It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win?
Like?
Are you a fist pumper, a wooo, a handclapper, a high fiver? I kind of like the high five. But if you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumbuck Casino. At chumbacasino dot com, choose from hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly, plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait. Start having the most fun ever at chumbuck Casino dot com.
No prigs necessary void overby.
I lost the terms conditions eighteen plus.
Judy was boring Hello, then Judy discovered chumbucasino dot com.
It's my little escape.
Now Judy is the life of the party.
Oh baby mama is bringing home the bacon Who.
Take it easy, Judy, jump the CHUMBA life that's for everybody. So go to chumbacasino dot com and play over one hundred casino style games. Join today and playing for free for your chance to redeem some serious prices. Jump chumpacasino dot com. Nope, just necessary boid. We're prohibited to my long eighteen plus terms and conditioned plice Let's host Radio.
You are now listening to True Murder, The most Shocking Killers in True Crime History and the authors that have written about them Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host, journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Good evening, This is your host Dan Zupanski for the program True Murder, The most Shocking Killers in True Crime History and the authors that have written about them. A week after my interview with Dan Fanning discussing her book Mummy's Little Girl before the Casey Anthony murder trial had commenced. It is very rare to have a book published before a trial has taken place, and it seemed to Diane and myself certain that Casey Anthony would be convicted of
murdering Kayley. Now that the verdict is in and Casey acquitted, Diane will join me again to discuss the incredible case and give us her analysis of the entire trial. So my special guest this evening is Diane Fanning. The Casey Anthony murder trial Analysis and we will have Diane on right now. Hello Dan, Hello Diane, Hello Diane.
Hello Dan. Can you can't hear me?
Yes, I can. I've just connected with you. So welcome back to the Welcome back to the program, and thank you very much screen this interview. It's going to be ga, thank you very much. Last week, as I had mentioned in my email, I replayed our interview, which was quite interesting given the verdict about your book Mommy's Little Girl, about the Casey Anthony case, and like I mentioned in the introduction, it is fairly unusual or quite rare to have a book written before a trial has been concluded.
And when I reviewed the interview, I found it very interesting. We went on both of us. We were certain that Casey Anthony would be convicted, and now the verdict is in and she has been acquitted. So I've a lot of fans of the program asked, why don't you have Diane Fanning on again and let's talk about the case once again. So here we are, and so we can
give us the analysis of the case. We won't go into reviewing too much of because unless someone has left the planet for the last little while, they have heard in great detail about the verdict and her acquittal. Now, just let us know, did you attend the trial yourself personally?
No, I watched the trial online or on TV every.
Day right now for our audience, and I didn't follow it so much. I got sort of a review of it each day. There was a couple news or a couple sites that sent me reviews of what had happened at the trial each day, so I read most of those for our audience. Tell us, I think, because of course this is very important. Tell us about Jose Biaz and Cheney Mason. Tell us about the legal team first off.
For Casey Anthony, tell us who those people were, and just give us a little bit of background, because obviously she had a good defense team.
Well, Chady Mason was very experienced, and he had a good reputation as a defense attorney for people safe and criminal charges prior to this case. He didn't play the primary role though during the trial. He did some of the closing argument and he did do some of the questioning. But even though he was the most experienced one, he
was not the one to do it. It was jose Bias, who, after graduating from law school, spent years trying to pass the bar and ran two of the Kini businesses into the ground while he was trying to become practicing attorney, and he's been practicing for about three years when he took One Anthony as a client in two thousand and eight. And I really thought all throughout the trial that he did a poor job in cross examining witnesses. I thought
he wasn't much better in his direct questioning either. He seemed to get suffused at times, and he let information in that you wondered why he even asked the question, Like he asked his scientists, well, did you find any evidence of marijuana in the air? And they said yes. Now, why he wanted to portray his client as someone who used an illegal substance, I'm not sure. I mean, that
really did not make a whole lot of sense. Another blunder he made was a judge had ruled that George Anthony's suicide note would not be admitted as evidence, but then uh Bias mocked the grief of George Anthony so much that the judge overturned his own decision and decided to admit it to evidence. And it was a very really, a very moving expression of the emotion he was going through at the time, so I, you know, I thought
that that really would nail the verdict. But unfortunately, it seems what had happened is that Jose Bias in his opening statements, claimed that he would offer evidence to prove that, uh, that Kaylee actually was victim of an accidental drowning, and that George Anthony was the one who disposed of the body, and that the utility worker Roy Kronk, who found the body actually had found it much earlier, taken possession of the body and put it in the spot where he
found it. And to make matters worse, on top of that, he said that Lee Anthony and George Anthony had incestuous relations with Casey Anthony, and he was very graphic about what went on between George and Casey. And he said all these things to be proven at trials. Not one word of what he said was proven at trial. And it got down to the only way he could have proven it was to put Casey on the witness stand to deliver the corroborating testimony, and he never did that.
