that she did so freely and voluntarily. She also said she was completely satisfied with the services of her attorneys and that she was aware of the minimum and maximum sentences for all of the offenses she was charged with. She said yes to everything, including waiving her right to a trial.

State Attorney Frank George stood up at his respective podium and began to speak. On July 8, 2008, Casey wrote a check in the amount of $111.01 that accounted for charges 2, 3, and 4. She wrote this check at Target.  On July 10, she passed a check at Target in the amount of $137.77 that accounted for charges 5, 6, and 7. Also on July 10, she passed a third check at Target for $155.47 and that took care of counts 8, 9, and 10. Counts 11, 12, and 13 took place on July 15 when she wrote a check for $250 at the Bank of America. He then brought up count 1 which referred to a deliberate scheme of conduct overall. She planned on writing checks until they bounced off the walls, I would guess. Good thing we live in the information age, where account balances are instantaneous almost everywhere we go. Here, one thing perplexed me. Where was the Winn-Dixie check? Unless George misspoke, I don’t know.

Judge Strickland gave the defense an opportunity to challenge the charges. We can discuss the lack of brevity or the levity of the arguments, but let’s cut to the chase - it came down to the judge. First, it should be noted that Casey had no prior convictions and she did make full restitution and  Baez did bring up “equal justice” for his client. He asked for one year of probation and credit for time served, rather than the five years of incarceration the State sought. In the end, His Honor sentenced the 23-year-old Casey to (jail) time served - 412 days - plus $5,517.75 in investigative costs and $348 for court. The amount may be discussed and negotiated at a later motion hearing because the defense found the investigative charge too high and not justifiable. He also adjudicated Casey guilty on six of the fraud counts and withheld adjudication on seven, plus he tacked on a year of supervised probation, which could be problematic and complex later on, given that she still faces a huge mountain of charges ahead. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing.

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.

On each and every count, Casey must submit a DNA sample because she is now a convicted felon. There it is, the words everyone has been waiting for…convicted felon. Time to move on to the next chapter, but first, Casey apologized to Amy Huizenga.

“I’m sorry for what I did. I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

Photo courtesy of RED HUBER, ORLANDO SENTINEL / January 25, 2010

Two motions were heard after Casey’s plea. The defense wanted to question Jill Kerley under oath. Kerley is Roy Kronk’s ex-wife. Anthony’s attorneys claim that testimony from her will introduce evidence that suggests he could have been a suspect in the murder. The defense states that Kronk should not be looked at as a suspect today, but he should have been last year and it is meant to impeach his material as a State witness. In this respect, whether anyone likes it or not, this is the way defense strategies work. I spoke to Bob Kealing about this before we entered court. I explained that everyone thinks the defense is trying to point the finger at Kronk. No one in the media really believe that’s the case. It is to ruin his testimony as a credible witness. In court, Andrea Lyon explained that Jill Kerley is much too ill to travel to Orlando from Tennessee and a means to interview will be made, something like Skype, most likely. Judge Strickland granted that request.

In the final motion, prosecutors wanted Strickland to order Anthony’s defense attorneys to provide the names and addresses for any and all witnesses they intend to call into subsequent hearings and at trial. Linda Drane Burdick explained that the prosecution has a lot of names, but they need addresses, too.

The judge asked that both sides meet after the hearing to come up with a schedule and possible trial date. Earlier, Burdick said a murder trial this summer was highly unlikely because of the slow pace of depositions and motions. Baez said he was anxious to get the trial underway, too. (Later  in the day, the judge denied the defense’s motion to stop jail visits from being videotaped.) Alas, we will not see a trial this summer, sad to say.

By the way, what was it about those latent prints that were mentioned? Linda Drane Burdick stated the defense has already received 90% of discovery documents. What does that last 10% hold?

Finally, I want to say that this was a very friendly crowd of journalists, sleuthers and attorneys. After the hearing ended, I asked Bill Sheaffer if he thought this was a fair judgement and he said, yes, it was. When I left the courthouse, I went to the parking garage to retrieve my video camera. The first person you will see in my video is littlemisslegal. The second part is the press conference which is impossible to hear because I don’t have a boom microphone. To watch and hear that from the WFTV Web site, please click the link below. The final part of the video… well, let’s just call that a surprise ending. With that, let me say that I learn more about this case the closer I get to it. As much as I let things had gotten me down, I become invigorated and inspired by doing what I love to do, and that is to bring you my unique side of the story, as up close and personal as possible, where the people are real and the humble judge treats everyone, including Ms. Anthony, with dignity and respect. This was a sign of things to come, and what I saw was a very compassionate man behind the bench.

[vodpod id=Video.2940079&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

WFTV RAW VIDEO PART 1

WFTV RAW VIDEO PART 2

WFTV RAW VIDEO POST HEARING PRESS CONFERENCE

A personal reflection

Before I begin telling you about my day, there are three things I need to clarify. One is about how I’ve handled comments in the past, one is about Judge Strickland, and the last one is about criminal defense attorney and WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer. Before you moan and sigh and expect a diatribe on trolls or anything overtly negative, please read on.

Up until I began writing about the Casey Anthony case, I was moseying along, writing about food, marinating, life’s experiences and human interest stories in what I hoped would be humorous in nature. Sometimes, I tried to write so there was a moral to the story; a lesson to be learned. As I began writing about this crime, I saw readership increase incredibly. I am not bragging. What happened was I became overwhelmed with comments, some nice and some not so nice. Without a solid career behind me in the field of journalism or any experience answering back to unfriendly comments, I wasn’t always on my best behavior and I lost my temper. I was never raised to call people nasty names and when I read comment after comment after comment loaded with hostilities against the Anthonys and Casey’s attorneys, I guess I got a little bit too preachy, but I was rattled by what level people could stoop to. I still am, but I am now pretty much over those snippy comments of the old days; the ones that came from me. Today, I offer an olive branch. You can take it or leave it, but as long as you don’t swear at me or insult me to high heaven, I won’t leave anyone out for disagreeing. That fight in me is over and done with and this lesson has taught me a lot.

I noticed a backlash, whiplash and a lot of smart ass remarks following my meeting with Judge Strickland after the first hearing I went to. All my regular readers were giddy with excitement over seeing me in court. I must admit I was, too, after he asked for me and told me what he told me. You all are free to think what you like, but I know what he said and he has not reprimanded me for lying about what I wrote. Some of you may think he called me up to scold me for some imaginary action, but go back and listen to the raw tape and you can clearly hear what he said. It was a compliment of the highest magnitude and I am very proud of that moment. What I am not proud of is that I wrote about it here. I should have kept my mouth shut, but I’ll tell you what, had it happened to you, you’d be beaming, too. This is lesson number two. When I am complimented by anyone involved in this case, I will keep my mouth shut. I have tasted human cruelty and it is something unsavory. More importantly, I may have unwittingly compromised the judge’s character without knowing it. Please trust me, he is the best judge around, and I would never want to jeopardize his position. Would I ever do it again? No.

The final thing that was weighing on my mind, and I really thought I had settled the matter but I knew I should have done more, was how I handled Bill Sheaffer initially. I was happy when he started a blog. A lot of you may not believe that, but I consider myself a human interest writer and he proffers so much information from a legal perspective that I could never touch, let alone answer with any legal authority. The Casey Anthony blogging/forum world was waiting for someone like him. When Richard Hornsby came along, I was rough on Bill and I had no right to be. When I met him at the last hearing, we really hit it off and I did a complete about face and wrote about that meeting. This was a very important lesson. I never should have opined over someone I knew nothing about. Bill Sheaffer is a consummate professional who I have the utmost respect for. Today, he graciously introduced me to several attorneys, Tony Pipitone from WKMG, who I had not been formally introduced to before, and most of all, to his wife, Carol Ann. While waiting for the proceeding to begin, he brought up the loss of my cat and offered his condolences. Afterward, his wife offered her warm words. I will say this now, and I want everyone to know what I am saying from the bottom of my heart; I apologize to Mr. William J. Sheaffer and to his wife, Carol Ann. I am very proud to know you. Thank you both for being such a kind and wonderful couple. This was a huge lesson in humility and I thank you for being honest-to-goodness, down-to-earth people.

With that, I will take leave until I write about my day. Yes, it was a good one. I shot more footage, but you won’t be able to hear a word of the post-hearing interview with Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon, I’m afraid. I don’t know if I should leave it raw or set it to music. Anyway, this has been quite a learning experience and I hope you continue to grow with me.

The hair that bit me

Lewis Grizzard was a very popular op-ed writer. By op-ed, I mean his syndicated column ran opposite the editorial page in newspapers throughout the land. He was a good old boy southerner and I count him as one of my writing inspirations. Unfortunately, poor Lewis had a bum heart and he left us much too early in life. I remember when he wrote an amusing piece about getting older. It seems that, one day, he discovered new hairs sprouting from his ears, like the kind you sometimes see on old men. After shaving those hairs and feeling much younger, he put on a pair of his tightest jeans and hit a couple of singles bars. Eventually, a much younger girl approached him and said, “Like, wow, did you know your ears are bleeding?”

I have a couple of very light colored hairs growing on the outer rim of each ear and if I don’t shave them ocassionally, they can get pretty long. Fortunately, they blend in with the few head hairs I have left and are seldom, if ever, noticed. I never knew they were there until I was telling a friend that, at least, I don’t have any and she yanked on one and replied, “Yes, you do!”

Unfortunately, along with age comes new hair in the most unwanted places. I remember this old woman from my childhood who attended the same church as me. All I can remember about her was that she had a long black hair growing out of her chin and a few dozen short ones below her nose, on her upper lip. That’s all I remember about that nice church going lady. I also recall when I reached an age when my voice went from that boyish falsetto to a confused state that went from a medium pitch to a deep one. Suddenly, a single hair started to bloom on my chin and to tell the world I was now a man, I let it grow and grow and grow. Silly me. Today, I understand how stupid it looked and now, I try my best to dispose of those unwanted hairs.

I wonder if I should grow those ear hairs very long so I can comb them over my very bald head.

The gods must be crazy!

From the past few days, we have “learned” that Casey will plead guilty to one felony charge out of the 13 connected with the check fraud case, we have “learned” that a deal was struck with the State Attorney’s Office, we have “learned” that she will, instead, take her chances and plead before Judge Strickland, and we have solidly learned that it could well be none of the above and then some. It all depends on which media gospel one puts their faith in. Even then, is it really etched in God’s hand? In my opinion, the closest thing to the absolute truth in this matter rests in the hands of the Honorable Judge Stan Strickland and what is still listed on the Orange County Clerk of CourtsWeb site. But can we believe what’s scripted there? It still lists a 10:00 am hearing today which didn’t transpire. It also lists a 10:00 am trial on Monday, with an additional hearing at 1:30 pm on Tuesday. To make matters more confusing, Tuesday’s hearing notes that the judicial officer, meaning judge, will be John H. Adams, a criminal court circuit judge, in room 6-D, on the sixth floor. Interestingly, the docket Register of Actions names Judge Strickland at the helm.

Meanwhile, amidst all this mess, I think it’s safe to say that Casey WILL be back in court on Monday, but it won’t be for a trial in her check fraud case. Or will it? Here is what we think we are learning…

According to most legal experts, why there won’t be a trial on Monday is because Casey is changing her plea. Certainly, she wouldn’t be the first one to do so in a high-profile case. At a pre-trial hearing in November, former astronaut Lisa Nowak pleaded guilty to a reduced charge to avoid jail time. She was sentenced to time served (2 days) and only one year of probation. I think she’s peddling Pampers overseas these days. In Casey’s case, she’s maintained all along that she’s not guilty of stealing Amy’s money, but the proof is in the Bank of America, Target and Winn Dixie videos and Baez’s reimbursement to the bank for the exact amount of the stolen checks. How coincidental and to be quite blunt, there’s no way a jury would let her walk.

Now, to add to the complex nature of what these legal analysts are saying, some believe a felony conviction on fraud charges wouldn’t come up in her murder trial unless she takes the stand. Others are saying the exact opposite. On theWESH Web site, legal analyst Richard Hornsby said prosecutors can use her plea to refute any of her statements introduced in the upcoming murder trial. (This will also be the subject of an upcoming post.)

“That’s very important. Even if she doesn’t get on the stand and testify, they already damaged her credibility by showing she’s been convicted of a felony,”Hornsby said.

Criminal defense attorney and WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer thinks Casey will throw herself at the mercy of the court and hope for adjudication withheld instead of a conviction. He suspects the state and defense could not come to terms on the issue. “If you can’t do any worse with the judge than what the state has offered you in a plea, then you can do better,” he said.

Adjudication is the act of a court in making an order, judgment or decree. It is a judicial decision or sentence, guilt or not. With all of this discussion about Casey and adjudication , it’s interesting to note that the federal government does not recognize withholds. Withholds are convictions in its eyes, so if Casey ever aspires to be president, she can forget all about it.

If Casey enters guilty pleas to any of the charges, Judge Strickland can either rule on the facts of the case and find her guilty or withhold adjudication of guilt in the matter. If, in Casey’s case, adjudication is withheld, she won’t be convictedof the crime in Florida although she will still be found guilty of it. You can be found guilty, in other words, and not be convicted. In Casey’s case, I do not believe the judge will withhold adjudication for a very simple reason. The only cases that are eligible for record expungement or sealing are those where the charges were either dropped or had a “withhold of adjudication.” In my opinion, the judge will not allow 13 third-degree felonies to ever be expunged or flagrantly tossed out a window of the courthouse. She will walk into the murder trial a convicted felon. What part of the conviction will be allowed in that trial will be up to Florida law, although it will be scrutinized by legal analysts across the board.

