Inside View: Casey Anthony Jury Selection with Diane Dimond

by Stacy Dittrich 

As most of you know, the jury selection in the Casey Anthony trial is now taking place in Pinellas County, Florida. Women in Crime Ink’s Diane Dimond is front and center, covering the trial for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. Obviously, Diane is extremely busy, but we were able to hold her hostage for a few minutes to engage in a brief Q&A to see what her opinion of the jury selection—and the general atmosphere—of the trial is so far. Actually, she was happy to do it for her WCI readers.

Q: Diane, what seems to be the general attitude among media members regarding the jury selection?

DD: We’re actually pretty dazzled by it all, because it’s going so fast. Judge Belvin Perry is running a very tight ship. He said the jury will be selected in one week, and I really think it will.

Q: It was reported in the media Monday that Casey Anthony was scolded by her attorney, Jose Baez, for “acting like a 2 year old” in front of a hot mic. What was the media reaction to this, and do you think the jury heard it?

DD: No, the jury didn’t hear it. They’re brought in and out of the court room one at a time and are sequestered in a back room. This comment apparently came at the end of the day. HLN and In Session are directing the media pool and someone in the courtroom apparently didn’t turn off the mics and that’s how Baez’s comment got broadcast out. We in the courtroom at the time didn’t even hear it. But the HLN producers, who are the best in the business, must have been listening closely and they apparently alerted the Nancy Grace Show because she covered it on her show that night. The next day, it was brought to the attention of the judge by Casey Anthony’s attorney. They got permission to turn off the mics at their table. And, they got the judge to order that the entire left side of the courtroom—behind the defense table—has to remain empty per the judge’s orders so no one can overhear what they might be saying. 

Q: There has been a swath of rumors regarding George and Cindy Anthony’s absence from the jury selection. Some are predicting that Jose Baez is going to displace the blame of Caylee’s murder from Casey to one of them, essentially throwing them under the bus. Any insider information you can tell us about this?

DD: That’s exactly right. I think they’re definitely going to go the route that Caylee’s death was an accident, maybe someone else did it, and that she was so terrorized by her parents throughout her life she was too scared to tell them. I think that Cindy is going to be portrayed as a controlling shrew, and that George will be accused of being a violent man and maybe even a sexual abuser. Interestingly enough, I just got a text message that George Anthony was taken to the hospital this afternoon, although I haven’t confirmed. As for them not being present during the jury selection, it’s 100 miles away and I think they’re just taking this time right now to prepare themselves for the actual trial.

Q: Casey Anthony has been criticized for laughing and smiling during the jury selection. What’s been her general mood in the courtroom?

DD: I don’t see her laughing and smiling in front of the jurors, definitely not. Every time a larger group of jurors is brought in, Judge Perry re-reads the murder indictment. There have been three reads so far, and Casey cries during every read. She doesn’t laugh or smile at all in front of the jury. And that’s where it counts.

Q: It would appear that she genuinely believes she will be found "Not guilty?" Is that the feeling among members of the media?

DD: Interesting question. You’d have to get inside the head of Casey Anthony. If she’s guilty and actually had a conscience, she’d have taken a plea deal. My feeling is we’re dealing with a narcissist who doesn’t like her parents and only cares for herself. I think, in her mind, she’ll be able to tell her story, they’ll believe her, and she’ll be set free.

Q: What do you think is going to be the defense team’s smoking gun?

DD: I don’t believe the defense team has a smoking gun. I think they’ll try and weave a shocking tale on how Caylee’s death is totally explainable and blame Casey’s actions on her parents.

Q: Can we expect any more drama in the upcoming weeks out of Casey? Of course, that question pretty much answer’s itself.

DD: I think there’s built-in drama every day. I was surprised at what happened today. One of the jurors, during a break, went up to a reporter and asked, “How do I get off of this jury?” He was found in contempt of court and fined $450. As for Casey, one day she’s sitting next to her lawyer, the next day she’s not, and so on. Today, after the judge said they would be there through the night selecting the jury, Casey started to clench her right arm and hand, acting extremely agitated. She was removed from the courtroom, and we had no idea what the problem was or if jury selection would continue. There’s always going to be drama. I do predict that we’ll see a lot of drama during the defense team’s opening statement.

Q: Any other insight into the atmosphere there in Florida to give the WCI readers?

DD: Everybody is saying, “This is the Crime of the Century!” or bigger than the OJ Simpson trial or Michael Jackson trial. I covered both, and this? Nothing even compared to either of those two. There just really isn’t that much media. Of course, when the trial starts, that will probably change, but so far, it’s nothing like OJ, Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson.

Thanks, Diane!

Diane will be providing up-to-date information on the Casey Anthony jury selection and subsequent trial for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. Also follow her on Twitter for extra details on the trial that you may not read anywhere else!

Tweet

Why Did a Top Jury Consultant Quit the Casey Anthony Case at the 11th Hour?

by Dr. Lillian Glass

Until jury consultant Richard Gabriel quit as the consultant on the Casey Anthony case a few days before jury selection was to occur, I was concerned. The reason? He is one of the top jury consultants in the country. He has represented some of the most high-profile cases, and he has even written a book on the topic.

