Why Did George Anthony Pour 27 Bags of Concrete in his Backyard?

On August 5, 2009, George Anthony answered questions from prosecutor Jeff Ashton concerning the pouring of a concrete pad behind the Anthony house while Caylee Anthony was missing prior to the involvement of law enforcement

Mr. Anthony’s statements may be found beginning on page 215 at the following link:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/depos/ganthonydepo080509.pdf

Jeff Ashton: “Is that a project that had been planned for some time? In other words, had –”

The prosecution asks a question about the concrete pad George and Cindy poured in their backyard during the time period Caylee was missing, but not reported missing to law enforcement.

George Anthony: “Oh, my gosh. For years Cindy and I talked about extending our little walkway, our little patio, something like that. Right.”

Mr. Anthony avoids answering the question.  The answer sought is a “yes” or “no”.  Mr. Anthony answers with a jumble of words which veer everywhere but to “yes” or “no”.

“Oh, my gosh.” – Mr. Anthony buys time to think of an answer other than “yes” or “no”.

“For years Cindy and I talked about extending” – Mr. Anthony attempts to convey the impression the project was planned, but avoids lying outright by using the verb “talked”.  “Cindy and I” did not plan as Mr. Ashton asked, but “talked”.  Is talking the same as planning?  No, it is not.  Mr. Anthony has been talking to Mrs. Anthony “for years”, yet never have they extended.  Is this because Mrs. Anthony would not allow Mr. Anthony to extend prior to Caylee’s disappearance?  Did they talk, but not agree?

“our little walkway, our little patio” – Sensitivity to the area is shown by Mr. Anthony by describing the same area in two different ways.  First, it is “our little walkway”, then “our little patio”.  Is it a “walkway” or a “patio”?  Who is “our”?  We assume Mr. and Mrs. Anthony.  Something about “little” is also sensitive as the word is repeated twice.  Mr. Anthony is attempting to minimize the importance of the area by referring to it as “little”.

“something like that” – Something like what?  What is Mr. Anthony talking about?  Is it a walkway or a patio or a something else which is like a walkway or patio, but is not?  “That” distances Mr. Anthony from his claim of “little walkway” and “little patio” and talking for years.

“Right.” – Mr. Anthony agrees with his own statement.  Mr. Anthony is not sure his statement is factual, so he must review in his own mind, then assert his agreement with the words which flew from his mouth.  Usually, this indicates deception.

Jeff Ashton: “Did you actually pour a slab or just put in pavers or –”

Mr. Ashton seeks specifics of the project.

George Anthony: “No. I poured a slab. There’s 27 bags of cement or concrete back there. I did it all myself.”

“No.” – Mr. Ashton asked an open-ended question, yet Mr. Anthony responds “no”.  What is he answering “no” to?

“I poured a slab” – Mr. Anthony states “no”, then agrees he did pour “a slab” as Mr. Ashton asked.

“There’s 27 bags of cement or concrete back there.” – Did Mr. Anthony pour “27 bags of cement or concrete back there”?  He implies he did, but the wording is tricky.  Did he pour “cement or concrete”?  Either he does not know or he is sensitive about what he poured because he describes it with two different words.  We assume “back there” refers to the backyard, but we are not sure if Mr. Anthony means the patio or walkway in question or the backyard in general.

Jeff Ashton: “Four-inch slab?”

Mr. Ashton seeks additional detail.

George Anthony: “Oh, yeah. It’s pretty thick.”

Is it a “four-inch slab?  We cannot be sure because Mr. Anthony also describes it as “pretty thick”, which may or may not be four-inches.  The word “yeah” is not “yes” and should never be assumed to mean “yes”.

Jeff Ashton: “That’s a lot of cement.”

Mr. Ashton addresses the fact 27 bags of cement or concrete is not a small backyard project.  For a single individual to accomplish this task requires a fair amount of motivation.  What was Mr. Anthony’s motivation?  Simply to pour a concrete pad he and his wife had talked about for years, but never planned?

George Anthony: “Did it all myself. Yeah.”

Mr. Anthony is proud of his work, as he should be.  27 bags is a lot of work.

Jeff Ashton: “Again, the precise time when you were going to do that — let me rephrase this.  Had you prepared the site before that? In other words, dug out the grass, laid out the frame, that kind of thing?”

Mr. Ashton returns to the question of planning.  Was this project planned in any way prior to the disappearance of Caylee Anthony?

George Anthony: “Well, it was pretty much already dug out anyhow because all we had were some plants inside of it. We had some, like, lava-rock-type stuff, and it was just a matter of pulling the plants out, leveling that out, putting a little frame piece up and it didn’t
take any time at all.”

Mr. Anthony again avoids as answering the “yes” or “no” sought by the question.

“Well” – This word almost always indicates the following statement is deceptive and will not address the query specifically.

“it was pretty much already dug out anyhow” – The area was “dug out”, but not as part of the preparation Mr. Ashton asks about.  It was not completely dug up as indicated by “pretty much”, so Mr. Anthony had to dig out more.  “Already” indicates Mr. Anthony is sensitive to the exact time frame Mr. Ashton wishes to know about.

“because all we had were some plants inside of it” – Being already “dug out” is sensitive to Mr. Anthony who must supply a reason for the area being “already dug out”.  If someone had buried a small child in the area, then dug her out to move her, the area would also be “already dug out”.  “All we had” indicates there was more than the “all”.

“We had some, like, lava-rock-type stuff” – Mr. Anthony acknowledges he told a lie with “all we had” because he now names additional items which were “inside”.

“and it was just a matter of pulling the plants out” – The word “just” indicates there was more to the “matter” than “pulling the plants out”.

“leveling that out” – “That” distances Mr. Anthony from the “lava-rock-type stuff” or the site.

“putting a little frame piece up” – The size of the frame is sensitive to Mr. Anthony who describes it as “little”.  It seems unreasonable for the frame a four-inch slab consisting of 27 bags of concrete to be “little”.