Whether Casey will plead or not, on Monday or Tuesday or any other day, two motions are going to be heard by the judge. What sources are inferring is that one will deal with papers filed by the defense back in November about TESsearches. In that motion, the defense claimed that “evidence discovered by the defense shows that statements made by TES (Texas EquuSearch) to the court were inaccurate.”

TES handed over documents stating that 32 volunteer searches went through the area where Caylee’s body was eventually found, but the defense found at least two others searchers who offered sworn statements that they, too, had searched the area. To what degree is open to speculation. Baez and his team believe TES wasn’t being as truthful as they should have been and they are demanding access to all documents related to the searches.

The other motion is expected to deal with Jill Kerley, the disgruntled former wife of Roy Kronk, the “other suspect.” She insists he was physically abusive and had a kinky duct tape side. The defense wants the judge to allow her testimony. I don’t see its deep-rooted relevance, but the judge may allow it to show that law enforcement never looked suspiciously at anyone else. I am not rattled by this motion because, in my opinion, the state will make it abundantly clear that law enforcement never had to look anywhere else.

I hope that cleared things up a little and I hope to see you in court on Monday. Or is it Tuesday? Or both? God only knows.

Nothing etched in stone, but fraud trial is cancelled

Orlando market media sources are reporting that Casey Anthony will accept a plea deal in the check fraud case. WFTV was the first to announce it, and Bob Kealing, from WESH, stated that his sources told him that she will plead guilty to at least 1 of the 13 charges against her. He emphasized that this will allow both sides to concentrate on the pressing issues with the capital murder case. There is still a lot of work to be done. The fraud trial was scheduled for next Monday morning. Instead, there will be a hearing at 1:30 regarding the plea and at least 2 motions pertaining to the murder.

The defense team has not asked for more time in the fraud trial, and court administrators confirmed that the trial will not go on as scheduled, sources told Kealing. This clearly points to a plea deal, but he was quick to remind viewers that “nothing is etched in stone until the judge accepts it.”

Kathi Belich from WFTV wondered if this signaled a possible deal in the murder case, too, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

The court records search still shows the 21st hearing and the 25th trial, both at 10:00 am.

According to the court docket found at the Orange County Clerk of Courts Website, these are the charges Casey faces in the fraud case. Please note that none of them are misdemeanors:

1.	THEFT		812.014(2)(C)(1)	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
2.	FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION		817.568(2)	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
3.	FORGERY OF BANK BILLS/PROM. NOTES		831.07	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
4.	UTTERING FORGED BILLS / NOTES		831.09	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
5.	FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION		817.568(2)	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
6.	FORGERY OF BANK BILLS/PROM. NOTES		831.07	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
7.	UTTERING FORGED BILLS / NOTES		831.09	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
8.	FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION		817.568(2)	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
9.	FORGERY OF BANK BILLS/PROM. NOTES		831.07	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
10.	UTTERING FORGED BILLS / NOTES		831.09	Third Degree - Felony	07/10/2008
11.	FRAUD. USE OF PERSONAL IDENT. INFORMATION		817.568(2)	Third Degree - Felony	07/15/2008
12.	FORGERY OF BANK BILLS/PROM. NOTES		831.07	Third Degree - Felony	07/15/2008
13.	UTTERING FORGED BILLS / NOTES		831.09	Third Degree - Felony	07/15/2008

xThat will clear the way for both sides to concentrate on much work still to be done before her first-degree murder trial.

That will clear the way for both sides to concentrate on much work still to be done before her first-degree murder trial.That will clear the way for both sides to concentrate on much work still to be done before her first-degree murder trial.

Motion Sickness

Orange County Circuit Court Judge Stan Strickland inched Casey Anthony one step closer to death today when he decided he would not block the State Attorney’s Office from seeking the death penalty. He denied a motion by her defense team that asked the judge to stop the procedure. One of Anthony’s attorneys, Andrea D. Lyon, gave a compelling argument last Friday that the death penalty violated her constitutional rights.

Judge Strickland ruled that the state may continue its quest for death and said the issue of whether Casey should face it or not should be for the jury to decide.

“While the quantum of evidence sufficient to seek the death penalty will virtually always be an issue, that matter is generally best left for the jury,”Strickland wrote in the three-page ruling.

This is the last of the motions argued last Friday and true to his word, this week the judge denied all of them. He denied a motion to dismiss double jeopardy charges of check fraud, he denied a motion to stop the Orange County Jail from videotaping meetings with her attorneys and he denied the defense’s request to destroy video of any and all visits from her family. George and Cindy said they haven’t gone to the jail to see their daughter for fear that the recordings will be released to an overzealous public while being unfairly picked apart by media commentators.

The judge also ruled that a recorded statement made by Joe Jordan cannot be released. The Texas EquuSearch volunteer illegally recorded a conversation that took place with a defense investigator without the investigator’s consent. Jordan told both the defense and prosecution two different stories about whether he searched the same woods where Caylee’s remains were discovered.

Remember, the jury doesn’t have the final say and the vote does not have to be unanimous, just a majority rule. Ultimately, the judge will decide because it will be his call, but judges usually abide by the jury’s call.

In the end, it was a bad week for Casey, her parents and brother, and her attorneys. They must be feeling pretty sick today, but they are resilient. They will bounce back. The death penalty fight is not completely over yet, but there’s no doubt in my mind that Judge Strickland made wise decisions. On every one of them.

Haiti Hits Home

Click for Details for ‘Hope for Haiti’ Telethon

My parents attend the First Baptist Church in Winter Park, Florida. They’ve been members there for many, many years and my mother used to work at The Learning Tree, the daycare center inside the church. She watched over the toddlers. One of them was Gretchen Storms. She and her sister Kirsten Storms are actresses. Kirsten used to love to visit her sister and talk to my mother, who is fondly remembered as Miss Dottie. She is an actress on General Hospital. Their father, Mike, was the resident (and most popular) sports guy on TV for many years. When I did food demos at Petty’s Meat Market in Longwood for the marinade I used to make, he and his wife shopped there. They never brought their daughters, but Mike and I carried on some memorable conversations. He was, and remains, a class act through and through. Heck, he loved my marinade! He had to be a good guy.

This isn’t about any of them or who I know, though. This is about someone I never met and he is missing. The only connection to any of these people, including my parents, is that they all attend or attended the First Baptist Church and one of their members hasn’t been heard from since the earthquake in Haiti on January 13.

46-year-old Lee Strickland, Jr, is Sunday School teacher, a husband and a father. The last time he was heard from was 7 minutes before it hit, when he was on the phone with his wife. He told her he was about to go to dinner with colleagues. That was around 4:45 PM. Strickland is a longtime employee of PBS&J engineering firm in Orlando. PBS&J has hired an independent contractor to search for him and remains in communication with the hospitals in Dominican Republic, where victims pulled from the Hotel Montana are being treated. So far, no good news.

Hotel Montana was a 4-star tourist hotel  that was completely destroyed. Alain Joyandet, an official with France’s State Department, told Agence France-Presse that 300 people were believed to be inside the 145-key Montana when it collapsed, while only about 100 have been accounted for. Approximately 200 other guests of the hotel, where he had just checked in, are missing and feared dead.

Lee is a civil engineer and he was attending a conference in Port-Au-Prince with four others from another firm. Those four employees are accounted for. The decision for him to go to the conference was a last minute thing.

Lee Strickland, Jr.

Please pray for Lee, his family and the thousands upon thousands of victims, alive and dead.

Statement by President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush

We are deeply saddened by the devastation and suffering caused by the recent earthquake in Haiti. The people of Haiti are in our thoughts and prayers.

We are pleased to accept President Obama’s request to lead private sector fundraising efforts. In the days and weeks ahead, we will draw attention to the many ways American citizens and businesses can help meet the urgent needs of the Haitian people.

Americans have a long history of showing compassion and generosity in the wake of tragedy. We thank the American people for rallying to help our neighbors in the Caribbean in their hour of suffering – and throughout the journey of rebuilding their nation.

For information on how you can contribute, please visit

 www.georgewbushcenter.com/haiti andwww.clintonfoundation.org/haitiearthquake.

Contact: 212.348.0360

OR

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund

†

From the Court of the Confused Media

Album Cover - King Crimson - In the Court of the Crimson King - 1969

§

As of today, the Orange County Clerk of Courts* Web site lists a hearing date of 01/21/2010. It also lists a trial date of 01/25/2010.

From WESH: “A date may be set by the end of the week for the murder trial of Casey Anthony. Prosecutors and Anthony’s defense team will go before Judge Stan Strickland on Thursday for a status hearing.”

From WFTV: “This week’s status hearing for Casey Anthony’s murder trial has been delayed until Monday January 25, the day her check fraud trial is scheduled to start. The defense had asked for a change of venue… and there are reports that, since no hearings have been held on that issue, the defense also wants the check fraud trial to be put off. In many cases, judges will try to find a local jury first before discussing a change of venue.”

From CFNEWS13: “Casey Anthony’s check fraud trial was supposed to start Jan. 25. However, News 13 has learned the trial isn’t going to happen next week. Sources also told News 13 certain depositions still haven’t been taken. Those same sources said a court hearing connected to Anthony’s murder case scheduled for this week also will not take place.”

The Orlando Sentinel reports that Casey’s ”… fraud case set for trial next week will likely be delayed. There’s a slew of motions that haven’t been addressed by the court. There’s a slew of motions that haven’t been addressed by the court, such as whether the defense can get a change of venue due to the media coverage. And, the defense has not interviewed the victim, Amy Huizenga, under oath yet. Prosecutors and Anthony’s defense team will appear at a pre-trial hearing Thursday to address some of these issues.”

The jury was supposed to be selected a month ago, the week after the last hearing. What’s happening? Are the court, state and defense having problems finding an unbiased jury in Orange County, Florida?

What puzzles me is that today is Martin Luther King Day, a national holiday. The court and the State Attorney’s Office are closed and you can bank on it. Who is feeding the media these stories? The defense?

Meanwhile, not a peep out of WKMG or FOX35. Perhaps, they are observing the holiday.

*If you go to the site, click on Court Calendar, then type in last name, first name (Anthony Casey) and on the + On or Before date, advance it to at least 01/25/2010. I go a whole year ahead, just in case a new date is added.

Dear Concerned Citizen...

In a recent comment on another blog, a woman said Diane Fanning’s new book,Mommy’s Little Girl, was a waste of money. There was nothing new to read and learn, and the pictures were the same way. My point isn’t to pick on Fanning at all. It’s to point out one major thing. Whether you know it or like it or not, people are out to make a buck off this dead little girl, Caylee Marie Anthony. For some reason, that seems to be OK, but not for any of the Anthonys. Because I have taken a firm stand, I am perceived as an Anthony lover. I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Fanning is making money from images of Caylee, why give her your blessing by buying the book? What should Caylee’s family do? Give away the pictures so others can get rich?

TV stations blare out headlines of SHOCKING NEW IMAGES OF CAYLEE AND THE TOT MOM!!! to bolster ratings. Higher ratings translate into higher advertising revenues. Incidentally, the Anthonys must give these photos away for free so the TV shows, local and nationwide, can strike it rich off a dead toddler. All along, I have preached that if it is not right for the Anthonys to make money, it is not right for anyone else, including the media. Making money off a dead toddler is the same no matter who is doing it. Period.

While Andrea Lyon’s recently released book, Angel of Death Row, was in the works long before she joined Casey Anthony’s defense team, she is perceived as making money off dead little Caylee. Methinks some of you have your priorities screwed up. While no mention of Caylee is made in her book, Fanning’s is ALL about her and her mother.

I can understand a person’s devotion to a cause, and Lyon’s cause is to eliminate the death penalty in every case. Since I am not an advocate of the death penalty, I agree with her. She began her fight long before Casey was a twinkle in George and Cindy’s eyes. By stating a fact, I guess this makes me an Anthony lover. So be it.

§

Today, I am going to look at a letter recently sent to Judge Stan Strickland by a concerned “researcher and scientist.” I find it peculiar that anyone would address something of this nature to the judge and not the State Attorney’s Office or the defense team, because in the end, I don’t believe the judge cares one way or the other. His job is to rationalize the facts presented before him by the state and the defense, not what someone else thinks. Yes, that includes me and every other blogger, although as a fair and judicious human being, he probably prefers to read fair and judicious opinions about the case, and that letter is anything but fair.

If you think I am going to give George and Cindy my blessings, guess again. All I try to do is look at things from all perspectives, not just one. Take it or leave it. Do I agree with George and Cindy? No. Do I agree with the fans that flame the fires of mob rule and anarchy? Hell no. If Casey is ever going to get a fair trial, the people of Florida must be fair in return or she will walk. Not one of us in the blogging world wants to see this happen. Casey’s own actions are what placed her in this predicament and in the end, the people of Florida will speak. Meanwhile, Judge Strickland is well aware of what’s going on here. He also understands that both sides, meaning lawyers, file motions for good reasons. Concerned citizens do not. That includes researchers and scientists.

Quotes from the letter to Judge Strickland are in color.

From the opening bell, the letter writer states that (s)he is “… writing in defense of Casey Anthony… based on… information…” the judge should consider. First of all, it IS NOT the judge’s job to consider anything of the sort from any letter writer. That’s why the letter was promptly forwarded to the state and defense as noted at the top. It is their job to consider it and act. Judge Strickland is not a TV crime solving judge, although I’m sure he could get his own show when the trial is over. No, he is way too humble and practical to even consider it. Whoever wrote this is no friend of the defense because, if the judge decides to recuse himself over matters like this, poor Casey will never get a judge as fair and qualified as him.

