Was a Fraud Perpetrated Not Just by Casey but by George and Cindy too?

By Michelle Golland, Psy.D.

I begin this article being very clear that I am not a lawyer and I do not look at cases or tragic situations within families from the perspective of examining evidence for trial.  As a Clinical Psychologist I observe behavior, actions and narrative to get underneath the story that is unfolding before me whether in my practice or as a media psychologist.  I have been working with victims of trauma and sexual abuse for over 2 decades.  My experience and clinical intuition told me as early as September 2008 that there was something deeply and characterlogically wrong not only with Casey Anthony but also with her parents George and Cindy Anthony.

Many solid clinicians have been able to see that Casey Anthony meets all the characteristics of someone with Borderline Personality Disorder.  Which is a chronic personality disorder that impairs functionality and has a negative impact on all relationships.  These individuals are manipulative, charismatic, lack empathy and create chaos in their lives as well as those around them.

The question is how did Casey Anthony become the person she is today.  For some by simply asking this question we clinicians are seen as terrible evil people blaming the poor parents of this crazy psychopathic person/murderer.  This is the problem with the media and the sound bite culture that really doesn’t want to hear the long tragic truth of how a vulnerable innocent child becomes the Casey Anthony we have seen in the courtroom.  We want to only pity George and Cindy, who of course are in pain and have tragically lost their granddaughter Caylee.

This is what we, as psychologists, know about Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). The most critical factor in developing this disorder is poor or uniformed parenting.  These include repeated emotional, physical or sexual abuse by someone within the family or outside the family itself.  Also, inconsistent care and unsupportive care or early separation from one or both parents can contribute to the formation of this personality structure.  We also find a parent who has failed to protect the child from repeated abuse by the other parent, another family member or an outsider.

In watching George and Cindy in front of the media they seemed either coolly detached from their daughter Casey or ragingly connected in a defensive posture.  I had no doubt that Casey Anthony had severe emotional problems when she lied about her daughters disappearance and because of her strange and immature responses around where she was during those notorious 31 days.  I also noted odd behavior by her parents, and it felt to me that they knew more about Caylee’s disappearance than they were revealing.  

The facts that came out in the case regarding George and Cindy’s denial of Casey’s pregnancy, as well as the perfect persona that Cindy Anthony seemed to want to show to people around her, as well as her undercurrent of rage which bubbled to the surface on many occasions showed me that she was a narcissistic mother who was self-involved and lacked empathy.  

The jailhouse letters in which Casey began to reveal the possibility of sexual abuse made sense in the reporting of the incidents and also her hedging around them as well.  Often with victims of sexual abuse when they begin to reveal the shameful family secrets it is let out a little bit at a time to see how they will be responded to before they keep going on to say what the whole truth is for them.  What really made it clear that something was not right in the Anthony home was Cindy’s response to Casey, “So that is why you are a whore?”  This is sadly a classic response by a mother not wanting to face what she may actually already know herself.  This was also reinforced by Lee Anthony’s testimony about the extremely conflictual relationship between Casey and their mother.  Lee’s testimony also reinforced to me clinically that this was a deeply disturbed family with each person struggling for power and control wrapped with rage, anger and confusion.

George and Cindy Anthony's various interviews in the media while “looking” for Caylee felt contrived, confusing and strangely self-focused (but not on their granddaughter) with a martyrdom quality that didn’t sit right with my clinical gut.  In watching the interviews with Tim Miller, who investigated Caylee’s disappearance early on in August 2008, his reactions appear to be the most convincing that something was being covered up and not only by Casey but by George and Cindy as well.

It is my impression that George did know that Caylee was dead close to when either the “accident or murder” occurred in June 2008.  His actions around deflecting Cindy and her brother seem odd and show me a consciousness of knowledge and also a desire to keep distance from the truth of her being dead.  His actions when her car that smelled of a “dead body” at the tow yard, which he testified under oath that he did believe it smelled like a human decomposing body, also seemed suspicious to say the least, and guilty of trying to hide evidence at it’s worst.  George, a seasoned former detective, did not call the police worried and sick that something has happened to his daughter or grandchild.  George drove that car home and parked it in the garage.  It was Cindy who called the police hysterical.  George had gone into work.  

It seems to me from the variety of interviews before and after Caylee’s remains were found in December 2008 that George, Cindy and Casey were all possibly spinning a variety of stories to try to keep themselves and the Anthony name clean of any wrong doing.  George and Cindy appear to be in part fighting for the image of themselves and their family.  As with narcissistic and possibly an incestuous family dynamic within the Anthony home they are doing just what that type of family does, which is to deflect the obvious (like Casey’s pregnancy), protect their own image as good parents all the while trying to maintain that they are actually looking for a live Caylee.  

