What Does Cheney Mason Mean By “Nothing”?

On Tuesday, September 28, 2010, the defense team for Casey Anthony deposed Orange County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia, who performed the autopsy of Caylee Anthony.

We learned in an earlier article Jose Baez, lead counsel for the defense, is concerned about the autopsy report being part of the trial.  More than a year ago, he attempted to block public access to the report.  Within the past month, he announced an addition to the defense team of an attorney who specializes in countering expert medical testimony, Dorothy Sims, who participated in the deposition of Dr. Garavaglia.

The referenced article may be found at the following link:

https://bullstopper.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/does-jose-baez-really-have-a-defense-strategy/

This article will focus on a short exchange between a reporter and Cheney Mason, co-counsel for the defense, on his way into the deposition of the medical examiner.  Video of Mr. Mason’s comments and a background article may be found at the following link:

http://www.wesh.com/news/25189511/detail.html

UPDATE:

The following video has a more complete recording of the interview in which the reporter’s first question can be heard:

Cheney Mason: “Well, it’s critical because it means nothing.  That’s the bottom line, that’s what we’re confirming.”

We are not sure what question the reporter asked to begin this interview, but the news story implies it concerned the ruling of homicide in the autopsy report.

“”Well, it’s critical because it means nothing.” – “Well” is an extra word which indicates sensitivity to the statement.  We do not know what “it” refers to because we did not hear the reporter’s question, but we assume the ruling of homicide in the autopsy report or the report itself.

“critical” – It is vital, success or failure are determined by it.  The autopsy report is key to this case.

“because it means nothing” – Why is the autopsy report “critical”?  Because it does not mean anything.  The autopsy report is critical because it means nothing.  How can something which is nothing be “critical”?  How can a “meaningless” report be meaningful to the case as we assume a “critical” item would?

If the autopsy report and the ruling of homicide “means nothing”, why did Mr. Baez attempt to have it sealed from the public before Mr. Mason joined the defense team?  Mr. Baez felt it had meaning a year ago.  What has changed?

“That’s the bottom line” – Mr. Mason is uncomfortable with the “bottom line” as he attempts to distance himself by using “that”.  The “it means nothing” referenced by “that’s” is sensitive to Mr. Mason.

“that’s what we’re confirming” – Mr. Mason is still uncomfortable with “that” statement he made of “it means nothing”, which may not be true as he is now “confirming” his statement with someone else who forms “we”.  They are “confirming” his statement together, which makes it a theory at the time of the interview.  Mr. Mason desires the autopsy report to mean nothing, but if they are unable to confirm, the report will not “mean nothing”.

We have learned Mr. Mason believes the autopsy report not only means something, but is critical.  He wants it to mean nothing.

Cindy Anthony Defines Deception

On November 26, 2008, a few days after a bitter e-mail from Cindy Anthony to Larry Garrison became public knowledge, Mrs. Anthony spoke to a reporter about the hairbrush incident.

This article will focus on the first two minutes and twenty seconds of the interview, which can be found at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/18149829/index.html

Reporter: “Did you purposely give investigators the wrong hairbrush?”