“One of the most compelling pieces of evidence in this case is invalid involving the single hair claimed to belong to a deceased Caylee Anthony. I can assure you there is NO WAY possible that there was a DEATH HAIR belonging to Caylee Anthony with a black post-mortem ring found in Casey Anthony’s vehicle. That is impossible because Caylee had only been missing 30 days when the vehicle was inspected, and it takes a minimum of 90 days of a hair remaining in the bacterial environment of the scalp of a cadaver for a black death ring to form.” 

This is a matter for the court to decide at trial. As is the case in any trial, scientists from both sides present their findings and this is no different. It argues that what the state admits as evidence is quackery; junk science. The jury is going to hear it no matter how much this letter writer doth protest. Again, it is not the letter writer’s job to sway the judge because it won’t. OBJECTION DENIED.

“… if someone deceased were in the car, more than one hair likely would be found, as well as significant DNA remains…” 

Not if those remains were stuffed inside plastic bags. Besides, his use of the word“likely” is not a word the court likes to hear. It either IS or it ISN’T, not likely orunlikely, because we don’t bet on odds in a capital murder case. OBJECTION DENIED.

Back to the lone hair. In her thesis vita, Jamie Hughes Collier noted that she was the co-president of the Geography and Anthropology Society and a student affiliate of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences at LSU. In herEstimating the Postmortem Interval in Forensic Cases Through the Analysis of Postmortem Deterioration of Human Head Hair¹ thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, she concluded:

The presence of a normal root or yellow-banding on the proximal end and no fungal growth on a head hair would suggest a PMI of < 90 days. In contrast, the presence of a hard keratin point, root-banding, or brush-like proximal end and fungal growth on a head hair would suggest a PMI of > 90 days.

This study found that head hair from the same individual deteriorates uniformly. Furthermore, fungal growth and changes in proximal end morphology were found to have asignificant association with PMI. Cuticle damage, on the other hand, was found to have a nonsignificant relationship with PMI. The relationships between cuticle damage and fungal growth, and cuticle damage and proximal end morphology were not significant. In contrast, there was a significant association between fungal growth and proximal end morphology. Further research is needed to give a more complete picture of the relationship between human head hair deterioration and PMI. Studies consisting of longer postmortem intervals, with a larger number of cases, would be useful. In addition, experiments that expose hair (still associated with the scalp) from the same decedent to different environments and climates could aid in the understanding of the universal deterioration rates of human head hair. The author suggests that during the forensic investigator’s examination of a decedent with an unknown PMI, a sample of 25 head hairs should be collected and saved for evaluation. The slow decomposition rate of hair, relative to other soft tissues, makes it a valuable source of information in older forensic cases. Utilized in conjunction with other dating methods, the observations of fungal growth and changes in proximal end morphology of human head hair may prove beneficial in estimating a PMI.

What the concerned citizen states in the letter is that the single hair “… is just one example of a recent thesis paper demonstrating that in all hair samples studied the post-mortem interval (PMI) where black death banding occurs is greater than 90 days.”

“There is also no ‘evidence of human decomposition’ as the prosecution claimed - there is only a finding in the forensic documentation that decomposition ‘could be human,’ but also states, as was conveniently omitted in the prosecution’s statements, that it could also be from animal, food, and other substances, and therefore the type of decomposition is inconclusive…” 

OK, I’ll give this one to the defense as a method of explaining junk science, whether it impacts the jury or not, and it very well might, but no way would I accept pizza as the source of decomposition and neither will a jury.OBJECTION DENIED. No doubt, the defense will fight the death hair tooth and nail, but the facts remain it was still a human hair and it contained mitochondrial DNA consistent with the family. This means it was not a rotting pizza hair.

Here is where it gets overtly stupid and nonsensical: “… it is a fact that maggots were recovered by the prosecution, food remnants were observed in the car by Dr. Henry Lee and others, and a statement from the tow truck driver testified that he removed a bag with a pizza box and maggots from the car. Considering the fact alone that the prosecution clearly blatantly [thus used - redundant] lied to the media about their possession of a ‘death hair’ and have been guilty of numerous other incidents distorting the facts, to me this makes any of their claims suspect.” 

Wait a second! Even in my not so encyclopedic, yet very mathematical brain, I suspect that by rationalizing a possible solution of A, B, or C, this does not necessarily make C a lie. C is just as practical as A or B and it will be up to the defense to prove it’s not C. Therefore, my conclusion is that this writer is playing with words. A child went missing. The child was found dead. The car reeked of decomposition, and it came from pizza? Get real. Cite me all other incidents where the state distorted the facts. This is going to come down to semantics and the letter writer is the one distorting the facts. OBJECTION DENIED.

“Casey Anthony’s mother had cleaned the car with cleaning products. Only small amounts of chloroform were found, but contrary to reports in the media chloroform DOES commonly form from degrading or mixing antibacterial cleaning products with water…”

Because of the possible contamination of evidence, and only because of that possibility, OBJECTION SUSTAINED. The defense should be able to convince the jury that any contamination of evidence taints the results. Did Cindy clean the car on purpose, to hide or destroy evidence? Cindy is not on trial, but it could be argued she did. Will it be? I doubt it because it is opinion. No one could prove it and that’s why I ignore blog and forum arguments over it. It is immaterial in court. What matters most are realistic explanations, not assumptions. If the state accuses Cindy of purposely trying to destroy evidence, it will have to acknowledge that she did, in fact, destroy some of the trunk evidence and, BINGO, part of the state’s argument goes flying out the window.

“With regard to the duct tape, it is the most common type produced, and there is no proof it matched the duct tape in the Anthony home based on tests done to date, nor did the laundry bag match. In fact, in my opinion a simple test could be done to likely confirm whether the tape came from the Anthony home or not, but law enforcement I believe intentionally has not requested this test be performed because it would clear the Anthonys - a test of the fibers adhered to the tape as compared to those on the roll at the Anthony home to determine if it came from the same source, and any fibers on that tape could also be very telling as to the environment this tape truly came from, including possibly the interior of someone else’s vehicle or home. And there are many other examples of inconclusive forensic and other selectively excerpted out-of-context information that the prosecution has attempted to assign meaning to which are only convenient assumptions and not based on truth or science.”

Quite clearly, this IS NOT the most common type of duct tape produced and the state will prove this in court. Law enforcement did a very thorough job of itemizing all the stores in central Florida that carried this brand of tape and their findings were factual and not based on anything but store inventories. I’ve seen the sheets and sheets of paper listing all the store and warehouse locations. Law enforcement contacted the manufacturer of this particular type of duct tape and the manufacturer stated that it sold the product to another company and hasn’t produced it in years. Get real, chump. Something written in this paragraph really irked me, too. The writer states that to qualify fibers found on the tape, the scientific method should entail the process of elimination. Eliminate me and my car, and everyone else in Florida. Therefore, it is safe to assume that this “scientist” wants to check every vehicle in Florida. That’s not very scientific, nor is there a sensibility to this method. It’s sort of like the odds of someone’s DNA being a 2o0,ooo,000 to 1 chance of belonging to someone else. In other words, eliminate everyone else, 199,999,999 people, to prove that a lone holdout murdered Caylee. OBJECTION DENIED. Besides, who knows whether Casey (allegedly) placed the tape in Tony Lazarro’s Jeep for a few days? Or Amy’s? Could that implicate either of them or any other friends, family or co-workers, real and imagined? It seems to me this letter writer is trying to implicate everyone but Casey. Hmm.

There are many other facets of this letter I plan on examining, including the people named in it, but so far, the writer hasn’t shown me one good reason whatsoever to release Casey on bond, let alone drop the charge of murder in the first degree. In my opinion, this could be a weak attempt by someone outside of the case to insert himself into it. Perhaps, he was shrugged off by the defense and now wants his two cent’s worth to be seen and heard. A high school student with too much time on his hands? Clearly, this is not just factual information coming from a “researcher and scientist,” this is mostly another person’s opinion and opinions are easy targets, like mine. Do I think Cindy wrote it? No, and my decision has nothing to do with loving her.

END PART 1

Part 1 of letter - Click to enlarge

BOOP? What's BOOP, Betty?

When the going gets tough, the tough get writing…

I received three letters in the mail ordering evaluations of some of my medical conditions. In order for this to take place, my doctor had to write a series of health service referrals. I’ve had lots of them written on separate occasions, but this was the first time I stood a chance of having any of them come to fruition. Because my platelets, red blood cells, hemoglobin and hematocrit have been low for a long time and I am anemic, one referral was to see a gastroenterologist. I never showed any signs of internal bleeding, but because of those issues and the fact that my liver and spleen are enlarged, I also received a referral to see ahematologist/oncologist.

When I was in the hospital with pneumonia in December of 2008, chest X-rays taken then and in later outpatient ones showed a growth of some kind in my right lung. This was classified as parenchymal disease, which really refers to a group of lung diseases affecting the interstitium, the tissue and space around the air sacs of the lungs. Over the last year, I’ve gotten a series of referrals to see a pulmonologist, too. No surprise there.

Last, but not least, the biggest daddy of them all, the one dealing with my most important health problem, were referrals to see a cardiologist, which I did see several months ago to the tune of $200 to tell me to go and get a nuclear stress test, which runs into the thousands. With no health insurance, that’s a lofty goal for a high reaching middle class underachiever like me.

Needless to say, I continued to work behind the scenes applying for grant funding, so I can’t be all that stupid. I figured, what have I got to lose? Recently, my work paid off with a letter stating that money may be available. I had gone back to my doctor quite often during this time because the diabetes was getting progressively worse and it was a rather fast decline. With diabetes, this is not unusual. The pancreas takes a deep breath and says I’m outta here. Within a matter of weeks, I went from Glipizide (or Glucotrol) to Januvia, both oral medications, to Lantus insulin. I will continue taking metformin pills, which cut glucose production in the liver. I asked my doctor to write new referrals for the four specialists. I had no idea which one or ones I would be able to see, but if she had a wish list for any one of them, which would it be? Hands down, and as I suspected, it must be the cardiologist, so that’s what I told my funding consultant. Within weeks, I received three letters. One was for a pulmonologist, one was for a gastroenterologist/liver consultant, and one was for a hematologist/oncologist. No heart doctor was on the horizon, but hey, I can’t look a gift horse in the mouth. When I saw my doctor recently, she was happy that I was seeing those three. Three out of four isn’t bad.

One thing I must make clear is the fact that diabetes is a disease that kills. A lot of people like me who have type 2 may not know it for a long time, up to 8 years. Meanwhile, damage to one or more major organs is being done. In my case, as of now, diabetes hit my heart rather hard, or so the doctors think. That is why seeing a cardiologist is so important. It’s bad enough that at 57, I’m takingCoreg and Zetia, plus 10,000% of the adult daily dose of niacin for cholesterol. And, I carry nitroglycerin with me everywhere I go. Look, if I told you all the medications I take, I’d bore you, and as a writer, that’s not my job. Nor is it to elicit sympathy. No, this is to warn people about the perils of smoking cigarettes and one other remarkable thing you’d never guess about in a million years. I smoked for almost 40 years and when I was 16-years-old, my doctor told me I was the last person on earth who should ever smoke. He was emphatic. You see, when I was about one-and-a-half years old, I spent a month in the hospital with bronchitis and I got it every year until I reached adulthood. Because I had a lot of chest problems growing up, a Vick’s Vaporizer in my bedroom at night was a frequent fixture.

Back to the present. I will skip the gastroenterologist. Last Monday, I went to see the pulmonologist. The first thing a nurse did was walk me around the outside perimeter of the office, which, by the time I stopped walking, was larger than I thought. She stuck a thimble-sized monitor on my pointer finger while she held a meter. The meter showed a rapid heartbeat but a good oxygen flow from my lungs. How a finger thingy can do that is beyond me, but she wouldn’t know how to use Photoshop like me, either. One of the heart conditions I have is tachycardia, or a rapid beat. When I rested in the room, I waited for the doctor, but first the nurse asked me a series of questions. She wanted to know how long I had been a smoker. She had basic records from my clinic and she asked about those chest X-rays. I told her to call Boston Diagnostics. They found a growth or something in my right lung. Maybe it was Florida Hospital, too, but Boston had the latest ones. A while later, the doctor did come in and he examined me and asked me a series of questions about working conditions and breathing any chemicals. That sort of thing. I have had problems taking deep breaths for a long time. I quit smoking 27 months ago and it never went away. Sometimes, it’s worse. Of course, he mentioned COPD and emphysema, but to cut to the chase, he told me the heart and lungs work hand-in-hand and he thought my problem was probably heart related. Of course, he hadn’t looked at my chest x-rays yet…

Fast forward to Monday. I had an 11:35 am appointment to see a hematologist/oncologist at the Mid Florida Hematology & Oncology Centers, PA in Sanford. Not 11:30 or 11:45, but 11:35. I promptly arrived at 11:32. Or was it 33? The waiting room was large enough to hold a couple of dozen people and it was packed. This was going to take me forever, I thought, but you know? I’m glad it did.

If you’ve ever been to a Waffle House restaurant, you know that the wait staff always greets you as soon as you walk in the door.

“Good morning!”

“Good morning!”

“Good morning!”

That’s pretty much what happened to me. They were the friendliest group of people and for the most part, they all seemed to know each other. One observation I made was that some of the nurses wore face masks. Sure, I know they wear them sometimes, but not like here. As I panned across the room, I noticed some people were in wheelchairs. Within minutes, a frail, bald-headed, man wheeled toward me, pushed by another man. I arose to open the door for them and the closer he got, the more I saw it was not a man at all. It was a woman!

