« True Murder: The Most Shocking Killers


2013-05-29 | 🔗
The 2011 Casey Anthony trial became the most sensational news story of the year. Time magazine called it the social media trial of the century. The 22-year-old single mom was charged with three felonies including first degree murder, aggravated child abuse and manslaughter. When pictures surfaced on the internet showing her at a nightclub shortly after her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, went missing, the media and public went ballistic. Thirty-one days passed after Caylee disappeared before police were notified and then it was not mother Casey, but her family that called police and they were pointing fingers at her.  The trial resembled in many ways the Roman Colosseum, where crowds thirsted to see lions devour the captured prisoner. Internet blogs exploded, just as the Roman crowds must have, with demands for execution. The trial's streaming videos and interactive blogs left the public demanding to see an embodiment of Caesar give his final “thumbs down” against their prize. The trial jury was another matter. Jurors cried as the evidence against her was so thin they had no choice but to find her "not guilty."  Almost unnoticed, a few leading journalists protested the media carnival that became the Casey Anthony trial. They objected to the one-sided narrative informing the court of public opinion forgetting there is a difference between someone appearing guilty and the requirement that prosecutors need to prove in court. The media‘s coverage is something we should discuss beginning with: Did police arrest the wrong person? Was the jury right deciding Casey Anthony was "not guilty"?  Was Casey's mother involved in a coverup of a crime aganst Caylee? Who was Cindy protecting, Casey or her husband, George? THE MEDIA'S COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION-CASEY ANTHONY-Keith Long
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Commercial, real estate challenges for one hundred and sixty years. Companies around the world have trusted, saddles for expert guidance and perfect workspace solutions, see what saddles can do for you at saddles dot. Us is your cell phone bill out of control. Then this is your: wake up, call the new track phone wireless gives you unlimited talking text starting at twenty dollars a month, no contract plus unlimited carryover data with active service yep, the new track phone wireless now you're in control, c terms and conditions track phone com yeah
You are now listening to true murder, the most shocking killers in true crime, history and the authors that have written about them: Gacy Bundy, Dahmer, the night stalker Btk every week, another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous killers in true crime, history, true murder, with your host journalist and author Dan Finish. Good evening? This is your host the path for the Graham true, murder, the most shocking killers in true crime, history and the it have written about them, the two thousand and eleven
see, Anthony trial became the most and say hi, I'm Jay Farner, ceo of Quicken loans. Thirty percent of Americans, who are planning home improvement of five thousand dollars or more will pay for those renovations with a high interest credit card. That may not be a great idea. A better idea may be to take cash out of your home with the Quicken Loans thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The rate today, in our thirty year, fixed rate mortgage is three point: nine nine percent APR four point: zero. Eight percent call us today at eight hundred Quicken or go to rocket mortgage dot com rates of exchange. A one point: two five percent be receive the discount rate, all the concentration in conditions, because when it wasn't enough to states and one hundred thirty all news story of the year time using called it the social media trial of the century. The twenty two single single mom was charged with three felonies, including first degree. Murder are, child abuse and manslaughter when pictures on the internet, showing her at a nightclub. Shortly after her two year old daughter, Caley went missing. The me in public went ballistic thirty
One days past after Kaylee disappear before police were notified, and then it was not other Casey, but her family, call police, and they were pointing fingers at her trial. Assembled in many ways: the Roman Colosseum, where crowds thirsted to see line devour. The captured prisoner internet blocks exploded just as the crowds must have with demands for execution. The streaming. Videos and interactive blogs left the public demanding to see an embodiment of Caesar give his final thumbs down against their prize, the trial jury was another matter. Cried the evidence against. There was so thin that they had no choice but to find Casey Anthony, not guilty. Almost unnoticed. A few leading journalists protested, the media carnival. That became the Casey Anthony trial. The objected to the one sided of informing the court of public opinion for getting, there is a difference between someone appearing guilty,
and the requirement that prosecutors need to prove in court. The media Covered is something we should discuss beginning with the police. Arrest arrest wrong person was the jury right. Deciding Casey Casey Anthony was not guilty, was sees mother involved in a cover up of a crime against Kale and who was Cindy protecting Casey or her husband, George, the book that we're discussing this evening and the story that we are discussing this evening is the media's court of public opinion, Casey Anthony with my special guest, Keith Long journalist, and Keith long welcome to the program and thank you for agreeing to this interview, Keith long. Thank you so much I'm My pleasure to be here- and I never heard that my own words expressed so well as you just did well. Thank you very much. This as you know, and of course anyone that's going to turn into this, program and hopefully for those that listen,
they've been on another planet. Everyone is familiar with this very familiar with this case. In this trial in this entire story, and it is fair to say that that Casey Anthony is one of the most reviled persons in America and possibly worldwide, but especially America. When you see the extent with Halloween MAX people going out for Halloween as Casey Anthony it's, it really was a circus and a carnival. And very obviously obviously interesting story that value of a lot of people dad I'm a research journalist and the article part of the article you quoted from was from my article for Harvard Harvard's Name foundation. For
and my editor for the project was very Sussman. Who was some people will recognize name? He was Bob Woodward's and Carl Bernstein's editor for the Washington Post when they expose the Watergate series. So his standards for sourcing or or the content of the article were very very and I maintain that same high standard for my sourcing in my book, and also I might mention I, as a have a backup source for your comment about if you have to make the most reviled, if the person in America certainly there were two poles down, of course, in two thousand eleven after she was a court, found her the most hated person in America and then a year after she had been in seclusion in two thousand and twelve and year after her acquittal, she was voted again, the most hated
in America. So you're right on target, with your analysis right now. The thing is: is that there's a big difference between and we don't want to harp on this and go back into this? Can anybody listen to this program Graham, is, is not a novice and not a person is, is coming to this subject in these types of conversations for the first time. So, let's not deal with those people, because there's not any of those really listen to this program, I'm sure. Obviously the prosecution didn't have didn't present their case in a strong enough fashion or a they just did not state their case effectively. Hence the jury made the decision to acquit Casey Anthony So, let's not go, there go obviously the jury and the system. The system, men, some people, say well, say what the system worked or the judicial system.