“it didn’t take any time at all” – Mr. Anthony is sensitive about the length of time the project took to complete and minimizes it as “any time at all”.  Again, it seems unreasonable to state pouring 27 bags of concrete “didn’t take any time at all”.  It did take some time.  Even a single bag takes a significant amount of time to prepare and pour.  Mr. Anthony spent a significant amount of time pouring a concrete pad in his backyard while his daughter and his granddaugther were missing and his wife and son were frantically searching for them both.

Jeff Ashton: “Had you and Cindy specifically discussed the date you would do that, you know, prior to doing it, or was it just sort of: Okay. We’ve got time. Let’s do it now?”

Mr. Ashton returns to determining when this fairly large project was planned.

George Anthony: “With her just being off, with me being off, we just decided to do it. It just wasn’t a specific planned date or something like that. We just: Hey, let’s get it done, so –”

Mr. Anthony insists both he and his wife agreed to pour the concrete by using “we”.

“With her just being off, with me being off” – Both Mr. and Mrs. Anthony are “off”, which we assume refers to paid work.  Mr. Anthony did not have a job at the time as his first day at his new job was the day Caylee Anthony was reported missing to police.  Mrs. Anthony did have a job, but was off work, marking the coincidence of their being “off” as a specific point in time.

“we just decided to do it” – “Just” indicates this was not how it happened.  There was more to the decision to start and complete this project while they were both “off” even though Mr. Anthony earlier stated he did all the work himself, which would indicate Mrs. Anthony’s work schedule should not have affected the decision.

“It just wasn’t a specific planned date” – Again, “just” indicates this statement is a minimization of the truth.  They made a decision to complete the project while they were both off, yet Mr. Anthony claims it “wasn’t a specific planned date” even though we know Mrs. Anthony only had “specific planned” dates off work.

“or something like that” – It was not “something like” a “specific planned date”.  What was it like?  Why does Mr. Anthony distance himself from a planned date with “that”?  Mr. Anthony is stating the decision to pour the concrete was not determined by the specific date, meaning it was determined by some reason other than the date.  What was the other reason?  The initial burial site of a recently moved dead body which needed to be covered over prior to investigation?

“We just: Hey, let’s get it done, so –” – Yet another “just”.  This is not all of what they said to each other concerning pouring concrete in the backyard.

Jeff Ashton: “Where did you buy the concrete?”

George Anthony: “I think I got some at Lowe’s. As a matter of fact I got all of the bags at Lowe’s, on 436 by Pershing. I’m pretty positive.”

Mr. Anthony does not commit to an answer.  Mr. Anthony does dance around an answer.

“I think” – Mr. Anthony refuses to commit.

“As a matter of fact” – This almost always means the following statement is not “fact” because if it were, the speaker would not need to convince the listeners it is “fact” as such would be assumed.

“I got all of the bags at Lowe’s” – Mr. Anthony brings into question where he bought “all of the bags” by stating “all of the”.  Mr. Ashton would have assumed Mr. Anthony bought “all of the bags” at Lowe’s if Mr. Anthony had said “I bought the concrete at Lowe’s”.  But, Mr. Anthony distinguishes some bags from others by using the phrase “all of the”.  Mr. Anthony may not have bought all of the bags at Lowe’s.

“I’m pretty positive.” – Mr. Anthony’s “matter of fact” now becomes a matter of “pretty positive”, which is not a “fact”.  Mr. Anthony will not commit to his answer.

Jeff Ashton: “Okay. That’s the one –”

George Anthony: “Because they had a good deal on it, so we just went and got it.”

Mr. Anthony must justify the “matter of fact” by explaining why he bought “all of the bags” at Lowe’s.  This again brings doubt as to where Mr. Anthony bought “all of the bags”.

Jeff Ashton: “Okay. Any other changes back in the backyard during that period from the 16th through the –”

Mr. Ashton inquires about work on the backyard other than the concrete pad.

George Anthony: “No. I mean, around Caylee’s house I know Cindy — we had planted some — I think Cindy planted some flowers around there or something, but nothing out of the unusual. I mean, it’s — we always –”

“No” – If Mr. Anthony had stuck with this answer, his answer would have been strong.  However, he goes on to define his “no” cannot be trusted.

“I mean” – “No” means “no”, yet Mr. Anthony states he used the word to mean something other than it means.  Most people would define his use of “no” to mean something other than “no” as a lie.

“around Caylee’s house I know Cindy –” – Mr. Anthony is aware of something Mrs. Anthony did “around Caylee’s house”.  We are not sure what she did because Mr. Anthony stops himself from finishing the verbalization of his thought.

“we had planted some –” – Mr. Anthony changes his statement from Mrs. Anthony doing something “around Caylee’s house” by including himself in the planting of “some” unknown something with the use of “we”, but again stops himself from completing his statement.

“I think Cindy planted some flowers around there or something” – Mr. Anthony removes himself from the planting by changing to “I think”, which means he will not commit to Mr. Ashton his statement is the truth.  “Cindy” again acts alone to plant “flowers” or “something”.  What is “something”?  Is it additional plants?  Is it “something” to confuse cadaver dogs?  We do not know, but we do know it is not “flowers”.

“but nothing out of the unusual” – Normally, this phrase is spoken as “nothing out of the usual”, but Mr. Anthony interjects the word “unusual”.  Mrs. Anthony planted “something” “out of the unusual”.  In other words, Mrs. Anthony planted an unusual item around Caylee’s house.  What was the “unusual” item?

“I mean, it’s — we always –” – Mr. Anthony again changes what he means and goes back to “we”, even though he was speaking about Cindy Anthony.  This is a further indication the answers which directly preceded it are a deception.

Jeff Ashton: “Were any of them projects that Casey was supposed to be assisting her with, as far as you know?”

George Anthony: “No. I can’t remember Casey helping us out with any of that stuff. No.”

“No” is sensitive as it is stated twice, but weak because Mr. Anthony must state he “can’t remember”, which is yet another signal from Mr. Anthony he does not commit to his statements.  Mr. Anthony is lying, he knows he is lying, he knows Mr. Ashton and everyone who hears him knows he is lying, and he is so uncomfortable he keeps inserting rationalizations for his irrational claims.

