Showing posts with label Casey Anthony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Casey Anthony. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Spotting The Liar In the Courtroom and In Interrogation Tapes

by Dr. Lillian Glass

This past year we saw a lot of courtroom drama from the Casey Anthony case to countless other criminal cases. We have literally watched people lie through their teeth . We watched Cindy and George’s multiple signals of deception as they appeared on the stand. How these two have avoided going to jail for perjury is beyond me. Anyone else who did what they did would be behind bars by now.

Here are some body language, facial language, voice and speech tells you can look for the next time you look at a tape where someone is being interrogated or you watch them giving testimony in the courtroom.

Body Language
  1. Watch if they shirk back or lean away from the interviewer or the attorney when crucial information is discussed.
  2. They may rock back an forth a means of self soothing.
  3. They may bush repeatedly brush off imaginary lint on their clothing.
  4. Fiddling with their hands and wringing their hands on crucial information.
  5. Repeatedly scratching themselves as though they have an itch.
  6. Shuffling their feet during key questioning
  7. Not moving arms or legs when speaking
  8. Hands folded on lap and no movement whatsoever
  9. Audible breathing or immediate changes in breathing pattern
  10. Hunches over during crucial questioning or discussing significant issues
Facial Language
  1. Blushing, flushing or blanching during significant questioning.
  2. Pulling on their nose or ears
  3. Scratching their head , nose or ears, or cheeks,
  4. Puffing out their cheeks and quickly exhaling a large amount of air.
  5. Upper chest breathing and taking in large amount of air.
  6. Adams apple movement and swallowing during crucial questioning
  7. Cotton mouth
  8. Lip licking and licking of teeth
  9. Pursing the lips indicating they are holding back information.
  10. Tilting head to the side during key questioning
  11. Rapid eye blinking
  12. Breaking eye contact during crucial questioning
  13. Staring
  14. Not looking at questioner at all
  15. Eyes can widen during key questioning indicating surprise at getting caught
  16. Rubs eyes during key questioning
  17. Bows head down
Voice and Speech Patterns
  1. Nervous coughing
  2. Constant throat clearing
  3. Dying off at end of sentences
  4. Mumbling or speaking inaudibly
  5. Pitch of voice raises during key questioning
  6. Gets defensive or overly aggressive during key questioning
  7. Answers a question with a question
  8. Repeats verbatim question interrogator or attorney asked
  9. Stammers or hesitates over key words
  10. Says like um uh a lot when explaining things
  11. Goes off on tangents and doesn’t get to the point
  12. Gives too much detailed information
  13. Often doesn’t make sense
  14. Inconsistent stories
  15. Monotone or inappropriate emotion based on topic discussed
While not everyone of these tells means that a person is lying, if you see enough of them during the context of what is being discussed, there is a high likelihood that they are not being forthright or telling the truth. 

www.drlillianglass.com


Thursday, September 15, 2011

A Sham with no Shame: Dr. Phil and the Anthonys' TV Stunt

by Pat Brown

I didn't watch the Dr. Phil's two-day interview with George and Cindy Anthony for a number of reasons: because they make me ill (all three of them), because I knew there would be nothing but more lies to be told, and because I didn't want to contribute to the fame or fortune of any of them. But, most of all, because it was a shameless sham.

Most everyone who watched was curious to see if Dr. Phil would manage to corner the Anthonys, get them to break, to slip up, to finally admit to knowing more than they did before, during, and after the trial. Promos for the show promised "surprises" that we wouldn't want to miss. Hogwash. There was no way anything all that revealing could ever have happened during the interview because the interview was fixed from the start.

Think about it. The Anthonys weren't about to take a chance on spilling any beans; they didn't have to put themselves at risk just to make the bucks. Dr. Phil and the Anthonys' attorney, Mark Lippman, made sure everyone would go home happy–at least everyone who was going to make money from this charade. Their "admissions" are still self-serving lies and half truths that benefit them and only them.

First of all, that show wasn't live. It was taped. And it was taped in a private location (note the secluded living room setting) without a studio audience. That means all the questions can be planned out ahead of time with both parties knowing what was going to be asked and how they would be answered. I would be surprised if there wasn't a condition in the contract that stated the Anthonys would have to approve the final product before it was aired. And there was no studio audience to be a witness to what was actually said and attest to what was deleted from the final product, so it was a pretty safe game for the Anthonys to play.

Believe me, taped shows are cleaned up and edited before they hit the airwaves. I have been on Dr. Phil's show and I can tell you what I said on the show didn't show up on air. I was actually the "big" guest on his show that day, starting out the discussion, just the two of us talking and then the other guests joining in later. But that is not what anyone saw. Oddly, I vanished out of the front of the show and appeared for just a couple of statements in the middle of the panel discussion. I was none too happy considering the effort it took me to fly to California and back for no pay just to do the show. I have no idea why I was edited out but what Dr. Phil said in his speech at the end of the show sounded an awful lot like what I said at the beginning.

I also got a major snip during the show I taped with Dr. Oz as well. I was asked what kind of woman abandons her children to help a killer escape from prison and commit crimes with him. I looked the family in the eye and said, "A psychopath," and followed this up with a discussion of how the woman likely manipulated everyone around her as she traveled through life. The other guest disagreed with me, softening his take on the woman by telling the family that she likely became so smitten with the man that she lost control of her emotions. When the show aired, everything I said had vanished and the tone of the show was very forgiving. I haven't been asked back since.