It was a circumstantial case. Obviously, everyone that can I make one comment about that point. What is interesting, my research for the trial was the juries jury's several years and did make public comments about their liberation about what they thought about Casey, why they voted to acquit and aggressive were afraid to say anything public and they've been effectively in hiding here in finals came Florida, which is the Tampa Bay area abruptly speaking in the West Coast, where I live,
and you won't they're trying to disguise who they are in the fact that they were members of the jury to every level that can and because a lot of them got death threats. A lot of them were objects of abuse and and derision or their decision from my standpoint as a research journalist Dan. What what they said was what the foreman confirm that a one hour examined with a two hour two hour. Two part on television was that the jury is not sympathetic to the and they did not like they didn't want to And for me, as a research travellers that gives credibility their decision, they cried when they voted to acquit,
These are emotional reactions that yours example in the OJ case. I speak to bar associations here in Florida and colleges and law, schools, schools. I compare compare the Gee case to the Casey Anthony case and, of course, the my own opinion is that OJ was guilty and that the jury acquitted him, despite the fact that they, the evidence in that case, strongly suggested that he was killed. But the difference in terms of the jury is. The jury was very sympathetic to OJ, in fact, invoke something called jury nullification, which is a recognized legal authority that juries have in America to nullify
Law by trying the law and not the fact juries are finders of facts. That's the way they referred to, but they can also be finders of law and reject a law. That's a recognized right that goes back to Peter's anger in Colonial America in the OJ case. That's what they did. They rejected the law. I didn't mean twelve case it was entirely different. Well, you know I don't want to go too much on on a detour, but you have me me at OJ. Okay, so here's my is my analysis of the Oj Simpson case and will just going to put it out there we're not going to spend too much time this, but this is the way I looked at. This is hard and long. I wish I would be looking at it right now, instead of back in nine thousand three hundred and ninety four, whatever was when it first happened, and then the trial Robert,
appear or part of the dream team of ten lawyers at one hundred thousand dollars a month at OJ, was able to higher court and as well as Henry led to sit on the forensic fence for the defence and that costs a lot of money as well and a lot of anyway, a lot of discussion to be able to get Henry led to be able to sort of lean on the fence again, please list not go down that data are talking about that, but ten lawyers and Robert Shapiro quit. During the trial, because of what Johnnie Cochran, how he wanted to address the jury and, according to my information, Shapiro quit quit. This is pretty rare. He quit because he didn't like what Johnny Cochrane was going to do with the jurors and he planned and did say, are you willing? You black people in this jury woman to go back into your black communities being the person that handed this decision in this.
Fair, racist, La Police Department and with the mark, Fuhrman and and inadequate I mean how could you How can you go toe to toe with ten of the best defense lawyers in America, with expertise in every? So that's the way. I looked at the adjacent, case cases is regular folks that have nothing better to do in our are silly enough to be on a er, a be a jer? I think it's silly go through murder trials and have to see crime scene photos and under the guys that you doing something for your. Your community or for your country I mean I don't know anyway. Sorry you had me at OJ. You have to invite me back and we can talk about that. Your opinions, I provoked a lot of thoughts and very interesting discussion,
But as you say, we don't want to do it tonight very interesting subject. Now. The thing is with many and I might will get this out there right now. What you really start, your your article with is that you know there was a media circus. You know that irresponsible media and we can say name some names. Nancy grace was unbelievable during this But there was other names as well. Again. This is not really in dispute that the media, what there was some irresponsible members of the media rushing to judgment and what I want say to his eye. I had, and I guess I was that media circus too. I had Diane fanning on St Martin's press mummy. Little girl and the story of Casey Anthony prior. Trial and that was interesting to me because I
not seen that, especially in a murder trial that was, you know up coming soon, soon to come, and yet a book was out prior to the trial, and it was very interesting tell us about that. What was your conversation with Dan Fanning wrote the book, and so what was your conversation with her like? What was the kind of things that you had to discuss them?. Those where I was a short discussion. I was sir, I told my interest in the subject them my research and so forth, and sheep basically just pointed out that she was writing her story before the body before all the evidence was and but she felt compelled to right about the story, because it was the center of attention and I'm done, tv and she was
Basically, this just she would not we you get into a lot of discussion or conversation. It was just a kind of a touch base conversation up to a journalist about the same subject: ok,. Yeah- and I was, I was surprised myself to to be able to- you- Know- have back on and discuss how she felt, what about writing a book and then having this looking like a foregone conclusion and then certainly not the other thing that I have is that if you say in the of public opinion. Casey Anthony was the rush to judgment, obviously attacking her character, and it was, everyone knows it was a circus, but
Are you saying about it when you're saying about Casey, Anthony's innocence? Why can't you just? Why? Are you you not content to just leave it there? Why are you compelled to, and we will get to that point yet? But let's, let's just talk about- why are you in at least not just compelled to talk about and analyze and dissect. Why Casey Anthony really, of course, she was acquitted by the jury, but why is she not guilty right you know, that's a fundamental, pivotal question and point about the whole subject again and what attracted me to the story. The one sided narrative of the subject journalist and I kept looking for a journalist guideline, not not a animal.
Line or common, but a journalist guideline when you take a story subject, you may be begin when marching orders by your you say: ok is the story of the evidence, looks overwhelming against this person and we're going to cover this story and we're going to show this evidence in our article in our peace and but we also have to show the other side Sometimes it's toward the end of the article and sometimes it's a fraction of the space of the whole article. But at least you here as strong and is compelling
a presentation for the other side, as you can muster. As you can find, as a journalist and as a reporter, and I kept waiting to find that in some kind of journalistic outlet- and it was never there- and so I talked to Barry Susman and he felt that it was a media circus, but he said, look he said you can present me your story, but I'm going to need strict sourcing and you're going to have to convince me before I publish it. The Nem and Foundation for is a very respected top of the line operation and they are not going to put anything out there that isn't strongly source strictly sourced and credible, and I accepted that standard and he was very happy to publish and so
so to answer your question, why do I just leave it by his statement for an argument that Casey Anthony is innocent and let it go at that? There's much more involved in this story: the the media and the public and it again, then you can recall the scenes at the courthouse where jury fighting amongst themselves to get in line so that they could be a witness to what everybody understood and believe that the execution decision at least a guilty decisions. For this defendant and that's why I said in my piece that it be some of the days of the Roman Colosseum. Well, that's not America, that's not me! that I live in or want to and of course she was the object of both. But everybody is so convinced.