There was a very friendly man sitting in a wheelchair nearby. He seemed to be the “leader” of the group. I asked him if they received chemo here and is that how everyone seems to know each other. Yes, he replied. That woman I opened the door for had just received a chemo treatment. Roy, his name was, told me they come in every week. I asked him how long he had been coming to this place and he responded, “Two years.”

“Every week?”

“Yes, every week.”

“So that’s how you all know each other. It’s like a club.”

“Yes, that’s exactly it.”

Roy said he has bone cancer. The most interesting thing to me was that, for the most part, you’d never know any of them were sick. Some, of course, but not most of them. It was very encouraging to see people willing to undergo toxic treatment, week after week, in order to live, and they seemed like a very happy and positive bunch.

I waited for about 45 minutes before my name was called. It took me a good 15 minutes to fill out all of the papers I as given when I initially walked up to the counter, so the half hour wait was mooted by the friendly dispositions of the waiting patients. When I walked into the inner offices, the nurse weighed me and guided me to a room. I’ve gained 10 pounds since going on insulin and that means its working. The nurse, Amy, asked me questions that are more routine to me now, because I am so used to seeing doctors. I told her about the chest X-rays. Fortunately, I had taken a card from the pulmonologist’s office.Pulmonary Practice Associates, Pulmonary and Internal Medicine, it said. The nurse left and I assumed she was calling that office. It’s always here that it becomes tedious and boring. It’s the wait in that room with no nurse or doctor, and in this case, no magazine to preoccupy myself with. Finally, my doctor walked in. Dr. Rene Carbeza. He asked me more questions. He listened to my heart and lungs. He looked at my ankles. I also have PAD. He didn’t seem to be concerned with the blood problem. He zeroed in on my right lung. It didn’t take long for me to realize he had talked to my pulmonologist.

“I’m going to take some blood, but I don’t think your platelets are low.”

Toward the tail end of our “consultation,” he said a nurse would be in to take it. She did, and she took 4 vials. I asked if there was a water fountain nearby. She directed me to the back, where I saw lots of plush lounge chairs with IV drips along side them. There must have been at least a dozen chairs and a TV to watch. This was the chemo room.

I returned to my room and about 10 minutes later, Dr. Carbeza returned with the news. “Your platelets are 147. You’re in the normal range.”

“You mean you’re not worried about my blood?”

“I’m not worried at all right now.”

“Great!” I could stop worrying about it.

“But, the pulmonologist is worried about your lung. He scheduled you to have a lung biopsy.” Huh? That was news to me. “He suspects it might be BOOP.”

“BOOP? What’s BOOP? BOOP? Never heard of it.” Also known as Epler’s Disease, it stands for Bronchiolitis Obliterans with Organizing Pneumonia.

“It can come from Vick’s Vaporizers and from rubbing it on your chest,” he explained. I told him it was almost a mainstay in my bedroom growing up, night after night after night. Who woulda thunk it?

Some people can smoke all their lives and never get cancer. Some people, like me, should walk away - far, far away - from cigarettes. With my bad lungs, I was a fool to ever pick up the habit. Most people will never have a problem with BOOP, but some people will. I won’t know until some time in February what this growth in my lung is, but a biopsy is scheduled for January 27. BOOP or not, a growth in the lung is never a good thing. Let this be a reminder and a firm warning. Smoking kills. My childhood doctor was right. I never should have started, but his advice from over 40 years ago is just as important today. As much as I liked the friendliness of that waiting room, and I really admired their positive and encouraging attitudes, I am in no hurry to join their club. Are you?

Here is an alternative form of help to quit smoking:

Auriculotherapy for Smoking Cessation

When a mother kills REDUX

I published this in April of last year. I think, as Casey still sits in jail awaiting trial, it is worthy of a second look. I took the liberty to tweak it a little, too.

I resourced a number of clinical studies that are referenced at the bottom. I am not a psychiatrist, nor a psychologist. I have interpolated and interpreted those articles and discussions into one by rewriting and condensing them. Hopefully, this is something more palatable 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.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

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 filicideas 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.

CLASSIFICATION SUBGROUPS

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 OF KILLING

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, suffocation or 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.)

GENERAL POPULATION STUDIES OF MATERNAL FILICIDE

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.

PSYCHIATRIC SAMPLES OF MATERNAL FILICIDE

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.

CORRECTIONAL SAMPLES OF MATERNAL FILICIDE

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?

CONCLUSION

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 Anthony and her daughter 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.

References:

Cylc, Linda, Classifications and Descriptions of Parents Who Commit Filicide, Psychology, Villanova University

Friedman, Susan Hatters and Resnick, Phillip J. Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention, Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Hanna Pavilion, University Hospitals of Cleveland

Supplemental References:

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition, text revision).Washington, D.C.: Author.

Cheung, P.T.K. (1986). Maternal filicide in Hong Kong. Medicine, Science, and Law, 26,185-192.

D’Orban, P.T. (1979). Women who kill their children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 560-571.

Gold, L.H. (2001). Clinical and forensic aspects of postpartum disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 29, 344-347.

Hausman, K. (2002, December 20). Classification tries to make sense of often inexplicable crime. Psychiatric News, 37(24), 14.

Marleau, J.D., Poulin, B., Webanck, T., Roy, R., & Laporte, L. (1999). Paternal filicide: A study of 10 men. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 57-63.

McKee, G.R. & Shea, S.J. (1998). Maternal filicide: A cross national comparison. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 679-687.

Palermo, G.B. (2002). Murderous Parents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(2), 123-143.

Pitt, S.E. & Bale, E.M. (1995). Neonaticide, Infanticide, and Filicide: A review of the literature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law,23, 375-386.

Resnick, P.J. (1969). Child murder by parents: A psychiatric review of filicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 73-82.

Resnick, P.J. (1970). Murder of the newborn: A psychiatric review of filicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 58-63.

Stanton, A. & Simpson, J. (2000). Maternal filicide: a reformulation of factors relevant to risk. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10,136-147.

Stanton, J., & Simpson, A. (2002). Filicide: A Review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25, 1-14.

Stanton, J., Simpson, A., & Wouldes, T. (2002). A qualitative study of filicide by mentally ill mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(11),1451-1460.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Homicide trends in the United States: infanticide.www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ homicide/children.htm.

Lester D. Murdering babies: a cross-national study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1991;26:83–88.[PubMed]

Marks MN. Kumar R. Infanticide in England and Wales. Med Sci Law. 1993;33:329–339. [PubMed]

Brookman F. Nolan J. The dark figure of infanticide in England and Wales: complexities of diagnosis. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21:869–889. [PubMed]

Zawitz MW. Strom KJ. Firearm injury and death from crime, 1993- 97. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000

Finkelhor D. The homicides of children and youth: a developmental perspective. In: Kantor GK, Jasinski JL, editors. Out of the darkness: contemporary perspectives on family violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997. pp. 17–34.

Emery JL. Child abuse, sudden infant death syndrome, and unexpected infant death. Am J Dis Child.1993;147:1097–1100. [PubMed]

Ewigman B. Kivlahan C. Land G. The Missouri child fatality study: underreporting of maltreatment fatalities among children younger than five years of age. Pediatrics. 1993;91:330–337. [PubMed]

Resnick PJ. Murder of the newborn: a psychiatric review of neonaticide. Am J Psychiatry. 1970;126:58–64.

Friedman SH. Resnick PJ. Neonaticide: phenomenology and prevention. Int J Law Psychiatry. in press.

Resnick PJ. Child murder by parents: a psychiatric review of filicide. Am J Psychiatry. 1969;126:73–82.

Hesketh T. Xing ZW. Abnormal sex ratios in human populations: causes and consequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:13271–13275. [PubMed]

Wu Z. Viisainen K. Hemminki E. Determinants of high sex ratio among newborns: a cohort study from rural Anhui province, China. Reproductive Health Matters. 2006;14:172–180. [PubMed]

Friedman SH. Horwitz SM. Resnick PJ. Child murder by mothers: a critical analysis of the current state of knowledge and a research agenda. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1578–1587. [PubMed]

Alder C. Polk K. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Child victims of homicide.

Alder CM. Baker J. Maternal filicide: more than one story to be told. Women and Criminal Justice. 1997;9:15–39.

Bourget D. Gagne P. Maternal filicide in Quebec. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2002;30:345–351. [PubMed]

Bourget D. Bradford JM. Homicidal parents. Can J Psychiatry. 1990;35:233–238. [PubMed]

Cheung PTK. Maternal filicide in Hong Kong, 1971-1985. Med Sci Law. 1986;26:185–192. [PubMed]

Daly M. Wilson M. Killing children: parental homicide in the modern west. In: Daly M, Wilson M, editors.Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1988. pp. 61–93.

Dean PJ. Child homicide and infanticide in New Zealand. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2004;27:339–348. [PubMed]

Friedman SH. Hrouda DR. Holden CE, et al. Child murder committed by severely mentally ill mothers: an examination of mothers found not guilty by reason of insanity. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50:1466–1471. [PubMed]

Friedman SH. Hrouda DR. Holden CE, et al. Filicide-suicide: common factors among parents who kill their children and themselves. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2005;33:496–504. [PubMed]

Gauthier DK. Chaudoir NK. Forsyth CJ. A sociological analysis of maternal infanticide in the United States 1984-1996. Deviant Behavior.2003;24:393–405.

Haapasalo J. Petaja S. Mothers who killed or attempted to kill their child: life circumstances, childhood abuse, and types of killing.Violence Vict. 1999;14:219–239. [PubMed]

Holden CE. Burland AS. Lemmen CA. Insanity and filicide: women who murder their children. New Directions for Mental Health Services.1996;69:25–34. [PubMed]

Husain A. Daniel A. A comparative study of filicidal and abusive mothers. Can J Psychiatry. 1984;29:596–598.[PubMed]

Karakus M. Ince H. Ince N, et al. Filicide cases in Turkey, 1995- 2000. Croat Med J. 2003;44:592–595. [PubMed]

Korbin JE. Incarcerated mothers’ perceptions and interpretations of their fatally maltreated children. Child Abuse Negl. 1987;11:397–407. [PubMed]

Korbin JE. Childhood histories of women imprisoned for fatal child maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl.1986;10:331–338. [PubMed]

Korbin JE. Fatal maltreatment by mothers: a proposed framework. Child Abuse Negl. 1989;13:481–489.[PubMed]

Korbin JE. ‘Good mothers’, ‘babykillers’, and fatal child maltreatment. In: Scheper-Hughes N, Sargent C, editors.Small wars: the cultural politics of childhood. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1998. pp. 253–276.

Laporte L. Poulin B. Marleau J, et al. Filicidal women: jail or psychiatric ward?Can J Psychiatry. 2003;48:94–109.[PubMed]

Lewis CF. Baranoski MV. Buchanan JA, et al. Factors associated with weapon use in maternal filicide. J Forensic Sci. 1998;43:613–618.[PubMed]

Lewis CF. Bunce SC. Filicidal mothers and the impact of psychosis on maternal filicide. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2003;31:459–470.[PubMed]

McKee GR. Shea SJ. Mogy RB, et al. MMPI-2 profiles of filicidal, mariticidal, and homicidal women. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57:367–374.[PubMed]

McGrath PG. Maternal filicide in Broadmoor Hospital. J Forensic Psychiatry. 1992;3:271–297.

Marks MN. Kumar R. Infanticide in Scotland. Med Sci Law. 1996;36:201–204.

Meszaros K. Fisher-Danzinger D. Extended suicide attempt: psychopathology, personality and risk factors. Psychopathology. 2000;33:5–10. [PubMed]

Meyer CL. Oberman M. New York: New York University Press; 2001. Mothers who kill their children: understanding the acts of moms from Susan Smith to the “Prom Mom”.

Oberman M. Mothers who kill: coming to terms with modern American infanticide. American Criminal Law Review. 1996;34:2–109.

Pritchard C. Bagley C. Suicide and murder in child murderers and child sexual abusers. J Forensic Psychiatry.2001;12:269–286.

Rouge-Maillart N. Jousset N, et al. Women who kill their children. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2005;26:320–326.[PubMed]

Sakuta T. Saito S. A socio-medical study on 71 cases of infanticide in Japan. Keio J Med. 1981;30:155–168.[PubMed]

Silverman RA. Kennedy LW. Women who kill their children. Violence Vict. 1988;3:113–127. [PubMed]

Smithey M. Maternal infanticide and modern motherhood. Criminal Justice. 2001;13:65–83.

Smithey M. Infant homicide at the hands of mothers: toward a sociological perspective. Deviant Behavior.1997;18:255–272.

Somander LK. Rammer LM. Intra- and extra-familial child homicide in Sweden 1971-1980. Child Abuse Negl.1991;15:45–55. [PubMed]

Stanton J. Simpson A. Wouldes T. A qualitative study of filicide by mentally ill mothers. Child Abuse Negl.2000;24:1451–1460. [PubMed]

Stone MH. Steinmeyer E. Dreher J, et al. Infanticide in female forensic patients: the view from the evolutionary standpoint. J Psychiatr Pract. 2005;11:35–45. [PubMed]

Vanamo T. Kauppo A. Karkola K, et al. Intra-familial child homicide in Finland 1970-1994: incidence, causes of death and demographic characteristics. Forensic Sci Int. 2001;117:199–204. [PubMed]

Wallace A. Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; 1986. Homicide: the social reality.

Weisheit RA. When mothers kill their children. Soc Sci J. 1986;23:439–448.

Wilczynski A. London: Oxford University Press/ Greenwich Medical Media; 1997. Child homicide.