In most cases, when something like that happens, the jury will hold that against the attorney that made the false promises in the first place. But instead of doing that, this jury that the jurors who have spoken said, well, we were very suspicious of George and so we couldn't be sure if he had something to do with it or not. Now that's really bizarre because there was no evidence connecting George to the murder at all.
Yeah, and for what I didn't know beforehand was that George Anthony was a former police officer.
Yes, when he lived in Ohio, he worked for the Sheriff's department up there, and he actually liked doing that work, and Cindy there wanted him to make more money and encouraged him to get out of that job.
So the defense opened with the allegation of Casey being sexually abused and then put forth the theory with again without providing any foundation to this, that there was some sort of accident in a pool and then the father
had something to do. So in your mind, once you heard that that the early statements and the strategy that Biez was putting forth, you thought, jes this really isn't going to work out for the defense With this kind of convoluted and very strange sort of strategy to begin the trial.
The only way I thought it could have worked was if they put Casey on the stand, which seemed highly unlikely because she had a whole lot of vulnerability because of all the lies she told. And in the end she was convicted of lying to law enforcement. But you know, I do not think the jury really understood what they were doing. And to me, the thing that indicates it the most is the fact that they did not find
her guilty of the child abuse charge. Now, I think if you asked any mother out there, if you knew that a child something bad had happened to a child, or that a child was missing for thirty one days, would you called and you didn't report it or say anything to anybody? Would you call that child abuse? I think every single mother would say yes, right. So to me, that was so obvious, and the defense even admitted that she did that, and yet they didn't convict her on that.
I mean, one of the juries even said, well, we could not judge her based on her behavior. Well, yes you can. That's what circumstantial evidence is about in a lot of cases. I mean, murderers do not send out invitations to the climinet going to commit so often you don't have anybody that sees the actual act, You can only judge that the act happened by how the perpetrator behaves before and afterwards.
Now, the the presiding judge was Judge Belvin Perry, so let's talk about his performance during this as well, and also the prosecution, because there's three parties involved in this. So tell us what your impression was of the prosecution and their strategy and their conduct. Will say, get near the beginning of the trial, what did you think of the prosecution and what they put forth in their early statements and their choice of witnesses and just how they
started the trial. What did you think in terms of were you confident that the prosecution was good and was handling this appropriately well?
For starters, Dan, I got so many emails from people that said, it sounds like the prosecution is using your book as the outline for the presentation of their case. So based on that, it would be difficult for me to criticize how they laid out their case. I thought they did excellent job. And when it came to time for the defense side of the case and they got to cross examined, I think that Jeff Ashton did textbook cross examination I mean, you could teach people how to
cross examined by the way he did it. He took witnesses for the defense who started out setting one thing and turned them around till they were agreeing with him. You rarely see that in a courtroom. That was extraordinary work by the prosecution. Perhaps, if I could criticize anything they did, I think maybe they should have put on
more rebuttal witnesses. But I think that probably, like me, they thought the allegations, the unproven allegations by Bias, were not anything to even worry about, because Bias presented no evidence to support them, and so because of that, they didn't put on rebuttal witnesses to cameract that because technically what a lawyer says in an opening statement on either side is not evidence, and it is not supposed to be considered evidence by the jury. But this jury seemed
to do that. And in my mind, watching a lot of other trials and the length of time it takes, they didn't spend enough time reviewing documents, and one of the jurors in fact, said, we didn't think we needed to review the documents. Well, that's the documents are as much a part of the evidence in the case as things that come out of people's mouths in this trial, and they did not give enough time to go through and do that. And you know, I just don't understand
what they were thinking. And there's something else too that really bothers me, because all the jurors who have spoken couldn't have said that there was not one person on that jury who thought she was innocent. Now, you know, I'm a strong believer in civil disobedience, and in this case, what that means to me is if I do not think someone is innocent, and I think they are culpable for the crime, and if I think that put the prosecution didn't prove it, but still believe that person is guilty,
I'm going to hang that jury. I'm not going to let someone walk away on a murder charge just because something else should have been done in the courtroom. I'm going to give them another chance. And yet that seems to be what the jury was thinking, and that no one had a strong enough sense of doing the right thing, or a strong enough conscience or a strong enough understanding to realize they could have done this is disturbing.
Well, some I you know, I wasn't there and I haven't reviewed the statement by the judge at the end, but I known in the cases that I've reviewed that it is important for the judge to assess how the case has played out in front of the jury, and then he has the opportunity to say, you know, this is what you should look at, this is what you
should look at. Like you were talking about the documents, tell us about which documents specifically you thought that the jury should have looked at very very closely and scrutinized and didn't.
Two years before the trial, I sat down and reviewed the autopsy report, and I reviewed the forensic reports of the scene where the body was found. And in reviewing that material, it became very obvious to me that the murder weapon was the duct tape. And I still believe the murder weapon was the duct tape. And you know, I can't help but think that anyone else reviewing that material, at least out of twelve people, someone should have come
to that same conclusion. You know, it's not that far fetched. I thought of it. I was not the only person that thought of it. And then later that's what the prosecution presented. It was clearly obvious to.
Me how important was the fact that there was no DNA found on the duct tape.