In part, what the Anthony’s may fear the most at this point is an investigation into the fraud that there daughter perpetrated in keeping the “Caylee is Missing” story going until her remains were found and identified in December 2008.  If my clinical observations are correct about George and Cindy and what seems to be their own knowledge of and active participation in this enormous lie and manipulation upon the police, investigators and the country maybe, just maybe they will be held accountable financially and morally as much as Casey is at this point in the eyes of the public.

Tweet

Casey's Future Not As Profitable As She May Think

by Stacy Dittrich

Many are speculating what happens next for Casey Anthony as her date to be set free draws near. I predict they let her out a few days early without alerting the media for security purposes. You can bet your roll of duct tape that this Lord of the Rings fairy (sorry, can’t get past the pointed ears) has her future completely mapped out. I’m pretty confident that the following conversation took place between Tinkerbell Casey and Jose Biased upon the not guilty verdict—or something similar. Just imagine the two of them sitting alone in a room, Casey smiling from pointed ear to pointed ear.

Casey: Jose, I can’t thank you enough (grabs tissue and dabs at a non-existent tear). I knew this would turn out this way, I just knew it!

Jose: You can thank me later, doll face (winks), you know, like you used to back in the old days.

Casey: Gawd, this is really happening. When we decided to throw my dad under the bus, I never thought they’d buy it—I really didn’t! I mean, I knew the jury looked like a bunch of morons, but it turned out they really are! Pinch me. I must be dreaming!

Jose: Ya know, Case, your mom did help you out a little when she lied about the chloroform searches. You really should thank her when you get the chance.

Casey: Oh, please! To Hell with her! The only thing she’s done for me was teach me how to lie like a pro…maybe I’ll send her a card for that? On second thought, no way. I’m famous now; I won’t need their house and money anymore.

Jose: Which brings me to the future…I’ve already got offers coming in. What do you think you’ll do?

Casey: I definitely want to have more children—that’s for sure! But, believe me, I’ve learned my lesson! From here on out, when I go clubbing, I am definitely going to use less chloroform on the kids. I swear I will never going through this again (shudders). Maybe I’ll try using Benadryl first? Definitely no more duct tape—I’ll switch to electrical. So, what are the offers? A million dollar book deal? Movie? I’m so excited!

Jose: Whoa! Slow down there, Superstar! (Laughs) We’ll get to that! You never told me what you thought about the “grief expert” I put on the stand. I can’t even believe I was able to pull THAT one off!

Casey: Where’d you find her?

Jose: She was just a homeless nutcase I found wandering around Jay Blanchard Park mumbling to herself. I cleaned her up, bought her a Mocha Soy Latte—dumped half a dozen Valium into it—and told her what to say on the stand. Voila! It worked! (Slaps knee).

Casey: You truly are a genius, Jose. I mean, attending the third worst law school in the country and having a criminal record, how you pulled this off is simply unbelievable.

Jose: Again, you can thank me later (winks again). Now, let’s get to those offers. I’ve got a book deal from Beaufort Books—they published OJ’s, a guaranteed hit—an offer for a featured stripper tour in Gary, Indiana, a 3-movie porn deal from Murderous Mom’s Porn Company and, “the big one,”…are you ready?

Casey: Tell me! Tell me!

Jose: Charlie Sheen wants you to be his newest Goddess!

Casey: Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Charlie Sheeeeeeen! (Jumps up and dances around). I can’t believe it! (Pauses). Um, what’s a Goddess?

Jose: Oh, I forgot, you’ve been out of touch for awhile. I’ll fill you in on the deets later, but isn’t this exciting!

Casey: Yes! Tell me! How many millions?

Jose: Uh, well, you see, it’s not exactly millions…the total of the offers comes to $8,000.

Casey: (Smile fading, Casey becomes angry and rises in her chair) $8,000!! That’s it! I killed my daughter and all I get is $8,000! What is the matter with you? I’m bigger than OJ! I’m getting letters from millionaires with marriage proposals and all you can do is $8,000! (Picks up nearest chair). 

Jose: Casey, calm down! Put the chair down! Listen! If you knock off another kid in the next year or so, I promise I’ll get you the millions! I promise! Maybe we can get you on Celebrity Rehab for a murder addiction…just please calm down!

Casey: That’s better, (puts chair down). We need to be realistic about this though. I could probably get away with killing just one more—but after that, I might actually go to jail, so you better stick to your word!