So, why would Gabriel bail ship at the last minute? It is a seemingly unprofessional thing for such a seasoned professional to do. Several possible reasons for pulling out are outlined here:

1.  Maybe he already got what he wanted--notoriety and name recognition. He got the best press possible in on the highest-rated "48 Hours" show where he performed a focus group of people who ended up acquitting Casey. Mind you, it was a focus group and not a mock jury trial, which many viewers were led to believe. As a result, his name is now known and maybe that was why he took it on to begin with.

2.  The feedback from this show and his involvement was extremely negative, so maybe he wanted to get out before he actually began work on the trial. Some publicly called him a "manipulator of justice," which may have had an impact.

3.  He may have discovered something about the case as he was doing his work that made him realize Casey was guilty and,  therefore, he may not have wanted to be involved with helping get a guilty person free.

4.  He may have developed a conscience as he worked on the trial and felt he couldn’t live with himself if he helped Casey.

5.  He may have received threats and negative emails and feedback and calls from passionate people who believe Casey is guilty. Defense attorneys Andrea Lyons and Jose Baez have each reported receiving threats and hate-mail for defending Casey. He may have been frightened away for fear that something might happen to him or to his family.

6.  If he did succeed in manipulating the jury pool in  Casey’s favor and Casey was found not guilty, the hateful repercussions toward him might have been enormous.

7.  Perhaps he found out the secret location where the jury would be pooled from and realized it would be a losing battle.

8.  If Casey isn't acquitted, he might not have wanted such a significant loss on his pristine record.

9.  He may have realized that he would never get paid, even if he were promised payment at the end.

10. He may not have had the three months to devote to this trial, working for free, if he received a paying job during those months.

11. Perhaps all the press he received from the "48 Hours" piece increased his business from attorneys to the point that he has become overwhelmed and now needs to focus on his new high-paying clients.

12. Maybe he had arrangment with Jose Baez all along to only conduct a focus group that would show Casey in a positive light for the pre-trial publicity so that both he and Baez could benefit. And maybe he never had any intention of actually engaging in the jury-selection process.

13. Maybe he didn't like working with Baez or attorney Cheney Mason and didn't want to continue working on the case with them.

14. Maybe Casey tried to manipulate him as she has done with every-other man with whom she has come in contact.

15. Perhaps he realized that picking a jury would be a losing task and he might not be successful in picking a jury, especially with the Sunshine Laws in effect in Florida that make it difficult.

16. He may have believed that the media has tainted the jury pool to such an extent that he could not choose a jury for Casey.

17. He may feel that that he has been stifled in how to properly vet potential  jurors who may have a bias, especially after Judge Belvin Perry would not allow Gabriel to use a questionnaire asking jurors how they feel about the case and what they've heard about it, which could take an hour per juror.

Whatever the reason Richard Gabriel is no longer on the team, I must say I am relieved. Initially, I was concerned there would be an unfair playing field with him at the jury-selection helm. Now there is a much better chance that there will be a fair trial.

Tweet

'Would You Believe...?' Why Being Truthful Matters

by Pat Brown

If you are somewhere in my age range, age 55, the phrase "Would you believe...?" will cause a grin to break out on your face because you know what silliness will follow.

Maxwell Smart, the bumbling secret agent of the long-running and well-loved television series, Get Smart, often repeated the phrase a couple times in a row when caught in a dire or embarrassing situation. To start, he would spin an outrageous grandiose lie which no one would think credible, then go on to "Would you believe... ?" ending in a slightly less ridiculous but still unbelievable scenario, and then a final, "Would you believe... ?" consisting of a completely silly bit of fiction which clearly acknowledged he knew no lie was going to work.

Captured and surrounded by 10 KAOS agents and informed by their leader, Siegfried, Smart's evil nemesis, that he was about to die, Max would tell them to lay down their weapons, because just outside the building were 50 government agents with machine guns and army tanks ready to attack and rescue him. Siegfried would look at Max, raise an eyebrow and say, "I don't believe you." Then Max would look chagrined and say, "Would you believe five security guards with stun guns?" to which Siegfried would respond, "I don't think so." Then Max would say, "Would you believe one Boy Scout with a peashooter?" The gag was a frequent joke in the series and never failed to get a laugh.

Not telling the truth and trying to fabricate a believable story often ends badly, even if the purpose is to avoid telling a painful or a damaging truth. The fact is, if the lie is exposed, trust is eroded. Even if the lie is intended to eventually do some good, and even if it does eventually do some good, there will remain a question as to whether one can trust that person or agency again in the future. If the lie is told because one simply doesn't have an answer and doesn't want to look stupid, when the truth comes out he will look like a bumbler or someone with an ego problem. Giving half-truths or bits of information with no supporting facts will also raise red flags as to the veracity of the information given, often leading to massive speculation about what is being hidden. Finally, making promises one does not know can be kept is a form of lying as well and leads to future distrust of anything that person or agency says from that point on.