Xie L. Yamagami A. How much of child murder in Japan is caused by mentally disordered mothers? Intern Med J. 1995;2:309–313.

Nock MK. Marzuk PM. Murder-suicide: phenomenology and clinical implications. In: Jacobs DG, editor. Guide to suicide assessment and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1999. pp. 188–209.

Appleby L. Suicidal behaviour in childbearing women. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1996;8:107–115.

Schalekamp RJ. Maternal filicide-suicide from a suicide perspective: assessing ideation. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ homicide/children.htm.

Jennings KD. Ross S. Popper S, et al. Thoughts of harming infants in depressed and nondepressed mothers. J Affect Disord. 1999;54:21–28.[PubMed]

Levitzky S. Cooper R. Infant colic syndrome: maternal fantasies of aggression and infanticide. Clin Pediatr.2000;39:395–400.

Chandra PS. Venkatasubramanian G. Thomas T. Infanticidal ideas and infanticidal behavior in Indian women with severe postpartum psychiatric disorders. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190:457–461. [PubMed]

Friedman SH. Sorrentino RM. Stankowski JE, et al. Mothers with thoughts of murder: psychiatric patterns of inquiry. Presented at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting.

Mendlowicz MV. Rapaport MH. Mecler K, et al. A case-control study on the socio-demographic characteristics of 53 neonaticidal mothers. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1998;21:209–219. [PubMed]

d’Orban PT. Women who kill their children. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:560–571. [PubMed]

Coughlin A. Excusing women. 82 Cal L Rev. 1994;1:6.

Guileyardo JM. Prahlow JA. Barnard JJ. Familial filicide and filicide classification. Am J Forensic Med Pathol.1999;20:286–292.[PubMed]

Chandra PS. Bhargavaraman RP. Raghunandan VN, et al. Delusions related to infant and their association with mother-infant interactions in postpartum psychotic disorders. Arch Women Ment Health. 2006;9:285–288.

Cox JL. Holden JM. Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–786. [PubMed]

Ryan D. Milis L. Misri N. Depression during pregnancy. Can Fam Physician. 2005;51:1087–1093. [PubMed]

Altshuler LL. Hendrick V. Cohen LS. Course of mood and anxiety disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum period. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(Suppl. 2):29–33. [PubMed]

McCleary R. Chew KSY. Winter is the infanticide season. Homicide Studies. 2002;6:228–239.

Palermo MT. Preventing filicide in families with autistic children. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol.2003;47:47–57. [PubMed]

A lot of good lawyering today

Introduction

Let me start this post with the very end of the hearing and a little bit beyond. As it wrapped up, Judge Strickland made note that there was a lot of good lawyering in the courtroom and that included both sides. As some of you will argue against that with regard to Andrea Lyon, don’t take it out on me. This is exactly what the judge said and so did Bill Sheaffer, as I was carrying on a conversation with him after the hearing and when Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton approached. I reiterated Bill’s words and shook the prosecutor’s hand, telling him it was a great job today on both sides, and it was. I can say that with authenticity because, to witness an interaction like this in a courtroom, live and in person, it is much more convincing than seeing it on TV. The emotions burst out from every dimension and it’s something a television set can never quite capture. Not yet, anyway - plus there’s something more eloquent about hearing the reverberation of a strong voice that a microphone and speakers cannot convey.

The hearing started at 9:30, right on schedule. Instead of His Honor’s usual courtroom on the 19th floor, this time it was on the 12th. The last one I attended on October 16 was on the 10th. We took a 5 minute break from 10:40 to 10:50. I know it doesn’t add up, but that’s what it was. During that break, I started a conversation with Bill that continued for a good while after the hearing ended.

This time, I sat on the state’s side, but to be honest, that’s where seating was available, unlike the last time, when it was on the defense side. Trust me, there are no vantage points to either side and in hearings, in particular, it means nothing about which team you’re rooting for. To my direct left sat WFTV’s Kathi Belich. I looked around briefly and saw Holly Bristow from FOX35 behind me and WESH-TV journalist Bob Kealing next to George and Cindy on the other side. Later, I saw Tony Pipitone from WKMG. I must be tell you that Bob is my favorite and we’ve sort of developed a friendship and professional regard for each other. Another one of the good guys is Jim Lichtenstein, a producer for the NBC Today Show. We had a chance to say a few words again. Let me say there’s no way I would put myself in the same league with them, but because I live here and write a blog about this case, there is an element of respect. No one has ever accused me of being a bad writer and if you lived here, you’d be writing about it, too. I am not attempting to improperly involve myself in this case, but I have fallen into it somewhat. For those with bad attitudes, get over it. This is what I’m doing and nothing will stop me from bringing my perception of this story to readers all over the Internet. I try to tell a story from a human interest point of view while sticking to the facts. And because I am open minded, I will talk to anyone and everyone.

Soon after I sat down, Dominic Casey came in and a bailiff ushered him next to me. Poor, poor Kathi. She was coughing and sniffing up a storm. I offered her one of my cough drops and she respectfully declined. I turned to my right and exchanged a few words with Dominic. He asked me who I was. When I told him, he didn’t recognize my name until I handed him a card and said, “Marinade Dave.”

“Oh yes! I know who you are.” Someone had told him about me and he said he’s not much of an Internet person but he does read my blog. He quickly extended his hand for a firm handshake. “You’re very objective and I appreciate that very much.”

I told him I use his Web site for reference material and he said that’s what it’s there for.

Meanwhile, a bailiff brought Kathi a cough drop and she accepted. When the hearing started, we all remained quite, but during the break, Dominic and I chatted a little more and I turned to Kathi and said, “You’ve had this cold or whatever for quite some time.”

“Oh,” and she shook her head in disbelief. “It’s been a month. Remember that shooting in the downtown office building?”

I nodded yes.

“I did a live report at 10 o’clock that night and it was cold. That’s when I caught it.” I told her I was sorry. Later, when she was coughing and sniffing again, she stuck out her hand and I promptly handed her a drop. It helped a lot, she said later, and better than the first one. I am always glad to help and she needed it.

Early Motions

I guess I can walk you through the motions, as the hearing began. I can tell you what Diana Tennis, Dominic Casey’s attorney said, and how the prosecution responded, but I want to delve more into the meat of the matter today. I’ll mention there was a discussion regarding the right to assert privilege and severance of his relationship with Jose Baez, and who is bound by contract and ethics, but in the end, the judge threw it back in the hands of the state by telling the prosecution to issue an investigative subpoena. If anything else comes out, the court can address it next week, he said, which was when the initial deposition was scheduled.

Next came the matter of videotaping Casey in jail and with her attorneys and/or parents. Before you all go screaming about “private time” between Jose and Casey, remember that on either side and above the classroom where they meet are two windows with guards observing the interaction. She wasn’t asking to change any of that. Her argument was about videotaping and Casey’s right to privacy as something sacrosanct, which means, in this case, free from criticism or violation. She hammered home the nature of the Internet beast, where everyone rips their client and her parents apart. Attorneys for Orange County argued that this is policy and holds true for everyone. Orange County runs the jail, not the state. Lyon said Casey is not just any old prisoner. This is a capital case of immense notoriety. Jim McGuire, an attorney for the Orlando Sentinel, said the defense’s request that videotapes be destroyed would be a clear violation of state law. He said there’s no basis to destroy public records because someone doesn’t want them publicized. I’ll leave that for you to argue, but the judge said he will rule later today or early next week.

There was a brief discussion about Joe Jordan and whether his statement should be released or not. The judge ordered a protective order for now. This is an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions. It is meant to protect a person from harm or harassment. Jordan had made an illegal recording of a conversation that recanted his story. (See also: Say hello to Laura and Joe)

Double Jeopardy

As motions were heard and argued, I could sense a building up of, well, I can’t really say tension, but I knew with each new motion, it was like climbing a mountain and we were approaching the peak. One thing I will say about Judge Strickland is that this man is all about integrity and fairness. He understands the emotions and dedication from both sides. Instead of letting each side argue this motion, he patiently waited until the right moment to gracefully interject. That’s what I really, really like about him. He’s so darn polite, yet he speaks with a firm voice. There is no getting around the fact that he is a class act and he controls his courtroom.

He is quite aware of the law, too. There is no doubt the fraud trial will be resolved before the murder case, either by trial or by plea. He will decide the double jeopardy issue today or early next week. Casey is not guilty of any priors. If she is guilty here, there will be jail time and he will treat this case like any other. I looked at Sheaffer and acknowledged that he was precisely right when he wrote about this. He nodded back. I believe it was at this time I saw Casey begin to cry. She now knows she will spend time in prison, no matter what, because she will not escape the guilt, whether she is sentenced for all charges or not. This means prison as a convicted felon.

To Preclude or Not to Preclude the Death Penalty

The Defense

Here’s the heart of today’s hearing. This is where the two sides shone. Andrea Lyon said it is the intent of the state to get as biased a jury as possible. A death qualified jury is predictable. They are there to get a conviction. This is a case built on circumstantial evidence by premeditated design.

“The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst!” she exclaimed. There is no evidence of an intentional murder or prolonged suffering. There is nothing that points to death in a heinous, atrocious or cruel manner; nothing proves it was cold, calculated and premeditated. All of Casey’s friends and family, the state’s own witnesses, said what a loving mother Casey was. Her daughter never showed signs of abuse; no cuts, no bruises. There was no heightened premeditation. No careful plan.

When she finished arguing, Judge Strickland queried, “Aren’t you asking me to reinvent the wheel?” She asked if the state can legally look at this as a death penalty case.

The State

Assistant State Prosecutor Jeff Ashton approached the podium and opened his salvo with one important fact; that everybody charged with first-degree murder in the state of Florida is eligible for the death penalty. What makes this one so different that the state must waive it? He said not one single person made the choice; not him, not Linda Drane Burdick, and not Lawson Lamar, from the State of Florida State Attorney’s Office, 9th Judicial Circuit. It is an issue of prosecutorial discretion. It is the job of prosecutors to be advocates for the people.

The state showed it’s hand today and this will unfold before our eyes. Cindy and Casey cried throughout, but this is where the state struck deeply into their hearts and got directly to the heart of the matter. I knew it had to come. The motion demanded it.

As much as the defense argued there is no proof how Caylee died, Ashton quickly took aim. After the body was found, there was not one, there were not two, but there were three layers of duct tape placed over Caylee’s mouth and nose. She must have known what was coming or she was chemically restrained. If she wasn’t, then she had her hands taped so she could not fight. The last thing the killer did was look into her eyes as the tape was applied and the last thing Caylee saw was her mother’s eyes. George and Cindy jumped up and ran out of the courtroom. Casey was sobbing. This was the most dramatic scene I have ever witnessed and emotions throughout ran high. The courtroom crescendo had reached its climax!

In rebuttal, Andrea Lyon said there was no proof the tape had anything to do with Caylee’s death.

In Closing

The judge said we will be here on January 10, 2010 for the fraud trial. There was some very good lawyering today from both sides. With that, the hearing came to a close.

One thing to keep in mind is that a jury selection will probably be made next week for the fraud trial. This should shed a hint of light on what strategies both sides will pursue in the murder trial. It’s something to keep in mind.

In my opinion, reality set in big time today in Casey’s mind. Today, she entered the real world and it hit her hard.

Talking to the Attorneys

I had a chance to talk to Brad Conway about a matter we discussed at the last hearing. He is a very busy man. No problem, I said. I understand. Now, remember I said early on that I am willing to talk to anyone and everyone. I will not base my decision because of closed-minded bloggers and commenters elsewhere on the Internet who choose to make up stories about who I love. If that’s the case, then I love everyone and just as much as I would talk to Brad, I would talk to Bill Sheaffer. I almost had a chance to say a few words to Jose Baez, but I was in the middle of a conversation with someone else. I will tell you upfront, if I have the opportunity to do so again, I will, because I want only to bring quality articles to this blog, not filled with 3rd-grade name-calling and lies. If Baez is willing to talk, I will be all ears.

During the break, I spoke briefly with Bill Sheaffer. I asked him if we could continue the conversation after the hearing and he said yes. Before I go on, I will tell you something I learned about the man. He is one of the nicest, warmest and most accommodating gentleman attorneys I have ever spoken with. We discussed many issues, including the rift with another local attorney. There were things we talked about I said I would keep between us. Some of those could be because I am also a gentleman and I am not going to steal the thunder out from under him. There are things he is going to want to write on his own blog, for instance, but he put me under no obligation to do so. There has never been any real animosity or jealousy on my part after he started his blog. He is a blogger who writes from a legal point of view. I am a blogger who writes from a human interest perspective. What we found today was a genuine mutual respect for each other and we hit it right off from the gitgo. It was quite evident from my first impression that this comes naturally to him.

Of primary concern to me was the problem with commenters on his site. They are ripping his blog to shreds. I said I want to stop it. I seem to be the target and it is not fair to him. I want you all to know that he never looked at me as part of the problem. Yes, he is aware of what goes on and he has asked for it to stop. He told me what I could do to help stop it. He is relatively powerless. It is run by WFTV and they control the comments for the most part. He gave me a contact name at the station and asked me to call. If it continues, I will, and with a vengeance.

In case you’re wondering, yes, he knew who I was. What I am going to do first is ask all of you, regardless of what you think of me, to treat the man with the same dignity you would any other well-respected individual. We are all aware that he cannot police his own site because he has many other responsibilities, and it’s not fair to take advantage of that by using his blog as a forum to spew hatred. He said if you want to argue with anyone, argue with him or call him names. Leave everyone else alone. He’s a big boy and he can handle it. My God, he’s wrestled with the best of them in court. I will ask everyone to please honor his request.