... Now, most importantly, where can I find a sperm donor?

Jose: You’re looking at him, sweetheart.

**Okay, so maybe it didn’t happen exactly that way. But, I’ll bet I’m pretty close… sometimes dark subjects require a little humor to make it through.

Tweet

Arguments in Favor of the Casey Anthony Verdict

by Pat Brown

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Tweet

Casey's Freedom May Be The Worst Punishment

by Dr. Lillian Glass

I, along with the rest of the world, am livid that Casey was found not guilty and will be released into the free world. After hearing that juror number three stated that the jurors were sick to their stomach and cried, I felt sick to my stomach hearing what she said. When she said that not guilty does not mean innocent, I realized that the wrong jury was chosen for justice to be served. Not guilty should mean innocent, and if she and the rest of the jury believed Casey was not innocent they needed to come back with a guilty verdict.

Eleven hours is not enough time to weigh all the information in a six-week trial. Juror number three and an alternate said that the Prosecution didn’t prove their case. They did not tell how her toddler Caylee died. I think the juror didn’t look at all the data. I think the prosecution did tell how she died, in my view. If they would have spent more than 11 hours they would have known this.

Based on what the alternate said and now juror number three, they liked defense attorney Jose Baez better. And please stop accusing me of loving Jose Baez and being partial to him. I only report what I see. He has presented himself well since day one, and even prosecutor Jeff Ashton said that on his media tour. Whether you like it or not, Baez came across very likable to the jury as opposed to Ashton. The bottom line is they listened to him and what he had to say and they bought it. In fact, the alternate said that the jury didn’t like it when George Anthony argued with Baez.

People do not realize the power of body language and communication. Well, here it is in action. They liked Jose Baez more and that is why they went with what he said. That is why Casey Anthony is going free on Sunday, July 17. Look at Scott Peterson. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Why couldn’t this happen to Casey? The reason boils down to body language and communication skills of the attorneys.

I, along with everyone else, am also livid that Casey will become a millionaire after she is released. But even if she sells photos of herself and Caylee, and even if she appears on shows, there are a lot of people who will rebel and boycott. Apparently Paradigm Entertainment in Beverly Hills signed her and had to drop her immediately because of the public complaints.

Sadly, there will be people who will offer her book and movie deals. She may be offered money for interviews through a third party so it looks like they had nothing to do with paying her for the interview. She may even make money selling Caylee dolls for which her lying mother Cindy got the trademark. Foreign entities may pay her handsomely for her interviews and photo shoots. 

Since Casey loves attention, loves to showcase her body and has no sexual inhibitions, she may very well take a porn company up on their offer. This would no doubt be in the millions of dollars. However, Steve Hirsch at Vivid Entertainment felt the pressure of even possible death threats and loss of his fan and customer base after he offered Casey a million dollars for an XXX Rated movie and quickly reneged on it. I am sure that the public’s pressure will continue with anyone who offers her money.

If mainstream TV shows put her on and interview her, the public will transfer their hatred toward Casey onto them.They will boycott any program or station that has her on television. Even if film projects arise people will boycott them. The public will not stand for her capital gain. There will be protests and threats and they will escalate. Casey will not live in peace for one moment. She may have been better off in prison where there would be more protection for her than there would be on the outside. On death row, there would be even more protection.

Now there are more people to hate her, and anything she does will be met with hatred and protest, and even possible violence. No one will ever hire her. No one will ever buy a book by her because they will boycott a book that is no doubt filled with lies. Even if she goes to the grocery store or shopping for clothes she will be met with protesters and taunts. Anyone with whom she associates or whom she dates will be taunted and regarded as a villain. If her parents are now receiving death threats for their lies and possible perceived involvement, can you imagine what will happen to Casey?

As Baez, Mason and Ms. Simms move on with their own lives and on to other cases, Casey will quickly discover that they are not her friends after all. They will want to distance themselves from her as they too experience harassment.

She can’t travel because she will be followed and harassed. Restaurants will kick her out like they did OJ Simpson. Neighbors will rebel. The clubs she once loved and frequented won’t allow her in them. She will discover that she will be prisoner in her own home. She will never have a moment of peace. People will protest outside her home forever. They may damage her vehicles. No security can stop this. By the time the protesters get through with Casey, she may wish she was sitting in a jail cell.

Tweet

Playing Chicken with Arsenic

by Deborah Blum

If I were to pick an element that just about everyone recognizes as a poison, it would be arsenic (As). As a crumbly compound called “white” arsenic or arsensic trioxide (AsO3) it became so popular as a 19th century homicidal weapon – think Mary Ann Cotton and her 20 or so victims - that it eventually earned the nickname “inheritance powder.”