There is only really one good option when it comes to answering questions: Tell the truth. Telling the truth can mean giving up everything one knows, or it can mean saying, "I don't know" if you don't know, or "I cannot release that information at this time" if doing so is damaging to a particular situation or person (and one should be able to explain why it is damaging).

Telling the truth can apply to personal relationships, police departments, and government agencies. A husband lies about having drinks with his buddies at the bar by saying he has to work late at the office. When his wife finds out he wasn't at the office, she immediately suspects he is having an affair. He isn't, but now he has proven to be a liar and untrustworthy and is going to pay for that lie for years to come. No police department should come out and say, "We are going to catch this man," when they have no idea if they will or not. I can't tell you how often I have cringed when I see a sheriff or police chief stand behind the podium at a press conference and make this claim, especially in a serial killer case (which is the most difficult of all cases to solve). A good portion of the time no one is arrested and the department looks like a bunch of blowhards or incompetents. Wouldn't it have been better to say, "We are going to put forth our best effort to identify the killer and get him off the streets." You can't go wrong with a statement like that.

In the case of missing Holly Bobo down in Tennessee, which I wrote about in my last post, we see law enforcement tossing out a dozen statements that make no sense and refusing to explain why they are doing so. First we hear the family members have been cleared, and then that no one has been cleared. One can't have it both ways; one of these statements is a lie.

At one point, the public was told Holly was dragged from her house, and later it was stated she was walked away from her house. One of these statements is not true; which one? Then, to further erode one's trust in what law enforcement is telling the citizens or that they are competent, it is stated that "Holly was in fear of her life as she was led away." How would anyone know this if they did not see her terrified face and tears running down her cheeks? Someone is making stuff up and it is not inspiring confidence that the case is being handled properly.

And, just in the last few days, we see many Americans questioning the veracity of the President of the United States and its agencies because President Obama and the spokespersons for various government organizations have released conflicting facts about the raid that allegedly killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Now, I am not pointing out the following issues to encourage conspiracy theories, nor am I trying to bash the President; we have seen similar behaviors in other administrations. But, I want to point out the damage caused by not telling the truth or not supporting the facts with anything verifiable. Yes, I know, one can question anything ad nauseum, but there are mistakes our government agencies should not make lest one wants to be accused of a cover-up or incompetence.

The first mistake came quite quickly after the raid went down. We heard that there was a forty-minute firefight at a compound in Abottabad, Pakistan, and I pictured Osama's men on the roof and behind the walls with AK-47, guards leaping to their feet to fight the highly trained SEALS and losing to their surprise attack. I could see Osama, hearing the cacophony outside his bedroom walls, grabbing his own weapon and shooting at the first of our men who burst through his door. If Osama bin Laden was in that house and in that kind of a fight, I could see why he got killed.

Then, we hear, well, not so much of a fight. In fact, "Would you believe..." there was one man outside with a gun and Osama was reaching for a weapon? Maybe, but, now I kind of wonder if we will ever hear the real story because no evidence of the event is going to be released, so we are told.

No problem. You say the SEALS killed Osama that night. I am sure his body is being brought back to the United States and analyzed by experts, viewed by those who would know the man, and the photographs and scientific tests will settle the issue. Oh, no, that is not going to happen because his body has been secretly buried at sea. This is like telling the police all those flat-screen televisions you have stacked in the garage didn't "fall off a truck" but were bought, except you lost all the records of your transactions.

But, no matter, we have the DNA of Osama matching to a near 100-percent level of proof. The DNA is purported to come from a half-sister-who-has-no-name who reportedly died of brain cancer at a Boston hospital. Well, Osama has a football stadium of half-sisters and only one half-sister from whom the DNA would be of any use at all, the only half-sister with whom he shares a mother. We are not being told if this is the half-sister who died in Boston or even if that half-sister is even dead. Complicating this matter is the scientific fact that even DNA from this half-sister doesn't prove Osama bin Laden was the man who died in the raid in Pakistan, only that it was a bin Laden of that particular maternal lineage.

Whew! Now my head is spinning. Then to make matters worse, President Obama comes out on "60 Minutes" to tell us that there was only a 55/45 probability that Osama bin Laden was in the targeted compound and he was sweating bullets that the US wasn't storming the home of a prince from Dubai! Are you off your rocker, Mr. President, making a statement like that? Are you telling the American public that you had no substantial proof Osama was inside the home but you were willing to kill totally innocent people in another country on the off chance Osama might be there? What kind of military operation would we be running to do that kind of thing? Can you imagine the police invading your home, killing half your family because they heard a gang leader might be visiting there but really were only going on a rumor? It would have been a much better story (hopefully, a truthful story) that intelligence was of 100-percent certainty that this was an Al Qaeda hideout and was worth attacking; if Osama isn't there, we still got bad guys, and, if he was, we got a big bonus! This story would have made me pretty happy.