Because of her behavior after the death of her daughter that she had to be guilty. Nobody would be the consensus is, and it's not an unreasonable consensus, but the contents of nobody could witness or find the death of their two year old daughter and then not report it and she never would reported it. It wasn't heard of it that eventually determine that the child had died. It was the body was found. Six months later- and it wasn't her that reported the death to police, it was her mother police and arrested her You know what, let's? Let's not you know? That's the thing is let's not go too much into rehashing the evidence, because then we can have that we can have a fire fire star. Here of well that's not exactly how it went down, and we can retry the case here to a certain degree.
What I would like to look at is, and of course again, I'm not trying to edit what you're trying to say here, again, I can agree that that everything- everybody that's listening to this program, witness for themselves as well the because it dominated everything, is that it is now in hindsight Or if they were to look at it say the next person or the next person or the next person, because you judicial system in America. Sometime gets it wrong. If you have this media circus and it's wrong now, people think the Casey Anthony's guilty and guilty and beat the murder rap and the jury was silly and was nonsensical and the defense through you know it through conjecture and again, that's a big word and- and I can have the definition of what conjecture is. Is that that the Father George,
was the killer, but again he hasn't been tried. He he that his at any and all involvement in this was investigated by the police there no charges laid there are no. There was no talk of charges to be laid. The judge in the trial, the presiding judge in the trial, said he felt this is after the trial that there was ample evidence to convict Casey Anthony There has been talk of yours, not really paying attention to certain avenue and again that's just some kind of store because I I don't have evidence. I don't have that. I don't know what kind of evidence that would be. You know over I to meet some of that. So maybe I shouldn't even said that lets discount, I said anything about the juror jury, but getting back to the this. This situation here. Just because can I can add, attorney General PAM Bondi said quote nobody
There's nobody else in the world that could have done this to carry except Casey Anthony, but she said before the trial began. That's called politics. Because everybody's trying to get elected and re elected and make political points, so that's it's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible and yeah. It's it's wrong, it's wrong for people to but is a good example. The in the analysis is that I think people shouldn't judge people by their posts face of this behavior of a couple days later Necessarily, but then again, this is the agent that we are in, where there's video with almost everything- and you have
people like Nancy Grace who should know better she's a former prosecutor, and yet you a television stations should be more responsible. Publishing companies, certainly don't as as as per typical, publish books before try are finished. Try, I mean the only reason you would do that is try to capitalize on the momentum capitalize on that fur by being the first right, isn't that What else other motivation would that be? they don't do that in the case and that's the station that Nancy Grace is on. They have- in my opinion, a kind of a business model that has been very successful for them very lucrative for them, and the business model is pretty apparent to me, and I don't say this because I have any feeling because of the way they come
this particular trial at all, I really just just as an objective evaluator. Their business model is to find an accused that kind of track now, tension and then to bully the accused up one side and down the other unrelated and that's a business model and it's very successful to a certain audience and for me I only say that just to acknowledge it and to be aware, so that when I channel surf and run by the station, I I just kind. I understand, that's what I'm going to see? Well, you know our beloved the corporation in Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This is their side. This is the way they deal with both sides of the story. They present their story. And then they ask the opponents of this story- the bad guy in this story of the
subject or target of their investigation or documentary if they'd like have on camera and they don't get any response. They show up at the office so they show up at his home or they try to get him in the parking lot running away from from a cameraman manner and reporter with a microphone same thing. It's it's irresponsible really, but what I wanted to get to is that you have a accuse somebody of murder other than yeah. You said Casey Anthony is you believe Casey Anthony did not commit this murder. So tell us, I won't put words in your mouth- tell us what you believe about Casey Anthony and her actual guilt. Let's under you know a higher court will say and who did it do this murder and then will I have some questions for you sure. Well, as far as the Could defendant is concerned,.
I approach the question and the subject as a journalist as a research travellers, and I let the research in the tax story, and in this case, as we already mentioned, the fact that the jury was unsympathetic to her, but the equipment as resource journalists at the word, I only mentioned the OJ jury, just and you- and I agree on that- I think I only mentioned that as a comparison, somebody, the public believes, is guilty and the jury acquitted them, but in that case, during the sympathetic to the defendant in this case, that didn't exist they didn't like her. They didn't want.
You name it as a live if using Oj Simpson as a litmus test as to his at his is. Is this extraordinary case in the Casey Anthony is a next Any case, but there they are not apples and apples, their apples and something else just because you know you hear your drawing you taken you making an inference, because, just because the jury again you unanimous that they were unsympathetic. Well, why would they be sympathetic to her? No one was I mean, that's so that's pretty easy. The odds are against twelve Mary people being sympathetic to her she's in court accused of something so again, sympathy sympathetic, but then you say well, but they still acquitted quitter well, of course, because they've been instructed or the prosecution was ineffective or the defense was effective and the defense could have been effective in in conjecture. It had
yeah and and as a as a as a researcher? What what impressed me about that fact that single act was was was that the jury felt compelled to follow the the judges, instructions and the instructions of the law as it's written and come up with a decision based on the law and that the jury was a. The jury decision and the jury, the jurors themselves, represent a tremendous achievement for american justice in and of itself just that back. The fact that they could, in the face of huge hostile, a huge hostile environment, again defend it could stand up and say: I'm sorry, the law says: if there's a reasonable doubt, I must acquit.