Its murderous qualities have given it a starring role in successful plays or movies (Arsenic and Old Lace), in best-selling stories of murder and betrayal, such as Dorothy Sayer’s 1930 crime classic, Strong Poison, or the more recent best seller, A Reliable Wife, with its wonderfully clinical descriptions of chronic poisoning symptoms.

In fact, a person can survive low-level arsenic poisoning for quite some time. But because of the way it damages cells – breaking apart the structures that allow cellular respiration - it turns out to be a quite dangerous carcinogen.* This has been demonstrated, especially, in countries where elemental arsenic permeates rocks at high levels and seeps into ground water. In Bangladesh, for instance, a program of well-drilling begun in the 1970s, literally created an epidemic of arsenic-related cancers.

And yet, for more than 60 years, the federal regulators have approved arsenic additives to poultry feed in the United States, partly to control parasites and partly because they chemically improve the appearance of packaged chicken and turkey parts, pinking them up for consumer approval. Those of us who prefer less obviously toxic material in our chicken buckets – and this includes me – have been advocating that we rethink this policy.

At the time, I wasn’t really expecting much to change. But as it turns out, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, which makes the arsenic-laced additive roxarsone, has decided to suspend its sales. Why, you wonder, after all this time? It turns out that the industry argument for keeping the compound into chicken feed was that it was a better form of arsenic, not the ever-evil inorganic white arsenic, but a less toxic material rather tidily bound up with carbon (so, in this version, an organic compound) and hydrogen.

In fact, organic arsenic is definitely less hazardous than its inorganic (carbon-free) cousin. But tests now indicate that it may convert to the more lethal inorganic form as chickens and other fowl metabolize the compound. We know this because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stepped up and ran some very nicely controlled tests showing that the bodies of birds that ate roxarsone-loaded food were consistently higher in white arsenic than those that ate feed without the additive.

As a result, Pfizer–or more specifically, its subsidiary, Alpharma, will suspend sales of roxarsone in 30 days while further tests are conducted. You’ll notice that no one is acting as if this is a major health emergency–which it isn’t. These are tiny levels of arsenic. Still–there’s a common sense health issue here–it’s always better with a metallic poison like arsenic to keep exposure to a minimum because it tends to stay in the body and could eventually add up to something more troubling.

Also, as it turns out, due to such additives poultry farms have been leaching out arsenic-contaminated wastes. The advocacy position has not been panicky, but it has been–rightly, I think–that this represents the unnecessary addition of a famed poison to the food supply.

So it’s gratifying to see the system work–or at least start to work–toward eliminating this particular additive. The FDA ran the appropriate tests; the pharmaceutical company responded as it should. The New York Times, however, pointed out that it could well be a rare triumph given our current political direction: The roxarsone study is a triumph for agency scientists but one unlikely to be repeated very often. The agency asked for $183 million in additional funds for food safety efforts next year, but House Republicans have instead proposed cutting $87 million.

Not that the House Republicans have ever listened to me, but my vote is for restoring those funds. Not to sound radical here but we need more research to help us navigate the world of industrial chemicals. Not less. And my vote is also that roxarsone stays off the market. Again, not to sound radical, but we need less arsenic in our diets. Not more.

Arsenic is so destructive that, in fact, researchers are considering several different mechanisms for the way it might cause cancer. It may create further destruction by generating reactive oxygen molecules. There’s some suggestion that it inhibits DNA repair enzymes. There may be other damaging pathways. All of which reminds us to approach with caution.

Poultry Farm photo credit  

Tweet

Defining Features

by Lisa R. Cohen

For the last two years, I’ve been in and out of prison. I’m out now, and have something to show for it – a documentary film I directed and produced called “Serving Life” that will premiere on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) on July 28. I’ll be writing about it in my next few blogs. It’s been two years in the making, and I’m mighty proud of our small production team’s heroic efforts. You can watch the promo for it here.

The film, executive produced and narrated by Academy Award winner Forest Whitaker, led us to the infamous Louisiana State Penitentiary, otherwise known as Angola, aka “the Alcatraz of the South.”

I happen to have been to Angola many times in the past, and I know the place better than many. The 26 mile property, contained on three sides by the Mississippi River (except when it floods the levies there as it did last month) is an unearthly world unto itself, a throwback to a long ago time when Angola actually was a plantation, worked by forced emigrés from the African nation it was named for.