I think it was important to the jury, but it should not have been because there was testimony about that duct tape, and DNA decomposes just like the rest of our body does, and there was so much decomposition in the heat, in the flooding from the hurricane in that spot where her body was left.
Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we, just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses. That's your brighten your day, Lowe actually a lot, so
sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck Casino dot com.
No purchace necessary DAIOI where hibit by lossy terms conditions of eighteen plus.
With lucky land slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen the bride and groom.
Mari, sorry we're here.
We were getting lucky in the limo and we lost track of time.
No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up quicker than he gets registered.
In that case, I pronounce you Lucky.
Play for free at lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary BOID. We're prohibited by low EIGHTEAM plus terms and conditions apply. See website for details.
Even the duct tape itself had started to decompose. The organic material in it, that cotton fiber in it had all decomposed, So how could and that's inside the duct tape, so how could anything on the outside of the duct tape had survive for testing? You know that a lot of times you'll find jurors, and usually it's not all of them, but you'll find somebody hanging a jury because they either want an eyewitness, or they want a confession, or they want DNA evidence. Well, you know, it just
doesn't happen with the DNA. I mean often, I mean this is not CSI is not real world, right, And then, as I said earlier, with murders, often you don't have an eyewitness because it is not a public event, it's something hidden and private. And in most cases and then find and a confession. Well, you know, when you've got someone sitting there accused of murder who is a malignant narcissist, you will never get them to admit that they did something wrong. Never.
Well, another thing that I found that I thought the jury used to Casey Anthony's advantage was that there was no by the time you say the decomposition, there was no conclusive cause of death. Now, however, what did the jury, how did the jury react or pardon me? What was the prosecution's witness and how effective were they when they tried to put Casey at the place where the body was found, Like for those that don't know, the body
was found near the Anthony, George and Cindy's property. Now, was there any evidence brought forward or at least some suggestion that Casey had ample opportunity to be able to be able to bury that body near that property or was there.
They had they had the self teller things, they knew where she was in every minutes, she where she was going. And I do not What was perplexing to me is I do not understand how there could be evidence presented in the courtroom of a murderer, and the jury is still wondering about whether maybe it was an accidental drowning for which no evidence was presented. The only thing was what was said by jose Biased in his opening statement.
She Now, the defense doesn't have to prove anything, but if they promised to prove something, they should be doing that, and they shouldn't be saying, we will do anything for the defendive rights of our client, no matter if it violates the rights of everyone else, and they drug anyone and everyone through the mud they could possibly drag you know, I think it was just highly unethical to say the things that was said about George and Lee Anthony and Roy Klok.
Because they had no proof.
The only thing they had was the lives of the client that they admitted was a liar.
Right now, how did the defense counter the testimony of George and Cindy and the testimony about the dead body smell from the car when they first took possession of the car and which got this whole case going. How did they deal with that? How did the defense deal with that?
Well, one of the things where they put sinding up on the stand who said that the stain was in the car when they bought it, and that you know, she didn't really say it was a dead body. She really it shed smell there. They also put up this other witness from Nebraska who had done some experiments with a pig in the trunk of a car in Nebraska and tried to draw conclusions from that and a body in a flooded area in the heat of Florida. And yet, you know, the as the prosecution put it, the pig
was not in a blanket. You know, they asked me Whiting to put the pig in a blanket, which brought a lot of laughs, but really didn't undermined that much because Kayley's body was wrapped in a blanket, in two different garbage bags, and then in a waterproof canvas bag.
But still at the end of that guy's testimony, he was saying that the garbage could have caused that smell, and so the prosecution got out the garbage and the guy actually looked at it instead of looking at pictures and said and reversed himself and agreed with the prosecution when it was over. So none of the witnesses were really effective. They had a botanist who got up there and said that the vines that had grown through the eye sockets of the skull could have done so in
two weeks, which boggles the imagination. By the time prosecution was through with her, she was saying, well, that would have been the absolute minimum. It could have taken as much as six months.
Right, Well, that's not negage that testimony.
Yeah, and that happened over and over again.
I do not.
I do not understand this journey at all. I don't want to think a lot of people online have said that all they wanted to do is to get home. One of the jurors had a crucification schedule for Thursday, so they took the easy way out in the quittor so they wouldn't have to If they convicted her first degree murder, they would have had to have a penalty phase. It'll be days before they went home. I don't want
to believe that they were that selfish. I really don't, But I don't understand what they did.
Now tell us about the aggravated manslaughter. There was some talk that there could have been an agreement if the verdict was going to go a certain way. Obviously, Florida's a death penalty state, says capital crime. So tell us what you know about this possible aggravated manslaughter and what that would have meant in terms of time.
Well, they if they if they had considered, uh, the aggravated manslaughter, which I didn't know why they didn't convict her on that at the minimum. But the aggravated manslaughter basically was based on a belief that that she did not premeditate this murder. It sort of just kind of happened to the spur of the moment she started wanting to quiet the child and things got out of control, and then she disposed of the body. But they didn't
find her guilty of that either. I mean, it's it's it's mind boggling.
