Lucky Land Casino asking people what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in my dentist's office more than once.
Actually do I have to say?
Yes? You do?
In the car before my kids pta meeting?
Really?
Yes?
Excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
I never win?
And tell well, there you have it.
You could get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot com.
Play for free right now? Are you feeling lucky?
Nobri just necesaryfoid? We're gonna be my long eighteen plus terms conditions of pluck seems every details.
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 you brighten your day, Lowe actually a lot, so
sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck casino dot com, No pusses every where, every I lost e terms.
Lop to.
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 BTK. Every week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host, journalist and author Dan 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. The twenty eleven Casey Anthony trial came the most sensational news story of the year. Time magazine called it the social media trial of the century. The twenty two year old single mum was charged with three felonies, including first degree murder,
aggravated child abuse, and manslaughter. When pictures surfaced on the Internet showing her at a night club shortly after her two year old daughter, Kaylee went missing, the media in public went ballistic. Thirty one days passed after Caylee disappeared before police were notified, and then it was not mother Casey, but her family that called police and they were pointing fingers at her. The trial resembled in many ways the Roman Colosseum, where crowds thirsted to see lions devour the
captured prisoner. Internet blogs exploded, just as the Roman crowds must have, with demands for execution. The trials. Streaming videos and interactive blogs left the public demanding to see an embodiment of Caesar give his final thumbs down against their prize. Raal jury was another matter. Jurors cried as the evidence against her was so thin that they had no choice but to find Casey Anthony not guilty. Almost unnoticed, a few leading journalists protested the media carnival that became the
Casey Anthony trial. They objected to the one sided narrative informing the court of public opinion forgetting there is a difference between someone appearing guilty and the requirement that prosecutors need to prove in court. The media's coverage is something we should discuss, beginning with did police arrest the wrong person? Was the jury right deciding Casey Anthony was not guilty? Was Casey's mother involved in a cover up of a crime against Kayley, and who was Cindy protecting Casey or
her husband George. The book that we're discussing this evening and the story that we were discussing this evening is the media's court of public opinion Casey Anthony, with my special guest Keith Long. Journalist and author Keith longcome to the program, and thank you for agreeing to this interview. Keith Long.
Thank you so much. Dan. It's my pleasure to be here. And I've never heard my own words expressed so well as you just did.
Well, thank you very much. Now, this, as you know, and of course anyone that's going to tune into this program and hopefully for those who that listen unless they've been on another planet, everyone is familiar with this, very familiar with this case and this trial and this entire story. And it is fair to say that Casey Anthony is one of the most reviled persons in America and possibly worldwide, but especially America. When you see the extent with Halloween
Max people going out for Halloween, it's Casey Anthony's. It really was a circus and a carnival and very you know, obviously interesting story that that fascinated.
A lot of people to that point, Dan, And I'm a research journalist and the article, part of the article you quoted from was for my article for Harvard Harvard's NIEME Information for Journalism, and my editor for the project was Barry Sussman, who was some people recognized the name. He was Bob Woodwards and Kyle Bernstein's editor for the
Washington Post when they exposed the Watergate series. So his standards for sourcing for the content of the article were very, very high, and I maintained that same high standard for my sourcing in my book. And also I might mention I as have a backup source for your comment about Kasey Anthony being the most reviled and hated person in America.
Certainly there were two polls down of course, in twenty eleven after she was acquitted, found her the most in America, and then a year after she had been in seclusion, in twenty twelve and a year after her acquittal, she was voted again the most stated person in America. So you're right on target with your.
Analysis right now. The thing is is that there's a big difference between and we don't want to harp on this and go back into this. Can anybody listened to this program is not a novice and not a person that is coming to this subject and these types of conversations for the first time. So let's not deal with those people, because there's not any of those really listening to this program. I'm sure. Obviously the prosecution didn't have didn't present their case in a strong enough fashion or
a they just did not state their case effectively. Hence the jury made the decision to acquit Casey Anthony. So let's not go there. They obviously the jury and the system and and so some people say, well, you know, the system worked or the judicial system. It was a circumstantial case. Obviously everyone knows that.
Can I make one comment about that point?
Okay? Uh.
The what was interesting in my research for the trial was the jury's uh, there's settlers and didn't make public comments about their liberations, about what they thought about Casey, why they voted to a quit and the rest of them were afraid to say anything public and they've been in effectively in hiding Aaron Panallas County, Florida, which is the Tampa Bay area roughly speaking on the west coast
where I live. Uh, And you won't they're trying to disguise who they are, the fact that they were members of the jury to every level they can and because a lot of them got their threats, a lot of them were objects of abuse and the derision for their decision. But from my standpoint as a research journalist, Dan, what they said was what the foreman confirmed in a one hour actually I think it was a two hour, two part interview on television, was that the jury was not
sympathetic to the defendant. They did not like a sandem, they didn't want to accord and for me as a research journalist, that gives credibility for their decision. They cried when they voted to acquit. These are emotional reactions that jurors. Example, in the OJ case, I speak to bar associations here in order, and colleges and law schools, and I compare
the OJ case to the Casey Anthony case. And of course my own opinion is that OJ was guilty and that the jury acquitted him despite the fact that they the evidence in that case strongly suggested that he was guilty. But the difference in terms of the jury is the jury was very sympathetic to OJ. In fact, they invoked something called jury nullification, which is a recognized legal authority that juries have in America to nullify a law by
trying the law and not the facts. Juries are finders of fact, that's the way they're referred to, but they can also be finders of law and reject a law. That's a recognized right that goes back to Peter's anger in Colonel America. And in the LJ case, that's what they did. They rejected the law. But in the case there was entirely different.