But the whole convoluted story given by our President is extremely concerning. Either you had the intelligence to storm the compound or you didn't. Obama is saying we didn't and yet we did. Something doesn't ring of the truth here, and this is why some are going crazy trying to figure out what the truth actually is. Some think Osama wasn't in there and they are just saying that to cover a bungled operation and get the glory of killing Osama bin Laden. Others argue this is ludicrous because if Osama is still alive, this would be the height of stupidity; if he shows up tomorrow with a newspaper in front of him speaking in a video, wouldn't the administration be in a bad way. I agree, Osama, is dead.

The other theory is that Osama has been dead for almost a decade of kidney failure and Al Qaeda knew it and kept quiet to keep the threat of him out there and the United States knew it and kept quiet for the same reason. Then, when a bin Laden (or some Osama look-alike) was killed in the raid, the administration took the opportunity to spin it as Osama has been finally found and taken care of. I find this a more plausible scenario. However, if Osama was alive and living anywhere, Pakistan was an excellent choice considering their history--at least that of the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency --which has in the past been accused of harboring other terrorists and gangsters such as Dawood Ibrahim (pictured left), a mob kingpin from India connected to Osama and numerous terrorist attacks.

In reality, we will probably never know the truth of exactly what happened and the delay and sketchiness of the evidence being presented to prove the dead man dumped in the ocean was bin Laden will never satisfy many. In my opinion, this was a bad mistake by our President and our agencies. I believe if Osama was there, he should have been captured and tried, or, if there was no way to avoid killing him, the burial--wherever it eventually would be, on land or at sea--should have been delayed until identification was unquestionably completed and thoroughly attained. Finally, Obama should have said only what was necessary until he could be sure that what he said was the absolute truth and he had the facts to back it.

I look forward to your thoughts on speaking the truth and presenting only facts, and, please, let's not get political about this. Telling lies and twisting truths and hiding facts is a human quality, not a party-related trait.

Tweet

The Curse of a Narcissistic Mother: Cindy Anthony

by Dr. Michelle Golland

If we believe that Casey Anthony was involved in the death of her daughter Caylee and we believe her parents either know this or have further information that would help build a case against her, they sure aren’t talking.

Many mothers ask, “How could Cindy Anthony protect the murderer of her innocent granddaughter?” Cindy Anthony’s narcissism is the how and the why. Cindy needs to protect her own self-image as the mother of a possible child killer. Her overwhelming narcissism would not allow her to ever reveal what she may know because she would never be able to cope with the public seeing her as a “bad” mother.

The allegations of sexual abuse by Casey against her brother, Lee, and her father, George, would make sense given the volatility of their family. What I see clinically with Cindy Anthony is a portrait of a narcissistic and self-involved mother who has been trying to control those around her for many years. Her anger and rage is palpable when we see her in interviews, whether with police detectives or the media at large.

Let’s face it; this family has been fighting since it was revealed that little Caylee was missing. They have continued to be volatile with each other and create chaos, even outside the chaos of losing a child. Casey and her parents not only disagreed how to handle the memorial and funereal of Caylee, but while she was alive they were in a constant struggle for power and control over their daughter and their granddaughter. As a psychologist, the manner in which they have conducted themselves at each of these critical moments is a reflection of how they managed as a family prior to little Caylee turning up missing. Secretive, deceptive and rageful seem to be the themes constantly swirling within the Anthony household.

Cindy and Casey have had a challenging and disconnected relationship for a long time. They seemed to be fighting over Caylee even while she was alive. In reports, Cindy forced Casey to keep the baby when Casey would rather have terminated or adopted out. It seems that Cindy used her granddaughter as a further way to shame and guilt her own daughter Casey to either behave responsibly or to use her as a weapon in the war of “I do so much for you” game that parents like this often find themselves waging against their children.

Cindy appears to be a controlling and difficult mother, and if true, her reaction to Casey about being sexually abused by her brother, a narcissistic and dispassionate mother as well. According to Casey, when she shared with her mom about the abuse, she said, “That is why you are such a whore!” I must say, I am not shocked by Cindy's response. This can often be the reaction of the family when sexual abuse is revealed. It is so overwhelming, they often would rather deny than deal with it directly and effectively.

It seems that Casey is a pathological liar and clinically appears to have elements of borderline personality disorder. When looking at people who develop these personality structures, we often find behind them was a parent--whether mother or father--who was extremely narcissistic as well.

Tweet

Tattoos Are Us

by Andrea Campbell

We have talked about tattoos and distinctive identification marks before. Just recently, my friend, colleague and author, Dr. Doug Lyle, sent out a blog note that touched on the subject of tattoos. He tells us about Anthony Garcia. Anthony (pictured above) supposedly belongs to the Rivera-13 gang in Pico Rivera, California. He allegedly shot and killed 23-year-old John Juarez in a liquor store four years ago. And he almost got away with it. Almost. Lyle says, “LA County Sheriff’s Department homicide investigator Kevin Lloyd was flipping through a collect of gang member tattoos when he stumbled on Garcia’s image. Imagine his shock when he saw that Garcia had a detailed tattoo of the crime scene splashed across his chest under the banner ‘Rivera Kills.’ It’ll be interesting to see how they use this is court but one thing I know for sure—if you put this in a book, no one would believe it.”