It's interesting.
They had a lot of choices. I mean, they they could have found her guilty of murder and given her a life sentence. They didn't have to give her a death sentence. Uh, they could have done that. They could have found her guilty of aggravating Flurida, could have found her guilty of child abuse. But all they nailed her were four counts of lying to law enforcement, and obviously Judge Perry wasn't really pleased with that verdict either, because
he did something you see very often. He gave the maximum sentence on each of the four accounts and said that they had to be served consecutively, not conferrently. You often see when they're similar charges that the judge makes them concurrence so that you serve them at the same time. But not with this one, he said, consecutive.
Interesting, and now we have the old.
Charge from stan Strickland where she was convicted of stealing from Amy Hanzinka. And you know he's demanding that you get back to Florida now, Orlando, it's now in he said, seventy two hours, which is now twenty four. That gone and serve for approbation. Now, you can serve probation in different places, but you have to be in the city where you've got it to make arrangements to be someplace else.
And her attorneys are fighting that, but strickly saying no, you can't serve probation while you're still in jail, which is what the defense is alleging she did. But the fact of the matter is the terms of probation cannot be met while one is in jail. You have to be out in the free world to meet the terms of probation.
Now, what I found interesting was that the defense seemed to be prepared to concede to aggravated manslaughter, and yet they just didn't.
Have to do that.
And obviously they felt that it was going to be very detrimental to their case to put Casey Anthony on the witness stand. And yet, as you say, if they're trying to have a defense on raise issues like the father abused her, mother abused her, that would have to come through basically normally through her testimony to have any validity at all, because then she would again have to go through cross examination and withstand.
Yeah, and they tried to get George to admit that he's actually abused her. They tried to get Cindy Didmitch she knew about the sexual abuse, and that failed. So the only thing had was the caller on the stand. And I'll tell you, Dan, I do not think the defense thought they were doing really well at all, because that's why they called for that competency hearing for Casey. They wanted her founding competence. They wanted the trial to go away, and that failed, and then they filed for
a mistrial. They wanted a mistrial, or to call it several different times they filed for mis trial. I mean they were desperate. They didn't think they were winning this thing at all. I think they were surprised as anybody was when that hurt came down.
Now, given that this was such a high profile case, I understand that one lawyer could not handle all the work and all the preparation necessary, especially in a capital case like this. But why with the personnel that were attracted to the case because it was high profile, why did they let Bias, who was virtually inexperienced, proceed with the.
Because that issue Casey Anthony wanted. The judge gave her opportunity several opportunities during hearings to dump Bias, and she did not want to. She insisted on having him as her council. Now, the state did insist there had to be someone on the defense team that had experience in death penalty trials, and that's how Cheney Mason was brought into the picture to fill that requirement.
What was Mark Lippman's rule.
Mark Lippman was a new attorney on the scene, brought in for George and Cindy to be their attorney. Prior to that, their attorney had been Brad Conway, and that's who had been speaking for them for a couple of years. But he got frustrated with them because they would were
violating every piece of advice he gave them. I mean, he didn't want them in the media, he didn't want him doing a lot of things which they insisted upon doing, and he just got exasperated with them and said that's It wasn't long before the trial, but they brought Mark Lippman in.
All right, So when do you think the now that you look at this in retrospect, where were the key or what were the key points that the jury seemed to either miss in some cases or misinterpret And what do you think those keys? We've talked about a couple of them, but tell us about all of the things that you think were the keys to them being convinced that she was innocent.
I think it started at the minds were poisoned by the defense opening statement. I think it was polluted with information of which there was no proof, and if they sort of use that as the yard sticks to measure everything, because doctor Gergovalie could not give them a cause of death that gave them a problem that maybe she did drown, But as doctor, she said, there is no reason in the world to put three pieces of duct tape over the mouth and nose of any child unless you intend
to kill them. There is no reason to put that over the mouth that knows of the child who was already dead. There is no sense to that. It makes no sense. And yet the jury was just hung up on the fact that she could not give the exact cause of death. She knew that a manner of death was a homicide, but she could not give the specific means. So basically, on that point, the jury was rewarding Casey Anthony for having put the body in a place where decomposition would happen before it was found.
Wow, how did the jury or how did the defense counter the thirty one days without Casey calling police? Because I know emotionally, that's the biggest thing that I've read in terms of comments, is that, let's be real here, no one in their right mind, no one accept a killer, no one who has any regard for their child, would wait thirty one days before they called police. And even
then the mother called police. So tell us how the defense countered that, and how did the prosecution present that and was it a strong presentation because it seems to be the kind of overwhelming circumstantial evidence that just most people can relate to.
Well, the defense in the opening statement said, the reason that she did that is because she was sexually abused. That's why she lied, And that's what they said in the un statement. They never really provided any proof of that outside of that, except for this kind of really flaky sech grief counselor. They talked about people grieve in different ways. One of the jurors, I believe it was the foreman, said that we could not use her behavior
in that thirty one days as an indication of any wrongdoing. Well, that is a clear misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence is and how it can be used in forming an opinion. Right, So it was clear they were wrong on that. I also think that they blew up the definition of reasonable doubt and instead we're operating on beyond any shadow of
a doubt. I mean, really, that's how they were defining it, because they were taking just things that were just thrown out there without proof as things that they could seriously consider.