My first visit to the maximum security prison was over 15 years ago, and when I arrived this time around, on a sweltering July day, for a week of preliminary shooting, some things had changed. Since the ‘90s, under the current Warden, Angola has had so many outside visitors, they’ve built guest cottages on the premises. So this time we literally moved into the prison. Every morning we’d leave our cozy four bedroom cabin, overlooking a lake filled with with cedar stumps and sinister looking alligators, and head to the prison hospital.

There, tucked away in a corner of a chronic care ward, a group of inmates staffed the prison hospice. Day after day, these volunteers walked the chain length enclosed path from their dorms to the hospital, to wipe a dying man’s fevered brow, change his diaper, and, finally, to hold his hand while he takes his last breath. It’s a burn-out job. In fact it’s not a job at all, it’s all-volunteer. At Angola inmates work every day; the volunteers come to hospice before and afterwards. So it’s no surprise there’s a constant need for fresh recruits.

Our mission was to follow a new crop of inmate volunteers–watch them get picked, get trained, and then find out whether they were up to the task. If a hardened criminal can be taught to perform the ultimate act of compassion, what excuse do the rest of us have?

By last summer we were in full production. That meant weeks on end watching as these men tested themselves. What they learned about themselves, we did too, and the results were both chilling and life-affirming.

The first day at the hospital, I met probably a few dozen inmates. They all looked exactly the same to me, even though at Angola they dress in street clothes, a kind of informal uniform of jeans and colorful t-shirts that advertise the various prison clubs they belong to. But their faces all blurred together, impersonal, hard-lived, and I could only identify them by their charges–murderers mostly, armed robbers, a heroin-lifer, and multiple drug offenders.

As the days passed, though, personalities emerged, and pretty soon these men defined themselves–by their past criminal acts, their current struggle to redefine themselves, and their hopes for the future. (And they all maintain hope, even the ones who are destined to die at Angola, perhaps in a hospice bed.)

I met their children, their sisters, their brothers (some serving time in another part of the prison). I watched them recoil with disgust as they started training, but then come to embrace the most grueling parts of the work. I watched them make each other laugh– and me too–because that’s what you do in real life even in the darkest times.

I spent this week filming on the start of another venture, just the first days of a long, long haul. On Monday I sat in a room in Nashville and listened as a group of women bared their painful pasts. On Monday they all looked the same to me, just like Robert and "Animal" and Stephen did two years ago.

But by yesterday, as I said goodbye and headed for the airport, I’d begun to know their stories of courage and survival. These women were taking shape to me, and their message was that much more powerful. It made me realize, once again, that this is why I do it. And that getting the chance to pass on those stories can make us all a little more human.

Tweet

Vicious Streak of Casey Anthony Defense Team

by Diane Fanning

Defense attorney Jose Baez displayed a vicious streak of cruelty in the courtroom Wednesday during the Casey Anthony trial. He seemed to suppress a bubble of diabolical glee as he tried to trip up his client's father. The direct examination brought to mind someone stabbing pin after pin into a voodoo doll representing his enemy.

Baez mocked George's suicide attempt, ridiculed his emotional responses to Caylee's disappearance and death, and accused him of child sexual molestation.

Baez's questions were tricky, like the old stand-up comedy line, "When did you stop beating your wife?" He used that tactic again and again. Baez pointed to George's July 2008 statement to police where he described his experiences smelling decomposition for 10 years when he was a law enforcement officer. Baez zeroed in on the event in the woods, where a volunteer team searched. Then he asked George how he knew his granddaughter's body would be found in the woods.

Baez referred to the Anthony's many media appearances and asked, "All those media appearances stopped when the allegations of abuse came up, didn't they?" George fired back. "I believe, sir, that was done by you, sir."

At another point, after George denied sexually abusing his daughter, Baez asked, "You, of course, would never admit to molesting your child, would you?" George denied abusing his daughter.

Throughout the ordeal, George Anthony cried over his granddaughter Caylee. And he stood up for her. When Baez asked him about this public protestations and belief in his daughter Casey's innocence, George told the court he did not want to believe, at that time, that his daughter was capable of killing her daughter.

George insisted that he wanted to talk to media about his missing granddaughter and other missing children. He said, "Unfortunately, it seemed, every time the media came around, the focus was on my daughter and not on my granddaughter Caylee."

Before George took the stand, Casey's mother, Cindy Anthony, demonstrated a change of attitude, too. It seemed to surprise Baez that Cindy was no longer willing to lie for the defense. She denied ever knowing anything about her son Lee visiting Casey's bedroom at night.