“helping us out with any of that stuff” – Mr. Anthony stated Mrs. Anthony planted something unusual, but now states “us”.  Mr. Anthony distances himself from what Mrs. Anthony did and his own pouring of the concrete with “that stuff”.

We have learned Mr. Ashton considers the pouring of concrete in the Anthony backyard during the time period when Caylee Anthony was missing but not yet reported as such to law enforcement to be significant in the prosecution of Casey Anthony.  If Mr. Ashton did not find these actions to be significant, he would not have addressed them in the deposition.

We have learned Mr. Anthony does not want to answer any questions about the concrete pad even though he is proud to have poured the 27 bags of cement himself.

We have learned Mr. Anthony has knowledge of something unusual Mrs. Anthony planted around Caylee Anthony’s playhouse.

We have learned the pouring of the concrete pad and the planting of something unusual around the playhouse were the actions of Mr. and Mrs. Anthony with no participation in planning or execution by Casey Anthony.

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to all my loyal readers.  Thanks for your support.

Bullstopper will return with new articles beginning Tuesday, November 30, 2010.

Everyone have a great holiday weekend!

Why Did the Anthonys Pour a New Concrete Pad in their Backyard While Caylee Was Missing?

On July 24, 2008, the press questioned Cindy Anthony about the new concrete pad in their backyard which was poured three weeks earlier, about three weeks after Caylee Anthony was last seen.

Cindy Anthony would not address the concrete pad directly, but did speak about the police investigation of the Anthony backyard.  Her comments may be found at the following link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390054,00.html

Cindy Anthony: “We do yard work around our house all the time and our yard has been completely looked at.  I feel very confident. The sheriff’s office knows everything that we’ve done in that yard over the last year. We’ve disclosed everything. If they had any concerns, I would think they would have followed up on it already.”

“We do yard work around our house all the time” – Mrs. Anthony dodges the question of the concrete pad by speaking about “yard work”.  She is sensitive about “yard work” as she must define it is “around our house”, in case anyone believes she often does yard work around someone else’s house.  Mrs. Anthony speaks of “we”.  Who is “we”?  Cindy and George Anthony?  Is Lee Anthony included?  What about Casey Anthony?  We do not know, but we do know Mrs. Anthony is sensitive about the amount of time “we” spend doing yard work as she adds “all the time”, which is a fabrication since we know Mrs. Anthony does other things which would not allow her to spend “all the time” doing yard work.  Giving Mrs. Anthony the benefit of the doubt and assuming she and Mr. Anthony do engage in yard work continuously around their house, do they pour new concrete pads “all the time”?

“and our yard has been completely looked at” – It is more important to Mrs. Anthony to inform the media she and Mr. Anthony continuously engage in yard work than letting them know the “yard has been completely looked at”.  The “yard” is “our yard”, who we assume to be Mr. and Mrs. Anthony.  Mrs. Anthony is sensitive about how closely the yard has been “looked at” as she adds “completely”.  This could because she feels it has been looked at too closely or because it was not “completely” looked at.  Who “looked at” the yard?

“I feel very confident” – What does Mrs. Anthony “feel very confident” about?  We do not know.  Is she “confident” the police did their jobs and cleared her yard?  Or is she “confident” the police did not find evidence which exists in her yard?  Or is she “confident” about something else altogether?

“The sheriff’s office knows everything that we’ve done in that yard over the last year” – Mrs. Anthony suddenly inserts the time frame “over the last year” when the media is questioning what happened within the last month.  What happened earlier in the year which Mrs. Anthony feels the sheriff’s office needed to know?  The phrase “knows everything” is an untrue exaggeration as the sheriff’s office could not possibly know “everything”, especially if the Anthonys are working “all the time” as previously claimed by Mrs. Anthony.  And abundance of such exaggerations is a strong sign of deception.  The “yard” has changed from “our yard” to “that yard” which distances Mrs. Anthony from the yard.  Something the sheriff’s office knows which the Anthonys did sometime in the previous year in their yard causes Mrs. Anthony to push the yard away from herself after embracing it in the last references.

“We’ve disclosed everything” – “The sheriff’s office knows everything” and “we’ve disclosed everything” indicates the sheriff’s office knows things the Anthonys did not disclose.  Mrs. Anthony feels she must specify the Anthonys “disclosed everything” showing sensitivity to what they may or may not have disclosed.  Again, the word “everything” makes this statement false by exaggeration.  Most likely, the Mrs. Anthony is aware of something which she did not disclose to the sheriff’s office.  The word “disclosed” indicates the keeping of secrets.  They did not “tell” the sheriff’s office or “inform”.  They “disclosed” what was hidden and secret.  There is knowledge about the backyard they wished to keep private.

“If they had any concerns” – We assume Mrs. Anthony refers to the sheriff’s office with “they”.

“I would think” – The following statement and the conclusion of the “if-then” statement is not fact, but the belief of Mrs. Anthony which she agrees may not be the belief of others.  This is Mrs. Anthony’s opinion which has no merit in regards to the action of law enforcement.

“they would have followed up on it already” – Mrs. Anthony believes the sheriff’s office “would have followed up” “already” if they still had concerns about the information the Anthonys may or may not have disclosed.  It is up to the police to follow up, not the Anthonys to volunteer the information they possess.  “On it” indicates the sheriff’s office has one specific concern as Mrs. Anthony uses the singular “it”.  “Already” indicates sensitivity to the time the sheriff’s office is taking to follow up on the concern Mrs. Anthony believes they have.  Mrs. Anthony wishes they would have followed up “already” as their delay causes her anxiety.

We have learned Cindy Anthony did not want to answer direct questions about a concrete pad the Anthonys poured in their backyard shortly after Caylee Anthony disappeared.

We have learned Cindy Anthony kept secrets concerning the backyard from investigators.

We have learned law enforcement’s failure to find evidence in the Anthony backyard made Cindy Anthony feel confident.

Is Jose Baez the Ringmaster of the Media Circus or the Clown?

About week after the discovery of the remains of Caylee Anthony in a garbage bag, Jose Baez released a statement which he may not have solely written, but which he did approve, to the press.