However, there are exceptions. I did quite a few taped shows for Montel Williams and I never had anything I said cut, even if it was controversial. I have to give a lot of credit to him and his producers that they allowed the viewers to see the show that was shot, not some watered-down version of the discussion.

And that is what Dr. Phil gave America with his phony interview of the Anthonys; a staged event that brought his show high ratings and the Anthonys a nice deposit in their (oh, excuse me, their organization's) bank account. We aren't told how much they got for their performance because Dr. Phil knows we would become livid if we found out the actual number of zeroes that was on the check handed over to them (think 6).

The viewers were duped. There never was a "no-holds-barred" interview with Cindy and George. The viewers are the losers and the Anthonys and Dr. Phil are the winners. Dr. Phil should have been ashamed of putting these people on his show, he should have been ashamed that he staged this event, and the Anthonys should have been ashamed to show their faces in public again. But, hey, there's money to be made, so the hell with decency, right? Caylee may be dead, but she's a gift that keeps on giving, and Casey and those people who created her, and all the rest of the morally bankrupt parasites, keep on receiving.


Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Will Dr. Phil Play Hard Ball or Soft Ball with the Anthony's?

by Dr. Michelle Golland

As I sit writing this wondering what will be coming out of the mouths of George and Cindy Anthony when they are interviewed by Dr. Phil this week, I can't help but know it will be disappointing. I know that the hard questions will be asked, but the Anthony's will not be pushed to truly explain their own actions. It will be watered down and spun as usual by the Anthony's to prove themselves the victims of everyone-Casey, the media, the prosecutors, and the defense.

With my clients who have experienced sexual abuse and psychological abuse they often see flashes of their own parents in that of George and Cindy. The sociopath father and the narcissistic mother. It is a match made in hell, hell for the children who are under their power and influence. I would predict that if Dr. Phil were to play hard-ball, as we have seen him do with other guests, we would clearly see these aspects of their personalities. Unfortunately, the previews seem to indicate he is playing soft-ball, which is an opportunity lost as far as I am concerned.

As a psychologist, I can feel when people are deflecting and defending, even in subtle ways. I am certain that is what will happen during this interview. The family member I would love to sit across from and hear his whole story about growing up under that roof is Lee Anthony. During the trial he was the only family member that seemed genuine and honest. His actions when Casey and Caylee were missing were appropriate and consistent for how someone would respond in that situation. George's were clearly suspect. Cindy's were vicious and public, for example her myspace message about Casey being jealous of her and her granddaughters relationship. Cindy is pointed and cruel. I can only imagine what was said behind closed doors.

As many of us wait to see the Anthony's on Dr. Phil we should be prepared for nothing much to be said that is of substance. We are dealing with liars who trained their daughter very well to be manipulative herself. I look forward to them being deposed by an attorney regarding the fraud case against Casey. Now that will show us the true colors of these two people-no softballs allowed.


Thursday, September 8, 2011

Will The Anthony's Lie to Dr. Phil?


On September 12 we will hear more from Cindy and George Anthony as they appear on the Dr. Phil Show to reveal "the truth” about Casey Anthony and her daughter Caylee’s death. My question is why these two liars didn’t reveal the truth when they were on the stand in a court of law? Yes, I said liars! Cindy’s body language and communication showed she lied repeatedly on the stand. The same is true for George. After seeing them on the stand, one can understand why Casey turned out the way she did. At least Dr. Phil, whom I know and respect, will demand they tell the truth and will not put up with any of their nonsense.

It is despicable to me that these two liars are now making a reported half-a-million dollars be appear on television to be grilled by Dr. Phil. It has been reported that the money will go into the Caylee Anthony Charity Fund for Missing Children. And who are executives in charge of this “charity?” Are they George and Cindy? How are the monies from this charity being spent? So they go into George and Cindy’s pockets? Also, Caylee was not a missing child. She was a murdered or drowned child. Take your pick. We were all duped and lead on a wild goose chase by Casey and then by Cindy and George.

In looking at the body language of the promo, Cindy looks like a deer in the headlights when Dr. Phil appears to put her on the spot. She looks wide-eyed and physically turns to George with her hunched over shoulders, indicating that most likely she has been busted by Dr. Phil. Also in the promo, Dr. Phil point-blank asks, "Do you think Casey was involved in Caylee’s death?" Cindy hunches over and turns to George who purses his lips together as you can see. This indicates that he doesn’t want to answer the question. No doubt this former policeman knows exactly what happened to Caylee and Casey’s involvement.

Dr. Phil appears to be very direct with Cindy, who is beautifully made up complete with fake lashes in an attempt to make her look attractive, her body language is anything but attractive. She has turtle posture, where she hides her neck and hunches her shoulders like a turtle. People who have something to hide usually demonstrate this posture. Then in the promo Dr. Phil asks George, “Why did you sit on this information?” George is in true wimp form where he continues to not man up, turns to Cindy as he looks over at her in hopes she can rescue him from Dr. Phil’s direct line of questioning.