Maybe they now both clearly understand that the most important matter before the court is justice for Caylee.

Fanning is the author or Mommy's Little Girl, the first book released about the Anthony case.

Tweet

Trials: Truth, Expectation and Reality

by Holly Hughes

As much of the country watches transfixed, the Casey Anthony trial lumbers on. For a host of reasons, this trial has caught the attention of viewers who wouldn’t normally take the time to get caught up in these very public high profile cases. As a legal commentator, I have been privileged to cover almost every day of this spectacle for one program or another. As I watch it unfold, I am struck once again by the reality that at the end of the day we will still not have the answers we seek.

I was a felony prosecutor for ten years in metropolitan Atlanta. Needless to say, we were a busy office. I handled homicides, hate crimes and high-profile cases. I have taken to trial and to task a host of serial rapists, spree killers, armed robbers and death penalty defendants. I am acutely aware of the old adage that “a trial is a search for the truth.” However, I think most of the public tends to forget the middle of that phrase, “a search.” Any good trial attorney will tell you that by the time the verdict comes in we have usually only uncovered a fraction of the truth, and it is usually the truth according to one side. Despite our best investigative efforts there are just some things we will never know.

So many court watchers have tuned in to this trial to get the answers. Answers to the questions we have all been asking for three years now. How can a loving mother not report her child missing? How can that same mother go out and party like a rock star while her little girl is missing? How can she continuously lie to the very people who are trying to help her find her missing child?

Since the blockbuster opening by defense attorney Jose Baez, we now have a whole host of other questions. If this was indeed an accident, why would you let your client rot in jail for three years? If this was indeed an accident, why would you let your client face the death penalty? If your client was so sexually abused as a child that she turned into a liar of epic proportions, why would you not welcome the opportunity to have the state’s psychiatrists examine her?

As I watch this tragedy progress through its next phase, I know that when it all comes to its sad conclusion we still will not have the answers we seek. I fear, however, that most of the general public is still watching with unrealistic expectations. They want to believe that there is a reasonable explanation for what happened to this precious little girl. They want to believe that there must be a reasonable explanation for how a family becomes this dysfunctional. Ultimately, we will see only what they want us to see. That’s a hard pill for most people to swallow. It is, however, the difference between expectation and reality when it comes to criminal trials. We want answers. It is the natural human curiosity when we encounter such inexplicable behavior as we have seen in this defendant and her family. Sadly, we will all be disappointed when the jury files out to deliberate and there is no more evidence to be entered.

I used to tell all of my victims at the beginning of the process, “I will fight like hell to get you justice but I won’t be able to get you answers to all of your questions.” Of course, the biggest question of all is, “Why?” I also told them no matter what answer was given to that question, it wouldn’t be good enough.

I have yet to come across an answer as to why human beings can murder, rape and rob each other that satisfies me. People used to ask me what I did for a living when I was a prosecutor and I would tell them “I wade around in the depths of human degradation all day long.” That was the most accurate and honest description I could come up with to explain spending my days looking at autopsy photos and asking little five year old children, “what did daddy do to you?”

The truth is that you didn’t meet me unless and until some terrible tragedy had been thrust upon you.

So, as we watch with a mixture of horrified curiosity and sad dread, we must all keep in mind that at the end of this all too real human drama we will have more questions than answers. We must not set our expectations too high or we will come away feeling cheated and deflated.

That is the sad difference between expectation and reality. That is the world of a criminal prosecutor. It is by far the best and most fulfilling job I ever held. And yet, it broke my heart every day like nothing else ever could.

Tweet

Medical Marijuana: The Voters Have Spoken

by Robin Sax

The stories are heartbreaking. Young mothers fighting to survive the ravages of breast cancer and the nausea of chemotherapy; seniors struggling with the tremors of Multiple Sclerosis. Illness has touched all of our lives in one form or another. Whether it is cancer, glaucoma, Crohn’s disease, or even Alzheimer’s, we have all seen people live in pain. I am not talking about minor “ouchies”–this is chronic pain: debilitating headaches, inability to eat, swallow–pain that makes the one suffering just want to curl up in a ball and die.

Doctors have an arsenal of drugs to try to help those patients, medications like OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, and Morphine–powerful drugs that come with serious side effects like addiction. These drugs often don’t even work to erase the pain, leaving the patients in a hazed out prescription cloud.

As a society, we have all become very well versed in caring for our bodies. Eat healthy, exercise, watch your red meat, a glass of red wine is okay, as is dark chocolate. We’ve even become more open to alternative medicine such as acupuncture or homeopathic remedies, which are now are seen as real options. But not, it seems, when it comes to the use of medical cannabis – otherwise known as therapeutic marijuana.