As well, when you get the thirty one days without her contacting police at all. How did they counter the mysterious nanny that when the mother said, well where is this nanny?
No nanny existed, they defans said right up front that the nanny didn't exist.
They said that she lied about that, she made it up. But they didn't bother to tell all their witnesses about that. The one witness was on the stand and when the prosecution asked him, well do you know what happened to that little girl? He said, yes, she was kidnapped by zanny to nanny. Now, the defense had gotten up there until it was a big lie. But they never bothered to inform their witnesses that their original operating theory was no longer on.
Wow, well didn't didn't they wasn't it wasn't that good ammunition for the prosecution?
Yes, and they used it. I mean, I'm telling you, there is little to criticize about what the prosecution did. I thought they did a masterful job of presenting the case and putting everything, all the pieces all together. I could not I only criticized, And the only thing I could criticized was that they didn't call more rebuttal witnesses for no other reason than to put more time distance
between the defense case and the deliberations. I think they should spend more time on rebuttal just to make some of that stuff fade away.
Now I know this would it calls for you to speculate a little bit, but we know that the jury was picked from Saint Petersburg and then bust to Orlando and sequestered for the six weeks. In your mind and your experience, is it possibly that it was so hard to find a jury that had not already formed an opinion? And do you think that has anything to do with the kind of jurors that they ended up with at the trial?
You know, I think there are a combination of things there. A good number of the people in the jury had said that they don't read a newspaper, they don't watch the news on television, they don't follow news online, and so they're unaware of anything going on in the outside world basically, which makes you wonder what kind of people are so interested in the world around them. And then you had other people, and this is where I think
Perry made a mistake. I think there were some people on that jury that should have been dismissed for cause. For example, there was one woman on there who said that it was against her religion to judge anyone. So if she's saying that, then why the heck is she on a jury, let alone a death penalty jury. I think she should have been let go. I think Perry
was so desperate to get jurors. I mean, he settled for less than he wanted anyway, but he was so desperate to get that jury selection done, and he let a couple of people slide in that he probably should have dumped out. And there was another woman who was and she's one of the ones that has spoken out that was over eager to serve on the trial. You can almost see a secret agenda in the background there someone We're wondering, what's up with that person? I think he should have jumped her.
Too, isn't it though? The responsibility in the end for the prosecution to be able to challenge those what you've just mentioned. Those are two jurors that should not have been on that.
Jury, and they have limited challenges. That's a defense in the prosecution, have limited challenges, and there and the judge takes them off a cause, and then they can and and then the lawyers can take others off, but it is limited, and so they have to be careful about who they bump into who they don't. And and with this particular group, I mean, they had a lot of
people that needed to go. And you know, when you think, you think back to the jury selection, there was one time where Perry had to send home a whole group of forty five people because one guy who was on the jury list happened to have been one of the searchers for Texas Equi Search and he was on the witness list he should and he talked to everybody about what they look for and everything and about the case.
So the Jude tried to disqualify all those people. Now, that person bears some responsibility for that, because.
If he had told someone at the courthouse the moment he arrived that he was on the witness list, they would have let him go and he would never been sitting with that group. But he didn't do that.
Now, what was the makeup of the jury in terms of a male female and tell us that first, and basically, what was the sort of the breakdown of the age variant between say the oldest and the youngest roughly.
It was seven, I mean, five men, and it seemed to be a very young jury. I can't recall the exact dages now, but there were a lot of them that that seemed to be Casey's age, which I guess is appropriate, you know, it's the jury appears. But still I think that there were some of them that probably didn't look as hardly at the fact that she partied when her child was missing as maybe someone who had had an experience with motherhood would have right.
Right, So, getting back to just a couple of questions ago, you do think that because of the unusual circumstances in this case, the incredible circumstances in this case, that they had a hard just getting a jury period, and as a result did and as a result that maybe the prosecution had only so many to work with and just tried to get the best that they had available.
Yeah, and you know, and and there's there's nothing perfect about ever picking a jury. I mean, both sides always make mistakes in certain people, but I think overall the pool was just horrible because you had looking for people that were totally unaware of the case, and some of the people weren't. That it ended up on the jury, but the ones they had that were oblivious to the world around them, it just makes you wonder, you know,
do they really even care? Do they understand the societal impact of allowing someone so obviously guilty just to skip away as if nothing happened.