And that's exactly what they did and then they went into hiding to protect themselves from the hostility of some members of the public at their decision. So as research journalist, what impresses me is irony in truth, Truth is stranger than fiction. You couldn't write a story like this and have anybody believe it in at all possible that these twelve years could be subjected to the hostility and program of their culture. And yet, when you look at the facts of it, understand the upheld the law that ultimately protect each of us as an individual in this country. How impressive is. And how well it is not impressed I'm not impressed with the system, will say again. Example. Example: I wasn't impressed with the judicial system in the decision, only J Simpson decision. I wasn't
in so there are, I mean I, I probably could name a few decisions that I will. I wasn't I wasn't happy with, and I I didn't agree with so I mean that's, that's just the way it That's just the way things are, but I can't see how you know they could have been presented a not not conclusive evidence and that's a reasonable doubt as well. I mean did it all the time. This is one juror and, and so. Well. The account is to four and the first road to equip and re, watchers and trial consultants and and who follow the courts, will tell you that that is a pretty strong vote on an initial vote, especially on a murder trial. Like practice so much attention and and the ultimate decision was unanimous,
as I said, it was not out of sympathy to the family, and the other thing about about the researching in this case. Is its may surprise you But I read the testimony of all of the friends associates and I should say the interviews as well as the testimony with police of all of her friends associates. Colleagues, people she went to school with anybody and everybody that was around her when both before her child was born and after when she was raising Kale and the police interviewers would bait them. They were trying to say: okay, she was not a good mother, she slapped Katie right or she was abusive or she was neglectful right. You don't kind of almost leaning in saying right, and what do you suppose all these people said in an environment where nobody wanted to be associated with defending her.
And what every one of them said was that she was an ideal is no exception. When they hear that they want. They went into detail They would have a line, but you know the thing is that this that's a character in somebody summing up someone's character and by their estimation and friends, and I have lots of friends, you have friends and acquaintances and people, but I'd hate, to see what people would say In those circumstances, I see that the strongest evidence, like you say, is the jury with all that hostility, thinking of the consequences of their decision and then what they might have to do like going into seclusion and being hated and so yeah that that's evidence, because that makes logical sense that people would
taking their own safety into consideration in their decision, whether they wanted to or not biases natural and then self and survival is natural and the other. You know that the the other thing is that the the The jurors as well listen to the information and major major decision under the judges directions, so they they still had to be. That is evidence in itself Please make another point, because I have to come back with this train of thought here gather my thought here here I can add this the way my storyline is us that confirms her innocence, and one of the kind of pivot points of this
and they said just about all the friends, everybody and they were vouching for yes, yes, but but the thing of it is what people would change people's minds about. The innocence or guilt of the defendant was her behavior and her daughter died and as a researcher that is important to me. That's important thing to note. That's a kind of a point of departure. And- and so they also talked to her character- is a person independent of any descriptions of her as a mother, and they said that she was everybody's mom. She would tell that she would take care p She would when she was around them. She was that kind of a person. He was not a narcissistic person. Let's see that's what I was talking about, though you know can make these all they would she wasn't a narcissistic person again we get into you, know all sulphur psychiatry here,
couch Psychiatry home, psychiatry, these friends and their testimony. Is valuable, but it's not really. As strong as the other evidence that used to to convict her or two quit her, and the thing is: is that the friend how many serial killers are married and their wife has no idea of the the horror that this guy perpetrating on the nation there, eight bodies or ten victims or whatever it is so in and itself. You know that the friend says: she's a great mom. That's fine! Maybe she was a great mom till that one week or that incident whatever that is or that one month a lot of people, take a sharp departure from their normal. Typical behavior after thirty years twenty years, fifty years many years. So let point I mean because we only have so much time. Let's concentrate on the evidence that you have. You know. I know that the defense put forward the same,
argument that the Georgian the drowning, but I want to hear actual, I want to hear strong evidence and let's discuss that, because that would take two hours. So let's talk the strong evidence you you are accusing a man you you hey, listen, that the court of public opinion crucified This woman and now what are they going to do and she still in hiding she still we out, but both of us doing this and that's why I'm giving you a rough ride on this one? Aren't we both doing this in it you in accusing George of a murder he's not been charged. He was investigated, like I said before I mean, aren't we do the same thing. What it would have to show takes. Often in four hundred thousand people. Listen to this programme, a goal we shouldn't. We re try, George shouldn't there be another retrial, shouldn't George, be prosecuted, Should we go down George,
As far as George, which is our father, is concerned, I don't don't assert in the book that he murdered what I know, sir, and he is responsible for for taking Kaylee, putting her in a double laundry bag and placing her in the woods where she was later found six months later, and it and also I know that there is suspicion that here I use word suspicion that George had a motive for negative feelings toward him, Kaley and possibly killing her. And what do you suppose that
that suspicion is all about. It goes back to the relationship in this family, which has been commented about even by people that don't like the defendant as a very dysfunctional family. Very odd family in terms of you, but you know, the thing is Dysfunctionality is is more commonplace than not commonplace, I mean, and besides what does even dysfunction mean it. Anything out of the ordinary anything out of perfection which doesn't occur. Let's just see you know I want to know what exactly the evidence is that of his involvement. That's the thing and, and it. Right? I want to hear the evidence of that sure. Absolutely it's obviously germane to the whole subject and
of course, the manner in which the body was found in the woods just block or so away from his home was wrapped in bags. The bags were tide Tape- and it so happens that George was the one that buried family pets and double plastic bags to the top for decades in their family history. So this was a method of disposing of body, in this case pets that George preferred and that George used in the past- and this is the way the little girl was found not far from is home. So there is a connection there between the discovery of the body and George and, of course,
there is incontrovertible evidence at trial that George lied on the stand about his activities. While Carly was missing, for example, he had a mistress while Kate was still missing and the whole country was looking for. Okay, for anyway and everybody was concerned about her, he was having a plane with a mattress and when he was, ask about it at trial? He lied. And the reason we know he died was because there was evidence presented that there was a guard gate at the mistresses place that recognized him. That logged in them multiple times which he denied there is the cell phone text of amorous comments between him and a mistress and what's more interesting, the mistress says that he, in effect,
her before it was found that Caylee died and he knew how she died. So, there's no one why what were well ok! This is this is some news for me. What
police do with this. When did this come out? Why was this evidence? Tell us about this evidence in terms of this mistress said what to who who's? Who is this uh? This confession story given to well, I was given to the mistress and she testified to it at trial. Ok and and the statement was that Kaylee died in an accident- it snowballed out of control is what he told her, and course this is when you put this in the context of a man whose daughter is on trial and who's, he he is testifying against for capital, murder and he's lying on the sand, not just about his statement to his mistress, but the fact that she was even
even versus misters and- and so you have to ask yourself at some point in time. Why would he do that? Why would he lie about having a mistress when the effect was to was to incriminate his daughter who is facing the death penalty? I mean, let's face it if he admitted to having a mistress. It's not the end of the world. Why would you do that? Why would he Why would he lie about. Well, the thing is, is that you know the thing is: if you, if you get, if you have to say, why did he do this and then some and then make a supposition, our proper that. This is why he did that. Then again, that's unfair in its. You can call it a lot of things. You can call the conjecture, you can call it.