In closing, there is one more thing I want you to know. As we connected after the hearing ended, he extended his hand and asked me, “Didn’t you win some sort of award from the Sentinel last night?”

“Yes sir, I did. For the best news blog.”

“Congratulations!”

“Thank you very much. Coming from you, that is an honor.”

In the end, what mattered was that he is just a regular guy.

40 pages released today - Zero fingerprints found

Photocopy of WFTV video impression of Henkel Duct Tape

The state released 40 pages of documents related to the Casey/Caylee Anthony case today, adding to the more than 12,000 pages that have already been made public. Nothing of magnanimous proportion came out of the documents, although a series of black and white photocopies of pictures show Casey and Caylee, including the picture of her wearing a shirt with the phrase Big Trouble Comes In Small Packages. Fragments of a small t-shirt with the same letters were found in the woods where her remains were discovered last year. When and where the images originated was not explained.

Also released was an OCSO forensics report from October. It focused on the search for fingerprints on items found in the garbage bag law enforcement seized from the trunk of Casey’s white Pontiac. The report stated that investigators had zero results from the contents of the bag of trash, ranging from air freshener sheets to empty soda cans.

Included in the documents was a letter to the State Attorney’s Office that details information about water depths in the woods where Caylee was found, plus an employee wage sheet from Event Imaging Solutions for Casey from 2004 to 2006. During the year and a half period, she earned a little over $20,000.

Some personal observations…

When I shot a video in August of this year at the site where Caylee’s remains were found, I noticed that parts of the woods were cleared out and I made a note of it. I had no idea why until today’s documents were released and one was a report from James W. Jawitz, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs at the Environmental Hydrology Laboratory¹ located on the campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

Of particular interest to me was something he included in his report:

This analysis indicates that for most of the entire period from 16 June 2008 to 11 December 2008, Area A was not inundated. The water level at the site was high enough to submerge Area A between 18 August 2008 and 28 August 2008. On 18 August, the average river stage was 6.94 ft, but between 18 August and 23 August, 8.17 in of rain fell in the area (measured at MCO). By 22 August, the river stage had risen to 10,99 ft (daily average), and decreased thereafter, returning to less than 9 ft (8.84 ft) on 28 August.

What this tells me is that the wooded area where Caylee was found was not inundated with water. That means it wasn’t as flooded as we may have suspected when Roy Kronk was there in mid-August, but it doesn’t mean there was no water on the ground. I saw it this year. What it also tells me is that nothing floated away as many in the public have claimed. I know from viewing the area with my own eyes that the water in those woods was stagnant.

Interestingly, Orlando Police were summoned to the area south of the woods on 10/09/2008 by two different residents on Florence Harbor Drive. Florence Harbor Drive is the development behind the Anthony’s back yard, the neighborhood I drove through and took pictures of to prove Casey did not drag Caylee out a back gate, because a gate never existed. People based their assumption on an outdated Google aerial map that showed the area was cleared, but the development was there long before Caylee disappeared.

It turns out it was an autistic child by the name of Hermes (NOI) from Hidden Oaks Elementary School yelling, but the OPD officers made an important notation at the time:

Tracy [a faculty member] provided a sworn written statement describing Hermes’ actions. The wooded area was not entered by any ground units due to its thick vegetation, and the fact that the ground is very wet and covered in deep water in some areas.

A K-9 unit was brought in at the time, but no one, including the dogs, were taken into the woods. From examining the OPD report, I have concluded that no action was taken close to where the body was found. See below.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50978831.pdf

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50978836.pdf

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50978837.pdf

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50978847.pdf

Scrutiny on the Bounty

There is a bounty of evidence in this Anthony case thanks to Florida’s Open Government in the Sunshine law and I think it’s safe to say that it has enlightened a lot of us and will continue to do so for at least another 6 months. Certainly, not all, but many of us have learned a little about forensics, for example - at least more than we knew before Casey came along. Part of the scientific research involved in studying pathological evidence in a murder case is in the field of microorganisms, like bacteria, fungi and viruses. Actually, microorganisms and other disease-causing organisms, pathogens, come in six different types: bacteria, fungi, protozoa, helminths, viruses and trolls.

This post will study what life is like with one of the most deadly kind: trolls. Briefly. Mostly, it will be about George Anthony, who recently submitted a letter to FOX35 in Orlando . The letter was followed by an interview with Holly Bristow. Speaking of Holly, Holly Gagne left her daughter with Cindy to babysit? Only it’s not true. Wherever that information came from, it isn’t factual. Cindy did not and does not babysit any child or children of Holly Gagne. Let’s put that rumor to rest right here and now. Who they babysit is not for public consumption. With that out of the way, let’s move on…

Yes, George wrote a letter. Now, a lot of people have accused me of being an Anthony lover. I am not, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. Along with learning about forensics, plenty of bloggers and commenters have learned how hate-filled people can be, especially with regard to the Anthonys and anyone who refuses to trash them. Yes, it has clearly split into the thems and the those, where you either love them or hate them with passion. There is no gray; no in-between, as many out there profess.

In George’s letter he described a life so surreal it’s hard to fathom by people who have never lived it. There is nothing like losing a loved one, especially a young girl like Caylee. I must agree with him. Anyone who would deny him his love is a person beneath the realm of conscientious sanity and devotion. I can certainly understand the public’s dismay with some of George and Cindy’s public displays, but there are areas where people are not just questioning, but stating as fact that they know George and Cindy are striking it rich off their deceased grandchild. In his letter, George wrote, “People who don’t know the facts re-victimize the victims.” There are things about this case that people are not aware of. What they do not know, they make up. I, for instance, know for a fact that the money paid by Good Morning America in December of 2008 did not go into George and Cindy’s pockets. It was “The Source” that told me and that is all there is to it. Where the money went, I am not at liberty to say because I gave my word of silence, but you should be made aware that what people perpetuate in the world of blogs, forums and clearly, the media, does not necessarily constitute the truth. It’s no different from how FOX News reports one way and MSNBC does it another. What is true sometimes depends on one’s view.

When I wrote a post titled I CALLED THE COPS!, I took with me one very important bit of advice from Captain Angelo Nieves, head of OCSO Media Relations. He told me explicitly that if it did not come from his office, do not believe it. I took that as meaning that, although not claiming that any of the information on blogs and forums are out and out lies, misdirections or distortions of the truth, none of us should automatically believe what we see and hear, including (and especially) what we are told from any of the media outlets. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to pick and choose what they want to formulate and believe and I think a lot of them will be very surprised come trial time. Yes, I am basing that on what I’ve heard from extremely reliable sources and what my opinion is on the subject.

The following is George’s letter, interspersed with my commentary. Although not earth-shattering, I think it is worthy of discussion.

Living under a microscope

By: George Anthony

Suddenly, you are thrown into a life that you have no control over. Your everyday walking/talking is dissected, analyzed and just plain torn apart.

Although I believe we do have control over our lives, there are circumstances, like a murder, that take away from logical thinking. Emotions run rampant and just as there is a fine line between love and hate, there comes a time when a fine line separates sanity and emotional breakdowns, which really sour logical thinking. It does no good to be torn apart by anyone outside of people who are close to the victims. In this case, George and Cindy are more than mere victims of Caylee’s death. They are victims of a harsh, cruel and cold public. Did they do anything to deserve it? Yes, but who gave the public license to destroy them?

You did not ask for this, but the microscope is on?

Is it fair? No, not by any shape of the imagination. Does it hurt? More than you can realize. You stay as strong, emotionally and physically as possible, but people can be so cruel.

People can be cruel beyond reproach. I am living through it right now. Thank God I did not lose a child. Imagine living under the shadow of it coming at you from both barrels. BAM! BAM!

Your family is talked about in hurtful ways, not just words, but physical violence. People stand in front of your home, your sanctuary, as a modern day lynch mob. I ask: “What would you do?” Would you cower down, lock yourself up in your home? Can you answer that honestly? The microscope is on……

I will never quite understand the psyche of the human mind. On blog after blog and forum after forum, commenters have urged the public on. Because of who the Anthonys are and what their daughter stands accused of doing, it is perfectly right to throw rocks at their windows and yell and scream at all hours of the day and night. Huh? How does anyone explain flunking Humanity 101? Just because the Anthonys act beyond our notion of normal, does it justify any of us to act the same way? Worse, as I found out?

I have asked many people “want to change places with me?” Walk in my shoes, if only for a minute a day? But they cannot. People say “I know what you are going through.” The only person that knows are truly the people who have been through this.

Would anyone really like to change places with him? If you tell yourself NO, and you do, then you understand he and his family are going through a lot of pain and stress. Don’t misconstrue this as a method for me to elicit sympathy for them. No, it is just to have us see that this has been no picnic for them and it will never be.

Others stand on the sidelines and judge. Seeking their 15 minutes of fame by blogging, sending threatening emails, letters, phone calls and text messaging, stating we are unfit. But they, themselves should look in the mirror and ask, “what would I do if my life or family was under a microscope? Makes you stop and think, doesn’t it? Living under a microscope!

Yup, I’m a blogger. Guilty as charged, but there’s a huge difference between my blog and the ones that spread hate and unsubstantiated rumors. I don’t love anyone related to this case and I try to be fair to both sides. I have always maintained that we are in no position to judge anyone and until George and Cindy stand trial, we should refrain from writing scathing diatribes and mocking parodies about them. Casey rests in jail. Attack her if you will, and her defense team, but no one in the public has a right to claim ownership of Caylee, as if she is a rag doll who would be torn to shreds by anyone who has never met her. She’s mine! No, she’s mine!

Humans can be so cruel. When a tragedy happens their whole thought process changes. People who don’t know the facts re-victimize the victims. Again, under a microscope.

An opinion, article gets released, printed and that becomes gospel for a slight few.

Please remember, if it doesn’t come out of OCSO Media Relations, it is not gospel. That’s not to say we can’t scrutinize evidence when we see it, but how many of us are trained in the sciences related to this case? Valhall comes the closest and this is not to discredit any of the fine, fine blogs out there that do their best to stick to facts. Opinion blogs are great and many are written with that in mind. God knows we are all opinionated and it seems to be tearing at the very fabric of what we collectively are seeking - justice. Not our justice, but the brand divvied out by the good people of Florida.

Media, as it is today, would rather report the wrong in the world than collectively start out reporting something good. The first 7-10 minutes of a newscast, front page of a paper or magazine gets your attntion by shock value.

Wouldn’t it be nice or wholesome to see a report of something positive or heartwarming for a change.

With my experience in the newspaper field, as fleeting as it was, I understand the concept of what sells and sensationalism will forever be at the top of the list. Sure, it would be great if Brian Williams started his nightly newscast with, “Once upon a time…” but that’s never going to happen. As I mentioned in a previous post, the day the first caveman peeked out from behind a rock to get a glimpse of what his neighbor was doing, the urge to hear and spread gossip was born. It’s human nature, plain and simple, and to be quite frank, the days of It’s a Wonderful Life are long behind us and we might as well get used to it. In the real world, it’s nice for the holidays, but road rage can kill you. Is blog rage not far behind?

You’re photographed and videotaped without your knowledge or permission. An etching/tattoo of a loved one is made fun of. How hurtful. I personally am proud of my etching/tattoo in my skin, because Caylee is forever with me.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what difference it makes to anyone if George and Cindy get tattoos. Here, you could be living in your spouse swapping world and you condemn them over a tattoo? Since when were they against the law and immoral? They’re not, and the more I read about how horrid it was, the more I thought about some blog commenters being the biggest hypocrites in the world, where they hide behind false names spewing their morality for the world to read while ignoring their own daughter’s tattoo. Trust me, you do not want to disagree with them or you are an Anthony lover. They know. They know everything.

Only, they don’t.

Under a microscope, I personally look at life differently. Finding ways to help others. Be it thru some life changing advice or being there to help them up when they fall. That is the right thing to do. God likes gestures; that’s what is needed. Living under a microscope.

I don’t know exactly what George or Cindy do to help others. Do you? Are they still running their non-profit? Are they really striking it rich? Do we have the papers in front of us? If so, what do they point to beyond a doubt? Is it prudent to assume anything as fact? Since George mentioned God, my main question is, more or less, about the Eastside Baptist Church. Are the pastors and congregation wrong in giving the Anthonys their complete love and support? Why, and why can’t we be more forgiving? How many blogs have I read where the blessings of God are mentioned in one hand and complete condemnation of the Anthonys is preached in the other? All along, my statements regarding the Anthonys have been centered on this one tenet. Who are we to judge? Who are we to do this to anyone? This is not about love for the Anthonys, it is about love for everyone.

Unfortunately, germ warfare will continue on the blogging and forum worlds. People will continue to take sides and never look at areas that fall in between. In a sense, I feel a little closer to George and life under a microscope. Although I will never feel his loss, I understand his aversion to the public because of what it is capable of destroying. For a few days, I let a small group of trolls consume me. I am sorry for my poor judgment. I let unwarranted accusations get the best of me. I never did anything of the sort of what the trolls claimed and I firmly stand behind my words, but I should have let it go. I should have shrugged it off and taken the high road. I did not. Now I know what it’s like to live under a microscope and the giant eye can be a monster. It brings with it a bounty of scrutiny.

We all have feelings. We are all human. The offending posts have been taken down. Trust me when I say it was my decision and no one else’s. I was under no legal obligation or direction from anyone. This has mushroomed way out of control. Do what you will with me. It is dragging me into a viral Hell and I have had enough.