It's even hard to believe. It is even hard to believe that you're walking around America without I mean, I don't know. I mean Nancy Grace was screaming at the top of her lungs for a couple of years along with the vertic I mean talk of this case because it was just all in consumed Americans and people throughout
the world. I can't believe that they had a television set, a computer, or ever read a newspaper magazine, because it would be hard pressed to go for groceries without seeing the case in a sensationalistic headline on any magazine right at the grocery store. So to me, I think there and I'll ask you if you thought that possibly, in light of the jurors being able to respond after the verdict,
there are opportunities for televisi programs. I know this sounds very cynical and it but do you think there is a possibility that some of these jurors actually could have known that what then that what the likelihood was, and that the expect expectation was that Casey would be convicted, and in fact, you know, in a bizarre twist, gave gave themselves an opportunity to be on television programs because of the to say, the least controversial verdict that the jury delivered.
Well, you know, I mean that that is a fact. I mean that they their their media uh ex goes in and would become a more valuable commodity of the way the verdict went. I would say, though, when you look at the vast number of jurors, they still have not come forward.
Uh.
In fact, one woman reportedly has moved from Florida up to like I think with Minnesota, Michigan or something where she had family. She was afraid to stay around the area. And you know, you only have I believe, four who have spoken out, and at least one of those was an alternate. So I think if you're going to consider that as a possibility, the only people that could be a possibility for are the ones who have spoken out, because the others are basically you know, hiding well.
But in light of the outrage expressed by the public, I mean, the person that would probably have to be in hiding as casey Anthony, and of course the family is in hiding as well. But wouldn't wouldn't the jurors be in some kind of precarious situation if they were to say, listen, yeah, I stand by this verdict. There's a lot of angry people out there. I mean, they wouldn't have any peace, so I can see somebody taking off.
I can also see that you know that the jurors weren't immediately contacting the media, even though they have the right to be able to do that. But again, of being cynical, wouldn't that just raise their you know, their rate, wouldn't that? You know, I mean, this case is not going to go away immediately.
As soon as two people spoke out very publicly. Oh you know, I think that ended that because then you had people revealing, so they staying quiet no longer became profitable. So that I think that is you know that that can be dismissed. But you know, let's say there's two people who granted those very public interviews. Was that they're thinking one of those people was the woman who seems to be over eager to serve on the jury. So what was going on in her mind?
Who knows?
I mean, we have no way of really knowing. And if that was going on, I mean I doubt that it would be admitted, you know, if someone would say, oh, yeah, well I did the jury that they verted this way so that I could get more media that should I
can't see that happening, right, So I don't know. I just I think that they got any bad jury with a couple of strong personalities who thought they knew it all and didn't know much at all anyway, and they led the jury by the nose and ended up with this farcical verdict.
Now, when you talked about the opening defense statements and the defense putting out unsubstantiated claims like the abuse and the accidental death possibility and someone else than Casey burying the body, do you think possibly because do you think this wasn't a strategy or do you really think this lawyer just stumbled his way into an acquittal, or do you think that providing this unsubstantiated claims one way or
another really did help, as you say, really helped. But do you think in hindsight, it might.
I think he thought that was his only hope. I think that. But you know, it's raised questions. There's some more associations across the country now looking at the freedom the criminal attorneys have, and I think the reason they are doing that is because they're afraid there might be
some legislation coming down because it should not be right. Yes, a defense attorneys supposed to do everything I can for the sake of their client, but it should not be right to allow the defendant's rights to be able to run rough shot over the rights of everyone else. They should not be allowed to get up there and make these unsubstantiated claims to paint these people. I mean, they called royd Kronk, Morley Brandton bankrupt, they called George Anthony
a pedophile and an incests committter. I mean, you know, it's just outrageous.
Yeah, I agree with you there. I think that there should be a very very healthy debate, especially given of a vigorous defense and when you because if you look at the OJ Simpson case, and you look at this case and other cases as well, if you do get a lawyer, and I mean, some people think this is
just the way it is. But if you can get a lawyer, a defense team to say anything, to have no reservations, to make any substantiated claim like you say, accusing an ex police officer and a grieving grandfather and a person that's concerned about his daughter. But at the same time, he has not been indicted for anything, he has not been convicted of anything. His entire reputation thrown in the trash with these unsubstantiated claims. And this is,
I believe, not part of a vigorous defense. That should not be part of the definition of a vigorous defense. Do everything within the law and with ethics to be able to fight for your client, but that should not include outright baldfaced lies just to help your client.
And you know, I mean, I'm sure he could say, well, I didn't lie, this is what my client told me. But the fact of the matter is is that he knows and he's admitted in the courtroom that his client is a liar.
Well, that's exactly a point that I made in our Canadian courts as well in the trial that I was involved with. Is the same thing that you should be You should not be able based on the cornerstone of the judicial system is that you're not to lie for your client or have your client perjure themselves on the stand. So I asked the question, then how do you determine
the truth? Well, that should be the cornerstone. I mean, you can't have a cornerstone of the judicial system and then we all have this respect for it, so much so that we go through this incredible process. But yet if that cornerstone, that fundamental foundation, is gone, then really what do we have except a circus.
Well, yes, and you use that word respect, And I've heard some commentators say, well, we have to respect the jury's verdict. No, we do not. We have to accept a verdict. And you and I and I don't think it would be wrong to gun case the anthony down. I mean, let me read straight. I think it was very wrong to gun case the anthony down on the street. I think vigilanti justice is wrong and no one should take it on itself to harmer. We do need to accept that verdict, but we don't need to respect it.