You know. Well, it's unfair to be able to do that to me. Okay, it's open question that I'm asking and the reason I'm asking it that way, I'm not asserting that he murdered anybody, but I am trying to present a balanced narrative I'm trying to present a balanced, bright right. One sided narrative of the story. Tell me about the time. Tell us about the mistress, though, what what if this is it? This is well. This could be crucial evidence this testimony here. That you know was an accident got out of control. Again, if you ask the question, why would this mistress make up a story? like that that you know, on the face of it seems kind of fees, Poland doesn't sound like a fantastic opportunistic story again. Tell us about,
the actual trial and and what did they do with her as testimony in the cross examining direct vote? What was the result of this? Why isn't it? Why was this not more important? Well that that you know that the backstory about this about how this whole story has been A one sided narrative on the part of everyone involved in it practically except for defense to, and that is the police. It's not a surprise to people that follow time stories is that on a high profile or celebrity involved, crime is committed. They wanted. Find a solution. They need somebody to prosecute the prosecutor. We know a lot more lot. A lot of them use those cases.
Jeff asked his name as a stepping stone to higher political office and- and I think, that's exactly what he did in Orange County Florida, but I'm just saying that you go after a suspect and tried. The prosecutor does he's he's obligated to look seek and to obtain justice, but the way the system works too often it says they look for some of the to connect and they look for leverage to use against that person.
To gain a conviction by a jury of peers, and sometimes that means you just zero in on one person who looks like a light, vulnerable targets and three nor the other people this case, perhaps George that should be left to the you said. You said on several times. George was investigated, or maybe he was well. The truth is, I watch the videotape interrogations interrogations. I watched read the the he he was given pass pass. Let me let me let me ask this question, though the whole story starts. You know again explain this to me, then what will are giving this this your logic on Story here, Casey Anthony, is not at her family's home she's somewhere else.
There's the car at the impound and the parents get a call and then there's the smell of death. Denny confirmed, smell of death, even though the mother was the first person to give us that I mean I don't understand how again have they give me a motive, but you gotta get me how this makes logical sense when it started explain this. For me. Sure, absolutely the smell of death was in the trunk of Casey's car. That was just that was identified about two and a half weeks after the day. We know that died. Well as it turns out. Incidentally, Henry Lee was was examined. Is very prominent frenzy I was on the OJ case he's also on this case before the defense, and his conclusion was that there was no human decomposition in the truck SAM, so I just
so that, in as a as a as a reference point, human decomposition is very difficult to distinguish the problem animal decomposition. That is, when handling the. So that's what a lot of experts in this subject say, but also one eight, the Texas One active until almost three weeks after that that okay, and so anybody to assert that Casey was driving around with her dead daughter in the truck her car with three weeks. You have to ask the question: is I do why wouldn't there in order before three weeks or two one slash two weeks, somebody would have smelled. And how long was it in the impound, though? There was picked up almost a month after the death of the daughter
And I thought you know you ve seen a junkie before the old rate. An impound I mean, is it possible? Isn't it possible that that that might not have been. Detected just because where you are and who is near, you know. No, I didn't a number of cars if you put a dead body, or of anything as animal in our anything in the trunk of the car within a few days you're going to be, we don't have the putrid odor on that. And that's just the way it is and so the fact of the matter is that she abandoned the car on the street near the street. She didn't try to hide it. She chose to abandon the car car near the her mother drove to work every day. So one of the things that that's
research in the case of actually looks at is was she hiding? Was she exhibiting consciousness of guilt? Was she. She's trying to cover anything up, and you look at her go into the lies that she told to police about. Where was was about she worked- these are lies that the police confirmed were lies at the snap of the finger. She said she worked at Universal studios, so they call up hr and says I'm sorry. She has worked here in three years and she says well the nanny, this fictitious nanny that she invented who had catering according to her live in this apartment, and so they go to the apartment. Apartment has been vacant for six months. Yeah So I mean these are not lies to protect herself and then
the white world where and how? How how? Why are these and why they're not lies to protect yourself, because there are days full the fact that she's telling lies now the words she says she works in places that she knows these are gonna tell she has worked for three years and she tells him that the nanny who has a child lives in this department, that's where she's been with the nanny and they. The apartment in vacant for six months. So she's doing this. To keep doing this me, reason, though. The police are looking at her with suspicion because their parents Using her as well are putting the possibility that she did this, and so then she is purposely this she's purpose. The saying: listen, I work at Universal so that Universal can say not yet worked here for years and am aware. ' a child. Where did you leave the child at this nanny, but the nanny doesn't exist. Tell me
she on. If anyone would do that, that's the whole point. Why is that we me- and everyone is judging her as if. She should behave the way we behave. There are two psychiatric three psychiatric evaluations of her detailed, an at length. Two of them were published, which I read one by psychiatrist, one by psychologists. Their conclusion is that her statements of molestation by her father at a very young age very often were consistent,
put their evaluation of her, which they concluded, she was not diagnosable with any kind of mental illness, what's weather and and so then you compound that abuse with the traumatic death of her child who she had bonded with again, she says at the hands of her father and you have a traumatic experience at a dramatic reaction that explains her behavior. That explained why she invents these fictitious things and things that don't make sense. That explains why she functions to the extent that she can have pictures taken at a nightclub, but she was at the nightclub because her boyfriend work there if he had worked at at shirt sales factory on our