The press release may be found at the following link:

http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/baez-lashes-out-at-investigators/

“Unfortunately this matter has already become a Media Circus and something The Baez Law Firm will not contribute to, by just making a show of going to the excavation site without good reason. The Casey Anthony Defense Team is being prevented from examining the site unless and until all photographs, schematic sketches and related material and documentation are released to the defense through the discovery process.”

“Unfortunately” – For whom are the circumstances unfortunate?  The Baez Law Firm.  The word “unfortunately” is dependent upon the point of view of the speaker and the listener.  What is unfortunate for the speaker may not be unfortunate for anyone else.  Mr. Baez feels fortune has turned against him.

“this matter” – We assume “this matter” references law enforcement’s denial of Mr. Baez’s requests to interfere with an active crime scene investigation which had not been tied to his client at the time of this statement.

“has already become” – The word “already” indicates Mr. Baez expected “this matter” to “become a Media Circus”, but not this quickly.

“a Media Circus” – The capitalization of the words “Media Circus” indicate sensitivity to the concept.

“and something The Baez Law Firm will not contribute to” – What exactly will the Baez Law Firm “not contribute to”?  “Something”.  Is “something” the same as “a Media Circus”?  No.  If it were, there would be no need to re-identify it as the far less precise “something”.  The Baez Law Firm initiated the ridiculous requests to access the crime scene prior to the completion of law enforcement’s investigation, yet Mr. Baez claims this did not contribute to the “Media Circus” even though his requests were the catalyst.

“by just making a show of going to the excavation site without good reason” – This is what The Baez Law Firm claims it will not do to “contribute”.  “Just” indicates if this action were paired with other actions, it would be an acceptable form of contribution.  Mr. Baez did address the news cameras at the “excavation site”, but here claims it was not “making a show”.  Mr. Baez implies he had “good reason” when he made a “show”.  Mr. Baez feels it is acceptable to make a “show” with “good reason”, even if doing so contributes to the “Media Circus”.  “Reason” is sensitive as marked by “good”, which Mr. Baez must add as the validity of his reasons may be questioned by others.

“The Casey Anthony Defense Team is being prevented” – The Baez Law Firm is now “The Casey Anthony Defense Team”.  If The Baez Law Firm will not contribute to a media circus unless they have good reason, will “The Casey Anthony Defense Team” contribute without good reason?  Who prevents The Casey Anthony Defense Team and do they have good reason?

“from examining the site” – This is what The Casey Anthony Defense Team is being prevented from doing.  The “excavation site” is now the “site”.

“unless and until all photographs, schematic sketches and related material and documentation are released to the defense through the discovery process” – Mr. Baez states the “examining the site” is dependent on “photographs, schematic sketches and related material and documentation”.  Why?  Did law enforcement have these items when they examined the site?  “Through the discovery process” is Mr. Baez acknowledging the defense will receive all of these items as part of the “process”.  There is a “process” and it must be followed.  Mr. Baez is acknowledging he is attempting to bypass the “process”.

We have learned Mr. Baez expected to start a Media Circus when he made his remarks before the assembled press covering the excavation of the discovery site.

We have learned Mr. Baez believes he had “good reason” to start a Media Circus.

We have learned Mr. Baez attempted to use the denial of his requests to allow the defense team to examine the discovery site prior to the completion of law enforcement’s forensic investigation as a tool to bypass the normal discovery process.

Is Cindy Anthony a Fool?

On November 6, 2008, Cindy Anthony released a statement accusing the media of creating negative spin in regards to her daughter, Casey Anthony.

Mrs. Anthony’s statement may be found at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/news/17919607/detail.html

“Casey has been severely attacked by the media since she was first arrested, and anyone would be a fool to ignore that. All of the negative spin has done her an injustice. Just look at what it has done for poor Caylee. The media already has given up on looking for this child, when there is simply no credible or concrete evidence to prove that she is dead.”

“Casey has been severely attacked” – “Attacked” is sensitive as seen by the use of extra word “severely”.

“by the media” – This is who Mrs. Anthony claims “severely attacked” Casey Anthony.  In what way did they attack her?  What did they do to elevate the attack from a regular attack to a severe attack?  We do not know because Mrs. Anthony does not support her claim, but states it as a fact which the audience is assumed to accept.

“since she was first arrested” – “Arrested” is sensitive as seen by the use of the extra word “first”.  Mrs. Anthony wants to be sure the audience understands she is speaking about the entire time period from Casey Anthony’s “first” arrest, a period which is sensitive for Mrs. Anthony as she must specify it for reasons which are not apparent to the audience.  The impact of the sentence would not have been diminished if this phrase had not been included.

“and anyone would be a fool to ignore that” – “That” distances Mrs. Anthony from the severe attacks of the media.  Mrs. Anthony is not ignoring the severe attacks of the media.  Mrs. Anthony does not believe she is a “fool”.  Mrs. Anthony seems to know a “fool” or two whom she is describing with this statement.

“All of the negative spin” – “Spin” is sensitive for Mrs. Anthony as she must use the extra words “all of the negative” to describe it.  She is not able to leave it as “spin”, which in the context would be assumed by the audience to be negative as no one would complain about positive spin.  “All of the negative spin” does not include any of the positive spin, such as by the defense attorneys.

“has done her an injustice” – This is the effect on Casey Anthony of “all of the negative spin”.  This is not the effect of positive spin.  Negative spin does an “injustice”, positive spin does not.  In what way is “spin” just or unjust?  What is the “injustice” done by the “negative spin”?  Although “spin” may be favorable or unfavorable, does it affect justice in any way as Mrs. Anthony claims?  This is an exaggeration by Mrs. Anthony.

“Just look” – This is a command from Mrs. Anthony to her audience, who is ordered to “look”, but to do nothing else as specified by “just”.  The audience is not to comment, not to draw their own conclusions, but to “look” and only to “look”.