Well, you know, I don't want to go too much on a detour, but you have me at OJ. Okay, So here's my analysis of the OJ Simpson case. And we're just going to put it out there and we're not going to spend too much time on this. But this is the way I looked at This is hard, hard, and long. I wish I would be looking at it right now instead of back in ninety three, ninety four
or whatever it was when it first happened. And then the trial Robert Shapiro part of the dream team of ten lawyers at one hundred thousand dollars a month that OJ was able to hire court and as well as Henry Lee to sit on the forensic fence for the defense, and that costs a lot of money as well, and a lot of anyway, a lot of discussion to be able to get Henry Lee to be able to sort of lean on the fence. And again, please let's not
go down that detour talking about that. But ten lawyers and Robert Shapiro quit during a trial because of what Johnny Cochrane how he wanted to address the jury. And according to my information, Shapiro quit, and this is pretty rare. He quit because he didn't like what Johnny Cochran was going to do with the jurors. And he planned and did say are you willing you black people in this
jury willing to go back into your black communities? Being the person that handed this decision in this unfair racist LA Police Department and with the Mark Furman and inadequate, I mean, how could you? How can you go toe to toe with ten of the best defense lawyers in America with expertise in every know That's the way I
looked at the O. J. Simpson case. Well, sure is just regular folks that have nothing better to do and are silly enough to want to be on a juror a be a jur I think it's silly to go through murder trials and have to see crime scene photos and under the guys that you're doing something for your for your community or for your country. I mean, I don't know anyway, sorry, but you had.
You have to invite me back and we can talk about that, your your opinions that have provoked a lot of thoughts and and very interesting discussion for me. But as you say, we don't want to do it tonight, but a very interesting subject.
Now. The thing is with Casey Anthony, and I might as well get this out there right now. What you really start your your article with is that you know there was a media circus, uh, you know, the irresponsible media, and we can say name some names. Nancy Grace was unbelievable during this, but there was other names as well. Again, this is not really in dispute that the media. There was some irresponsible members of the media rushing to judgment.
And what I wanted to say too is I had and I guess I was part of that media circus too. I had Diane Fanning on Saint Martin's Press, Mummy's Little Girl and the story of Casey Anthony prior to the trial. And that was interesting to me because I had not seen that, especially in a murder trial that was you know, upcoming soon, soon to come, and yet a book was out prior to the trial, and then it was very
interesting tell us about that. What was your conversation with Dan Fanning wrote the book, and so what was your conversation with her, like what was the kind of things that you had to discuss and tell us?
Well, it was a short discussion. I was, I told her interested in the subject and my research and so forth, and she basically just pointed out that she was writing her story before the verdict came in and before all the evidence was in, but she felt compelled to write about the story because it was the center of attention in America and certainly on TV. And she was you know, basically, she was not We didn't get into a lot of
discussion or conversation. It was just kind of a touch base conversation two journalists that her think about the same subject.
Okay, Yeah, And I was surprised myself too to be able to you know, have her back on and discuss how she felt, you know, about writing a book and then having this looking like a foregone conclusion and then certainly not. The other thing that I have is that if you say that in the court of public opinion, Casey Anthony was you know, it was a rush to judgment, obviously attacking her character, and it was everyone knows it was a circus. But what are you saying about it
when you're saying about Casey Anthony's innocence? Why can't you just why are you not content to just leave it there? Why are you compelled to? And we won't get to that point yet, but let's let's just talk about why are you at least not just compelled to talk about and analyze and dissect why Casey Anthony really you know, of course she was acquitted by the juror why is she not guilty? Right?
It's a you know, that's a fundamental pivotal question and point about the whole subject, dan uh And and what attracted me to the story, the one sided narrative of the subject as a journalist, and I kept looking for a journalist guideline, not a analyst guideline or commentator, but a journalist guideline. When you take a story subject, you may be given marching orders by your editor to say, Okay,
here's the story. The evidence looks overwhelming against this person, and we're going to cover this story, and we're going to show this evidence in our article or in our piece. But we also have to show the other side. Sometimes it's towards the end of the article, and sometimes it's a fraction of the space of the whole article. But at least you hear as strong and as compelling a presentation for the other side as you can muster, as you can find as a journalist and as a reporter.
And I kept waiting to find that in some kind of journalistic outlet, and it was never there. And so I talked to Barry Suspen and he felt that it was a media circus. But he said, look, he said, you can present me your story, but I'm going to need strict sourcing, and you're going to have to convince me before I publish it. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism is a very respected, top of the line operation, and they are not going to put anything out there that
is strongly sourced, strictly sourced, and credible. And I accepted that standard, and he was very happy to publish. And so to answer your question, why don't I just leave it by a statement for an argument that Casey Anthony is innocent and let it go of that. There's much more involved in this story, the media and the public.
And here again then you can recall the scenes at the courthouse where jerked or fighting amongst themselves to get in line so that they could be a witness to what everybody understood and believed would be a execution decision, or at least a guilty decision for this defendant. And that's why I said in my piece that it resemble the days of the Roman Colosseum. Well, that's not America. That's not the America that I live in or want
to do it. And of course she was the object of bullying, but everybody is so convinced because of her behavior after the death of her daughter that she had to be guilty. Nobody would the consensus is, and not an unreasonable consensus, but the consensus is nobody could witness or find the death of their two year old daughter and then not report it. And she never reported it. It wasn't her that that eventually determined that the child
that died. It was the body was found six months later, and it wasn't her that reported the death to police. It was her mother. Police arrested her.
So let's you know what, let's let's not you know, that's the thing is, let's not go too much into rehashing the evidence, because then we can have we can have a fire firestorm here of well, that's not exactly how I went down, and we can you know, retry the case here to a certain degree. What I would like to look at is and of course, again I'm
not trying to edit what you're trying to say here. Again, I can agree that that everything that everybody that's listening to this program witnessed for themselves as well, because it dominated everything. Is that it now in hindsight or if they were to look at it, say the next person or the next person or the next person, because you know,
the judicial system of America sometimes gets it wrong. That if you have this media circus and it's wrong now people think that Casey Anthony is guilty and beat the murder rap and the jury was silly and it was nonsensical and the defense through you know, through conjecture, and again that's a big word. And I can have the definition of what conjecture is is that that the father, George, was the killer. But again he hasn't been tried. He was that Any and all involvement in this was investigated
by the police. There were no charges laid. There are no there was no talk of charges to be laid. The judge in the trial, the presiding judge in the trial, said he felt this is after the trial, that there was ample evidence to convict Casey Anthony. There's been talking of jurors not really paying attention to certain evidence, and again that's just some kind of story because I I don't have that evidence. I don't have that.