We can look at it and see logically that it was flawed and there was things wrong with that, and we need to see that and accept it. If we're ever going to make the system better, because face it, we're all humans, and when you have humans involved in anything, there's never going to be perfection. We can, we want to move towards it as best we can, particularly when we're dealing with someone's life, but it's never going to exist period.
Now, given that you have written this book, Mummy's Little Girl, which I call the definitive book about this murder case, have you been the of any criticism because of making conclusions like we had in our discussion. When I listened to our discussion, we were both very, very positive that she would be certainly convicted and should have been convicted of this murder despite circumstantial evidence. And like you say, there's many many cases that put a fair amount of
circumstantial evidence together to create to get a conviction. Have you been the target of any criticism for your book itself and what they might call rush to judgment.
One of the goofiest things I heard after the trial. Now, this is after the verdict has been let out and she's acquitted. Someone said, because of people like Diane Fanning, no one can get a good fair trial in this country. And I'm going, wait a minute, if she'd been convicted, there would be logic to saying that about me true or not, there would be logical, But consider she's acquitted. That has proved that I was totally irrelevant to the process of justice. And you know which I should be.
You know, I'm a writer, I'm not the jury. I'm not the judge. But you know, I'm entitled to my opinion, and the fact that someone goes into court innocent to proven guilty has nothing to do with the opinions of the people who are not serving on the jury. I mean, this is America. We are entitled to our opinions and we're free to speak our opinions. So there was that, and then I got a whole lot of really garbage
things from people. You know, if people were using calling me names like bloodsucker or other worst things that we can't quite repeat. I just deleted them and blocked them and just moved on, because, I mean, you can't argue with people like that. Who I couldn't understand them either. They they were Casey Anthony's supporters. They got the verdict they wanted, so why are they acting angry? It didn't make any sense. And then there were others though that
really misunderstood. I mean, there were people who thought that I had raised and got the first book out on Casey Anthony a couple of weeks after the verdict. Well, as you and I know, this book came out in November two thousand and nine. So to shame on me for hurrying up writing this book, well, I'd write to
him and explain to him. And there were a lot of people who wrote to me saying wrote negative things to me, that did it without calling names or using profanity, And I would write back to them and explain to them my viewpoints. And I ended up making a lot of friends out of that. And so that's fine. I don't mind the criticism as long as on the other end there is a person that is not just willing to talk, but willing to listen.
Right now, in light of Mommy's Little Girl and that being published again last year or more than a year ago, are there any plans for a follow up? As the publisher contacted.
You, there is a very short update going in a new edition.
But it's it's it's not it's not a new book on the shelves. No, it's not a new.
Book, and there's no reason to write a new book.
It's quite frankly, nothing I said in the book was disproven in the courtroom, right, incredible. The only thing was I think at one point I might have gotten the order of bags Wong and how the body was wrapped, but that's essentially I had all the bags there, so you know that was kind of irrelevant. But you know that there there was nothing to show that my theory of the murder was wrong. There was nothing to show
that any of the information presented was false. Nothing. In fact, there is more in the book than there actually was presented a trial.
Now, in light of these statements by Lipman and by Mason about the conclusion of the trial itself and how they had mentioned while all those people that rushed the judgment, can you tell us if you thought those statements were in line or were they out of order? What do you think about those statements by the defense team?
Well, considering Cheney Mason, who was supposed to be who is a mature man and should know better, he should not be gloating. There is still a small child dead, no matter how you look at it, it was very unseemly for him to be gloating and for him to flip the bird at the media was just gross and childish and quite fine. This is a defense team that sucked up to the media, tried to get on the media every chance they could to get their face up there,
to get their words out there. They played the media all before the trial, and then suddenly after the trial when they get them verdicts they want, they're kicking the media and the teeth. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. They're you're either going to use them and appreciate them being there for using them, or you're going to avoid them from the beginning. And you know, it just was very two faced, two face to the mature, right.
I lost a lot of respect for Chandy Mason with the way he behaved afterwards.
Right now, do you expect, being an author yourself and how the business works, do you expect some books or a book from the defense team or coming from that camp.
I would not be surprised to see one. I mean, this case was even though it did the trial didn't last anywhere near as long, it still was explosive and its impact on the media. And look how many books came out about O. J. Simpson. You know, so I do expect that they will happen. I think we have to get past the anger stage before anyone's going to be willing to offer anyone on the defense team a
lot of money. Uh. There are a lot of people out there that are you know, uh, writing to networks and posting on their Facebook pages and telling them how you know that they will be boycotted. And as long as there's that much anger in the air, it would be risky business for anyone to offer a lot of money for a book to you'll to if anyone anyone on the defense side of the room.
So you're saying that it would be as much as it might be tempting for someone to do that. You see that the the the pulse of the country itself is in like I said, I hate to say about in a lynching mood for all those people that got you know, what I found was very very incredible too, that they already have a Casey Anthony Halloween mask produced, among other things.