It will be interesting to see if they lie to Dr. Phil or they tell the truth. Look for tell-tale signs such as lip licking, excessive eye blinking, stammering, lip pursing, hemming and hawing, looking away, and scratching, to name a few.


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Casey, Michael, and Nancy

By Robin Sax  Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson, Nancy Grace … It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, doesn’t it? I wish I could say it was. It’s not only not a joke but it’s crux of a legal argument.  Imagine this --The King of Pop -- now being mentioned in the same sentence as -- wait for it, ‘Tot Mom.'   That’s right, Casey Anthony is casting a giant shadow in a courtroom thousands of miles away from her Florida legal extravaganza. Lawyers representing the doctor accused in the Jackson drug overdose case, are demanding jurors be sequestered in this case. Why? Because, they say, interest in the upcoming Conrad Murray trial will be bigger than the Casey Anthony trial. Murray’s Lawyers have even gone on to say, “There is a reasonable expectation that Dr. Murray’s trial will be the most publicized trial in history."   Now, let me say I don’t disagree. Some of you may actually remember I left the Los Angeles County DA’s office because of this case. I knew on June 25, 2009 (the day Jackson died) what lawyers are arguing now. This case would receive gavel-to-gavel coverage. Now before you balk about my self-promotion, think about it, our society is obsessed with crime, obsessed with celebrity, obsessed with drama, characters, LA, so it’s the perfect story. Knowing this was going to be the biggest case of my time, I was NOT going to miss the opportunity to opine, as I actually have the skinny, the insight, and know the nuances of my former offiice. The LA District Attorney’s office -- the players, the case, the evidence, and strategies -- will all be under intense scrutiny. Who better to cut through the hype than a former DA like me?   OJ was called ‘the trial of the century,’ but that was before the world-wide-web. OJ was covered via good old fashion cameras, radio, and reporters. But that was before Nancy Grace, bloggers, tweets and status updates. And Casey proved it – minute-by minute coverage paid off with sky-high ratings.  And she wasn’t even famous. 
When everybody’s jaws finally returned to normal after the Anthony not guilty verdict, the experts began discussing what kind of impact this case would have on the jury system. I was one of them. Was I surprised by the Anthony verdict? Not really. I know what it’s like to stand up in front of a packed courtroom for a big trial. I know what it means to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and never discount the burden of proof, something I think the Florida prosecutors did.   This one is going to be big. I just hope that the DA in LA doesn’t watch too much of its own press, drink too much of their own Kool-Aid, or get too cocky, like the Florida prosecutors did. This case, while seemingly easy on the surface, is actually tough. There are many legal nuances presented by a case involving a drug like Propofol. Then, there is the question of whether Michael was responsible for his own demise or not. And even with the best lawyers, a smart judge, and a good jury, the DAs will have to do their job. And they will have to do it even better than they think.   Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor has previously said he doesn’t believe round-the-clock isolation of jurors is going to be necessary. And whether you agree or not, one must ask how much does the analysis, the talk, and the hype affect the case. Was Casey Anthony acquitted because her case got too much attention? I mean her jurors were sequestered after all. Face it people, circumstances impact all cases. Rampart haunted LAPD for years. Kobe Bryant and the DSK cases affect all rape cases. We are a knowledgeable society, and we will weigh in. But are we weighing in fairly? I mean how crazy is it - the “People versus Dr. Conrad Murray” is being dubbed, ‘The Jackson Trial.’ Michael’s family will be seated in that courtroom day-in and day-out. His parents, siblings and his children will watch, as Michael is once again center stage. His health, use of drugs, odd behaviors, and yes, the condition of his body after death, will be exposed for all to hear. TV, analysis or not, these circumstances will affect the case just as much as a camera, and yes, even Nancy Grace.  
The prosecutor in this case, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren, is a darn good lawyer. He’s fair and hard working, but in this post-Casey Anthony era, does he stand a chance? The evidence as laid out so far, seems to put Murray in a heap of trouble. But we’ve all seen what reasonable doubt can do to a jury. After Casey, I called for professional juries. The idea isn’t a new one, but it may be worth looking at. With 24 hour, seven days a week coverage of a case like this one, what pressures will Murray and his defense team face? What about the DA and his team? Can justice prevail? I don’t know about you, but I’ll be watching, tweeting, and Facebooking just as I’ve planned since 2009.  Photo credit: ...ven y siente el RUIDO 


Tuesday, August 16, 2011

'Not Guilty'

by Katherine Scardino

I have read about all I care to read about Casey Anthony. But, it appears that the news media and every other American citizen have opinions about this woman.

The bottom line is this: Twelve members of a jury listened to every single word of the testimony and examined every single piece of evidence presented by the state of Florida in an attempt to convince each of them to render a verdict of guilty to capital murder. Each of those 12 people, plus the alternates, sat in the courtroom and listened to every single word each lawyer said to them during voir dire (jury selection).


Jury selection is the only time during a trial when the jurors and the lawyers, both for the defense and for the state, get an opportunity to have a conversation. That means that if there is any part of the conversation they do not understand, the juror can stop the lawyer and ask any question he or she wants answered. Their questions sometimes include the meaning of a legal term, or it might be a question about a hypothetical situation that a lawyer presents to the group of potential jurors in an effort to educate each juror about the facts they will be deciding, without giving the specific facts about their case.