Lucky Land casino, asking people what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in my dentist's office more than once.
Actually do I have to say?
Yes?
You do?
In the car before my kid's PTA meeting.
Really yes, excuse me, what's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
I never win and tell well, there you have it.
You can get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot com play for free right now?
Are you feeling lucky?
Nope, We're not necessary. Void Web were gonna be my long eighteen plus terms and conditions of plus you what's every days?
Wait, the Lucky land Slots. You can get lucky just about anywhere.
It's your captain speaking. We've got clear runway and the weather's fine, but we're just going to circle up here a while and get lucky. Oh no, nothing like that. It's just these cash prizes add up quick. So I suggest you sit back, keep your trade table up right, and start getting lucky.
Play for free at Lucky Landslots dot com. Are you feeling lucky? No purchase necessary, void where? But in my law eighteen plus terms and conditions applying any website for details.
I don't know what kind of evidence that would be, you know, overwhelming to me? So of that, so maybe I shouldn't even have said that. Let's discount I said anything about the jury. Jury. But getting back to this situation here, just because jurors.
I can add the Attorney General Pam Bondi that quote nobody there's nobody else in the world that could have done this to Kayley except Casey Anthony. But she said it before the trial even began.
Yeah, but that's called politics, isn't it. Because everybody's trying to get elected and re elected and make political points. Because so that's it's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible, and it's
it's not a yeah, it's it's wrong. It's wrong for people to but it is a good example in the analysis is that I think people shouldn't judge people by their posts say this behavior a couple of days later, necessarily, But then again, this is the age that we are in where there's video of almost everything, and you have people like Nancy Grace who should know better, she's a former prosecutor, and yet you know, television stations should be
more responsible. Publishing companies certainly don't, as per typical published books before trials are finished, trying I mean, the only reason you would do that is try to capitalize on the momentum, capitalize on that furor by being the first right, Isn't that What else other motivation would that be? Since they don't do that.
In the case of hl N, and that's the station that Nancy Grace is on, they have, in my opinion, a kind of a business model that has been very successful for them, very lucrative for them. Business model is pretty apparent to me and I don't say this because I have any feeling because of the way they cover this particular trial at all. I really don't, just as
an objective evaluator. Their business model is to find an accused that can attract national tension and then to bullieve the accused up one side and down the other, unrelated and that's their business model, and it's very successful to a certain audience. And for me, I only say that just to acknowledge it and to be aware of it so that when I Channel Surf and run by the station, I just kind of understand that's what I'm going to see.
Well, you know, our beloved corporation in Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This is their side. This is the way they deal
with both sides of the story. They present their story and then and they ask the opponent in this story, the bad guy in this story, the subject or target of their investigation or the documentary, if they'd like to appear on camera, and they don't get any response, So they show up at the office, or they show up at his home, or they try to get him in the parking lot running away from a cameraman and a
reporter with a microphone. You know the same thing. It's irresponsible, really, But what I wanted to get to is that you have accused somebody of murder other than Casey Anthy. You said Casey Anthony. Is you believe Casey Anthony did not commit this murder? So tell us I won't put words in your mouth. Tell us what you believe about Casey Anthony and her actual guilt. Let's guilt under you know, a higher court will say, and who did do this murder? And then well, I'll have some questions for.
You, sure well as far as the acquitted defendant is concerned. I approached the question and the subjects as a journalist, as a research journalist, and I let the research and the texts tell the story. And uh, in this case, as we've already mentioned the fact that the jury jury was unsympathetic to her, but they acquitted her as a research journalist, that's a very powerful fact. If and I only mentioned the old j jury just and you and
I agree on that. I think I only mentioned that as a comparison somebody that the public believe is guilty and the jury acquitted them. But in that case, the jury was sympathetic to the defendant. In this case that didn't exist. They didn't like her, they didn't want to.
But if they're using it as if you're using O. J. Simpson as a litmus test, is an extraordinary case, and the case of Anthony is an extraordinary case. But they are not apples and apples. They're apples and something else. Just because you know, you're you're drawing, you're taking, you're making an inference because just because the jury, again you say unanimous that they were unsympathetic, Well, why would they be sympathetic to her? No one was. I mean, that's
so that's pretty easy. The odds are against twelve ordinary people being sympathetic to her. She's in court accused of something, so again sympathy, unsympathetic. But then you say, well they but they still acquitted her. Well, of course, because they've been instructed or the prosecution was ineffective, or the defense was effective, and the defense could have been effective. In the conjecture, I mean, it happens.
Yeah, And as a as a as a researcher, what what impressed me about that fact, that single fact was was was that the jury felt compelled to follow the judges instructions, and the instructions of the law as it's written and come up with a decision based on the law, and that the jury was the jury decision, and the jurors themselves represented a tremendous achievement for American justice in and of itself, just that fact, the fact that they could,
in the face of huge hostile a huge hostile environment against the defendant, could stand up and say, I'm sorry. The law says, if there's a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. And that's exactly what they did. And then they went into hiding to protect themselves from the hostility of some members of the public at their decision. So, as a research journalist, what impresses me is irony in truth. Truth
is stranger than fiction. You couldn't write a story like this and have anybody to believe it at all possible that these twelve girds could be subjected to the hostility and the probrium of their culture. And yet when you look at the facts of it, understand they upheld the law that ultimately protects each of us as an individual in this country. How impressive is that and how.
Well it is? You know, I'm not impressed. I'm not impressed with the system we'll say again example, I wasn't impressed with the judicial system in the decision, the O. J. Simpson decision, I wasn't just And so there are I mean, I probably could name a few decisions that I wasn't I wasn't happy with, and I didn't agree with. So I mean, that's that's just the way, that's just the way things are. But I can't see how you know, they could have been presented a not enough conclusive evidence,
and that's a reasonable doubt as well. I mean, and it all it takes is one juror, and so.