go somewhere someplace on some corner. She would have been there. She was there because he was there yeah see the thing is I could I could say that I can give you that a person's behavior captured in a snapshot on a facebook page by someone, maybe they're, smiling for a photo. I probably could have been seen smiling for a photo a day or two after my best friends funeral so take out of context. I don't think that that should be again. I don't think that's evidence, I think, that's again open to interpretation, subjective or it's inconclusive. It's inconclusive evidence so, but I can't say that now. That? I'm gonna give you credit for your explanation, because you last night on it and it doesn't. I get it if I agreed with you, because all it is, is that again it's is tenuous tenuous link that you put these things together. So I'll just give the person credit for the behavior. Cannot be judged by a photo or video or somebody said
look normal to me, you know so that spot I I will. I do admit that you're putting in a very difficult situation where I'm having to prove the innocence of somebody that everybody hates at the top of it all get over, but I accept that it's not that's the reality and, and so I accept that it's the golden well, but the thing is, I look less at at motive than some people 'cause again motive can be put together to sound, pretty good based on our supper. Anyway, you know it it can be, especially now. I'm affected by what happened in the meat and all the information and and the emotion my my natural bias So then, when I had a motive is put forward well, geez at that makes sense, but makes sense to my pre law. According to my preconceived thinking, so the the thing is: is that again you can I'd like to hear what them the motive
was for this and and to hear exactly I mean this drowning. I want to hear evidence of this drowning because I can't see how there forensically there wasn't the ability to determine more about this suppose it incident Tell a little bit more about that evidence and that. Again, that's theory, a lot of then don't know where that story came from. It came from Casey Anthony In her interview with the psychiatrist,. And she had not told her own defense attorney about what happened to Kaylee in the Backyard Swimming Pool June. Sixteen two thousand and eight yeah because she was in the mail. She was in denial when she made up the story about a fictitious Danny. She was in denial about what happened to Kaylee, she said,
when she was first arrested that she feels Kaylie is close, even though she had seen her dad and a father's arms in the backyard. So she was in deep deep denial and the people that work with PTSD soldiers with parents that experience traumatic loss of a child and who have other issues. They say that this denial is typical and the disconnect between the way people and the reality is. People people expect someone to be a glee normal people. Do they can't tell you how many women, especially it told me if my daughter died, there's no way. I wouldn't reported it to police. Of course. Yes, that's true as true for me, but
nobody is done on the situation where they were abused by the the person that showed you you're dead daughter for years as a child and also the role of her mother in this and lying he abuse and then there's a whole story thread Cindy's role and what she covered up, not only the abuse of her husband toward her daughter, but the role George played in the is the parents and Kaylie and the placement of Kaylee in the woods. Ok before we get to indicting Cindy here now as well, I want to I want,
Say one thing here: this is same argument. I was saying to you in hindsight a psychiatrist or a psychologist to analyze the situation and goes well. You know this happens. Quite often, we've seen it before PTSD and they act completely out of character. During their traumatized, and hence this is this of odd, odd, odd behavior. But here's the thing I know from the murder trial that I was involved in and out- and I know this for ever and ever come from the defence lawyers mouth Casey Anthony, could have told her lawyer, four or five different tales. She also told her lawyer, the tale of that we just talked about that seem to be ridiculous, but the lawyer didn't call her on it didn't force or didn't cross examiner in in his office. She had that story. She stuck to
story- and you see a year later. She had this other story. She could have crafted the story, and I can dare say because, from my experience. And they would be the first letter that did it. They encourage the crafting of a more reasonable store. And again there is only so many options and if you feel that your role in society is to defend your client to the best, absolutely the best your ability and then you look at whether yours Was the lie on your clients. Behalf? Have your client lie pretty themselves on the stand, regardless. One of the main the main tenant? It really should be the main tenant and, as I would believe, it is according to society that you're not to tell a lie on behalf of your client. So if you're not you're, not you're blight to tell a lie. Then you have to determine the truthfulness of your client story, but, just like you said this could be normal behavior. This could be,
This is what happens in p. T s d from the abuse again that we don't have him. Karakul proof occur occurred, and then he could have crafted a story together. Hertz riding. Different stories till they got a story that seemed to be the story that could work to defender. Isn't that a possibility yeah it definitely is a possibility and it's something that needs to be considered and looked at and evaluate it and so on and so forth and as a research journalist. That's what I do and in the case of these psychiatrists, whose published reports or depositions by the prosecutor about their subject,
They found that everything in their reports and they go into detail. They have things like an mpi which is a gold standard of evaluating a person, and she passed that within completely ranges and there's two of them and one of them asked and pleaded with the prosecutor not to tell him that, because he didn't want to be associated with her. So what I find through up okay is an accused who has a lot of people defending her objectively, like her friends like her colleagues like the psychiatrists, and nobody wants to do it, but they end up defending her anyway, because they're compelled to do that and I
could add the jury and there are compelled to do it by nothing other than a an attachment. They have to the truth, and I can tell you for certain that the one sided narrative. The media and the public commentary, was a incomplete narrative of this story, and what I want to do is complete down there. I want to present balance to this story so that people can make the decision that they need to make. But what I find fascinating is so many people with no interest and no predisposition and no liking of this defendant. Nevertheless, from the jury from her friends from the psychiatrists they still defender, that is fascinating to me. The thing is, though, what do you make of the presiding judge, because this just earlier this month coming out
publicly again, what reason would he have for this? And what do you conclude from this? What are your thoughts about the judge in the presiding judge coming out and saying that there was ample evidence for the jury to for them to make a that, you basically saying I believe she was guilty. Yeah, definitely and Judge Belvin Perry. He took over the case from judge, Stan, Strickland and judge. Strickland was excused from the case that supplied way to put it because he was calling up a blogger who was saying that she was guilty and he was the judge under the sign of his case. Originally, but he was calling up a blogger who some like everyone was saying that she was guilty before trial entirely began and he was telling is blogger to keep up the good work. I'm on your side, when this finally got out. He was kicked off the case. So that's how yeah subject.