In other words, a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is not allowed–at least in Texas–to stand in front of the jury panel and tell them the facts of their particular case. The lawyer may only present facts to them in a hypothetical situation to try and determine how that specific juror feels about a certain topic or whether that juror has had any experience with that specific topic. The easiest example would be a driving-while-intoxicated trial. The defense lawyer wants to find out the drinking habits of the juror, or whether he or she is a member of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). So, the hypothetical would contain facts close to, but not exactly the same, as the case on trial.

The Casey Anthony jury was sequestered. That means they went to a hotel each night with no televisions of any kind and no newspapers. They did not listen to all the Nancy Grace hype and the other screaming “talking heads,” nor did they read any of the newspapers relaying every opinion from every goofball who appeared in Florida to stand on the street in front of the courthouse each day.

Because of the sequestration, they were forced to make a legal decision based solely on the law given to them by the lawyers and, more importantly, by the judge without the extraneous information the rest of the world got. That is the way our rules and our Constitution are set up to prevent jurors from being influenced by outside opinions and the popular news media. The Constitution enforces our laws that state an accused person should be judged based solely on the law and the facts.

So, can we please accept the fact that Ms. Anthony’s jury acted fairly and nonprejudicially, and rendered a verdict in accordance with their instructions from the judge. You do not have to agree with it, nor do you have to like it. But, it is what it is. If you will stop for a moment and remember all the exonerations we have read about within just the last year. For a while there in Texas it seemed like we were releasing people on a weekly basis from prison after many years for a crime that person did not commit. Our system is not 100-percent perfect–ask my client, Anthony Graves, who was released after 18 years on death row once it was concluded by prosecutors after a first-time only competent investigation that he was in fact innocent. Many people have been released who have spent more years locked up than Mr. Graves.

So, if we all believe Casey Anthony is guilty but the jury believed otherwise, accept the jury’s verdict and get on with your lives. The system worked perfectly here. The 12 jurors did not believe the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered (intentionally taking another person’s life) her baby girl. They rendered a verdict they believed was the right one.

Now the news media is all in an uproar about the fact that Ms. Anthony is having to return to Florida to complete her probationary period. That is not much for murder. But remember, this probation is not for murder; it is for theft–stealing her friend’s checkbook, or some such thing. You want her to be inconvenienced in some manner for taking the life of her baby. But I don’t believe this will do it for you.

Take a deep breath. Remember our Constitution and our rules that we all have to obey. And, leave Casey Anthony alone. It is over. The jury has rendered a true verdict. And, these jurors do not have to answer to anyone, and especially not to Nancy Grace or any of the other media. Their deliberation and their verdict is their secret. It is really none of our business now.

Photo Credits: turtlemom4bacon; Caveman Chuck Coker; Lee Bennet


Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Do the Media Have a Cafeteria Plan When Reporting About Missing Children?

by Stacy Dittrich

I’m guilty. The hundreds of radio, print and television reporters across the country are guilty. We are guilty of standing in the dessert line in the cafeteria, picking and choosing the more attractive dishes, while completely ignoring the entrée’s to our left that our screaming for our attention. You’re over Casey Anthony—the latest Crème Brulee. I get it. I’m over Casey Anthony. For 3 years I have been commenting on the case via radio, television, and print. I’m done. I know many of the other contributors here echo these sentiments. A brief scroll down the WCI archives shows that Casey, Caylee, Cindy and George Anthony, along with Zanny the Nanny, were mentioned an astounding 137 times.

In reflection, however, the case begs to open another discussion of why some incredibly emotional and horrific cases are ignored while others are literally blasting through every artery of the media on a daily basis. Why did we focus so intently on Casey Anthony and not others? I’ve actually heard some in the media blame Nancy Grace.

Riiiiiight.

If one woman wields that kind of power, than Nancy truly is an American superstar.

In my opinion, it’s not Nancy’s fault, but the American public’s obsession with seeing justice served—and rightly so. We’ve been dragged through so many senseless tragedies with little or no vindication (ahem, O.J.) that I truly believe the public has simply had enough and wants to start holding those responsible accountable. The problem with Casey Anthony started at the beginning. It seemed like an open and shut case; mother allegedly murders daughter, mother gets arrested, mother goes to prison for life. Unfortunately, I began to see many red flags in the beginning that made me nervous. As shallow as this sounds, Casey’s attractiveness was one of them. It may sound shallow but I have the experience to back it up. I can’t begin to count the number of jury trials I’ve attended where my attractive, female, suspect was found “not guilty.” Even more incredulous, as I spoke to jurors after, they held nothing back when telling me, “I’m sorry, but I just can’t look at that nice, sweet, girl and believe she really did that. I can’t.” (Hello, professional jurors, where are you?)

Some believe that race and religion are silent factors when bringing a horrific crime to the national forefront. I have been following a disturbing case that I’ve seen briefly touched on in the national news, but nowhere near other crimes. New York City local news has been covering it frequently, but other than that—zilch. It involves the disappearance and murder of an 8-year old Orthodox Jewish boy, Leiby Kletzky, and it is gruesome.