Well, the cow was eight to four and the first vote to equip and eurie watchers and trial consultants and people who follow the courts will tell you that that is a pretty strong vote on an initial vote, especially on a murder trial like this that attracted so much attention. And the ultimate decision was unanimous, and as I said, it was not out of sympathy to the dependent. And
the other thing about the researching in this case. It may surprise you, but I read the testimony of all of the friends associates, and I should say the interviews as well as the testimony with police, all of her friends, associates, colleagues, people that she went to school with. Anybody and everybody that was around her when both before her child was born and after when she was raising Kayley, and the
police interviewers would bait them. They were trying to say, Okay, she was not a good mother, she slapped Kaylie, right, or she was abusive, or she was neglectable. Right, you know, kind of almost leaning in saying right. And what do you suppose all these people said in an environment where nobody wanted to be associated with defending her, and what every one of them said was that she was an ideal mother with no exception. Okay, they went into they went into detail.
They was that's fine, But you know the thing is that's this that's a character. You know, somebody's summing up someone's character and by their estimation and friends, and I have lots of friends. You have friends and acquaintances and people. I'd hate to see what people would say under those circumstances.
I see that the strongest evidence, like you say, is the jury with all that hostility, thinking of the consequences of their decision and then what they might have to do, like going into seclusion and being hated and so yeah, that that's evidence because that makes logical sense that people would take in their own safety into consideration in their decision, whether they wanted to or not. Biases natural and self and survival is natural, and the other you know that.
The the other thing is that the the the jurors as well listen to the information and made their major decision under the judge's directions. So they but they still have to be that is evidence in itself. Please make another because I have to come back with this train of thought here gather my thought here, Well I.
Can I can add this and the way my storylined uples that confirms her innocence and one of the kind of the pivot points of this information I just said about all her friends, everybody, and they were vouching for her. But the thing of it is what people what changed people's minds about the innocence or guilts of the defendant was her behavior after her daughter died. And as a researcher, that is important to me, that's important thing to know.
That's the kind of a point of departure. And so they also talked to her character as a person independent of any descriptions of her as a mother, and they said that she was everybody's mom. She would tell she would take care of people, she would when she was around them. She was that kind of a person. She was not a narcissistic person.
See that's what I was talking about. Though, you know, we can make these you know, she wasn't a narcissistic person. Again, we get into you know, sofa of psychiatry here, you know, couch psychiatry, home psychiatry. These friends and their testimony is valuable, but it's not really as strong as the other evidence
that used to convict her or to acquit her. And the thing is is that the friend, how many serial killers are married and their wife has no idea of the horror that this guy's perpetrating on the nation, their eight bodies or ten victims or whatever it is. So in and itself, you know that the friend says that she's a great mom. That's fine. Maybe she was a great mom till that one week or that incident, whatever
that is, or that one month. A lot of people take a sharp departure from their normal typical behavior after thirty years, twenty years, fifty years, many years.
So let's the point.
I mean, because we only have so much time. Let's concentrate on the evidence that you have. You know, I know that the defense put forward the same argument that George and the drowning. But I want to hear actual evidence. I want to hear strong evidence. And let's discuss that, because that would take two hours. So let's talk about the strong evidence. You are accusing a man. You say, listen, the court of public opinion crucified this woman, and now what are they going to do? And she's still in
hiding and she's still reviled. But aren't both of us doing this? And that's why I'm giving you a rough ride on this one. Aren't we both doing this? And aren't you in accusing George of a murder? He's not been charged, he was investigated. Like I said before, I mean, aren't we doing the same thing. What if the show takes off and four hundred thousand people listen to this program and go, oh, well, shouldn't we retry George? Shouldn't
there be another retrial, shouldn't George be prosecuted? Shouldn't we go hunt down George?
Yeah? And they as far as George, which is our father, is concerned, I don't assert in the book that he murdered Kayley. What I assert that he is responsible for taking Kayley, putting her in a double laundry bag, and placing her in the woods where she was later found six months later. And also I know that there is suspicion that and here I use the words suspicions that George had a motive for negative feelings toward Kayley and possibly killing her. And what do you suppose that that
suspicion is all about? It goes back to the relationship in this family, which been commented about even by people that don't like the defendant, as a very dysfunctional family, very odd.
Family in terms of their Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you know the thing is, dysfunctionality is more commonplace than not commonplace, I mean. And besides, what does even dysfunction mean? Anything out of the ordinary, anything out of perfection, which doesn't occur. Let's just see what, you know. I want to know what exactly the evidence is that of his involvement, That's the thing. And if right, I want to hear the evidence.
Of that, sure, absolutely, obviously it's germane to the whole subject. And of course, the manner in which the body was found in there woods, just walk or so away from his home, was wrapped in bags. The bags were tied.
With duct tape.
And it so happens that George was the one that buried family pets and double plastic bags taped at the top the duck bates in their family history. But this was a method of disposing of bodies, in this case pets that George preferred and that George used in the past, and this is the way the little girl was found not far from his home. So there is a connection
there between the discovery of the body and George. And of course there is incontrovertible evidence at trial that George lied on the stand about his activities while Kaylee was missing. For example, he had a mistress while Kaylee was still missing, and the whole country was looking for Kaylee around Forda anyway, and everybody was concerned about her. He was having a play with a mistress, and when he was asked about
it at trial, he lied. And the reason we know he lied was because there was evidence presented that there was a guard gate at the mistress's place that recognized him, that logged him in multiple times, which he denied. There was a cell phone text of amorous comments between him and the mistress. And what's more interesting, the mistress says that he in effect confessed to her before Kaylee was found, that Kaylee died and that he knew how she died.
So this is what what?
What?
What? What? Okay? This this is this is some news for me. What did police do with this? Where when did this come out? And why was this evidence? Tell us about this evidence? In terms of this, mistress said what to who? Who's who? Is this? This confession story given to.
Well, I was given to the mistress and she testified to it at trial, okay. And the statement was that Kayley died in an accident that snowballed out of control. Is what he told her. And of course this is you can put this in the context of a man whose daughter is on trial and who's he He is testifying against her capital murder and he's lying on the sand, not just about his statement to his mistress, but the
fact that she was even even was his mistress. And so you have to ask yourself at some point in time, why would he do that? Why would he lie about having a mistress when the effect was to was to incriminate his daughter? Whose face the death ped I mean, let's face it, if he admitted to having a mistress, that's not the end of the world for him. Why would he do that? Why would he uh, why would he lie about it?