Cindy Anthony: “No, absolutely not.  Ummm… the night that ummm… John Allen and Yuri Melich came, it was the night before the grand jury… I mean not the grand jury hearing… the bail hearing… the bond hearing for Casey, so that was what?  The week after we found out that Caylee was ummm… missing.  Ummmm… they came to our house specifically to show me the camera of the video that I took… that I shot of Caylee ummm… because originally we thought it was June 8th.  And again, you know, we’re distraught, we’re trying to go dates whatever and they said could have been June 15th.  And I said well what’s June 15th?  He goes… cause the date sounded familiar… he goes Father’s Day.  And I said well yeah.  And I can verify that with my mom.  So, we… I tried to get my mom on the phone and she wasn’t available that night, but the next morning, the morning of the bond hearing I did verify that.  But that night they also asked me if I had a toothbrush or a hairbrush or a comb of Caylee’s.  So, immediately I go into Casey’s bathroom which is Caylee’s bathroom.  And I go through ummm… her… the drawers and I found the brush that Casey used on her hair and Caylee’s hair.  And I got a toothbrush.  And I went into Caylee’s room and I couldn’t find a hairbrush or comb in her room.  So, I went to Sgt. Allen and Yuri Melich and I said I know this brush Casey and Caylee used.  I can’t tell you for sure if it has Caylee’s hair in it or not, but I said I could not find a comb or a brush in her bedroom.  OK.  So, I gave it to them that night.  And I said you guys already have a toothbrush because it was in Caylee’s backpack that was still in the vehicle the night that… you know… that… that we got the car back from the tow yard.  So they already had a toothbrush, but I gave them another toothbrush.  I have a toothbrush in Ca… in my bathroom.  I didn’t give them all three toothbrushes because they didn’t need it.  I do have a hairbrush in my bathroom that I forgot about that I do use for… that I did use for Caylee in my room.  Did I go around and find all the brushes? No.  It wasn’t deception.  OK.  All it was was going into her room couldn’t find anything going into the bathroom that they use together and I know that I used that brush on Caylee and I know that Casey used it.  So, no.  And… and when I handed the brush to them I was very honest with them and I told them that both Casey and Caylee used that brush.  So, no, there’s no deception.”

The reporter asks a question, did Mrs. Anthony give law enforcement the wrong hairbrush on purpose?

If Mrs. Anthony wished to deny she purposely gave the wrong hairbrush to investigators, the simplest answer would have been “No” or “No, I did not”.  Mrs. Anthony says neither and spends more than two minutes doing so.

“No, absolutely not.” – The “no” would have been strong if not for the use of “absolutely not”, which we have seen in past articles is the trumpet of deceit.  “Absolutely” is a favorite of the Anthony family.  “Absolutely” does not mean “yes”.  “Absolutely not” does not mean “no”.  Both are a way to avoid saying either “yes” or “no”.  If the answer of “no” is true, why does it need to be bolstered by a phrase which means “certainly not”?  Grammatically, the answer is now “no” with the modifier “absolutely not” referring to the answer of “no”.  Her answer is “absolutely not” “no”, or “yes”.

If Mrs. Anthony’s reply of “no” were true, why would she need to explain her actions to the public as she does for many additional sentences?  Each sentence further weakens her initial answer.

“Ummm… the night that ummm… John Allen and Yuri Melich came, it was the night before the grand jury… I mean not the grand jury hearing… the bail hearing… the bond hearing for Casey, so that was what?” – Mrs. Anthony begins telling a story by confusing listeners as to the true date of the event.  She ends the sentence by asking the reporter the date to which her story refers.  This is a verbal trick to elicit trust from the listener before the story is even told.  Instead of listening, the audience is now searching their own memory of “grand jury” and “bail hearing” and other court appearances to help Mrs. Anthony pin down the date.

“The week after we found out that Caylee was ummm… missing.” – Mrs. Anthony supplies her own answer.  The audience can now agree with her forming a bond of trust which Mrs. Anthony will utilize when making her next statements.

“that Caylee was ummm… missing.” – “that” indicates sensitivity, which we would expect of any grandmother speaking of her missing daughter.  Stumbling over “missing” also indicates sensitivity which we would also expect.  Although we now know that “missing” was not an accurate statement, at the time this comment was made, Caylee was “missing”, so we will give Mrs. Anthony the benefit of the doubt.  Her sensitivity is legitimately explained by the circumstances.

“they came to our house specifically to show me the camera of the video that I took” – It is important to Mrs. Anthony for us to know John Allen and Yuri Melich did not “come to our house specifically” to obtain a hairbrush, they came to “show me the camera”.

“to show me the camera of the video that I took” – The investigators came to show Mrs. Anthony the “camera of the video”, a strange wording which does not make sense.  She is telling us they showed her a camera and a video, a video she herself recorded.  The police found the camera and in the camera, they found a video which was recorded by Mrs. Anthony.