“at what it has done for poor Caylee” – We assume “it” refers to “all the negative spin”, which Mrs. Anthony claims did an “injustice” to Casey Anthony and now she claims it also “has done” something “for poor Caylee”.  “Negative spin” did something to Casey Anthony, but something “for” Caylee Anthony.  Caylee is “poor”.  A month before Caylee Anthony is found in a garbage bag in the woods near the Anthony home, Mrs. Anthony uses her image as “poor Caylee” to foster support for Casey Anthony.

“The media already has given up on looking for this child” – The “negative spin” has caused the media to give up searching for Caylee Anthony.  “Already” notes sensitivity to the time frame.  Mrs. Anthony feels it is too early for the media to have “given up”.  Has the media “given up”?  Mrs. Anthony claims they have, but does not support this statement with any facts.  Caylee Anthony is no longer “poor Caylee”, but “this child”, not my granddaughter or our baby, but “this child”.

“when there is simply no credible or concrete evidence” – “Evidence” is extremely sensitive to Mrs. Anthony as seen by the use of the extra words “simply”, “credible”, and “concrete”.  Interestingly, “credible” evidence is more important to Mrs. Anthony than “concrete”.  This may be because at the time of the statement, the evidence and lab reports from the Body Farm which concluded a dead body had decomposed in the trunk of the car driven by Casey Anthony had been made public.  The defense team’s media strategy for dealing with the public disclosure was to ridicule the findings as not “credible” due to the youthfulness of the forensic techniques.  However, the findings were “concrete”.  “Simply” may also refer to the same findings, which were not simple, but complex.

“to prove that she is dead” – There is an inference the media has stopped looking for “this child” because they believe she is dead.  Why does the belief in the life or death of Caylee Anthony affect the media searching for Caylee Anthony?  We do not know how Mrs. Anthony made this leap of logic because she does not explain her reasoning.  Mrs. Anthony may be saying the search for a live Caylee Anthony has been “given up on” by the media, but not the search for a dead Caylee Anthony which is not a search in the mind of Mrs. Anthony.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony believes justice and media coverage are linked.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony believes the media, not the behavior of Casey Anthony, is to blame for negative spin.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony considers the source of evidence to be more important than the evidence itself.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony believes the release of this statement proves she is not a fool because she is not ignoring the attacks of the media.

Why Did Jose Baez Request Access to the Discovery Site?

On December 17, 2008, about week after the remains of Caylee Anthony were first discovered in the woods near her home, Jose Baez released a statement which he may not have solely written, but which he did approve, to the press.

The press release may be found at the following link:

http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/baez-lashes-out-at-investigators/

“The Casey Anthony Defense Team has made numerous attempts to preserve the evidence in and around the location where the human remains of what appear to be a small child were found.

Law enforcement has been repeatedly asked to allow reasonable access by medical and scientific experts for the defense, including requests for photographs, and assistance with maintaining a secure examination scene prior to any media or general public access.”

“The Casey Anthony Defense Team has made numerous attempts” – This press release identifies a group named “The Casey Anthony Defense Team”.  Who is included as a member of the “Team”?  We do not know.  This statement claims the “Team has made numerous attempts”.  Who on the “Team” made the “numerous attempts”?  How many is “numerous”?  What is an attempt?  Is it a phone call, a motion filed with the court, a press release, a news conference?  We do not know the answers to any of these questions, making this statement vague at best, misleading at least, and deceptive at worst.

“to preserve the evidence” – This is what the “Team” made “numerous attempts” to do.  The implication is the evidence was not preserved because “attempts” are not successes.  They attempted, but did not preserve the evidence.  What impact could the “Defense Team” possibly have on preservation of evidence?  The implication is law enforcement does not preserve evidence and must be overseen by the “Defense Team”.  What exactly have they done to attempt to preserve evidence?  We do not know, but since no “Defense Team” member stepped foot on the grounds of the discovery site, they could not have attempted anything which included direct physical contact with the evidence, making any preservation questionable.

“in and around the location” – There are two geographic areas the “Defense Team” is concerned about preserving evidence, “in and around”.  The “Defense Team” is acknowledging the evidence “around” the “location” may be important to the investigation.  To most people, the woods would be the location, no need to specify an “around”.  However, this press release does identify “around”, meaning “around” is significant to the defense.  Why?  Do they know of “evidence” which is “around the location”?  Jose Baez has been adamant the prosecution has not turned over exculpatory evidence.  Is there a connection?

“where the human remains of what appear to be a small child were found” – The “Defense Team” acknowledges the “human remains” have not been identified as “a small child”, therefore they have not been identified as Caylee Anthony.  The “Defense Team” has been working to “preserve the evidence” at a “location” which is not identified as being connected with their case.

“Law enforcement has been repeatedly asked” – This is one form of attempt.  However, even though “law enforcement has been repeatedly asked”, it is not clear they were “asked” by the defense team from the structure of the sentence.  Who exactly “asked”?  How many times is “repeatedly”?  In what manner was law enforcement asked?  Were they asked in writing or verbally?  Who in law enforcement was asked?  The cop standing guard at the site or the sheriff?  Asking is sensitive for the “Defense Team” as the word “repeatedly” is an additional unneeded word.  The asking happened in the past, not in the present.

“to allow reasonable access” – This is what law enforcement was asked to do.  “Access” is limited by “reasonable”.  What constitutes “reasonable”?  We do not know.  Who decides what is “reasonable” and what is not?  Apparently, the “Defense Team” who implies law enforcement is unreasonable by not granting their requests.  However, law enforcement, by not granting the requests, defines the requests as not “reasonable”.  The “Defense Team” wishes the audience of this press release to believe law enforcement is unreasonable rather than admitting their requests were unreasonable.

“by medical and scientific experts for the defense” – The “Defense Team” acknowledges “medical and scientific experts” have had access to the scene, but not those “for the defense”.  “Experts” are preserving the evidence, but since the remains are not identified, the defense has no reason for access, making any request for such access unreasonable.

“including requests for photographs” – Is the “Defense Team” requesting their experts to be allowed to take “photographs” or are they asking for “photographs” taken by the experts who have examined the scene?  We do not know.  The “Defense Team” identified their requests for access as “reasonable”, but do not identify the request for “photographs” as “reasonable”.  Is this because they recognize this request as unreasonable?  Or because this request is “reasonable”, causing no anxiety which must be relieved by tacking on the word “reasonable”?