You know? The thing is if you, if you, if you have to say why did he do this? And then and then make a supposition or a proposition that that this is why he did that, then again that's unfair. In it's you can call it a lot of things. You can call it conjecture, you can call it.
You know, well, it's just that for me, Well, okay, it's a it's an open question that I'm asking. And the reason I'm asking it that way, I'm not asserting that he murdered anybody. But I am trying to present a balanced narrative. I'm trying to present a balance narrative, the one side of narrative of his story.
Tell me about the tell him, tell us about the mistress. Though, what if this is if this is well, this could be crucial evidence. This testimony here.
Lucky land Casino asking people, what's the weirdest place you've gotten Lucky.
Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in my dentist's office more than once.
Actually, do I have to say?
Yes?
You do in the car before my kid's PTA meeting?
Really? Yes?
Excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
I never win?
And tell well, there you have it.
You could get lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot com play for free right now?
Are you feeling lucky?
No, we're not necessary for my long eighteen plus terms conditions.
Plus what every to get here.
That you know was an accident got out of control? Again, if you ask the question, why would this mistress make up a story like that that you know, on the face of it seems kind of feasible and doesn't sound like a fantastic opportunistic story. Again, tell us about the actual trial and what did they do with her as testimony and the cross examine and direct vote. What was the result of this? Why is it? Why was this not more important?
Well? That's you know, that's the backstory Dan, about this, about how this whole story has been a one sided narrative on the part of everyone involved in it practically except her defense team, and that is the police. It's not a surprise to people at follow crime story is that when a high profile or celebrity involved crime is committed, they want to find a solution. They need somebody to prosecute. The prosecutor. A lot of them are elected, a lot
of them use those cases. I won't mention Jeff Ashton's name as the stepping stones a higher political office, and I think that's actually what he did in Orange County, Florida. But I'm just saying that you go after a suspect, and you tried what the prosecutor does. He's obligated to look, to seek and to obtain justice. But the way the system works, too often, he said, they look for somebody to convict, and they look for leverage to use against that person to gain a conviction by a jury of peers.
And sometimes that means you just zero in on one person who looks like a ripe vulnerable target and ignore the other people in the case. Perhaps George, that should be investigated. You said on several times George was investigated, or maybe he wasn't. Well, the truth is he wasn't. I watched the videotaped interrogations. I watched, I read the transcripts. He was given a pass. He won't.
Let me ask it. Let me ask this question though the whole story starts. You know, again, explain this to me then, But we're giving this this your logic on this story. Here, Casey Anthony is not at her family's home, she's somewhere else. There's the car at the impound and the parents get a call, and then there's the smell of death. Didn't he confirm that smell of death even though the mother was the first person to give us that.
I mean, I don't understand how. Again, you don't have to give me a motive, but you got to give me how this makes logical sense when it started. Explain this for me.
Sure, absolutely, the smell of death was in the trunk of Casey's car. Sure, and that was discovered. That was identified about two and a half weeks after the day we know that Katie died.
Well.
As it turns out, incidentally, Henry Lee was one of forensic examiner, is very prominent forensic scientist who was on the OJ case. He's also on this case for the dependent and his conclusion was that there was no human decomposition in the trunk of the car after he examined the trunk. So I just throw that in as a as a as a reference point, human decomposition is very difficult to distinguish from animal decomposition. That is what Henry Lea said, That's what a lot of experts in this
subject saying. But also, it wasn't detected. It wasn't detected until almost three weeks after the death of Kayley. And so you know, for anybody to assert that Casey was driving around with her dead daughter in the trunk of her car for three weeks, you have to ask the question, is I do why wasn't there an order before three weeks or two and a half weeks somebody would have smelled.
And and it wasn't in it? How long was it in the impound though?
There was picked up almost a month after the death of the daughter.
And that's why you know, you know, you've seen a junk yard before, though, write or an impound. I mean, is it possible. Isn't it possible that that smell might not have been detected just because where you are and who's near you know, no number of cars.
If you put a dead body or of anything and that animal or any or anything in the trunk of the car within a few days, you're going to be You're going to have the putrid odor from that carcass and uh, that's just the way it is.
And so.
The fact of the matter is that she abandoned the car on a street near the street. She didn't try to hide it. She chose to abandon the car near the street where her mother drove to work every day. So one of the things that anybody researching the case obactively looks at is well, was she hiding, was she exhibiting consciousness of guilt? Was she was she trying to cover anything up? And you look at her and you go into the lies that she told to police about
where Kaylie was and about where she worked. These are lies that the police confirmed her lies at the snap of the finger. She said she worked at Universal Studios. So they call up Hr, and Hr says, I'm sorry, she had worked in three years. And she says, well, the nanny, this fictitious nanny that she invented, who had Kaylee, according to her, lived in this part. And so they go to the apartment and the apartment's been vacant for six months. Yeah, so I mean, these are not lies
to protect herself. And then the why well.
Wait, wait a minute, How why are these why are they're not lies? To protect herself.
Because they expose the fact that she's telling lies. In other words, she says she works at a place that she knows. Hr is going to tell them she hasn't worked there for three years. And she tells them that the nanny has a child, lives in this apartment. That's where she's been with the nanny, and they go to the apartment. It's been vacant for six months.
So she's doing this to She's doing this too for what reason though? The police are looking at her with suspicion because her parents are accusing her as well, are putting, you know, the possibility that she did this, and so then she is purposely she's purposely saying, listen, I work at Universal, so that Universal can say, no, she hasn't worked here for years, and then well, where's the child? Where did you leave the child? Well, at this nanny,
but the nanny doesn't exist. Tell me why she on earth anyone would do that.