“that I shot of Caylee ummm… because originally we thought it was June 8th.” – The video was of Caylee.  Now Mrs. Anthony switches subjects and speaks of “originally” thinking of a specific date. “We” makes the statement weak as Mrs. Anthony was speaking of “I”, but now changes.  What did “we” originally think was June 8th?  The video she shot of Caylee?

“And again, you know, we’re distraught, we’re trying to go dates whatever” – Mrs. Anthony tells us why “we” originally thought “it” was June 8th, “we” were distraught and “trying to go dates whatever”.  “You know” is another verbal attempt to convince the listener they agree with what Mrs. Anthony is saying.  “We” were “trying to go dates whatever”, meaning the investigators asked for dates and the Anthonys, the assumed “we”, “go” “whatever”.  The Anthonys gave any dates “whatever” to the investigators including the false date of the last sighting of Caylee as June 8, 2008.

“they said could have been June 15th” – The investigators told Mrs. Anthony they thought the video “could have been June 15th”.

“And I said well what’s June 15th?” – Mrs. Anthony’s granddaughter disappeared.  Mrs. Anthony never narrowed down the date she last saw her granddaughter until the investigators brought her own camera to her to show her a video she recorded of Caylee on Father’s Day sitting on the lap of Mrs. Anthony’s own father.  When shown the video, Mrs. Anthony continues to stick to her date of June 8th, going so far as to question the investigators about the details of June 15th.  “What’s June 15th” – The last time Mrs. Anthony saw Caylee Anthony alive, but this is not a significant date to Mrs. Anthony.

“He goes… cause the date sounded familiar… he goes Father’s Day.” – Mrs. Anthony tells us she already knew the significance of the date because it “sounded familiar”.  She needs to share this with us so badly, she interrupts herself to smash this information into her statement.

“And I said well yeah.  And I can verify that with my mom.” – She tells the investigators “yes”, but needs to verify the uncomfortable “that” with her mom.  Mrs. Anthony, even after seeing the video of Caylee sitting on the lap of her grandfather during a special trip which Mrs. Anthony personally took her on after not seeing Caylee for many days, needs to “verify” with her own mother the video was taken on Father’s Day, a full week after the date Mrs. Anthony reported last seeing Caylee.  By word placement, Mrs. Anthony is verifying with her mother that June 15th was Father’s Day.

“So, we… I tried to get my mom on the phone and she wasn’t available that night, but the next morning, the morning of the bond hearing I did verify that.” – Lots of sensitivity to verifying this information with her mom.  Cindy Anthony verified with her mother that Cindy Anthony lied about the last time she saw Caylee Anthony alive.  There is doubt as to Mrs. Anthony trying to “get” her mother “on the phone” and her mother not being “available that night” as shown by the use of “but” which renders that preceding it as false.

“But that night they also asked me if I had a toothbrush or a hairbrush or a comb of Caylee’s.” – Mrs. Anthony distances herself from “that” night by using “that”.  The investigators asked her for items of Caylee’s.

“So, immediately I go into Casey’s bathroom which is Caylee’s bathroom.” – “So” is an indicator of deception.  There is doubt Mrs. Anthony “immediately” went into Casey’s bathroom.  Why does Mrs. Anthony feel the need to explain to us the bathroom is Casey’s?  “Which is Caylee’s bathroom” – If the bathroom is Caylee’s, why not simply call it Caylee’s bathroom and leave the Casey bit out?

“And I go through ummm… her… the drawers and I found the brush that Casey used on her hair and Caylee’s hair.” – What did Mrs. Anthony “go through”?  “Her” becomes “the drawers”.  She does not find the brush Casey used on Caylee’s hair, but the brush “Casey used on her hair and Caylee’s hair”.  The investigators asked for Caylee’s brush.  Mrs. Anthony brings them Casey’s brush, the one she used on “her hair”.

“And I got a toothbrush.” – Whose toothbrush?  Casey’s toothbrush?  Caylee’s toothbrush?  We do not know.