“and assistance with maintaining a secure examination scene prior to any media or general public access” – Is it “reasonable” to believe the police will continue to maintain “a secure examination scene” after they have completed the official state investigation?  Would it not be the responsibility of the “Defense Team” to hire and fund a security detail to guard the scene for the duration of their needs?

We have learned the “Defense Team” made unreasonable demands of law enforcement during the investigation of the discovery site of the remains of Caylee Anthony.

We have learned the “Defense Team” is not willing to provide specific details on who in law enforcement were notified of the defense requests or in what manner those requests were made.

We have learned the “Defense Team” wishes the public to believe law enforcement did not preserve evidence during the recovery.

Does Cindy Anthony Trust Her Daughter?

On August 5, 2008, less than a month after Caylee Anthony was reported missing, Cindy Anthony spoke to the press about trust.

Mrs. Anthony’s comments may be found at the following link.

http://www.wesh.com/news/17099679/detail.html

Cindy Anthony: “There’s certain things we do know, certain things Casey knows that she can’t tell. But you know, frankly, there’s not a whole lot of people that we trust. I trust Casey, I trust her attorney, I trust my son, and I trust my husband, and I trust God, and that’s about the only people right now and the only things I can have faith in.”

“There’s certain things we do know” – Who is “we”?  We do not know, but they know “things”, but only “certain things”, not everything.  The “things” they know are sensitive to Mrs. Anthony who must specify the “things” are limited by “certain”.  This statement contains no substance.  Everyone knows “things”.  Everyone knows “certain things”.  Without a definition of “certain things”, the statement is meaningless and used by Mrs. Anthony to convince the listeners she has knowledge beyond what is possessed by others.

“certain things Casey knows” – Casey Anthony also “knows” “certain things”.  Are these the same “certain things” which “we do know”?  No, if they were, Mrs. Anthony would not need to separate Casey’s “certain things” from the other “certain things” with her language.  Casey Anthony is not part of “we”.  Mrs. Anthony belongs to a group of people who know things, but not the same things Casey Anthony knows.  Mrs. Anthony belongs to a group of people which does not include Casey Anthony.

“that she can’t tell” – This is why the “certain things” Mrs. Anthony knows are not the same as the “certain things” Casey Anthony knows.  Casey Anthony “can’t tell”.  Why can she not “tell”?  We do not know, but we do know she is constrained in some fashion from disclosing her “certain things”.  “That” distances Mrs. Anthony from her claim Casey Anthony “can’t tell”.  Why does Mrs. Anthony distance herself?  Because “can’t tell” is a lie.  Casey Anthony can tell, she chooses not to.  She can tell, but won’t tell.  Mrs. Anthony wants us to believe Casey Anthony’s daughter is missing and kidnapped, yet Ms. Anthony “can’t tell” the “certain things” which would lead police to recover Caylee Anthony.

“But you know” – A blatant attempt to convince the listener they already “know” and, therefore, accept the next statement of Cindy Anthony.  “But” indicates the previous statement is a deception, which it is.

“frankly” – The signpost of dishonesty.  Mrs. Anthony tells us she has not been frank up to this point.  The previous statements cannot be trusted as she will now be frank, but was not before.  When someone has lied in their previous statements, their future statements must be suspect.

“there’s not a whole lot of people” – The number of “people” is sensitive for Mrs. Anthony as she adds the extra words “a whole lot of”.  There are “people”, but they are few.

“that we trust” – Is “we” the “we” who know “certain things”, but who do not include Casey Anthony?  We do not know.  “Trust” is sensitive for Mrs. Anthony as she distances herself from trusting with “that”.

“I trust Casey” – This is a strong statement.  Mrs. Anthony trusts her daughter.  Mrs. Anthony changes from “we” to “I”, so it is not clear if “we” also trusts Casey Anthony.

“I trust her attorney” – Another strong statement.  Mrs. Anthony trusts “her attorney”, which we assume references Jose Baez.

“I trust my son” – Another strong statement.  Mrs. Anthony trusts Lee Anthony.

“and I trust my husband” – Another strong statement.  Mrs. Anthony trusts George Anthony.

“and I trust God” – Another strong statement.  Mrs. Anthony trusts God.  However, the use of the word “and” in the references to the last two people Mrs. Anthony trusts indicates she planned to end her list with “my husband”.

Order is important.  The level of trust Mrs. Anthony places in each person is shown by the order in which they appear in her list of trusted people.  Most trusted is Casey, followed by Jose Baez, followed by Lee Anthony, followed by George Anthony, and least of all God.  Mrs. Anthony trusts the most in the one person who has publicly been revealed as an outrageous liar, Casey Anthony.  Mrs. Anthony trusts Jose Baez more than the other members of her own family.  Mrs. Anthony’s faith in God is less than her faith in George Anthony.

“and that’s about the only people right now” – “That” distances Mrs. Anthony from this statement.  Most likely, it is an exaggeration of the way Mrs. Anthony feels.  “About the only people” indicates Mrs. Anthony does trust other people she has not listed.  Her list is not “the only people”, but “about”, so there are more.  “Right now” limits Mrs. Anthony’s trust issues to the present, the time of the comment.  The people Mrs. Anthony trusts shifts as time progresses.

“and the only things I can have faith in” – Are the “only things” Mrs. Anthony “can have faith in” the “certain things” she knows?  Or the “certain things” Casey Anthony knows which Mrs. Anthony does not because she cannot tell?  We don’t know, but we do know “things” is sensitive because of the use of “only”.  “Can” indicates a limitation imposed on Mrs. Anthony of the “things” she may have “faith in”.  Why can Mrs. Anthony not have faith in other things?  We do not know.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony trusts her daughter who refuses to tell the police the certain things she knows about the disappearance of Caylee Anthony more than anyone else.

We have learned, at least in the first month of the case, Mrs. Anthony trusts Jose Baez.