That's the whole point. The point is that we and me and everyone is judging her as if she should behave the way we behaved. There were two psychiatric there were three psychiatric evaluations of her detailed and at length. Two of them were published, which I read, one by
a psychiatrist, one by a psychologists. Their conclusion is that her statements of molestation by her father at a very young age very often were consistent with their evaluation of her, which they concluded she was not diagnosable with any kind of mental illness whatsoever. And and so then you compound that abuse with the traumatic death of her child, who she had bonded with again, she says, at the hands of her father, and you have a traumatic experience and
a traumatic reaction. That explains her behavior. That explains why she invents these fictitious things and things that don't make sense. That explains why she functions to the extent that she can have pictures taken at a nightclub. But she was at the nightclub because her boyfriend worked there. If he had worked at a T shirt sales factory in Orlando somewhere, at someplace on some corner, she would have been there. She was there because he was there.
Yeah. See, the thing is I could say that I can give you that a person's behavior captured in a snapshot on a Facebook page by someone maybe they're smile for a photo. I probably could have been seen smiling for a photo a day or two after my best friend's funeral, so taken out of context, I don't think that that should be Again, I don't think that's evidence. I think that's again open to interpretation. It's subjective, or
it's inconclusive. It's inconclusive evidence. So but I can't say that now that I'm going to give you credit for your explanation because you lost me on it, and it doesn't make any difference if I agreed with you, because all it is is that again, it's a tenuous, tenuous link that you put these things together. So I'll just give the person credit for the behavior. Cannot be judged by a photo or a video or somebody said she looked normal to me, you know.
So let's I do admit that you're putting in a very difficult situation where I'm having to prove the innocence of somebody that everybody hates at the top fertile to get over. But I accept that that's the reality, and and so I accept that, but it's it's tough to proven.
Well, the thing is, I look less at at motive than some people because again, motive can be put together to sound pretty good based on our supposition anyway, you know, it can be especially now I'm affected by what happened in the media and all the information and the emotion my my natural bias. So then when I a motive is put forward, well, geez, that makes sense, but makes
sense to my pre according to my preconceived thinking. So the thing is is that again you can I'd like to hear what the motive was for this, and to hear exactly I mean this drowning. I want to hear evidence of this drowning because I can't see how forensically there there wasn't the ability to determine more about this supposed an incident. Tell me a little bit more about that evidence and that again that theory.
A lot of people Dan don't know where that story came from. It came from Casey Anthony in her interview with the psychiatrist, and she had not told her own defense attorney about what happened to Kaylee in the backyard swimming pool in June sixteenth, two thousand and eight for over a year because she was in denial. She was in denial when she made up the story about a fictitious Danny. She was in denial of what happened to Kaylee.
She said when she was first arrested that she feels Kaylee is close even though she had seen her dead in her father's arms in the backyard. So she was in deep, deep denial. And the people that worked with PTSD soldiers with parents that experien in'st traumatic loss of a child and who have other issues, they say that this denial is typical and the disconnect between the way people are and the reality is that people expect someone
to behave the way normal people do. They I can't tell you how many women, especially have told me if my daughter died, there's no way I wouldn't.
Report it to the police.
Of course, yes that's true, that's true for me. But nobody's been in a situation where they were abused by the person that showed you your dead daughter for years as a child. And also the role of her mother in this in denying the abuse. And then there's a whole story thread Cindy's role and whether she covered up not only the abuse of her husband to her daughter, but the role George played. And there is the parents of Kayley and the placement of Kaylee in the woods.
Okay, before we get to indicting Cindy here now as well, I want to I want to say one thing here. It's the same argument I was saying to you. In hindsight, a psychiatrist or a psychologist analyzes the situation and goes, well, you know, this happens quite often. We've seen it before. PTSD in the act completely out of character, and they're traumatized, and hence this is this of the odd odd odd behavior. But here's the thing I know from the murder trial
that I was involved in. I'll and I know this forever and ever. It comes from the defense lawyer's mouth. Casey Anthony could have told her lawyer four or five different tales. She also told her lawyer the tale of that we just talked about that seemed to be ridiculous. But the lawyer didn't call her on it, didn't force her, didn't cross examiner in his office. She had that story, she stuck to that story, and let me say, a year later she had this other story. She could have
crafted the story. And I can dare say because from my experience, and it wouldn't be the first lawyer that did it, they encourage the crafting of a more reasonable story.
And again, there is only so many options. And if you feel that your role in society is to defend your client to the best, absolutely the best of your ability, and then you look at whether you're supposed to lie on your client's behalf or have your client lie or perjure themselves on the stand regardless one of the main the tenant, the main tenant, it really should be the main tenant. And I would believe it is according to society that you're not to tell a lie on behalf
of your client. So if you're not, you're not obliged not to tell a lie. Then you have to determine the truthfulness of your client's story. But just like you said, this could be normal behavior, this could be this is what happens in PTSD from the abuse again that we don't have empirical proof occurred. And then he could have crafted a story together her trotting out different stories till they got a story that seemed to be the story that could work to defend her. Isn't that a possibility?
Yes, it's definitely is a possibility, and it's something that needs to be considered and looked at and evaluated and so on and so forth, And as a research journalist, that's what I do. And in the case of the psychiatrists who's published reports or depositions by the prosecutor about their subject, they found that everything in their reports was and they go in to detail. They have things like an MMPI, which is a gold standard of evaluating a person,
and she passed that within completely ranges. And there's two of them that did this, and one of them asked and pleaded with the prosecutor not to tell him that because he didn't want to be associated with her. So what I find throughout is an accused who has a lot of people defending her objectively, like her friends, like her colleagues, like these psychiatrists, and nobody wants to do it, but they end up defending her anyway because they're compelled
to do that. And I could add the jury, and they're all compelled to do it by nothing other than an attachment they have to the truth. And I can tell you for certain that the one sided narrative of the media and in the public commentary was a incomplete narrative of this story. And what I want to do is complete that narrative. I want to present balance to this story so that people can make the decision that
they need to make. But what I find fascinating is so many people with no interest and no predisposition, and no liking of this defendant. Nevertheless, from a jury, from her friends, from the psychiatrists, they still defend her. And that is fascinating to me.
The thing is, though, what do you make of the presiding judge, because it's just earlier this month, coming out publicly again, what reason would he have for this? And what do you conclude from this? What are your thoughts about the judge and the presiding judge coming out and saying that there was ample evidence for the jury for them to make a that you basically saying I believe she was guilty.