Another Ink Trail 

The FBI site recounts a story about a Los Angeles patrol officer who stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. While checking the plates, they discovered that the vehicle had been stolen and arrest the driver, Richard Coleman. Of course, police book Coleman and in the process, police write out a description of the man and take photographs of his tattoos for the booking record.

Then about three weeks later, investigators are working on a home invasion case of an elderly couple in Denver, and the victims describe a male wearing a ski mask who broke into their home and beat and robbed them. Through the course of the interview, the victims describe a tattoo of a spider the robber had on his right hand, and the name, “Goldie” in ink across the back of his neck. The Denver police then make a search using N-DEx and pump in the only information they have, including the sex of the perpetrator and the location and descriptions of his tattoos. The search turns up a tattoo match with the Los Angeles booking report, including the criminal history of—you guessed it, Richard Coleman.

 N-DEx

An FBI diagram is shown about how N-DEx works, and when this program is fully deployed it will be able to do:

• Nationwide searches from a single access point;
•  Searches by “modus operandi” and for clothing, tattoos, associates, cars, etc.—linking individuals, places, and things; 
• Notifications of similar investigations and suspects; 
• Identification of criminal activity hotspots and crime trends;
• Threat level assessments of individuals and addresses; and 
• Visualization and mapping features

Telling Artifacts

Of course, many military men and those convicted and doing a stretch in prison often ink their experience on their person. We’ve also seen individuals who declare their hatred of others in bold ink somewhere on their body. One of the more famous haters is Charles Mansion who has a swastika tattoo on his forehead (and it’s not even very good ink).

Not Popular with Jurors 

Joe Navarro, ex-FBI agent and author who we’ve had on Women in Crime Ink blog before, says that he has been involved in many occasions where jurors were questioned about the appearance of tattoos—and, in multiple inquiries and with multiple groups of people—that jurors think of tattoos as “… being ‘low status’ (low class) adornments and/ vestiges of youthful indiscretion, which, in general, were not very well liked.” 

Photo Images:

• Photos of gang tattoos (fingers, mouth)   

• Diagram of N-DEx logo and search  

Tweet

A Tribute to a Long-Lost Child

by Deborah Blum

When I was researching my book, The Poisoner's Handbook, I started by making a list of famous homicidal poisons: cyanide and strychnine, arsenic and antimony. The resulting catalog quickly outgrew my plans for a book of relatively modest length. How would I decide which toxic substances belonged in my particular handbook?

Since my story was of two somewhat renegade scientists trying to establish - or more accurately, invent - the profession of forensic toxicology in Prohibition-era New York, I started researching poison homicides in that time period. I focused on murders from about 1918 to 1935 in that remarkable city. I wasn't looking for famous cases - it was murder as a fact of everyday life that interested me. Those small, slipped-away stories, the cases that haunted me, the lives altered that I couldn't forget, ended up defining my poisonous history of early 20th century America.

And that's why the chapter on arsenic began with a long-forgotten mass murder:

The weather, that summer of 1922, held steady at what the newspapers like to call “fair”, the skies a gas-flame blue, the temperatures hovering near 80 degrees. On the last day of July, as Lillian Goetz’s mother would forever recall, the morning was another warm one. She offered to make her daughter a box lunch, but Lillian refused. It was too hot to eat much; she’d just grab a quick sandwich at a lunch counter.

The 17-year-old daughter worked as a stenographer in a dress goods firm, occupying a small set of offices in the Townsend Building, at the bustling corner of 25^th and Broadway. There were plenty of quick eateries nearby, tucked among the offices and shops and small hotels. Lillian, like many of her co-workers, often just stepped over to Shelbourne Restaurant and Bakery, just a half block south on Broadway.

The Shelbourne catered to the office trade, opening in the morning, closing in the early afternoon. Stenographers and secretaries in their bright summer hats and stylish short skirts, businessmen and office managers in their dark tailored suits crowded daily along its wooden counters and small square tables, hurrying through a meal of coffee, hot soup with fresh-baked rolls, sandwiches, and slices of the bakery’s renowned peach cake and berry pie.

According to police reports, on July 31, Lillian ordered a tongue sandwich, coffee, and a slice of huckleberry pie. It was the pie that killed her.

Five other people died as well and more than 60 went to the hospital that day. The scream of ambulances down Broadway was so constant that people called the police department thinking the city had caught fire. The lead suspect - although he would never be charged - was a baker at the Shelbourne, who'd caught a false rumor that he was about to be fired.

Arsenic, at the time, was remarkably easy to acquire. It was used in popular rodent poisons (my favorite had the very direct name Rough on Rats). It was used as a tonic, in brands such as Fowler's Solution. It was beloved by poison murderers because it was odorless and mostly tasteless. In a white powdery form, like arsenic trioxide, it folded almost invisibly into pastry dough.

Today, thanks to improved regulations, arsenic cannot be so casually acquired. Nor is it in the same homicidal demand. Forensic toxicology has made arsenic far too detectable a means of death. It's been identifiable in a corpse for well over 100 years, these days, in the barest trace amounts. And as a metallic element, it remains in the body (notably in the hair) for centuries. It serves, in fact, as a indelible marker of murder.