Why do people have so much trouble with therapeutic cannabis? Many people see their mission in life is closing down cooperative after cooperative, collective after collective, and dispensary after dispensary. What’s worse, these people are our community leaders–elected officials, city councils, small town mayors. It’s mind-boggling, frankly.

California voters spoke in 1996 when they approved Proposition 215 allowing for therapeutic use of cannabis. The people have spoken, and yet their voices go unheard. The political nonsense doesn’t even end there. The government itself has acknowledged the benefits of therapeutic cannabis. Yep. None other than the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services took out a patent based on research done by the National Institute on Health. Patent number 6,630,507 states unequivocally that cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson's, Alzheimer’s, HIV dementia.

So, the voters have voted and the government has acknowledged that patients can get relief and yet the courts are clogged with the day-in, day-out state/federal war over this issue. Give me a break. Isn’t there a better project for a city or county to worry about than therapeutic cannabis? Now don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting every farmacy is legit. But how about some standards, regulation, or at least some recognition for the people that do play by the rules?

A better example of the rub and constant governmental shut down than a case in the little city of Temecula in Riverside County. Despite the California law enactment in 1996, and an additional Senate amendment passed in 2004, Temecula unilaterally decided to ban dispensaries in the city of Temecula in 2006. Per the report that was done at the time, city staff members justified their ban by saying that there is nothing in state law that requires Temecula to allow dispensaries within its boundaries.

Doug Lanphere, tireless advocate, and the force behind Cooperative Patients’ Services, or CPS, in Temecula, is insistent on dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. He has carefully studied all of the Department of Justice requirements and prides himself on CPS’s undisputed class act collective. He is happy to oblige in insuring patients can be treated, and the city’s concerns dealt with. He has voluntarily submitted himself to various law enforcement agencies to walk through, and approve the collective, as well as offered time and time again to meet with city officials, and police representatives in order to work together in the mutual interest of serving their community.

Colleen is a member of Doug’s cooperative and she is what keeps him awake at night–trying to figure out how to keep his doors open despite legal attack after legal attack by the city of Temecula. For Colleen, and every other suffering patient, I say give them the choice to do what the California legislature allows. Let them have access to the therapeutic cannabis. If it can help, who are we to remove that chance for some relief, and perhaps even some quality of life.

CPS has an important function in Riverside County. Unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco or other areas known for “lax” drug rules, Temecula serves a small desert community where many people move to the dry heat specifically to assist in their health matters. Patients like Colleen, a nurse, who has found cannabis the only way to beat back the agony of her ruptured spinal discs. From her morphine haze she called cannabis the only treatment that gave her some sense of quality of life, something opiates could not.

So I ask you; isn’t time to listen to the voters and let those who are ill be comforted with the therapy that works?

To stay up on CPS and therapeutic cannabis follow on Twitter at @coop420cps

photo credits: Goodnight London and harminder dhesi photography

Tweet

Does She or Doesn't She Want to Testify?

by Anne Bremner

I, for one, think Casey Anthony wants to testify. But should she?

Casey is the decider, not her defense team. Many people believe that the decision for a client to testify is solely the lawyer's prerogative. Yet, legally, the decision rests with the client, taken under the lawyer's advisement. If the lawyer knows the client will lie willfully on the stand, however, the lawyer must in-camera inform the court and may have to withdraw. In a trial where many viewers might expect Casey Anthony to stand and confess, there are others who anticipate her remaining sullen and silent--as she has consistently been so far. The world is riveted by this case, wondering whether she will, or will not, testify, while legal commentators constantly debate the question, "Should she, or shouldn't she?"

The nearly uniform opinion of the legal analysts is that she should not testify. This is because they believe she is a chronic, habitual liar. It is also because this is a case for the defense to raise reasonable doubt; to call a particularly weak defendant just might upset the applecart. Calling Casey to the stand could do far more than that. Recall the epic cross-examination question in the film Witness For the Prosecution? "Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you just a contemptible, habitual liar?"

Or consider the Latin phrase, Falset in unum; Falset in omnibus. False in one. False in everything. In some jurisdictions, and in any event in jurors' minds, if a witness testifies falsely, all the testimony can be disregarded. And if this defendant testifies falsely--which she will be judged to have already done considering evidence of her contemptible history of lying--a death-penalty verdict could become a reality, where, at this time, it is only a distant possibility in her mind.