Yeah, definitely. And Judge Belvin Perry, he took over the case from Judge Stan Strickland, and Judge Strickland was excused from the case. It's a polite way to put it, because he was calling up a blogger who was saying that she was guilty, and he was the judge on the signed to this case originally, But he was calling up a blogger who was, like everyone was saying that she was guilty before the trial even began, and he was telling his blogger to keep up the good work.
I'm on your side. So when this finally got out, he was kicked off the case. So that's how Judge Perry. Yeah, absolutely, But the whole I mentioned that because the whole institutional apparatus, the prosecutor, the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the former prosecutors that were on hl N, like Sidney Hanowitz, and at infinitum, everybody was beating up this accused person. Both before the trial began and during the trial. There wasn't anybody who
was arguing her. The narrative of her possible innocence. Jose Bias's book was titled Presumed Guilty. That's an appropriate title. That's the reality of them. And so Judge Perry, the whole institutional apparatus of those that prosecute people HLN is kind of a caricature of that. They were all invested in getting a conviction. And Judge Perry just couldn't quite accept the fact that his courtroom acquittor and I take
the exact opposite point of view. I think the jury was and I think the defense case and winning the acquittal was a epitome of the American justice system and defending the rights of an accused when there is no guilty, there is no provable build in a court of law within the four corners of the courtland.
You don't think it's irresponsible though, to point fingers at Cindy possibly and especially directly at George in light of no criminal charges. Do you think it's responsible?
Well, here's what I think. All I'm saying is, I'm taking the words of cases to her published in her published comments. To the psychiatrists who evaluated those comments, they have things called malingering in their evaluation, and they concluded that she was not malingering. And the psychiatrists ask, is there any reason that you don't believe what she told you? She said, there's no reason for me not to believe
what she told me. So her story is, which has not been told, her father presented her with the dead child at her home when they were alone together, and he took the child and disposed everywhere was found. As far as she knows, he disposed of it there. And also we have the objective that Cindy had reason to understand that the issues going on in their home were affecting Casey and were making her vulnerable to suspicions, and she, instead of defending her daughter, chose to side with George.
She sat with George during the trial. And there are a number of details about Cindy's behavior that I'm going to lay out in the book that suggest that she was much more knowledgeable of George's role than she told police.
Now I know I didn't, I said, I don't really care about motive. But why would George if Kaylee drowned, why would he present the body to Casey?
The a theory, one theory for George's role in this was that George feared that Kaylee was his child.
And then where where's the where's the evidence? When? When did he say this?
This is just the theory though I said, it's the theory, okay, that that it's one theory to explain the behavior of George.
And we have for the.
Allegation of abuse Casey Anthony. And what I'm talking about is the narrative of Casey Anthony's side of events that has not been told, and so she says that George abused her. These psychiatrists say that everything in their evaluation of her is consistent with somebody who had been abused by her father.
The thing is, isn't it Is it dueling psychiatrist? Though it wasn't it? You know it? Can it be possible because I've seen in numerous numerous cases the psychiatrist is paid. That psychiatrist is well known for primarily working for defense. You know, these guys get sort of reputations and they're asked to do things. I mean, this is this is not uncommon. I mean, there are some people that are.
For hire, that's right, And in this case, that's one thing I looked at. There was a psychiatrist, doctor David Danziger, who primarily is used by prosecution by the prosecution witness. And the other side was a psychologist, doctor William White Wi t Z. He was primarily used by defense. The reason they were both called by the defense was that they were called in by the court and by the prosecution to evaluate her when she was first arrested for so they were I had interviewed her at the court's
request for competencies, competency issues. I was they had no money to go out and hire anybody, so he asked them to sign on for this case. Doctor Danziger is the one that pleaded not to be deposed because he didn't want to be associated in any way with defending her. And he said that before the deposition, and the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, said, I'm sorry, you're going to be deposed. You're going to tell me what you found. And that
was later published by order of Judge Calvin Perry. And so to answer your question, you've got actually, as it turns out, because of the lack of money by the defense team, you had actually a balanced evaluation. As it turns out, one prosecution psychiatrist, if you will, one defense psychiatrist, and they both concurred. They both looked at each other
as evidence and became to the independent conclusion. And again, what I'm doing is taking Casey said and what is supported by independent in this case, psychiatric evaluation and just stating it. That's all. When you say I'm indicting George, no molt, sir, I'm not indicting George. This is what Casey's doing.
Happened.
She has a right to say what happened.
Well, you know, I was I was involved in a murder trial. And it's again it's not apples and apples, But I mean what the killer said was that he accused his stepbrother of sexually assaulting him for a period of years. Again, no criminal charges were ever laid. The lawyer, defense lawyer got to say that without an interruption by any prosecute by the prosecution at all, and it was
it was repeated. Then it was an allegation by the killer that when he was in a interview room with a camera on and to two cops customarily that's supposedly a couple of gun and put put it to his head. And then the defense lawyer was asking the witness, which happened to be me, why didn't report it to the police. So you can see that some of the stuff can allegations can be unchallenged. Thinks things can be said. You know, it was a Casey Anthony could said a lot of things.
She said again she lied, But then again we have a reason for her being this series of lies. Again, okay, okay, there's a logical reason. And if we listen to what your explanation is, and then we then at some point have to take what she says as gospel. And again and this other man is a police officer, and again he had a mistress. Again, some people want to judge people by ethics or their moral code. Well, you know, we can't do that. That's luckily the court's try not
to do that. So but again you're you're asking people to believe her on these things that you believe or or seem more sensible to you though that fit into the the logical uh you know nexus, you know.
So it's actually, as I said before, it's trying to prove somebody is innocent, is say, sometimes it seems an impossible sure, and trying to do it in the context of a public environment where nobody believes she's innocent anyway, makes that virtually an impossible choice. So what my task is as a research journalist is to simply introduce balance, using sources that are published and using in this case, the words of the acquitted defendant herself.
I see. So what you're really trying to do is that you're trying to put a lot more information out there regardless and say, listen, this is what I am looking at. I'm looking at much more information, so that your first priority is to provide much more information. Again, so you say, because so you can have a more balanced look at this perspective because there wasn't a balanced perspective.