On July 11, 2011, the Brooklyn boy had begged and pleaded with his parents to walk home by himself from day camp–a first. The parents initially hesitated, but decided to allow Leiby (pictured left) to spread his wings a little. With obvious trepidation, Leiby’s parents not only memorized the route with him, a total of seven blocks, but they actually went through a dry run. Walking by himself for the first time, Leiby never came home. This defines a parent’s worst nightmare. Of course it gets worse; much, much, worse.


33 hours after intense searches and investigations, authorities were led to the home of Levi Aron, 35, a local hardware supply stock clerk. Nothing could have prepared them for what they found inside.

Inside Aron’s freezer, they found Leiby’s severed feet wrapped in plastic. Aron then led investigators to a Dumpster containing a red suitcase that held the remainder of Leiby’s dismembered body. Aron claimed he forgot about the feet in the freezer.

Through a series of bizarre interviews, Aron claimed that Leiby had become lost on his route home and approached him for a ride. Headed to a wedding, Aron claimed he took Leiby with him and, upon seeing the flyers for the missing boy the next day, panicked and killed him. Of course, investigators now know that Aron took Leiby back to his apartment where he supplied him with a cocktail of drugs, suffocated him, and dismembered his body. The answer to the perpetual question of why Aron committed such a heinous act is still unclear. However, investigators did remove numerous children’s items from Aron’s home including a blue child’s spoon and pink cup. Is it possible Aron had harmed more children? Police say that there is currently no evidence of that, but a look into Aron’s background screams red flags of violent behavior.

My point is, Levi Aron will never see the light of day again. He confessed, there is physical and circumstantial evidence to back up his confession, it’s a done deal. So, why should we care? I do, which is why I’m writing about it here. Do you think the media took a pass on this case because Leiby was an Orthodox Jew or was it because we know justice will be served?

Then there’s the case of Mariha Smith (pictured right), 5, an African American girl who was recently abducted and murdered in Detroit. On Sunday, July 31, 2011 Mariha was reported missing by her mother who said someone must have gone through Mariha’s bedroom window between 3 a.m. and noon while she slept. Mariha’s mother admitted to being heavily intoxicated and passed out when this occurred. Unfortunately, just hours later, Mariha’s burned body was found in an abandoned home just blocks from her own. Her skull had been crushed prior to her body being set on fire.

After investigators showed family members a surveillance video from a nearby gas station showing a man purchasing cans of gasoline, did they begin to suspect Darnell Cheatham, 20. Cheatam is the boyfriend of Mariha’s aunt. After executing a search warrant at Cheatam’s residence, investigators took him into custody, and subsequently charged him with Mariha’s murder. Justice served, but not much attention.

Are the cases chosen based on race, religion, or socioeconomic factors? Possibly, but to reiterate, I truly believe it’s about justice. In both of the above cases, it is rather clear that justice will prevail in each of these horrific and vile crimes. But, in Caylee Anthony’s case, it didn’t. What's the X factor here?

Justice certainly hasn’t prevailed in the case of missing Oregon boy, Kyron Horman, 7. The last person to see him, step-mother Terri Horman, has been investigated exhaustively but refuses to cooperate. Kyron (pictured left) still hasn’t been found and his parents continue to live in Hell. Now this is pure injustice and it’s downright appalling.


I have to submit that all of the above cases have been mentioned in the media, some more than others. The downside is that there are approximately 150-200 child stranger abductions every year across this country and the media couldn’t possibly cover them all. All races, religions, and socioeconomic factors are unfortunately covered here. Child abductions know no racism or bigotry and most of these children are probably deceased. Should a deranged lunatic walk into an elementary school and viciously murder 150 students in one mass murder the incident would scream across headlines worldwide, but spread each one out over a one year period and no one seems to pay attention to each and every one. Why?

It’s the nature of the media beast, our cafeteria mentality that picks those who will grab the public’s attention in a New York minute. Regardless of the how’s and why’s at least some of these cases are being brought to the national level. Even if it’s just one case where the life of a child is saved or we learn from it, it is truly worth it.

For those left behind, always keep them in your thoughts and prayers.


Friday, August 5, 2011

Handwriting Detective Weighs in on Casey Anthony's Script

Michelle Dresbold
 by Andrea Campbell

I am thrilled to have found guest editor: Michelle Dresbold. Michelle has been called the Sherlock Holmes of handwriting. For the past 15 years, she has been helping law enforcement agencies around the country put away the “bad guys.” 

A graduate of the training program, Michelle consults to private attorneys, police departments, and prosecutors throughout the United States. She is considered one of the top experts in the nation on handwriting identification, (including anonymous letters and suspected forgeries), personality profiling, and threat analysis. She has testified in a wide variety of cases including arson, embezzlement, voting fraud, forgery, stalking, and murder. 

Michelle has examined Casey’s Anthony's handwriting and offers insight into who Casey really is.

Casey Anthony


by Michelle Dresbold

I am a handwriting detective. As I explain in my book, Sex, Lies and Handwriting, my specialties range from handwriting identification, (including anonymous letters and suspected forgeries), to threat analysis, to personality profiling. I have testified in a wide variety of cases including arson, embezzlement, voting fraud, forgery, stalking, and murder.

The media have been inundated with news about the Casey Anthony case. The prosecutorss theory is that Anthony suffocated her daughter, Caylee, so she could be free to “live the good life.” Their case presented evidence that suggested Casey stuffed Caylee’s body in her car trunk and drove around for days before she dumped her daughter’s body in the woods near her parents' home.