But the whole. I mentioned that because the whole institutional apparatus prosecutor, the attorney General PAM, Bondi, the former prosecutors that were on HLN like say, Hanoi and at infinite everybody was beating up beating up this person person before the trial began and during the trial there wasn't anybody who is arguing her narrative of her possible innocence. Jose biases book was titled presume guilty, that's an appropriate title, that's the reality of it and so judge Perry the whole institutional apparatus of those that prosecute people HLN
is is kind of a caricature that they are all invested in. Getting a conviction and judge. Perry just couldn't quite accept the fact that this courtroom a quitter, and I take the exact opposite point of view. I think the jury was I, I think the defense case and the Equival was a epitome of of the american justice system and defending the rights of accused when there is no gift. There is no provable guilt in a court of law within the four corners of the court. You don't think it's irresponsible, though, to point fingers at Cindy, possibly and especially directly at George, in light of no
all charges. Do you think it's responsible? Well, here's what I think and all I'm saying is I'm taking the words of cases her published in our published comments to the psychiatrist, whose evaluated those comments they had. Things called malingering in their evaluation and they concluded she is. She would not malingering and the psychiatrist ask. Is there any reason that you don't believe what she told you he said? There's no reason for me not to believe what she told me. So her story is which is not been told that her father presented her with the dead child at her home. Then they were alone together and he took the child and dispose of it. Word was found as far as she knows he disposed of it there, and, and also we have the
Objective Cindy, I had reason to understand that the issue going on in their home, were affecting Casey Amber Lynn, we're making her vulnerable to suspicion and she, instead of defending her daughter, chose to side with short, she said with George during the trial, and there are a number of details about Cindy's behavior that I'm going to lay out in the door that suggests that she was much more knowledgeable George, Israel. Then she told police. Now I know I did not. I said I don't really care about motive, but why would George
Caylee drowned. Why would you present the body to Casey the a theory? One theory or George's role in this was that George feared that Kaylee was his child. And then were where's the evidence. When did he say this? This is just say theory, though I just a theory. I that the that is one theory to explain the behavior of George And we have for the allegation of abuse, Casey Anthony And what I'm talking about is the narrative of Casey Anthony's side of events that has not been told, and so she says that George abused her.
The psychiatrist say that everything in their evaluation of her is consistent with somebody who had been abused by her father. Yeah. The thing is it isn't it is Dooling psychiatrist, though, wasn't it? You know it can be possible because I've seen it numerous numerous cases. The psychiatrist is paid, that's sick, Trust is well known for primarily working for defense, These guys get sort of reputations and they're asked to do things. I mean this is uncommon. I mean there are some something For higher that's right- and in this case that's one thing I look at there was a psychiatrist doctor, David Danziger, who primarily is used by prosecution
The prosecution, witness and the other side was a psychologist. Actually, Doctor Debbie, I cheesy. He was primarily used by the reason they were both called by the defense was that they were and by the court and by the prosecution to evaluate her, but she was first arrested, so they were at interview her at the court's request for compensate competency issues as he had no money to go out and hire anybody, so he asked them to sign on. For this case, Dr Danziger is the one that pleaded not to be the post because he didn't want to be associated. In any way with defending her- and he said that before the translation and the and the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton said I'm sorry you're going
the post you're, going to tell me what you found and that was later published by order of Judge, Galvin Perry and so to answer your question. You've got actually as it turns out because of the lack of money by the team. You had actually A balanced evaluation as it turns out one prosecution psychiatrist if you will and one defense psychiatrist and they both concur. They both looked at each other's evidence and they came to an independent conclusion and again what I'm doing is taking cases and what is supported by independent in this case psychiatric and- and just that's all, that's all say- I'm in dating George, no, sir, I'm not in dating George. This is what cases there. She has a right to say what happened
Well, you know I was. I was involved in a murder trial and it's again it's not apples and apples, but I mean what the killer said was that he accused his stepbrother of sexually assaulting him for a period of years again, no criminal charges were ever laid. The lawyer defense lawyer got the say that without an interruption by any prosecute by the prosecution at all it was the EU was read. It was. Repeated. Then it was allegation by the killer. That when he was in a interview room with a camera into two cops customarily. That's up only a couple of gun and put it put it to his head and then the defense lawyer was asking the witness which happened to be me. Why didn't report it to the police? So you can see that some of this stuff can allegations can be unchallenged absolutely things things can be said,
Anthony said a lot of things. She said again she lives. But then we can. We have a reason for her being the seer of lies again. Ok, ok, there's a logical reason them with we listen to what your explanation is: and then we then, at some point, have to take what she says as gospel and again this other man is a police officer and again he had a mistress again, some people want to judge people buy ethics or their moral code. Was you know we can't do that? That's luckily the courts. Try not to do that. So, but again you're asking people to believe her on these things that you believe or or seem more so to you there that fit into the law call logical
will add you know. So it's actually, as I said before, it's a trying to prove somebody is in a sense is say: sometimes it seems an impossible shore and to trying to do it in the context of a public environment where nobody believe she's innocent anyway makes it virtually an impossible choice. So what my task is as a research journalist, is to simply introduce balance using sources that are published and using in this case the words of the acquitted herself. I see. So what you're really trying to do? Is you trying to put a lot more information out there regardless and say list,
this is what I am looking at, I'm looking at much more information, so the your first priority is to provide much more information again, so you say, because so you can have a more balanced look at this be a perspective because there wasn't a balanced perspective. I I'm I'm kind of in the same camp is very Sussman as there's also Howard, Kurtz NEWS, on several occasions he wouldn't cover the trial on his reliable sources, CNN program, which looks at the media very highly regarded program because of the biased reporting on this case and also Jeffrey, Toobin, a CNN legal analyst very highly regarded. He made comments that the media owes Casey Anthony an apology. So my role is, is kind of with them.