The fascinating, twisted story of arsenic then was an obvious choice for my book. The tale of little Lillian Goetz maybe less so. But there was this moment of heartbreak that just stayed with me. I read countless news stories about the Shelbourne killer. There's a moment, in one of them, in which her mother, Anna Goetz, is talking to the police about that rejected box lunch, caught at that point in which she knows, she's sure, that she could saved her daughter's life if she'd only insisted on that homemade meal.

Oh, I could see myself - the working mother of two boys - caught in that same moment, replaying that loop in which I might have rescued my child, could have kept her alive, kept him alive, if I'd only done things differently. One of the tasks that I'd set for myself in the book was - despite my real fascination with the wicked chemistry of poisons - to never glorify the subject. Poisoners represent human evil in my story. A lost child like Lillian reminds us of that, should remind us of that.

Still, when I received an e-mail recently with the subject line "Lillian Goetz", I had a moment where I worried that someone in the family didn't agree with me. In that, I was wonderfully wrong. The message came from Lillian's nephew Steve Goetz, a physiology teacher, and he wrote: When I began the chapter in your book covering arsenic, I was amazed to see Lillian Goetz's story featured. I had never realized that her death was a part of such a large and publicized event. Lillian was my aunt, my father Nelson's older sister. Her death by poison was rarely mentioned in the family, and most of the details were vague.

But though they rarely spoke of her, she was always there, a ghost in the house. Her death rewrote the way they lived. Steve was born in 1943 at Bronx Hospital, the facility that treated the dying girl: When my Grandfather, Lillian's father William Goetz, visited my mother who had given birth to me in 1943 at Bronx Hospital, he told her how very sad he felt revisiting the place. After Lillian's death, her parents (William and Annie) discarded all religious items in their house and were non-observant Jews from that point on. My grandmother Annie rarely left her apartment as long as I knew her, and my 98 year old mother told me the other day that that was also true since at least the early 1930's, when she first met Annie.

Steve also sent me the photograph that I've put at the top of this post. His grandmother, Annie Goetz is in the middle, with a very young Lillian holding one hand and her brother Nelson (Steve's father) holding the other. He even sent an image of the back of the photo, all names carefully written in that lovely cursive handwriting of the past with its lacy capital letters.

I've found myself studying their serious faces, taken during an era when people so rarely smiled for photographs. I've pondered Lillian's sober little face under that white hat, imagined her growing up into a dedicated, responsible young woman. But I know that doesn't really do her justice.

I wrote back to Steve Goetz, asking him if I could share the photo and family information and he answered me in the kindest way: "I had rarely thought about Lillian for most of my life - she seemed to be such a distant figure. I want to thank you for bringing her to life for me as a real person, in a way she had never existed for me before. My only tenuous link to her is her copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, which I've had for many years. It contains a bookmark, a cut-out yellowed newspaper column called Our Rhyming Optimist. Aline Michaelis published 6 poems a week for her column from 1917 for the next 17 years. The poem Lillian saved is called "You Have Come Back."

Since I learned about, and was given the book, I've been intrigued that my aunt, coming from a family that seemed not to place a high priority on education or reading, should have this book of poetry. I've always felt that she must have been an interesting and sensitive person, that I would have liked to have gotten to know."

So this one's for you, Lillian. In remembrance, and regret. And a wish that you'd never ended up in my book.

Tweet

Filling Bin Laden's Spot on FBI Top Ten Most Wanted List

by Michelle Sigona

Usama Bin Laden held one of the highest-ranking spots on the FBI Top Ten Most Wanted for more than a decade. His mug first appeared on the elite list in 1999, and with the recent news of his death, there’s a large spot to fill. So, how will the FBI make that choice? Choosing the next suspect may take a little time and coordination.

FILLING BIN LADEN’S SPOT

The FBI says all 56 Field Offices will submit their top candidates for their most wanted nominees and those fugitives will be sent to the Criminal Investigative Division Assistant Director for approval. From there, the choices will be narrowed and the FBI director will have the final say.

BACKGROUND ON THE TOP TEN

The famous Top Ten Most Wanted has been in existence since J. Edgar Hoover launched the program on March 14, 1950. A reporter for the International News Service asked the Bureau for names and descriptions of the “toughest guys” they wanted captured. Based on that inquiry, the top 10 was born.

Out of 464 fugitives, the FBI says 152 have been nabbed as a direct result of the public’s cooperation.

MENACE TO SOCIETY

You better believe the next up will be a menace to society. The FBI will likely choose someone who is dangerous and has a lengthy criminal record. In addition, the FBI says another key decision-making factor will be, “The nationwide publicity afforded by the program can be of assistance in apprehending the fugitive, who, in turn, should not already be notorious due to other publicity.” The oldest person to be placed on the list was 69-year-old James J. Bulger, who was added in August of 1999. He remains on the list today.