“And I went into Caylee’s room and I couldn’t find a hairbrush or comb in her room.” – “Immediately” Mrs. Anthony went into Casey’s bathroom to find Caylee’s hairbrush.  Now, she goes to Caylee’s room, but does not find a brush.  “in her room” indicates sensitivity to the statement as it is the second reference in the same sentence to “Caylee’s room”.  Why does Mrs. Anthony need to tell us what she did not find and where she did not find it?  Adding details about what did not happen and where it did not happen at are indicators of deception.

“So, I went to Sgt. Allen and Yuri Melich and I said I know this brush Casey and Caylee used.” – “So” is our friend, the indicator of deception.  Mrs. Anthony is close to “this brush”, she likes it, she is comfortable with “this brush”.

“I can’t tell you for sure if it has Caylee’s hair in it or not, but I said I could not find a comb or a brush in her bedroom.” – She makes no claims this is the brush the investigators requested.  It is a brush which may or may not be the requested item.  Lots of sensitivity in this and the last sentence as to what she “said” and told the investigators as seen in the many words for speaking.  She repeats she is telling the investigators.

“OK.” – Mrs. Anthony again attempts to elicit agreement from the audience.

“So, I gave it to them that night.” – What did Mrs. Anthony give them “that” night?  “It”.  What is “it”?  “This brush”, the one that is close to Mrs. Anthony, Casey’s brush that Casey used for Casey’s hair, not Caylee’s brush, not the brush the police requested, the wrong hairbrush.

“And I said you guys already have a toothbrush” – Mrs. Anthony, after not turning over the requested hairbrush, harassed law enforcement officers who have made a special trip to her home to verify she lied to them about the date her granddaughter disappeared because they requested an item they may already have.

“because it was in Caylee’s backpack that was still in the vehicle the night that… you know… that… that we got the car back from the tow yard.” – The toothbrush the police have was in a backpack which belonged to Caylee.  Is it Caylee’s toothbrush?  We do not know because Mrs. Anthony never says it is Caylee’s toothbrush, it is “a toothbrush”, just like the toothbrush Mrs. Anthony retrieved from Casey’s bathroom.  Mrs. Anthony is sensitive to Caylee’s backpack “still” being in the vehicle as indicated by “that”.  The night “we got the car back from the tow yard” is extremely sensitive as marked by “you know”, “that”, and “that”.

“So they already had a toothbrush, but I gave them another toothbrush.” – They may not have “already had a toothbrush” because “so” casts doubt on the statement and “but” marks the first part as untrue.  Mrs. Anthony’s granddaughter is missing while she makes disparaging comments about the officers searching and shows hesitation about sacrificing a toothbrush for the cause.

“I have a toothbrush in Ca… in my bathroom” – Another toothbrush exists.  Is it Caylee’s toothbrush and not a toothbrush from Casey’s bathroom used for both?  We don’t know, but we do know it is in “my bathroom” where Mrs. Anthony kept the hairbrush she used only for Caylee which she did not turn over to investigators, the right hairbrush.

“I didn’t give them all three toothbrushes because they didn’t need it.” – Mrs. Anthony somehow knows the police do not need all three toothbrushes.  She does not offer the third toothbrush per her earlier statements as she gives them “another”.  It is not clear if she informs the officers of the third toothbrush.  Mrs. Anthony thinks about the third toothbrush and decides the police do not need it.

“I do have a hairbrush in my bathroom that I forgot about that I do use for… that I did use for Caylee in my room.” – There is another hairbrush in Mrs. Anthony’s bathroom.  Mrs. Anthony “forgot about” the hairbrush in her bathroom.  The forgetting is marked sensitive by “that” as Mrs. Anthony distances herself from her forgetfulness.  Mrs. Anthony thought about the toothbrush and decided the police did not need it, but “forgot” about the “hairbrush in my bathroom”, the one used for Caylee, the one the police requested.