Yeah. Well, you know, when you when you think of scary people, are they she's She's one of them. H I can't imagine that I would ever put one of the those on, you know. I mean, it's just I find it a bit too repulsive.
Sure, Now, what is her future in her in terms of her ability to be able to show up anywhere in America and continue with her life. What do you think the future holds for her in America?
Well, I would think if I were her, I'd be busy coloring my hair and getting a little bit of plastic surgery because she her face is spread everywhere, you know, and and and there there are people all over this country who are outraged by the fact that she's walking free. And she can't leave the country because she's a convicted felon because of those check in stolen money charges, So she can't get a passport to leave the country. So she's gonna have to find a way to live within
the borders of the United States. And you know, I can't think of any way she can do that but by changing her appearance.
And do you think the same faith awaits her family as well? George and Cindy in the family. Uh. And the second part of the question is do you think that they'll be living together?
You know, I want I wonder a lot about George and Cindy's marriage lasting, and and I think that that there's a chance that it will, because although Casey did throw her father and brother under the bus, uh, Cidy drew a line there and wouldn't do that too, even though bias which Wally encouraging her.
To do that.
So you know, I guess they have a straight in my mind, a strange relationship, and I guess there's a good chance that will maintain it. I don't know how they can continue to live with her living and be comfortable doing it, but I don't know their neighbors, so I have no idea how that is for them. Uh. There are things about uh, the the Anthony parents that
have you know, really bothered me that they've done. And they've been a bad judgment a lot of times, and some of them, like with Sydney particularly being obstructive of justice and Georgia out there screaming at people when they had crowds around, and you know, there are things that just didn't like. But at the same time, Dan, having done these other true crime stories, I know that it is very difficult to be the loved one of the victim, and it is always also very difficult to be the
loved one of the perpetrator. And George and Sydney Anthony were both and I think as long as they're not in the media view all the time like they were before the trial, that the anger towards them will probably fade much quicker than the anger towards Casey.
Right now, in light of this entire trial and you covering this case and writing the definitive book Mummy's Little Girl, well, what is your big conclusion in your mind that you've learned from this trial and through and through this entire experience.
I guess the biggest thing I learned from it is that justice is not perfect, no matter how much we may want it to be, and that we do need to remain vigilant to try to make it as close to perfect as we can do it. But there will always be verdicts that outrage us, and and some of those verdicts are not acquittals, but are convictions. And I think that we all we need to keep that in mind too, because there are there are people in prisons
serving time for crime, say did not commit. Sure, most of the people in jails and prison are guilty, but there are those who are not, those who the Jewelry got it wrong because you were given a bad information or misinterpreted the information they were given.
Now, one last question, what do you believe about the prosecution's chance on appeal?
Prosecutors don't have a chance to appeal.
They have no ability to appeal that conviction.
No, not and whatsoever.
Well, okay, that's that's my little education, because Canada we do have that mechanism.
Maybe we ought to import that.
There's one good thing, I guess. Yeah, so all there's just she is scott free and we have to live with this verdict. And I'm sure the analysis will not end. And I'm sure that people that are interested in this case will be more than interested in your book for all the information that provided in that. Like you say, nothing changed with this trial, and you stand by the evidence that was that you had beforehanded you published in
your book. So I'm sure with the update it would be even a more fascinating read, given what the verdict of the verdict was, because like justice, as any reader and just as anyone after reading your book, it looked like a absolute slam dunk, and look at the verdict that we got, so.
Yeah, it was. It was really I was really depressed for a little while afterwards. More than anything, I white justice for Kelly and that didn't happen.
Yeah, yeah, incredible. Well, I want to thank you, Diane for coming back on the program for a very fascinating program about your analysis of the Casey Anthony verdict. And course I want to tell people even listening to Dan Fanning, the author of Mummy's Little Girl, the definitive story about the Casey Anthony case and now with a follow up, it's the book to refer to if you want to know all the details of what really happened in this case.
So I want to thank you very much Diane for coming on and wish you the best with all your new projects. I do know that you have for me about something coming up in January for release. Can you tell us just a little bit about it?
Her Deadly Web is coming out January second, and it is about a woman who had two husbands and she claimed the first one died in a cattle stampede, and actually she got away with that, and then her second husband, she claimed committed suicide and when they studied the ballistics, they realized that the second shot was instantly fatal and therefore he could not have fired the third shot, and she was convicted of that murder and she's in prison
serving life for that. And while that that investigation was going on, they discovered that her first husband, in fact did not die from cattle stampede, but had died from morphine overdose. And Raynella was a nurse, so she would have had access to their drugs.
Interesting. We look forward to that her deadly web with the Black Widow for Help. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, we look forward to that and having you back on discussing that book. So I want you to have a great evening and thank you again for coming on the program and discussing this incredible case that has captivated the world basically and especially America. You have a good night, Diane,
do dance, good night, Thank you, by bye. You've been listening to the program True Murder, the most shocking Killers in true crime history and the authors that are int about it with Diane Fanning, the author of Mummy's Little Girl. Good Night four