We have learned Mrs. Anthony has not convinced herself Casey Anthony “can’t tell” the certain things she knows.

Does Cindy Anthony Believe 100% in Casey Anthony?

On August 5, 2008, Cindy Anthony made a statement to the press concerning her belief in the veracity of the information supplied by her daughter in connection with the disappearance of toddler Caylee Anthony.

Mrs. Anthony’s comments may be found at the following link.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-27/justice/fla.missing.girl_1_caylee-casey-anthony-grandmother-cindy-anthony?_s=PM:CRIME

Cindy Anthony: “Casey’s maintained that she’s protecting Caylee, and she’s also protecting the family from physical harm. We believe that 100 percent.”

“Casey’s maintained” – Cindy Anthony makes a statement about the actions of Casey Anthony.  Casey has “maintained”.  Cindy Anthony claims Casey Anthony stuck with the same story from the beginning even though all of America knew as this statement was made Casey Anthony had revealed to the police on the second day of the investigation she lied about the circumstances of Caylee’s disappearance, her personal work status, and the locations where Caylee may have last been seen.  “Maintained” also has an implication the story has been tinkered with like an old car.  As time has progressed, the story has been modified to keep it operational.  There is also an implication the story must be true because Casey Anthony continues to tell it.  “Maintained” is in the past tense.  This is an action of the past, not a statement Casey Anthony continues to maintain this story.

“that” – Mrs. Anthony distances herself from what Casey Anthony “maintained”.

“she’s protecting Caylee” – Casey Anthony has claimed “she’s protecting Caylee”, but may no longer be claiming such.

“and she’s also protecting the family” – By adding the words “she’s also”, Mrs. Anthony calls into question whether this portion is something Casey Anthony “maintained”.  Did Casey Anthony claim to be protecting the family?  If so, why the need to tack it on with an additional subject and the extra word “also”?  “Protecting the family” is sensitive to Mrs. Anthony.  Casey Anthony does not protect her family, she protects “the family”.  Is Casey Anthony a member of “the family” she protects?

Order is important.  Most important to Mrs. Anthony is the protection of Caylee Anthony followed by the protection of “the family”.

“from physical harm” – This is the danger from which she protects “the family”.  But what is the danger from which she protects Caylee?  Casey Anthony does not protect the family from emotional harm, only “physical”.  Is Casey Anthony causing the family emotional or psychological harm?

“We believe” – Mrs. Anthony does not state she believes, but “we believe”. Who is “we”?  “The family”?  George and Cindy Anthony?  We do not know.

“that” – Mrs. Anthony again distances herself from what she claims to be the statements of Casey Anthony.

“100 percent” – “We” believes what Mrs. Anthony has said about her daughter “100 percent”.

We have learned Cindy Anthony wants us to believe if someone repeats a story enough times, it must be true.

We have learned Cindy Anthony wants us to believe Casey Anthony has maintained the same lies since Caylee was reported missing when we know her lies have shifted as facts were exposed during the investigation and we heard her changing her story as the police questioned her at Universal Studios in the office which was not hers on the second day of the investigation.

Is Jose Baez a Good Attorney?

On November 6, 2008, Cindy Anthony released a statement to the media concerning coverage of her daughter, Casey Anthony.

Mrs. Anthony’s statement may be found at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/news/17919607/detail.html

Cindy Anthony: “I feel that a good attorney will plan for the worse case scenario and hope for the best. I know that Casey’s attorneys know that she is innocent, but they cannot ignore how the media has already spun the facts and convicted her.

“I feel” – The following statement is not a fact, but a feeling.  This is the way Mrs. Anthony feels.  Others will feel differently.

“that” – Mrs. Anthony distances herself from what she claims to feel.  If Mrs. Anthony cannot stand by her statement, neither can her audience.

“a good attorney will plan for the worse case scenario” – This is what Mrs. Anthony feels.  Mrs. Anthony limits her statement to “a good attorney”.  Does she refer to Jose Baez?  We do not know.  Does she feel Jose Baez is “a good attorney”?  We do not know.  “Will plan” is future tense, meaning if Mr. Baez is “a good attorney” and Mrs. Anthony is referring to him, he has not yet performed the planning Mrs. Anthony believes the mark of a good attorney.

“and hope for the best” – Good attorneys do not plan for the best, they do not work towards the best scenario, they “hope for the best”.  Good attorneys plan for worse than the best and make no plans for the best.  They “hope” for the best, but do not believe this will be the outcome.

“I know” – This is a strong statement of Mrs. Anthony’s personal knowledge.

“that” – The strong statement is weakened by Mrs. Anthony distancing herself from what she claims to know.

“Casey’s attorneys know” – “Casey’s attorneys” are not identified as good or bad attorneys.  We do not know if the planning statement applies to “Casey’s attorneys”.  Mrs. Anthony is stating she knows what the attorneys “know”.  Mrs. Anthony is able to read the attorneys’ minds or has access to the same information they do as she knows the contents of their thoughts.  This is probably why she used the word “that” to distance herself from the claim she knows the knowledge others possess.

“that” – Another “that”, further weakening the statement and distancing Mrs. Anthony from the next claim.  The attorneys may not know what Mrs. Anthony claims they know, meaning she does not know what they know.

“she is innocent” – This is the claim. Mrs. Anthony uses two “that”s to distance herself from the claim her daughter “is innocent”.  Mrs. Anthony does not say she knows her daughter “is innocent”.  She says she knows the attorneys know.  This is not a statement of the innocence of Casey Anthony.  This is not a statement of Mrs. Anthony’s belief in the innocence of Casey Anthony.  This is an attempt to convince the reader Mrs. Anthony is privy to the thoughts of the attorneys which are the thoughts she also wishes the public to believe.

“but” – “But” indicates the portion of the sentence which preceded it is untrue and if there is truth in the statement, it will follow.

“they cannot ignore” – Casey’s attorneys “cannot ignore”.  Technically, a false statement.  They can ignore.  The could ignore.  They most likely should not ignore.  It is not clear if Mrs. Anthony is defending the actions of the defense attorneys or telling them they must not ignore the actions of the media.