And that is I'm looking at this as a journalist and saying This has been an unbalanced narrative for sure and we've got all this information out there. That would support the jury's decision, an unsympathetic, jury's decision to support what her friends said about her to support what the psychiatrist said about her that nobody is listening to and as a journalist, that's my job. That's my Now tell us about the status of the book itself. And again the title: the Court of Public opinion Casey, Anthony and you're, asking it spill, my guts. A little bit on this subject. I have a literary agent. We went to
Schuster went to penguin books went to all the major publishers with whom he has connections and he was told that nobody is going to publish any book defending this individual was acquitted because everybody believes she's guilty. Ok, so the this is the publishing industry in America. They don't want a point of view, contrary to the consensus in America. It's a sad commentary, that's true, but it's unbelievably sad and so I've got to protect the publisher. I've got to protect their financial interest and release date, and their name is something that they are in control open. I just have to leave it at that, but it's because of this extraordinary circumstance.
Without that circumstance of of the institution of the publishing industry. Refusing to even read my proposal. I wouldn't be in that situation but, as I told Barry when the article was published and we got the reaction, it got the most reaction in the history of Harvard's that media watchdog program. I said I'm embracing it and that's exactly what I'm doing. So I can sort of answer that question the book is on hold till some said. I can't I can't say anything about it: to protect the publisher, ok, okay, if thou so I saw this. Will people will know that you have a website that people might be able to contact you.
To interact with you, Facebook page something yeah, it's writer Keith, like writer, Keith dot com and you welcome people contacting you. Obviously, oh absolutely. I invite their criticism comment, support idea, Always like you say the and article really, we elicit a lot of risk. Strong strong action records and for is response and not surprising. And it should second ization to ask people to always reserve a part of their job
the process or a balanced source of information to what you're listening to especially being presented by the media. Yeah, it's It was very interesting to that. The way you presented it cases. Well again. I I have to applaud you, at least for war, will not least? I have to applaud you for being able to have this bull by on your head here, the disk courage up the main stream media, even though this disease to have a numerous books to have be written about it, given the mention that the trial had, and especially with the acquittal and again fairly strong acquittal, that that there wouldn't be at least a publisher king. Just of the bottom line and saying jeez, you know this. This is a controversial book, but there wasn't acquittal
and can you sound like a very responsible and you in read like a very responsible, sensible person, you're, not a Nancy grace of this subject here. You're, not you know, again sensationalizing something that's already got enough sense into it. Already so I applaud you for taking this stance and and being strong and in your conviction because you do sound very, very reasonable in your argument, and so I applaud you for this, because I know that you would be the victim of division and it's it's a rough ride. Taking this position, I know that I appreciate that and of course, is a really my bottom line. Motivation of what prompted me to begin to look at the story was really a belief in the american people and in our culture,
that is better than the media is serving us and the characterization that I used earlier of the bullying. We bling business model that I see in HLN, for example, and I have been accused that to me is anathema to what american people in the canadian people and the mexican people and everybody needs to stand, Stand up against the fact that anybody can be of the presumption of innocence. When they're on trial for their life. At the end of the day, and there's no reason to do that, if the evidence is there, you have to have belief in the sea
that it will prevail, and you go back to Jay and say everybody it's kind relatively day. Maybe it is, but that's a separate subject in that case, I'd be happy to talk to you about it sometime, but in this case there is the possibility that a innocent person is being hounded and prevented from freedom that everybody in this country as protected. Has a right as a protected life life and the pursuit of happiness in the face of illegal acquittal and there the possibility that maybe there's an injustice,
And that, as long as there is a possibility, the the application of journalists is to at least cause a balance for two of that story. Well, it is a. He is also a. A story that it should be a warning to journalists and to get the journal an, and I guess, broadcasters that you know if you rush a judgment. You might look like. You know you might look very very wrong on this righteous side that you're trying to present yourself. As you know, it is in that there's a reason why publishers didn't publish books till the outcome of that book. Of other of the case occurred. I Kensington Prosperity apple, will not publish any books till the verdict is done so nuts
and then you know- and I mean They'Re- not this, so they represent journalists. Every day in and day out, and they were were that's their policy to do. That, and and broadcasters and people have gone through journalism, courses in schools and have been Hot and work at agency should know a lot better, so I think this, the bottom line of these corporations I don't think they have journalism as their foundation and Doing things like Nancy Grace, yakking and yapping and accusing and- and this is not the first- time she has done harm to harm to, two and again, a person that was acquitted it's legend, her her behavior it and and then doesn't end. You know so it's it's it's it's a story that the people should really pay attention because there are so many wrongful conditions in the. U S and the sea
same kind of misdirected media misinformation, forming media and irresponsible media could do it where the outcome could be much different and people could be- you know something they could regret for the rest of their lives, the people. It seems here that believed Casey Anthony was guilty before still believe. Casey Anthony is guilty and they're undergoing stick to that, I believe. But again I think it is important. That's why I've had you on the program here to at least give you the opportunity to to tell your side of the story and to state your case and you've done it effectively. I think I applaud you very much for giving me the opportunity. Okay, while thank you very much and please get back get ahold
when the book actually does come out to, because that's going to be another story in terms of the response and and everything surrounding that, and of course I want to be really brushed up on this and and re examine this entire a case and and read your book and look at this much more carefully and then have you back on. We can talk about it again, so I want to thank you For this interview, Keith long talking about the court of public opinion, Casey Anthony with, my special guest journalist and author Keith long. Thank you very much. Keith have yourself a great evening.
Hi, I'm Jay Farner, ceo of Quicken Loans, thirty percent of Americans who are planning home improvements of five thousand dollars or more will pay for those renovations with a high interest credit card. That may not be a great idea. A better idea may be to take cash out of your home with the Quicken Loans thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The rate today, in our thirty year, fixed rate mortgage is three point: nine nine percent APR four point: zero. Eight percent call us today at eight hundred Quicken or go to rocket mortgage dot com rates of exchange. At one point, two: five percent the receive the discount rate, all the concentration in conditions, because when it wasn't enough to states and one hundred thirty, I am now an ad from dad all right- save money on car insurance when you bundle home and auto with progressive, because it is a what is it? Where did you get this? I'm talking to you with the hair yeah? Where did you get this good stuff?
And so that's not veneer that solid stuff? Progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto progressive casualty, insurance company affiliates another injuries, discounts not available in all states or situations
Transcript generated on 2021-06-10.