“that I do use for… that I did use for Caylee in my room” – Sensitivity and distancing by use of two “that”s.  The change from “do use” to “did use” is significant and may be an indication Mrs. Anthony knew Caylee was deceased when this interview was given in late November 2008, shortly before her remains were found.  Mrs. Anthony also said the police “didn’t need” three toothbrushes.  Presumably when this interview was given, the search was on-going and the police “do need”, not “didn’t” in the past tense.

“Did I go around and find all the brushes? No.” – The investigators asked Mrs. Anthony for Caylee’s brushes.  Mrs. Anthony tells us here she did not “go around and find” them all.  Since she only describes giving one brush and one toothbrush both from Casey’s bathroom and unknown to be used for Caylee, it would seem she did not “go around and find” any.

“It wasn’t deception.” – What is “it”?  Not going around to find all the brushes was not “deception”.  Was giving the investigators brushes which Mrs. Anthony was not sure had been used by Caylee when she knew of those that had been used solely for Caylee deception?  We do not know.  Mrs. Anthony has not addressed this question.

“OK.” – Mrs. Anthony wants the reporter to agree with her definition of “not deception”.

“All it was was going into her room couldn’t find anything going into the bathroom that they use together and I know that I used that brush on Caylee and I know that Casey used it.” – Sensitivity jackpot.  Mrs. Anthony is so weak in her assertion of “not deception”, she must define what she did do that was “not deception”.  In this version, Mrs. Anthony first goes into “her” room before going into Casey’s bathroom, but earlier in this saga Mrs. Anthony stated after the investigators made their request, “so, immediately I go into Casey’s bathroom”.  Indicators of deception don’t come anymore glaring than this.

“I know that I used that brush on Caylee” – “that brush” is not “this brush” anymore.  The change from “this” to “that” may indicate she is not speaking about the same brush, which has also changed from the brush Casey used on Casey and Caylee’s hair to one which Mrs. Anthony knows she personally used on Caylee.

“I know that Casey used it” – Did Casey use it on Caylee as earlier asserted?  We do not know, only “that” she used it, which is a thought Mrs. Anthony wishes to distance from herself.

“So, no” – What is Mrs. Anthony answering “no” to?  We do not know, but we do know it is a deceptive “no” from the use of “so”.

“when I handed the brush to them I was very honest with them” – This brush and that brush has now become “the brush”.  Mrs. Anthony is sensitive about “them” as she says it twice.  She  was honest, but only when she handed the brush to them.  She was “very” honest, which weakens “honest” and casts doubt on the assertion as honesty does not come in degrees.  One is either honest or not honest, there is no middle ground.  Mrs. Anthony did not give them the brush, she “handed” them the brush.  She may not have done so willingly.

“I told them that both Casey and Caylee used that brush” – The brush is now “that” brush again.  “both Casey and Caylee used” is sensitive by use of “that”.  Both may not have used “that” brush.  Mrs. Anthony tells them, but is this the “very honest” thing she told them when she handed them the brush?  Is she talking about the hairbrush or the toothbrush?  We don’t know.  We know she was “very honest” and she “told them”, but they are separate in her language.

“So, no” – What is Mrs. Anthony answering “no” to?  We do not know, but we do know it is a deceptive “no” from the use of “so”.

“there’s no deception” – There is no deception.  But was there deception?  Mrs. Anthony is telling us there is no deception now, but the story is in the past.

The original question is “”Did you purposely give investigators the wrong hairbrush”?

Mrs. Anthony’s answer is “No, absolutely not” and “So, no, there’s no deception”.

Mrs. Anthony answers a question about deception when the question was about intentionally giving the wrong hairbrush to investigators.  Mrs. Anthony has not answered the question, she has avoided answering it.  Mrs. Anthony is saying there was no deception.  The investigators were aware she gave them the wrong hairbrush.  She did not deceive them.

But Mrs. Anthony does believe she did try to deceive the investigators.  She must justify her actions as “not deception” by telling us “all it was”.

Mrs. Anthony deceives us during the story by telling falsehoods about her actions, as seen in her changing chronology of events.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony practices deception on many levels, but fools only herself.