I'm kind of in the same camp as Barry Sessman, as also Howard Kurtz, who said on several occasions he wouldn't cover the trial on his reliable sources, as CNN program which looks at the media, very highly regarded program because of the biased reporting on this case. And also Jeffrey Tuban, there's a CNN legal analyst, very highly regarded. He made comments that the media owes Casey Anthony an apology.
So my role is kind of with them, and that is I'm looking at this as a journalist and saying, this has been an unbalanced narrative for sure, and we've got all this information out there that would support the jury's decision, an unsympathetic jury's decision, to support what her friends said about her, to support what the psychiatrists said about her that nobody is listening to. And as a journalist, that's my job, that's.
My role.
Right now. Tell us about the status of the book itself, and again the title.
The Court of Public Opinion Casey Anthony, And you're asking to kind of spill my guts a little bit on this subject. I have a literary agent who went to Simon and Schuster, went to Penguin Books, went to all the major publishers with whom he has connections, and he was told that nobody is going to publish any book defending this individual. It's a quidded dependent because everybody believes she's guilty. Okay, So these this is the publishing industry
in America. They don't want a point of view contrary to the consensus in America. It's a sad commentary. It's true, but it's unbelievably sad. And so I've got to protect the publisher I've got to protect their financial interest and rease date and their name is something that they're in control of, and I just have to leave it at that. But it's because of this extraordinary circumstance. Without that circumstance of the institution of the publishing industry refusing to even
read my proposal, I wouldn't be in that situation. But as I told Barry, when the article was published and we got the reaction, it got the most reaction in the history of Harvard's media watchdog program, I said, I'm embracing it. And that's exactly what I'm doing.
So I can sort of answer that question. The book is on hold, till Am said.
I can't say anything about it to protect the publisher.
Okay, Okay, that's valid. So anyway, so this is what people will know.
Now.
Do you have a website that to people might be able to contact you or to interact with you, Facebook page something.
Yeah, it's writer Keith like writer Keith dot com.
And you welcome people contacting you obviously, Oh, absolutely.
I invite their criticism, comments, support ideas.
Always. Like you say, the Nieman article really elicited a lot of response strong.
Yeah, build records and for reader response and not surprisingly, and it should took the position to ask people to always reserve a part of their judgment process for a balanced source of information to what you're listening to, especially being presented by the media.
Yeah, it's you know, it's very interesting too that the
way you've presented this case as well. Again, I have to applaud you at least for well not at least, I have to applaud you for being able to have this bull's eye on your head here the discouragement of the mainstream media, even though this deserves to have a numerous books to have be written about it, given the attention that the trial had, and especially with the acquittal and again a fairly strong acquittal, that there wouldn't be at least a publisher thinking just of the bottom line
and saying, geez, you know this, this is a controversial book, but there wasn't acquittal, and and you know, you sound like a very responsible and you and you read like a very responsible, sensible person. You're not a Nancy Grace of this subject here. You're not, you know, again, sensationalizing something that's already got enough sensation to it already. So I applaud you for taking this stance and being strong and in your conviction, and because you do sound very
very reasonable in your argument. And so I applaud you for taking this because I know that you would be the victim of derision. And it's a rough ride taking this position.
I know that I appreciate that. And of course there's a really my bottom line motivation, and what prompted me to begin to look at the story was really a belief in the American people and in our culture that
is better than the media is serving us. And the characterization that I used earlier of the bullying, the bullying business potle that I see in HLN for example, and of an accused that to me is a mathemat to what the American people and the Canadian people, and the Mexican people and everybody need to stand for and stand up against the fact that anybody can be robbed of the presumption of innocence when they're on trial for their life. At the end of the day, there's no reason to
do that. If the evidence is there. You have to have belief in the system that it will prevail. And you can go back to old Jay and like you say, everybody said it's karralative big day. Maybe it is, but that's a separate subject. In that case, I'd be happy
to talk to you about it sometime. But in this case, there is the possibility that a innocent person is being hounded and presented from the freedom that everybody in this country has protected has as a right, as a protected life, life and the pursuit of happiness in the face of illegal acquittal, and there's the possibility that maybe there's an injustice, and that as long as there's that possibility, the obligation of journalists is to at least present a balanced two of that story.
Well, it is a also a a story that it should be a warning to journalists and to it's a journalist. And I guess broadcasters that you know, if you rush to judgment, you might look like, you know, you might look very very wrong on this righteous side that you're trying to present yourself as you know in that there's a reason why publishers didn't publish books till the outcome of that book or of that case occurred. Kensington Press, for example, will not publish any books till the verdict
has been done. So that's and you know, and I mean they're not so they represent journalists every you know, day in and day out, and they were and that's their policy to do that. And and broadcasters, uh, and people that have gone through journalism courses and schools and have been taught and work at agencies should know a lot better. So I think this the bottom line of these corporations. I don't think they have journalism as their foundation.
And doing things like Nancy Grace yaking and yapp and and accusing and and this is not the first time she has done harm to a to and again a person that was acquitted, you know, it's legend her behavior and it doesn't end, you know, so it's it's it's a story that people should really pay attention to because there are so many wrongful convictions in the US and the same kind of misdirected media, misinforming media and irresponsible media could do a story where the outcome could be
much different and people could be, you know, something that they could regret for the rest of their lives. The people it seems here that believed Casey Anthony was guilty before still believe Casey Anthony is guilty and they're going to stick to that. I believe, But again, I think it is important. That's why I've had you on the program here to at least give you the opportunity to to tell your side of the story and to state your case. And you've done it effectively.
I think I've pawed you very much for giving me opportunity.
Well, well, thank you very much, and please get back get a hold of me when the book actually does come out, too, because that's going to be another story in terms of the response and everything surrounding that. And of course I want to be really brushed up on this and re examine this entire case and read your book and look at this much more carefully, and then have you back on and we can talk about it again.
So I want to thank you very much for this interview Keith Long talking about the Court of Public Opinion Casey Anthony with my special guest journalist and author, Keith Long. Thank you very much, Keith, have yourself a great evening,