Casey Anthony had originally claimed that on Monday, June 9, 2008, she left her 3-year-old daughter with nanny Zenaida Gonzalez. However, when she returned to the nanny’s Florida apartment, Caylee was missing. Casey didn’t notify the police, she said, because she did not want to worry her parents and wanted to do her own investigation. Casey’s mother, Cindy Anthony, however, became worried and five weeks after Casey had allegedly “lost” her daughter, Cindy Anthony reported her granddaughter’s disappearance to the police.

After a five-month nationwide search, Caylee’s remains were found by a meter reader. In his opening statement, defense attorney José Baez told jurors that Caylee had accidently drowned in the family’s swimming pool. He suggested that Casey’s bizarre attitude and lying was a result of her alleged sexual abuse by her father and her brother.

Recently, I reviewed documents released by prosecutors in the murder case, including jailhouse letters between Anthony and fellow inmates.  I’ve heard numerous theories about what Casey may have done and why. As I learned a long time ago, people can say whatever they want, but handwriting never lies.

As a handwriting profiler, I’m interested in what Casey's handwriting has to say.
What stands out the most to me in her handwriting is her “bubble gum” script. Bubble gum writers have letters that are almost uniformly the same height. The middle zone (the lower case letters a, c, e, i, m, n, o, r, s, u, v, w, x and the part of the other letters between the upper loops and the lower loops) of her writing is exaggerated. When the middle zone is overly large, like Casey’s, the writer has a tendency to be childlike and self-centered. These writers like to be the center of attention. It is difficult for them to delay gratification. What they see is what they want. Today. This minute. Right now!

Also, her individual letters and words have practically no space in between. This narrow spacing indicates that Casey will crowd others for attention and can take up the time and energy of those around hers. Cramped spacing is also an indicator that she sees things from a very narrow perspective as opposed to seeing the big picture.

The artistic side of the word “Cookie” shows that Casey has a creative side. However, the letters “oo” show where this creative side may be put to use. The letters “o” and “a” are the communication letters. Think of these letters as little mouths. When a writer’s a’s and o’s are open at the top, the writer likes to talk and will find it difficult to keep a secret. When they are completely closed at the top the writer can take a secret to the grave. Casey’s “o’s” in “Cookie” are quite interesting because even in the artistic version of her script she wrote the “o’s” with a slash through them? Slashes through a’s and o’s, known as “forked tongue strokes,” are signs of a liar.

Casey actually makes her “o’s” three different ways. One is the “o” with the forked tongue slash through it (as seen in the words “cookie” and “on”). The second is an extra loopy “o” (as seen in the second “o” in the word “cool”)–an indicator that she rationalizes her behavior. But the third way she makes her “o’s” may be the most telling of all. You know that the o’s and a’s that are tightly closed at the top mean that the writer is tight lipped and secretive. Casey not only closes her o at the top, she makes sure it is sealed tight by finishing it at the bottom. There is no way she could even leave a slight gap at the top. She is so secretive that she won’t even tell herself the truth. 

Besides the slashes, extra loopy loops, and her overly closed o’s, Casey does something else that indicates that she is good at telling whoppers. Her writing looks readable; however, if you take words out of context many are ambiguous or unreadable. Look at the word between “So I” and “have this Super cool pen” in the first line underneath the word “cookie”. Can you read it? See if you can read the words labeled “A”, “B”, “C” or “D”.  In context, I’m sure you could easily make them out. But, out of context, what are they? People who are expert at tricky writing are like magicians. They make you see what they want you to see. They leave the interpretation of events vague and unclear, so that they have an out when they need it.

Casey Anthony also uses ambiguous letters in her signature. Her first name is spelled “CASEY.” So, given the fact that Casey knows how to spell her own name, why does it look like “CAESY”? That, my friends, is ambiguous or “tricky” writing.

Look closer at the signature and you will notice that the “a” in Casey’s first name is blown out of proportion. When a lowercase “a” is extra large it indicates that the writer is very concerned about his or her physical appearance. And, if you look carefully, you will see that there is a sharp point inside of Casey’s “a.” That point is called a “stinger.” Writers with stingers tend to be extreme in their sexual lifestyles – they either abstain from sex entirely, or they become sexaholics.

Also, do you see that Casey made her last name into a great big “X”? When a writer’s signature or personal pronoun “I” turns into an “X,” it shows that the writer feels as if his or her life has been ruined. These sad “x’ed-out” people worry and fantasize about death. Sometimes these gloomy thoughts are about other people’s deaths and sometimes these morbid feelings about the writer’s own demise.

Many people have asked if Casey's writing shows that she has been abused. It’s hard to say for sure if a person has been abused. However, she does have a number of signs that suggest she has major trust issues, including, but not limited to, the letter “c” in the word “cool.” The letter “c” is the trust letter. The more the letter “c” is closed the more the writer is closed off and less she can trust. Notice that Casey’s “c” is almost completely closed. Her narrow, compressed spacing also stems from insecurity and fear. And, of course, the extreme secretiveness that we saw in the letter o shows, that like many people of abuse, they feel it is imperative to never let their “secret” out.

If you’d like to learn more about what you can tell from deciphering handwriting or to read my communication analysis of Casey Anthony’s statement to the police, please check out my website: michelledresbold.com.