Many have correctly discussed the fact that the defense bears no burden of proof. True, indeed. Also, that there is no need for the defense to provide evidence about the drowning theory in the Casey Anthony case. False. Falset in unum. Once the defense asserts that certain evidence will be adduced in the trial, the court accedes implicitly that there is good-faith basis for the assertion.

Opening statements can be looked at as tables of content, coming attractions and road maps of what the evidence will show. They are not supposed to be flights of fantasy, conjecture or full of hopefulness with regard to the evidence. Many say Casey need not testify. Falset in omnibus. As a legal commentator, I believe Casey Anthony has to testify. There is no evidence of a drowning accident, nor of sexual abuse, nor will there be, unless Casey Anthony, herself, takes the stand. If she doesn't, the prosecution should ask that the defense's opening remarks be stricken. With that, the defense team could be tainted as well by the inference evoked by the web of lies, leaving it without its primary defenses of accident and abuse.

Does she or doesn't she want to testify? Should she or shouldn't she testify? Will she, or won't she testify? I believe that only Casey knows. But, as we all know, she has been wrong before.

Tweet

We Need A New Drug Policy

by Diane Dimond

Forty years ago this month President Richard Nixon declared his "War on Drugs." Now, four decades later can we honestly say we’ve got a handle on the problem?

No, of course we can’t. The drug scourge continues with its ever increasing criminality and murderous violence. It heaps economic hardships on families, communities and prison systems. Our decades' long drug war gives off the stinking scent of failure and the undeniable conclusion that the way we’ve tackled the problem so far just isn’t working

So how long do we keep doing the same old things before we change course? Isn’t it time for a radical shift in strategy to try to lessen the impact illegal drug trade has had on all of us?

You might think that the conservative Nixon, the president shamed by Watergate, ordered up a callous punishment-oriented drug control policy. But he didn’t. Richard Nixon’s $155 million War on Drugs budget (back in 1971) earmarked two-thirds of the money to go for treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts.

Somewhere along the line each succeeding president lost sight of the idea that if you can cut back on the demand for illegal drugs you can cripple the violent trade that sprouts up to supply it.

Today, most of our anti-drug budget goes toward interdiction efforts and punishing people. Two years ago, the White House Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske said the War on Drugs was over, but it sure feels like we’re still waging very expensive combat against an elusive problem that just keeps growing.

So, back to the reports I read. The first was from an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. LEAP is a group of current and former front-line responders to the war on drugs. Its members are police, prosecutors, judges, FBI and DEA agents, corrections officials, military officers and others who know firsthand what it is like to wage this never-ending war. They embrace the idea of radical change, fully admitting that everything they have done in their law enforcement career was for naught when it comes to stemming the tide of the illegal drug trade and the abuse of those poisons. They passionately urge lawmakers to embrace the idea of legalizing, regulating and taxing these drugs

I know it sounds revolutionary. But imagine the chilling effect it would have on, say, the Mexican drug cartel. If there’s no more profit in smuggling drugs across the border into the United States their violent gangs would lose power and control. The tens of thousands of drug related murders each year would dwindle. America’s tax coffers would get much needed infusions. Drug addicts could get proper medical help in weaning themselves off their drug of choice. Why, they might even become contributing taxpaying citizens.

LEAP isn’t the only group of knowledgeable people calling for this radical move. Earlier this month a group of internationally known dignitaries including former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volker, former presidents of several countries and the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan endorsed the idea. In a report from their Global Commission on Drug Policy they labeled the War on Drugs a failure and encouraged nations, worldwide, to pursue the idea of legalization, regulation and taxation

Hey, it worked with booze when we lifted prohibition back in the 1930’s. Why wouldn’t it work now?

I recently wrote in this space about how state lawmakers have courageously stepped up to the plate to pass their own immigration laws after Washington’s monumental failure to act on that issue. Same thing here with the nation’s drug related problems. While Congress wallows in budget battles and sex scandals, 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medicinal marijuana for those with doctor’s prescriptions. 14 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot.

For some inane reason, the Department of Justice Department silently and consistently continues to raid legal growers, registered medicinal marijuana clinics and patients who find relief from marijuana. The DOJ has conducted nearly 100 such raids in so-called "legal" states, according to LEAP’s report. That’s about double the number of such raids during the President George W. Bush years.

I don’t know about you but I don’t want my taxpayer dollars going for police actions against legally approved operations. What a waste of money.

The day of total drug legalization will come – just as it did with alcohol. The question is: How many more multiple billions of dollars will we spend before we finally see it’s the logical way to go?

Tweet