MORE TOP TEN FAST FACTS

Only eight women out of 464 fugitives have made a guest appearance on the FBI Top Ten Most Wanted list.

Billy Austin Bryant was a fugitive who lasted the shortest time on the list. He was caught in 1969 within two hours.

The longest fugitive to remain on the Top Ten to date is Victor Manuel Gerena. He lasted a long 26 years before being found.

For more on the FBI or Top Ten cases, log on to FBI.GOV

Tweet

A True Crime

by Lisa R. Cohen

Talk about a crime related news week! Sunday night we heard that one of the biggest criminal masterminds in the world has just left this earth. I'm sure for days, maybe weeks, we'll hear more of the story, unraveling bit by bit, stringing along the news cycle. But for me, personally, Sunday marked a milestone in a different fight against crime.

This past Sunday, as Navy Seals were locked in mortal combat with Osama Bin Laden, a film I produced premiered at the Tribeca Film festival. (I still have a hard time saying or writing that line.) I was part of a small team of talented producers, directors of photography, editors, and a director who have all worked, off and on, over the last four years on The Education of Dee Dee Ricks, which will continue to garner attention when it airs on HBO this October.

Luckily, Dee Dee herself is not a victim of this crime. She's a smart, beautiful, tough-talking, wise-cracking woman of means, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007.

For two years after that, she had me follow her around with a camera crew, documenting her life. Through a double mastectomy, a brutal round of chemotherapy, and the havoc it all wrought on her personal life, her finances, and her body, Dee Dee fought hard, kicking, screaming, and sometimes cursing like a dockworker.

Eventually she won.

But that was only part of how she spent her time and resources. Arguably she spent the better part taking on the inequities of cancer care in this country. In plain terms, Dee Dee set out to learn why a rich, white woman who can afford whatever she needs can win her fight, but a poor, underinsured black woman can't - and often doesn't.

And then she set out to tell the world, or at least anyone who would listen to her, and eventually, anyone who would watch our documentary. She interviewed doctors and advocates, and women who weren't as fortunate as she. She met and befriended Cynthia, another funny, outspoken breast cancer patient, who seemed like Dee Dee in many ways, except the critical one that placed her in so much more jeopardy. And she met a man who has worked for decades to change all that.

Dr. Harold P. Freeman is a renowned, elegant, soft-spoken, Harvard educated, African-American cancer surgeon (that's a LOT of impressive qualifiers). As a young man, he watched his own father die of cancer, which inspired his life's work. In his lifetime, he's seen amazing strides in cancer research, seen science transform the odds, as people today beat cancer. From when he started, to where things are now, miracles are now commonplace.

What makes him shake his head in dismay, then, is how many people are still dying. They're not dying because nothing can be done, or because their disease baffles the doctors. They're dying because they're poor. And that, says Dr. Freeman, is what is truly criminal.

"It's not a scientific issue," he says. "It's a moral issue. People should not die simply because they're poor." He's talking about the women he has seen with no insurance and no other means to get treatment until they find their way to the cancer center he runs in Harlem. By that time, he chillingly describes, they sometimes have no breast tissue left in the affected area. Just tumor. By that time, it's too late.

Why didn't they go in sooner? Well, as Dr. Freeman told a captive audience after the Tribeca screening, if you have no insurance and you go to an emergency room because you have a little lump in your breast, you'll sit there for hours. When you're finally examined, you'll be told you're in the wrong place. You have to go get a Medicaid card first, then appear somewhere a hundred blocks south to get examined.

"At that point," Dr. Freeman explained, "the effort to get help is so much more painful than the painless lump in your breast, you'll throw up your arms and go home."

Dr. Freeman then told the audience about something he has developed over the years to counter that sense of helplessness, something that is now growing in practice all over the country. It's a concept called Patient Navigation. First, it's outreach and education - to help bring women (and men) to places like the Ralph Lauren Cancer Center, which Freeman heads up. There, an often panic stricken or numbed patient in denial is turned over to an actual human being, someone looks like them, speaks their cultural language, and will hold their hand every step of the treatment way, steering them around the myriad hurdles that cause even the hardiest to give up.

No insurance? Your navigator will take you through every step to get it, then line up tests, procedures, surgical options, chemo, etc, etc. No support at home? Your navigator's latched on, as are the doctors, nurses, social workers - even the in-house pharmacist. No one to prod you to make appointments and then keep them? You'll get the call from your patient navigator. As Dr. Freeman says, it's a low tech approach, but it literally saves lives. But so much more needs to be done.

I was with Dee Dee the day she met Dr. Freeman and, as she likes to say, fell in love. That day, he made her cry, and then she did the same to him. You'll have to watch the film to see why. Since that day, she has championed him and his cause, raised millions of dollars for it, and quite literally bared her soul and every other part of herself to get people to look... and listen. A hot blond who can also make you laugh while she moves you to tears is a powerful tool.

I have great hope for this team, and I'm proud to have been able to help tell their story. And after Sunday night, instead of the tired refrain, "If they can put a man on the moon..." I'm going to try a fresh tack. If we can track down and take out Osama Bin Laden... we should be able to win this war on crime too.

