Did Cindy Anthony Lie about the Hairbrush?

Early in the case, the FBI requested items from Cindy Anthony to aide in their search for missing two-year-old Caylee Anthony.  Some of these items were used to obtain DNA samples of the missing child.  After a bitter break with spokesman Larry Garrison, Mrs. Anthony sent an e-mail to him explaining why she did not give the FBI the hairbrush used only by Caylee.

A background video of the events as they unfolded at the time is available at this link:

http://www.wftv.com/video/18146538/index.html – background video

The e-mail can be found at the following link:

http://www.wftv.com/news/18145599/detail.html

E-mail
Cindy Anthony to Larry Garrison 11/20/2008: “I never lied I just never went to my bathroom to get the hairbrush that I used only for Caylee.  As far as Tim Miller goes remember it was you who sealed the first deal with me having him come in the first place.  I also trusted you so much that I let you speak to Casey.”

“I never lied” – This is not the same as “I did not lie”.  This statement covers the speaker’s entire life.  She “never lied”.  The use of “never” in this context is an indication of deception.

“I just never went to my bathroom” – If the assertion that Mrs. Anthony had “never lied” was true, she would not feel the need to explain herself.  The use of “just” marks “never went” as sensitive.  Again, the use of “never” is indicative of lying as Mrs. Anthony has gone to her bathroom, so “never went” is not true.  Mrs. Anthony does not tell us what she did, she tells us what she did not do in order to avoid stating what she did.

“to get the hairbrush that I used only for Caylee.” – This is what she was supposed to do and did not do.  She did not get the hairbrush she used “only for Caylee”.  It is important for her to identify this particular hairbrush as “only for Caylee”.  We know Mrs. Anthony gave the FBI a hairbrush she claims was used by both Casey and Caylee.  This is a different hairbrush used “only by Caylee”.  This is not a hairbrush that Casey Anthony used for Caylee, but one that Mrs. Anthony used, “I used”.

“As far as Tim Miller goes remember it was you who sealed the first deal with me having him come in the first place.” – We do not know how far or where Tim Miller “goes”, but Mrs. Anthony states Larry Garrison was instrumental in the “first deal”.  There has been more than one deal.  We do not know how many deals.  How did Mr. Garrison “seal” the “first deal”?  We do not know, but something he did made it permanent.  Did the deal involve the agreement or knowledge of Tim Miller?  This sentence states “the first deal” was between Larry Garrison and Mrs. Anthony as it was “with me”.  Mr. Garrison and Mrs. Anthony made some kind of “deal”.  The “first deal” was for Mrs. Anthony to have “him come in the first place”.  Larry Garrison convinced Cindy Anthony to bring Tim Miller into the investigation for Caylee.  Mr. Garrison had to exchange something of value with Mrs. Anthony for her to make this agreement.

“I also trusted you so much that I let you speak to Casey.” – Mrs. Anthony believes she controls who can and cannot speak to Casey Anthony.  Trust has levels for Mrs. Anthony.  She trusted Mr. Garrison “so much”, which was enough to “speak to Casey”.  She trusts others more and others less, trust is not an absolute, but a variable.  Mrs. Anthony believes Mr. Garrison should feel guilt over Mrs. Anthony’s letting him “speak to Casey”, an act that is sensitive as marked by “that”.

We have learned that Cindy Anthony’s denial in this e-mail of her lying is weak and indicates deception.  Mrs. Anthony feels she must justify her denial with an explanation of what she did not do.  Mrs. Anthony believes she did lie.

Did Jose Baez Hide Important Evidence?

Discovery released in the case against Casey Anthony in July 2009 revealed to the public the defense had taken Caylee’s personal items from the Anthony house.  Media asked Mr. Baez if the defense withheld important evidence from the prosecution.  His reply can be see in the following video:

Jose Baez: “Absolutely not.  And in fact uhhh… any assertion of that would be totally false and ridiculous.  I think the defense did the ethical thing here and this should be proof of it.”

The simplest answer would have been “No”.  Mr. Baez gives a lengthy answer beginning with a word construction often indicating deception, “Absolutely not”.  Mr. Baez does not say “no”.

“Absolutely not” is such a weak denial, Mr. Baez must bolster his flimsy response with an explanation of “fact”.  The phrase “in fact” is another indication of weakness as it attempts to persuade the reader the statement about to be made by the speaker is true, it is “fact”.

“any assertion of that would be” – An assertion now is not “totally false” or “ridiculous”, but “would be” at some point in the future.  “False” is sensitive as marked by “totally”.  “Assertion” is marked sensitive by use of “totally false” and “ridiculous”, either would have been sufficient. “That” is distancing Mr. Baez from allegations of withholding evidence.

“I think the defense did” – Mr. Baez “think”s “the defense did”, not that he did, but “the defense”.  Mr. Baez is not sure, he “think”s.  Others may “think” the defense did not.

“the ethical thing here” – His thinking is limited to what the defense did “here”, only in this instance, they may not have done the “ethical thing” in other places.  Mr. Baez does not know if this was the “ethical thing”, he “think”s it is.  The “ethical thing” was to take physical items that any CSI-viewer would identify as having possible trace evidence from the house where warrants were being served in search of evidence in a murder.

“this should be proof of it” – We are not sure what “this” is, but it is close to Mr. Baez.  The TV interview?  But whatever “this” is, it “should be”, but is not, “proof of it”.  The “it” is Mr. Baez’s thinking.  “This should be proof of” Mr. Baez’s thinking.  Mr. Baez stating to the camera his thoughts should be proof of his thinking.  Mr. Baez telling us his thoughts is proof Mr. Baez thought the defense was doing the ethical thing, not proof they did the ethical thing, only proof he thought they did.

We have learned that Mr. Baez’s denial of withholding important evidence is weak.  We do not know the source of the weakness.  Perhaps items on the list are not important evidence, but the “cards” Ms. Anthony has yet to lay on the table are important evidence.  All we know for sure is Mr. Baez is not strong in his denial of withholding evidence and although he thinks the defense did the right thing and his telling us his thinking should be proof he thought it, he is not sure as we might think differently.