“how the media has already spun the facts” – The fact spinners are identified as “the media”, not the prosecution, not the state, not the police.  If any party other than “the media” has spun facts, they can be ignored.  “Already” is a reference to sensitivity to time.  Mrs. Anthony believes the media should have waited to spin “the facts”.  The media spin concerns “the facts”.  The media is reporting “the facts”, but Mrs. Anthony is not happy with the reports.

“and convicted her” – The media has “convicted her”.  The public has not “convicted her”, nor has the prosecution, police, or state.  Only the media has “convicted her”.

Order is important.  Mrs. Anthony feels stating Ms. Anthony’s attorneys believe she is innocent is more important than alerting the public the media is spinning facts.

Order is important.  Most important to Mrs. Anthony is the spin of the facts by the media.  Of secondary importance is the media’s conviction of Casey Anthony.

We have learned Cindy Anthony may not feel the attorneys for her daughter’s defense are good attorneys.

We have learned Cindy Anthony may feel the attorneys for her daughter are ignoring negative media exposure which could damage Casey Anthony’s chances for freedom.

We have learned Cindy Anthony is more concerned with the perceptions of the media than the perceptions of law enforcement.

Is Jose Baez worried about Casey Anthony’s Appearance?

Defense attorneys Jose Baez and Linda Kenney Baden chose to speak to the press following a hearing on January 30, 2009.

We will examine the replies of Jose Baez to queries concerning the evolving look of Casey Anthony from flag-draped party girl to business-suit matron.  The comments of Mr. Baez may be heard in the video at the following link.

http://www.wftv.com/video/18605921/index.html

Jose Baez: “What you saw today is Casey. I don’t know what you mean by different. Maybe the clothing is different, but she’s the same person and that’s Casey.”

Jose Baez: “I think you guys are paying so much attention to it, it really goes back to my objections. It’s irrelevant what she’s wearing, what her nails look like, and that has nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, so, I mean, you know, what… what can I say about that honestly?”

“What you saw today is Casey” – Mr. Baez tells the reporters they saw Casey Anthony.

“I don’t know what you mean by different” – Mr. Baez feigns ignorance of the meaning of the word “different”.  Mr. Baez feigns ignorance of the altered attire choices of his client.  Mr. Baez implies the meaning of words such as “different” are not the same for all speakers of English.  Mr. Baez would know what he means by “different”, but he does not know “what you mean”.

“Maybe the clothing is different” – Mr. Baez states perhaps “the clothing” is not the same.  “Maybe” indicates the Mr. Baez does not wish to admit the “clothing is different”.  However, he does acknowledge “the clothing is different”.  Mr. Baez overcomes his inability to decipher the word “different” by nailing down the exact aspect of his client which is “different” and caused the reporters to question him.

“but she’s the same person” – “But” indicates “maybe” is false and the “clothing” truly is “different”.  Even with “different” clothes, “she’s the same person”.  If she is the killer, she is still the killer no matter what outfit she wears to court.  If she is innocent, she is innocent in a burlap sack or a gown.  Mr. Baez implies clothes do not make a difference in court.

“and that’s Casey” – Mr. Baez is sensitive about “same person” and must define who the “same person” is.  Mr. Baez distances himself “Casey” with “that”.

“I think you guys are paying so much attention to it” – Mr. Baez uses the strong “I”, but the weak “think”.  He thinks, but does not know.  What he thinks may not be the thoughts of others, who may think they are not paying enough attention to the dress of Casey Anthony.  Mr. Baez wishes “you guys” would pay less “attention to it”.  This topic worries Mr. Baez and he attempts to re-direct the “attention” of “you guys” elsewhere.

“it really goes back to my objections” – Paying attention to the clothing Ms. Anthony wears to court “goes back” to “objections” of Jose Baez.  Mr. Baez objects to anyone noticing the clothes Casey Anthony wears in public court hearings.  The phrase “really goes back” is interesting as we must ask how does the topic of Casey Anthony’s clothes go anywhere, back or forwards, up or down?  It doesn’t “really”.  Mr. Baez must insert the word “really” to convince the listeners a topic is able to take action as a person and move in a direction of it’s own volition.  The topic goes nowhere.  It is Mr. Baez who “really goes back”.  He “goes back” to “my objections” which have already been dismissed.  Mr. Baez changes the topic to suit his own agenda.

“It’s irrelevant what she’s wearing” – Mr. Baez states the irrelevant nature of Ms. Anthony’s clothing after telling us it doesn’t matter what she wears, she is the same person.  Thus, Mr. Baez repeats the same idea, marking it as sensitive to him.  It is important to Mr. Baez to convince the listeners what Ms. Anthony wears is “irrelevant”.  Elsewhere in the interview, Mr. Baez refuses to answer questions based on his feeling of what an attorney should and should not do.  Here, he spends time discussing “irrelevant” items, not refusing to answer.  He is sensitive about this topic.

“what her nails look like” – Mr. Baez introduces Ms. Anthony’s “nails”.  Something about Ms. Anthony’s nails bother Mr. Baez as he focuses upon them even though they are not clothing.

“and that has nothing to do with her guilt or innocence” – Mr. Baez believes the appearance of Ms. Anthony, the “that” from which Mr. Baez distances himself, “has nothing to do with her guilt or innocence”.  Ms. Anthony’s “guilt or innocence” is determined by something other than her clothing.  Mr. Baez limits what her “nails” and “what she’s wearing” have “nothing to do with” to “guilt or innocence”.  They do have something to do with other aspects, such as the jury perception of the defendant.  Her appearance, despite the constant remarks about her looks supplied by her parents, may have nothing to do with the murder of Caylee Anthony, yet may have a dramatic effect on the jury which decides if Ms. Anthony will be found guilty or innocent in a court of law.

“so, I mean, you know, what… what can I say about that honestly” – “Honestly” implies what he said before “about that” was not honest.  As Mr. Baez says, what could he have said about it which would have been honest?

We have learned Mr. Baez is concerned by the appearance of Casey Anthony and the attention the press gives to the changes in her appearance.