About Michell's Book:
She is the author of Sex, Lies, and Handwriting, published by Simon and Schuster’s Free Press, and writes a weekly syndicated column, "The Handwriting Doctor," which appears in newspapers throughout the US. Michelle is also an accomplished artist who has shown her work in galleries and museums across the country. 

She has been featured on the "CBS Early Show," the "Today Show," the "FOX Morning Show with Mike and Juliette," the "O’Reilly Factor," FOX News, The History Channel and The ID Channel. 

Her press includes: Pittsburgh Magazine, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Philadelphia Magazine, The Washington Post, MarieClaire Magazine, Martha Stewart’s Blueprint Magazine, Woman’s World magazine, Psychology Today, and The Ladies Home Journal. 

Michelle graduated with honors from the University of Michigan with a degree in fine arts and psychology.

For more write to: info@michelledresbold.com


Saturday, July 30, 2011

Mystified and Miffed


I cannot for the life of me figure out why certain cases capture the media’s attention, and thus the public’s attention, while others do not.

Why aren’t all of the murdered and missing children, and all of the mothers and fathers accused of killing their children, covered by the press? Why isn’t each case newsworthy, a cause in and of itself, a cry for justice? How do the powers that be choose among the murdered and the missing to decide which cases are anointed to celebrity status? Only the chosen few accused or their victims become notorious. For example, the murders of Laci and Connor Peterson, the abduction of Elizabeth Smart, the death of Caylee Anthony, the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann, became worthy of a nation’s time and attention. And yet other victims go to their silent graves unmarked by a press hell-bent on feeding the public’s voracious appetite for the tragic and the awful.

Does the victim have to be a certain race, economic status, and have a certain “pretty” factor?

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to which cases get chosen and which cases do not, nor does there seem to be any explanation for the public’s fixation over certain cases to the point of national obsession.

I no longer believe the public is following a case to get an up close look into our criminal justice system. Instead, it seems to be more of a voyeuristic feeding frenzy on someone else’s pain, perhaps obviating the need to feel our own. Or perhaps it is a lynch mob mentality that without our system of justice would have people taking to the streets to stone or hang those deemed worthy of loathing. 

I was taken by surprise over the public’s growing fascination with the Casey Anthony case that culminated in an inexplicable fixation. Not only could I not understand the attention this case received, I could not understand why this case, and not another case.

And now that the case is over, the recent offer by Hustler Magazine to pay half a million dollars to an acquitted defendant for a nude photo shoot, is both revolting and baffling. I suppose in our celebrity worshipping culture, it is not surprising that Ms. Anthony would try to cash in on her ill-gotten fame. She has reportedly solicited a million and a half dollars for television interviews. But it is surprising that anyone would actually pay it. I condemn those who would buy Ms. Anthony “story” in order to heap more on an already saturated public.

We have binged enough on Casey Anthony and it is time to stop rewarding her with fortune or even more fame.

I wish that all murdered and missing children receive the same feverish thirst for justice that Caylee Anthony does, and that the public cashes in on their buying power by developing an appetite for the greater good, rather than the lowest common denominator.


Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Rushing to Judgment from Coast to Coast


The dust is just beginning to settle from three of the most explosive legal cases since O.J. rode in the Bronco on the 405, long before we knew anything about “Carmageddon.”

First, there is Casey Anthony, where once again our jury system has left people outside the deliberation room scratching their heads.

Then there’s the DSK debacle. Dominque Strauss-Kahn’s accuser told her story publicly, and while I find it compelling and convincing, it won’t matter for the case; it is O-V-E-R.

And in Los Angeles, law enforcement’s latest example of dropping the ball is the case of the wrong bad guy arrested in the brutal attack on that fan at Dodger Stadium. After arresting a suspect, and telling just about everyone they "had their man," police have now let that suspect go, only to arrest two others, who are what they now call the ‘real’ suspects. Some say, “Hey, he was on parole. No charges filed so no harm, no foul.” Well, maybe–or maybe not. 

If you don’t think these news stories affect all the other run-of-the-mill cases in courtrooms each and every day, think again. From my days in the Los Angeles DA’s office, I was forced to clean up a ton of debris left behind by every quick-acting, non thinking, big-mouth prosecutor or police officer. During the Rampart scandal that tainted the LAPD, I had to hear defense attorneys drone on during voir dire about whether ‘police officers can be trusted.'

After the Duke Lacrosse case, where a corrupt district attorney turned a sex crimes case into a three-ring circus, I had to listen to defense attorneys make arguments comparing my legit victim to the phony victim in that case–or even worse, comparing me to DA Mike Nifong.

In the Dodger beating case, defense attorneys are already picking holes in the case against the ‘new’ suspects.  As a defense attorney, I’d do the same. If cops didn’t get right the first time, why would this case hold water? In fact, there is no doubt in my mind in light of the DSK case as well as the Dodger fan-beating case, courts and jurors will be inundated with the themes of ‘rush to judgment’ with either direct or indirect reference to these two cases. So, what went wrong, and why the rush to judgment?

It’s easy to blame the media. Rightly so, I have appeared on and watched many a cable panel try, convict and sentence before the first commercial break. Is this what we want from our justice system? But blame the media all you want, it’s the officials who make the decisions and it’s the officials' words on whom we rely.