Jeff Ashton was aggravated, given the circumstances

I don’t imagine it was a very Merry Christmas at Camp Casey last week. Every motion heard at the December 11 hearing was turned down, the most important being the one to preclude the death penalty on the 18th. What this meant was that Judge Strickland sided with existing law and cast the onus of Casey’s fate into the hands of a future jury. I knew it had to be this way when he told Andrea Lyon he wasn’t going to reinvent the wheel. She gave a compelling argument, he said, but so did the state in its succinctly terse retort.

December 18 was a most sad day at the Anthony household, too, and rightly so, no matter what each of you feel individually. Casey may be one of present day’s most hated women around the country and in other parts of the “civilized” world, but her parents and brother are still that - family - and it’s all she’s got left. I wonder, if we had the opportunity to question each and every one of her past friends, including Amy Huizenga and Tony Lazzaro, would they cry out for her execution or ask the court to spare her life when and if she’s convicted? We don’t know at all, and none of us has any authority to speak for them. Everyone has their own opinion about what punishment to dole out, but she has yet to have her day in court and not one of her friends has come out publicly and begged to spare her or put her to death.

In order to really study this crime, the impending trial and possible outcome, we must look at everything with a clear conscience, free of prejudice and malice. This is the way the jury will be selected and what we see in released documents will not be what the jury gets their hands on. This, in no way, reflects that the jury will go into the deliberating phase with less knowledge than us. On the contrary, to be truthful. They will see what matters. We saw a needle inside a Gatorade bottle. Shocking! There was a lot of garbage picked up and processed in those woods. We got to see it all, but does that mean Casey was responsible for every single piece of trash we got to rifle through in paper form on the Internet? Of course not, and as we spent weeks arguing over that needle, the state may say it can’t be positively tied to Casey and it’s, therefore, irrelevant to the case. So many of the things we spent countless hours discussing could end up in the landfill of inadmissible evidence and it happens at every trial. I use the needle in the bottle as an example, by the way. Whether it will be admitted is not my point. That every shred of evidence will not be admitted is exactly what I’m saying.

A lot of questions may focus on Andrea Lyon’s role now that she lost this round. Certainly, it’s not the end of the line and one thing we must keep in mind is that there are more motions to be filed and many more legal maneuverings by the defense. Clearly, we must remember that her day will not be done until she fights to the very end to spare Casey from eventual extinction courtesy of the citizens of the state of Florida. That means one major thing: Andrea Lyon will be on hand to represent Casey during the sentencing phase if she is convicted. She will build a mountain of mitigating evidence in order to convince the jury and judge that sparing her client’s life far outweighs her death. The state, on the other hand, will offer a litany of aggravating circumstances to spell her doom. In order to grasp how justice works in a capital case of this nature in my fair state of Florida, let’s take a look at the aggravators in a death penalty case. Where do they apply in Casey’s case?

Abstractly, to be constitutional, any and all aggravating circumstances supporting an imposition of the death penalty must narrow the class of persons who are eligible and at the same time, they must justify the imposition of a sentence of this enormity on individuals convicted of murder. Identifying aggravating circumstances would seem to provide a principled manner in deciding when a death sentence is appropriate. Implicit in the constitutional principle is a requirement that decision makers must have a shared understanding of what constitutes an aggravating circumstance. In Florida’s case, it is both the jury and the judge that play the role of decision maker.

There are fifteen aggravating circumstances set forth in Florida Statute § 921.141(5) and shall be limited to:

¹(a)  The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation.

(b)  The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.

(c)  The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.

(d)  The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(e)  The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.

(f)  The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

(g)  The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.

(h)  The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i)  The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

(j)  The victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his or her official duties.

(k)  The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim’s official capacity.

(l)  The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

(m)  The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

(n)  The capital felony was committed by a criminal gang member, as defined in s. 874.03.

(o)  The capital felony was committed by a person designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s.775.21or a person previously designated as a sexual predator who had the sexual predator designation removed.

Let’s begin by backtracking, starting with the aggravating circumstances that do apply in Casey’s case.

(m)  The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

Certainly, as Caylee’s own flesh and blood mother, Casey stood in a position of familial and custodial authority over her. Who was her protector? Who nourished her and clothed her? Who gave her life?

(l)  The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

Caylee was not quite 3 when she died. The defense might argue that the date of her death cannot be substantiated, but it doesn’t matter. The child was under 12 years of age. No further discussion.

(i)  The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

This is the meat and potatoes of the aggravating circumstances as far as I’m concerned. Dr. Jan Garavaglia, the chief medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties, determined the death was a homicide. The cause is unknown, but evidence convinced her that Caylee was murdered. In my opinion, every murder is committed without any pretense of moral or legal justification. Murder is just that. Courts can argue over mercy killings, aiding a suicide and manslaughter - the unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied - but to kill someone is just plain wrong and most of us understand why. In this particular case, the cold and calculated part stems from the duct tape wrapped over the decedent’s mouth and nasal passages. It includes the fact that the layers of tape were purposely pressed into her hair. This shows the tape was never intended to be removed and it was placed there to either stop the breathing or to keep fluid from escaping post death; another matter for the court to decide. I’m sure the state has much more evidence we are not privy to at this time, but if this alone does not prove to be cold and calculated, I don’t know what will.

Let’s take a look at the definition of premeditation according to the ‘Lectric Law Library:

PREMEDITATION - With planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation regarding an act depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to act, for the person to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the act.

A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.

Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistance which indicate more perversity. The preparation of arms or other instruments required for the execution of the crime, are indications of a premeditation, but are not absolute proof of it, as these preparations may have been intended for other purposes, and then suddenly changed to the performance of the criminal act. Murder by poisoning must of necessity be done with premeditation.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Casey and her search terms that point to premeditation, all the state has to do is show that she was fully conscious of the intent when she applied that tape. This was no spontaneous act done to spite someone on a moment’s notice. As much as some argue over the date of death and are convinced that Casey dragged Caylee out of her bed on the night of the 15th, it is irrelevant. The state has decided to go with the 16th for whatever reasons it has chosen and none of us are in a position to question those authorities. To do so means the state is not doing a good job. According to theSupreme Court of Florida…

There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.

An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

In my opinion, Casey did include acts in a series of related actions, long before any alleged fight with her mother took place. She was setting up an alibi with her fictitious nanny, and search terms on both the laptop and home computers showed circumstantial premeditation. So did text messages between her and her friends. At the precise moment that roll of duct tape was removed from the shelf, it became a tool. According to the law, her decision was “present in the mind at the time of the killing.” If nothing else, with each strand of duct tape, the intent to kill was there and it was “formed before the killing.” Caylee was alive before the first piece of tape was cut, or so the state is contending and as Jeff Ashton so stated at the last hearing. The state is saying it has sufficient evidence to prove premeditation without the 15th as any sort of motive and the icing on the cake is the conduct of the accused after the killing.

(h)  The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

There is no doubt that Caylee suffered a horrible death no matter who ultimately was responsible for it. Her final moments, unless she was under the influence ofXanax or chloroform or both, were not happy ones. By the statement alone, and even if the toddler was rendered unconscious prior to death, the act of killing an innocent and defenseless child is especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel under any circumstances. Period.

Finally, we have one that I am going to question. It is forefront in our minds at the moment as Casey’s fraud trial creeps closer and closer to its January 25 date, lest a plea deal be struck beforehand.

¹(a)  The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation.

¹Note.—As amended by s. 1, ch. 96-302. This version is published as the last expression of legislative will (see Journal of the Senate 1996, pp. 1077 and 1128). Paragraph (5)(a) was also amended by s. 5, ch. 96-290, and that version reads:

(a)  The capital felony was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on probation.

Here’s the part that intrigues me the most… The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony… or The capital felony was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment… That’s as clear as a bell to me. For all the discussions and arguments over what felony convictions can be brought into the trial, doesn’t that particular statute officially state that Casey would have to have been convicted of a felony before she committed the murder? Does this mean the defense can legally fight to leave the fraud conviction (if she’s convicted) out of the trial or at least the sentencing phase? If so, it means Amy Huizenga’s right to a speedy trial is the only solid reason why the state wants a conviction before the murder trial.

In the end, it shouldn’t really matter, because in order for a defendant to be sentenced to death, the jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of at least one aggravating circumstance that the state has statutorily defined. We can postulate all we want about homicidal characteristics and what constitutes aggravating circumstances, but I found three of them that, in my opinion, apply in Casey’s case. Whether the state can prove any of them remains to be seen, but if Mr. Ashton’s statement at the December 11 hearing is any indication, there’s no doubt Burdick & Co. will sound very confident and convincing come the final days of reckoning.

Trogs, Blollops and Blomit

On Language: A Short Study

We have moved into an age when people interact more and more online and on cell phones, and less and less in person. A friend was telling me how her children text message each other from their bedrooms, right across the hall from each other. What happened to the days of person-to-person meetings? I hear tales of people texting each other while sitting at the same dining room table, if people actually do much of that anymore. Imagine that concept… eating together. Shocking! In this day and age, if you can’t make it home for the holidays, you can spend it online or on your cell phone inside a virtual village, a wireless community; replete with trimmings galore - Apps, they’re called today. The only thing missing is the aroma of a home cooked meal and real, live hugs. Don’t worry, smells can’t be far behind. Hopefully, nothing will ever replace a hug. (((HUGS))) doesn’t quite do it for me, although the meaning is clear and appreciated, especially when we are miles and miles apart.

There are new ways to communicate through language abbreviations because of texting. Is it because we live in a “now” world, where we hurry everything? Must we shorten things abruptly to speed things up? CMIIW, but texting is here to stay. Now, wasn’t that personal? Just remember, today’s toys are tomorrow’s junk.

I consider the 80s to be the beginning era of the downslide of close, personal interaction. We could have been chatting up a storm, face-to-face, when suddenly, a beeper permeated the earwaves. Just like that, our networking, as opposed to interacting, came to a screeching halt. Not just us, but everyone in the vicinity of the annoying noise stopped what they were doing to quickly look down at the little plastic box attached to their waist. “Was that yours or mine?”became the mantra en masse. Within seconds, the person who was alerted (the beepee or BP, in condensed form?) left to go to the nearest pay phone, something else that’s pretty much a relic in this day and age, along with those pesky little beepers. Nowadays, cell phones have usurped them, and alas, there will never be a beeper museum in the near or distant future. Interestingly, we went from those simple, yet impersonal alarms, which had a useful purpose in their day, to cell phones, to even more impersonal text messaging. Casey Anthony was notorious for texting back and forth with her friends. How else would we know about dead squirrels that never were? Had she made a more personal phone call, we’d still be in the dark and far from Government in the Sunshine. One of the strange byproducts of less personal interaction is the nature of the digital beast. Conversely, the less we know about each other, the more we know about total strangers.

Because of the leaps and bounds made as technology advances, I want to briefly explore the concept of new words as they become an accepted part of our culture and lexicon. A good example is podcast. Podcast originated from combining the iPod, a portable media player (of audio and/or video files) produced by Apple, with the word broadcast. It was first used by Ben Hammersley in The Guardian newspaper in February 2004, along with several other names that were vying for the description without even trying or knowing about it. Podcasting it became and the rest is history. What distinguishes such words that work their way into language is the history of how they evolve from single words. Podcast, for example, is a portmanteau word. A portmanteau word is used to describe a linguistic blend, namely “a word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings.¹” Thus, iPod + broadcast = podcast. Had Microsoft marketed the first personal media player, we might be spreading Zunecasts instead. Years ago, I coined velvis, which is a portrait of Elvis Presley painted on velvet… velvet + Elvis = velvis. There are scores and scores of examples and they are not new to the 20th 0r 21st century.

The first known use of a portmanteau, or combination word, was coined by Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass, the 1871 sequel to the 1865 novelAlice’s Adventures in Wonderland, later shortened to Alice in Wonderland. He used slithy to describe lithe and slimy. As a matter of fact, Carroll came up with the word portmanteau when he described the morphing of words. According to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word portmanteau comes from French porter, to carry + manteau, cloak (from Old French mantel, from Latin mantellum). Charles Dickens also used this play on words in the names of some of his characters, the most famous one beingScrooge, which purposely came about from his combination of screw andgouge. We use countless portmanteau words in everyday language without realizing it. This blog is actually a combination of web + log. If you’ve ever had malicious software on your computer, it’s malware. Ask yourself, did the word malware even exist 10 years ago? How about spyware? I often think about words coined by advancing technology and it fascinates me to no end. Th eetymological study of the English language is one of my favoritepastimes… or is that past times? Nope, past time refers to time passed. History. Pastime means to make time pass agreeably. Oh, I could go on or hours, but that would bore you.

Though slithy has slipped through the cracks and is seldom, if ever, used today, it certainly describes some of the lurking trolls lolling about blog sites, especially those pertaining to the Casey Anthony case. Since I don’t like to use old portmanteaus when describing something that’s relatively new, there should be a word besides slithy to describe these lurking trolls. Maybe, we can coin a new word for them. Trogs, for instance, for blog trolls, except that it’s already a word describing something else. Several things, actually, but not trolls. Yes, it would work, but so would blollop, short for a blog trollop. I use the word trollop loosely, and not in the literal sense. I tend to fancy blollop because of the rather nonsensical sound of the word, just as nonsensical as the trolls themselves and the blomit they spew.

Anyway, I’m sorry, I rambled on my blog long enough. Hey, that could be brambling, but bramble is a thorny issue. How about blambling? We could have a lot of fun with this, but in order to reflect the times, I must cut this short. Besides, I got so wrapped up writing, I skipped breakfast. Hmm, maybe I’ll just have brunch. There’s a pretty good Tex-Mex restaurant down the street. Instead of calling to make a reservation or sending an e-mail (electronic + mail), I’ll send them a text message just to prove I’m still in vogue. Would that be Tex mexaging? Never mind. That’s a whole “nother” play on language and I’d better go before I start eating my own words.