Tweet

The Movie Star Psychopath

by Gina Simmons, Ph.D.

I love movies. Action films, chick flicks, mock-umentaries, I love them all. One kind of film really troubles me, though. Picture a handsome leading man with a great sense of humor and eyes that seductively penetrate. He appears to understand the leading lady's every emotional need. His only flaw? The guy just happens to kill people for a living.

The plot to these films goes something like this: Boy meets girl. Girl falls in love with boy. Boy kills people for a living and for obvious reasons has to keep it a secret. Girl finds out secret. Boy gets a conscience because of love for girl. The End. Films like Gross Pointe Blank show a handsome, witty, bright, socially skilled John Cusack growing a conscience after attending a high school reunion party and meeting his love interest (Minnie Driver).

Of course, filmmakers vary the theme. In the 2005 comedy, The Matador, the astonishingly handsome Pierce Brosnan plays the hit-man with a newly discovered conscience. He's transformed by his relationship with a "normal" guy, played by Greg Kinnear. Sometimes the girl is the sympathetic psychopath. She usually hides a background of severe abuse (the sympathy factor) with predatory sex appeal (to sell movie tickets). La Femme Nikita and The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo fall into that category. In another variation on this theme, the 2005 film, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, shows the two most attractive people in the world playing serial killers for hire. The couple rekindle their love while trying to assassinate each other.

Films that portray attractive killers can psychologically liberate us from conventional morality. We get to imagine what it would feel like to place no limits on our behavior. Free from a conscience we can play god and enjoy limitless control over others. When the killer finds his/her conscience, we feel redeemed. The killer's redemption gives us permission enjoy the psychopath, because he's charming, smart and deep down inside, a good guy. We can laugh at a dark comedy about a sexy serial killer and the absurd predicaments he navigates because we suspend our sense of right and wrong for a time, only to get it back in the end.

The troubling concern I have about these films stems from the wreckage I see in the lives of some of my patients. These men and women find themselves in love with a psychopath, hoping for a happy ending. Some films show more realistic portrayals of psychopathic killers. The Godfather's Michael Corleone, the mental patient, Bushman, played by J.T. Walsh in Sling Blade, and Nicole Kidman in To Die For, capture the lack of empathy and emotional coldness of a true psychopath. I worry for those in relationships with these anti-social personalities. These cold-blooded individuals don't get better, grow a conscience, or become caring people. Instead, psychopaths:

Lack insight and judgment 

At the funeral for your beloved mother, the psychopath leans over and whispers, "This speaker is boring. I'm going to take a walk." Later when confronted by the insensitivity of that behavior, he says, "Why should I have to sit there just because your mother died?" These people cannot imagine how the feelings of others matter at all. 

Lack guilt or shame 

While shopping, the psychopath notices a beautiful necklace lying on a counter. She puts the necklace on and leaves the store. Horrified, you demand she put it back or pay for it. With a calm smile, she says, "Take a chill pill." The psychopath feels no remorse, regret or shame.

Lack anxiety or fear

Your parents visit from out of state. After dinner, everyone goes into the living room to relax and have a cup of coffee together. The psychopath motions you to come into the kitchen. While in the kitchen, he tries to have sex with you on the table. You say, "Not now, not here, we have guests!" The psychopath experiences no embarrassment or anxiety about inappropriate behavior.

Lack love and capacity for empathy

 

You just suffered a double mastectomy and while recovering in the hospital your psychopathic husband says, "I'm just not attracted to you any more." He pulls out divorce papers and asks you to sign them now because he has a plane to catch. These people don't love and cannot feel the emotional needs of others.

Are unreliable, irresponsible and insincere

Your psychopathic husband drops you and the baby off at the pediatrician's office and says, "I'll be right back." Three months later your car and husband are still missing. You get the bills for the credit card showing hotel and entertainment charges he's made all over the country. These people lie, cheat and steal without regret

These above examples are true stories from people both unknown and famous. See if you can spot the famous ones. I see too many good people in relationships with these predatory sharks. They forever feel surprised when the psychopath doesn't understand feelings and doesn't seem to care. They operate under the assumption that everyone possesses their capacity for emotional connection. This lack of awareness leaves people defenseless targets for an opportunistic psychopath. While these anti-social characters operate under a "mask of sanity," if you pay attention you can quickly spot the deviant behavior.

Researchers find both structural and chemical dysfunction in the brains of psychopaths. One difference is an overactive dopamine system. Dopamine regulates our pleasure and reward centers of the brain. This over-activity may explain why psychopaths appear most concerned about their own pleasure and lack fear while attempting to obtain rewards.

Psychology and modern medicine offer no cure for these human predators. Our best defense against victimization is awareness. The next time you see a movie where the self-centered, dead-beat, child-neglecting father comes back after screwing up the protagonist's life and does something nice (Wall Street 2, The Royal Tenenbaums), I hope a little buzzer goes off in your head. Wrong. This script needs a rewrite.

Photos courtesy of hot rod, Mika Stetsovski and Ben Fredericson.

Tweet