As a prosecutor and defense attorney, we constantly have to deal with the fall out of the media. People blame the media yet it’s the public that feeds the media machine. So, I ask you why are we so obsessed with these cases, are the officials forced to give answers, and is the rush to judgment simply a rush to appease the media watching public?


Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Katherine Scardino

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a tough burden for the State to meet. The article written by Andrea Campbell and published on Women in Crime last Friday, which discussed the many different types of evidence that may be presented in a criminal trial in the United States, within the context of the Casey Anthony trial. The State may obtain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the defendant, but is not tangible evidence to connect the defendant directly. In other words, there are no crime scene fingerprints, DNA, eyewitnesses to the crime, etc... pointing directly to the accused as the culprit. The jury may render a verdict of guilty based solely on such circumstantial evidence if the jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence is credible and proven. But, I do not want to write another Casey Anthony article. Let’s look at evidence another way.

I wrote an article a few weeks ago about the recent flurry of powerful men who had been accused of, to say the least, low morals - or as I wrote - acting like pigs. Along with others, I mentioned Dominique Strauss-Kahn and even violated my own rule by lumping him in with those other men, mainly politicians, who seemed to have a problem keeping their pants zipped. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a little different in that he was actually accused of committing a sexual assault against a maid in his hotel. His position rose to a higher level of accountability and a higher level of loss. He was not looking at an angry, vengeful divorce but the possible loss of his freedom and certainly his reputation and stature in the world.

I think the circumstances surrounding Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest and subsequent public disclosure in shackles are an embarrassment to the United States. We pride ourselves on the basic tenet that here, in the good old USA, a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. You hear this constantly. Is that really true? I can answer that as a resounding “No." I can stand in front of a jury and state that each juror must believe that the accused person, standing before you prior to the jury hearing all of the evidence, is an innocent person. But, the mere fact that there is a person accused of misconduct standing in the courtroom around a counsel table with prosecutors, a court reporter, a judge and now a jury, is a weight that bears on the side of the prosecutor. The accused should not be judged in the news media like Mr. Strauss-Kahn was. We should never have arrested him without having done the smallest bit of investigation to at least make the evidence appear credible. 

In Federal court, the general rule is that when a Federal Grand Jury indicts a citizen of the United States, the US Attorney’s office has already conducted an investigation sufficient to believe that the accused is actually guilty. Don’t get me wrong - that does not mean that he is truly guilty, but it should mean that the US Attorney has enough evidence to get in front of a trial jury. 

The New York prosecutor jumped the gun on Mr. Strauss- Khan. The media reported that he was hoping to run for Mayor of New York and wanted the publicity. I do not profess to know his reasons with certainty. My complaint with the manner of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest is that there appears to have been zero work done on the credibility of the State’s evidence prior to his arrest. If the district attorney had done a small amount of investigation, he would have uncovered what he now is stating publicly - that the alleged victim is not a credible person. That does not mean the act did not occur. It simply means that he cannot take his case to a jury because he does not have the right kind of evidence that he can support.

So, what will happen now? The district court judge released Mr. Strauss-Kahn from house arrest. I do not know what other bail restrictions were lowered for him, but the dismissal from the prosecution should be coming soon. Where does that leave the United States? How about red-faced?

Is this a lesson for those of us who appeared so eager to accept the maid’s story as credible? It is easy to jump immediately to a conviction in cases of sexual assault. After all, why would a woman lie about that? In this case it could be money, publicity, attention, a twisted sense of need, or a combination of all of those things. If, in fact, a dismissal of all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn occurs, as seems likely, we owe this man an apology.

Which brings me back, briefly, to Casey Anthony and the burden of proof. In cases where the State is trying to terminate a parent’s parental rights - the most serious case in the world of Family Law - the burden of proof is “clear and convincing evidence.” That evidence is weighed by the jury and the side who has the greater weight of evidence wins. That is a lower burden of proof than in a criminal case. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a phrase that is not defined in our Penal Code. It is not the CSI phrase that is used in error - “without a shadow of doubt." Each juror must look at the evidence and form his or her own opinion whether the evidence reaches the highest burden of proof in our country, that of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my opinion that a capital murder trial where death is an option should not be decided on evidence that is loose or circumstantial. Apparently, the Casey Anthony jury agreed.

So, those of you who are amazed at the verdict, think again. The State decided to seek the death penalty against a woman without having evidence that rose to the highest level of proof, and these twelve individuals analyzed this evidence carefully and all twelve, unanimously, agreed that the proper verdict was not guilty. That does not mean she is innocent. It means the State could not give them enough evidence with which to convict, evidence that rose to the highest level of proof, which was their accepted burden. The jury did what they all believed was right.

Let’s put Mr. Strauss-Kahn and Ms. Anthony together. Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s case should have been investigated enough for the prosecutor to see whether he had sufficient evidence that could rise to that level of proof. The New York prosecutor has publicly admitted he has a problem with his evidence. The prosecutors in the Casey Anthony trial looked at their circumstantial case and believed that they could convince a jury that their evidence did rise to that level of proof. They just made a serious mistake because they underestimated the citizens who they helped choose to render a verdict.

photo credits: Parti socialiste, billaday