L8RG8R!

In denial

UPDATE 5:00 PM

A fourth defense motion was denied by Judge Strickland late this afternoon. Casey will not get any special treatment in jail. Baez & Co. wanted the jail to stop videotaping Casey whenever she was meeting with her lawyers and/or her family. No dice, said the judge. Since the jail videotapes every inmate in the same situation, he saw no reason allow the motion. In his two-page ruling, he said he can’t force the jail to “cease and desist from videotaping Ms. Anthony’s meeting with her attorneys.”

Strickland ordered that he must view any videos of attorney visits behind closed doors before any of them are released to the public. He said he has concerns about their content because he has seen at least one that would impact Casey’s right to a fair trial. It is unclear what video (or videos) he was referring to in his motion.

Surprise! Surprise!

Actually, the decisions the judge rendered yesterday with no explanations were no surprise at all. First, he denied the defense’s request to destroy video of any and all visits from her family. George and Cindy said they haven’t gone to the jail to see their daughter for fear that the recordings will be released to an overzealous public while being unfairly picked apart by media commentators. True, but in my opinion, she has the same rights as other prisoners - no more, no less.

Judge Strickland also denied the defense’s request to dismiss any of the fraud charges against their client. All 13 counts against Casey will stand. She (allegedly) stole checks from her friend Amy Huizenga’s checkbook to pay for clothes and groceries. Jury selection for the fraud trial should begin this week and the trial date is set for January 25, 2010. If Casey pleads or is found guilty, she will be sentenced according to first time offender guidelines. (See: Double Jeopardy)

Finally, the judge ruled that a recorded statement made by Joe Jordan cannot be released. The Texas EquuSearch volunteer illegally recorded a conversation that took place with a defense investigator without the investigator’s consent. Jordan (allegedly) told both the defense and prosecution two different stories about whether he searched the same woods where Caylee’s remains were discovered.

Judge Strickland heard these motions, plus two more, last Friday. He should rule on the remaining two [see update at top of article] at any time. They are whether the state can pursue the death penalty and whether the jail can continue recording meetings between Casey and her attorneys. In my opinion, last week’s hearing - which I attended - will be a complete wash-out for the defense. There are no solid reasons to dismiss the death penalty at this time, and the judge cannot, nor will he, order the jail to stop doing what it does. It is up to the county because that’s the governing body that controls the jail.

Were the motions meaningless and a waste of resources? No, I don’t think so. The defense has to throw whatever it can at the wall of justice, in hopes that something sticks. The argument Andrea Lyon gave in court Friday regarding the death penalty was compelling, but it fell short of convincing me and I am just a bystander. I am positive we will hear more motions to preclude the death penalty for months to come after this one fails. In the meantime, Judge Stan Strickland rules!

A Mother Accused

Andrea D. Lyon’s new book, Angel of Death Row: My life as a Death Penalty Defense Lawyer, is due to hit bookstores next month. An excerpt from her book has been published online at Scribd. Titled A Mother Accused, it chronicles the experience of a young mother accused of the murder of her baby girl and how the attorney, then in her thirties, handled the case. It’s a rather interesting choice, since, at first glance, it could easily be the title of the new chapter in her life - representing a young mother who stands on the edge of death for murdering her two-year-old daughter.

Before I begin deciphering the excerpt, I want to make clear my intention. I do not take kindly to name calling. Andrea Lyon did not get to her position as the Director of the Center for Justice in Capital Cases and Clinical Professor of Law, plus Associate Dean for Clinical Programs at DePaul University based on looks alone. Albert Einstein was no Cary Grant and Stephen Hawking is no George Clooney, but they are the two most brilliant minds to come down the pike in my lifetime. I have no doubt about Andrea Lyon’s credentials and attorneys do what attorneys do. If you denounce her, you must denounce the lot of them who defend murder suspects. I will assess her role in the innocent man’s spending 26 years in prison for the crime he didn’t commit, but first a little more background and a closer look at what she wrote in her book.

Lyon has tried more than 130 homicide cases in and out of the public defender’s office. She has defended more than 30 potential capital cases at the trial level and of those, she took 19 through the penalty phase, winning every one of them. Dubbed the “Angel of Death Row” by the Chicago Tribune, she was the first woman to serve as a lead attorney on a death penalty case. Alan M. Dershowitz once said that she “was born to be an angel of death row, and a devil to those who see execution as a quick fix for the social ills of our age.”

There is no doubt that criminal defense attorneys, and certainly Lyon, are dead set against the death penalty. In her very first case, as she defended the young mother, this excerpt takes a look at how her mind works…

A Mother Accused begins with Andrea Lyon’s initial revulsion upon learning that she would be defending the mother of a dead baby and how much she dreaded when that day would come. Damn. A dead baby case. She begins this odyssey with her work in child advocacy during law school, where she represented children who were subjected to abuse and neglect. She wrote that no matter what, those children still loved their parents and it was very seldom they would want to leave their homes, no matter how miserable they were. She had a problem deciding when the state should step in, so she intended to stay away from work involving abused children. OK, it was not her cup of tea. I can understand that. A decade later, she was a homicide public defender and had to represent this woman charged with first-degree murder. The mother had admitted to hitting the girl so hard in the stomach that the duodenum separating the stomach from the intestines had burst. The toddler’s own body had poisoned her.

When Lyon entered the interview room at the women’s jail, she introduced herself and began to ask questions. The “small, slender African-American woman with delicate features and big eyes” was reluctant to talk. The young mother asked if it was safe to talk to her. She wondered if she would get in any trouble. Lyon told the girl whatever she was told, she was not allowed to disclose any of it without her permission. The only exception to the rule is if the client intends to commit a crime and, by warning, an attorney can prevent it. Attorney-client privilege is a very serious matter, in other words.

The girl opened up. She told Lyon she wanted to go to her baby’s funeral. That’s what she said to the police after they told her what to say so she could go. Confess to the crime, so she did. Police didn’t chain her up, they didn’t starve her, and they didn’t lay a finger on her. Instead, they used what Lyon describes as effective police coercion. They took advantage of the woman’s emotional vulnerability to get her to confess. Meanwhile, a felony review assistant from the Chicago prosecutor’s office questioned her later and she told him what the officers told her to say. She said she had falsely confessed to the murder.

In the end, it was Lyon’s tenacious spirit and hard work that solved the crime. The young mother did not kill her baby. When she realized something was wrong, she went from the neighborhood health clinic to, not one, but two emergency rooms and it wasn’t until a nurse arrived accompanying a relative that she recognized the toddler had gone into cardiac arrest. Immediately, after hours and hours of waiting, she got help. By then, it was too late. The ER staff had administered CPR with full hand instead of fingers or the heel of the hand and that compounded the child’s problems. In the end, she died, but Lyon was able to ascertain that a babysitter was responsible, along with ER doctors. The toddler had accidentally plunged down the stairs of the apartment building. The mother and her boyfriend had saved up to go out for the evening. The stairs had no railings. It was rife with rough, splintered, nail embedded wooden steps. The little girl cried afterward, but seemed OK and the babysitter put her to bed. Had it not been for Lyon, we’d probably never know what would have happened to that young mother. Would she still be in prison or working on another appeal for a crime she did not commit?

OK, let’s get back to the matter at hand. Of course, police can’t legally coerce a confession out of anyone. They can’t really tell a gang member they’ll rat on him if he doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. Most assuredly, when word gets out on the street, that is a death sentence as sure as what the court could do. More so, and I understand how bad cops work. (See: I’d like to thank the prosecutor’s wife)

In her book, Andrea Lyon states that there is constitutional protection against a person being compelled to testify against himself. That doesn’t mean the defendant need not take the stand. What it does mean is that a confession that isn’t voluntary cannot be used. Because judges don’t want to appear soft on crime and the police would, invariably, deny coercion, this woman would spend her life in jail. My point is that we cannot always look at law enforcement as the good guys in white hats. There are bad apples in every bushel. That’s all I am saying and I am not implying it in the Anthony case, where I feel everything has been followed to the letter of the law. However, Casey’s defense may speculate on some of those tactics. Right or wrong, this isn’t about cops gone bad. This is about what a defense should do and it is to protect their client. Right now, is it Lyon’s job to defend Casey regarding her guilt or innocence or is it to keep her from the throes of death?

♦

Andrea Lyon addressed the issue of an innocent man spending 26 years of his life in prison. I understand the legal ramifications and what this is all about. However, it is not my position to take a stand on the right or wrong of her decision. I will merely explain why she did what she did, in her own words, and let you decide and discuss it. I will proffer my opinion on who else could be blamed.

She wrote about two colleagues of hers who were representing a man who truthfully confessed to shooting two police officers. The lawyers were able to avoid the death penalty, but their client would spend the rest of his life in prison. Lyon had helped with the investigation and in writing motions. At one point, the client told his lawyers - not Lyon - that he had committed an additional murder for which another man was on trial. The client could have faced the death penalty and refused to confess. The innocent man was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Remember attorney-client privilege?  Hoping the guilty man would release his lawyers so they could reveal the truth, the man never did and they were bound by law to remain silent. Their client never relented, but the attorneys, including Lyon, drafted an affidavit early on, which she notarized, and hid in a lockbox. She said her colleagues consulted legal experts, “seeking some exception to privilege.” Each time, the answer was no, there is none. Their obligation rested solely with their client.

We all know the outcome. 26 years later, the guilty man died and his attorneys were free to divulge the truth. The innocent man was soon released, but that was no prize. He would never get those 26 years of his life back. What Lyon wrote was that while the morality of the system may be debatable, the law and legal ethics are not. She was bound by law and professional ethics to keep her mouth shut. This leads me to a question and it’s two-fold. Was it completely Andrea Lyons fault, the guilty man’s attorneys fault, or was it the state’s fault for bringing up charges against this man to begin with? What did prosecutors do to not only implicate an innocent man, but to impress upon a jury that the man was guilty, guilty, guilty? What did law enforcement do? To me, it is evident that they didn’t do a very good job, and if there is blame on Lyon, which is, technically, secondary, what caused the primary players to be so errant? Why is no one condemning the lawyers who represented the guilty man? Does anyone even know their names? Why not the authorities?

On a final note, before you condemn me for defending Andrea Lyon, understand that it is far from the truth. I condemn the death penalty, I have the right to believe in it or not, and I have the right to defend myself against personal attacks. Remember, you are allowed your own system of beliefs, too, and none of us are on trial. If you do condemn Lyon for who she represents, talk to Madison Hobley. He was on death row for a crime he did not commit. According to the book’s introduction, she has made it her life to defend clients who cannot afford a lawyer, just like him, and like Casey Anthony, they are the people many would love to see dead. Personally, I would rather see her spend the rest of her life in prison if found guilty. I will never understand how anyone could be against abortion, but for the death penalty. A life is a life is a life, whether tainted by sin or not. That is my opinion only. Who am I to play God with another person’s life? Who are we, nothing more than armchair sleuths, to decide? When did we cross the line from examining the crime to playing judge and jury?

NOT GUILTY! Bustamante pleads

Alyssa Bustamante sat silently in court yesterday, cold and emotionless, before her attorney entered a not guilty plea to charges in her arraignment for the first-degree murder of 9-year-old Elizabeth Olten by strangulation and stabbing, along with armed criminal action. By doing so, she waived a formal arraignment to the charges handed down to her by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Pat Joyce.

READ THE INDICTMENT COUNTS

In the courtroom sat family and friends of the victim, all wearing pink. A handful of Bustamante’s supporters sat on the other side. Her grandmother, who is her legal guardian, was not there.

During a November 18 hearing, she was certified to stand trial as an adult. A few hours later, she stood in front of Cole County Judge Jon Beetum to be arraigned. Because she had no lawyer present, the judge entered a not guilty plea on her behalf.

Originally, the status hearing was scheduled for December 7 to see if Bustamante had an attorney. That hearing was cancelled on December 3 and the re-arraignment was scheduled for yesterday because she is now being represented by a public defender, Jan King.

“Its routine for the court to only do the arraignment when the lawyer is available with his or her client,” Cole County Prosecutor Mark Richardson said.“So, back on the 18th, what occurred actually was the judge read the charges to her, informed her of the charges, but did not conduct an official arraignment.”

He continued to elaborate why that is. “On an arraignment, the courts want to ensure that the person’s lawyer is there and available because that arraignment triggers certain time limitations to file certain motions.”

Bustamante’s lawyer has already filed one of the motions; a request that she be transferred to the Fulton State Mental Hospital for a few days for evaluation. Judge Joyce did not rule on that request because her attorney did not ask the judge to consider the motion.

Under Missouri law, when a suspect under the age of 16 commits a crime, the death penalty cannot be sought. Despite her being tried as an adult, the most she can get, if found guilty, is life in prison without parole.

While Bustamante’s case was still in juvenile court, Judge Beetum was overseeing the proceedings, Juvenile Court Lawyer Samantha Green was the prosecutor and Kurt Valentine was her lawyer. That all changed when she was charged as an adult. A lot changed in Cole County, too, after Elizabeth Olten’s senseless death - all because a teenage girl wanted to know what it felt like to kill. Today, she will remain behind bars at the Morgan County Jail because there is little room for female inmates at the Cole County Jail. There is no room in our minds for the sad and violent death of Elizabeth Olten, either. One day, justice will come. Until then, we must wait and let the wheels of justice turn slowly, just like Caylee Anthony, gone a year and a half now.

Bustamante has a status hearing scheduled for February 16, a little more than two months away.