Statement Analysis is in bold type.
Statement given to Police by Casey Anthony on 7/16/08.
On Monday, June 9, 2008, between 9am and 1pm, I took Caylee to the Sawgrass apartments, located on Conway Rd.
Note the time frame as first indicator of deception.
When a mother drops her child off with a babysitter, she knows the exact time. We would expect to hear either an exact time, or something like, "between 9Am and 9:10AM, I dropped off my daughter..." as a norm. Given that this was a Monday, a work day for most, we may even expect an exact time. The 4 hour time span would immediately catch the attention of the authorities as an attempt to deceive. For an accomplished liar who successfully fooled her parents for 2 years, this was a critical mistake. Note also the inclusion of the address. What was Casey expecting would be found there? Perhaps she had hoped that the people who lived there would become suspects when they denied knowledge of Zanny? Did Casey know that the particular apartment was not only vacant, but hadn't had an occupant in months? .
Caylee’s nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, has watched her for the past year and a half, to two years.
A truthful statement to police will be in chronological order. Any deviation should be considered deceptive. Already we have our second indicator of deception.
Here, she began, chronologically between 9AM to 1PM but now, parathentically, goes back to two years.
Zenaida is twenty-five years old, and is from New York. She is roughly 5 foot 7 inches tall, 140 pounds. She has dark brown, curly hair, and brown eyes. Zenaida’s birthday is in September.
Here, Casey goes into too many details. The description is okay, but adding in when her birthday is is a bit much. Remember, too many details, just as too few details, is an indication of deception. Casey, however, is not finished with details. Too many details indicates an attempt to persuade, rather than report. The many details may have impressed her parents, but not likely seasoned investigators.
I met Zenaida, through a mutual friend, Jeffery Michael Hopkins. She had watched his son, Zachary Hopkins, for about 6 months, to a year. I met Zenaida in 2004, around Christmas.
Note that she is, again, out of chronological order.
Note the name given in full of her "mutual friend" This is a formal introduction but unusual to add a middle name. This would put the investigators on alert. But then she says "Zachary Hopkins" rather than "his son, Zach" which would have been norm. The use of the full name of the son would be seen as redundant and an attempt to persuade.
Casey gives verifiable details. These inclusions are helpful, as an investigator can simply pick up the phone and ask Jeffery Hopkins how his son, Zachary, is doing.
Question: Why would a liar give an easily verifiable detail?
Answer: Ego. They expect to be believed.
Recall Scott Peterson saying on live TV that he had a conversation with John Walsh. What did reporters do? They called John Walsh to ask how it went when he spoke to Scott Peterson. Walsh was outraged and said he had never spoken to Peterson and questioned Peterson's intelligence on lying about something so easily verifiable.
The success of liars leads them to make such silly mistakes.
In Statement Analysis, we note any repetition as sensitive. In fact, if we have an indicator of sensitivity that is itself repeated, we know that we are looking at something highly sensitive and likely deceptive. The fact that the last name is repeated is an indication of sensitivity, but because we have already seen deception, the indicators of sensitivity should all be examined for deception. In this case, we know that the child did not exist, which is why Casey repeated the last name. We know the reason for sensitivity.
On the date listed above, June 9, 2008,
the same principle applies: the date is repeated and therefore, it is sensitive to Casey. June 9 is sharply in her mind.
after dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment, I proceeded to head to my place of employment, Universal Studios Orlando.
This is an attempt to assimilate with her target: police.
A liar has a target; the person or persons whom she wishes to deceive. She adopts their lingo in order to convince. Most people would say, "after I dropped off, I went to work...". Note also
I have workd at Universal for over 4 years, since June of 2004.
Where did this sentence go, chronologically? 4 years before.
Again, easily verifiable information. This is the ego of the liar; the pride that leads to the fall. Under any scenario invented by Cindy Anthony, there is no reason found to make up such a detailed lie about employment. This is the original statement police were given to go on, and will be what is presented in court.
I left work around 5pm, and went back to the apartment to pick-up my daughter.
"left" is noted. When it is used as a connecting verb, it is 70% likely that information about time pressure, traffic, etc, is withheld, but 30% likely that the information withheld is sensitive.
Note also: if she gets off work at 5PM, what time did work begin? at 9AM? at 1PM? What time did she drop off Caylee? She reported that it was between 9AM and 1PM. Not only is it an indication of lying, but it may be when Caylee was killed and the time frame is so sensitive to Casey that she had trouble collecting her thoughts for the report. It may be emotionally too difficult to enter specific details.
However, after reaching the apartment I realized that neither Zenaida, Caylee, or either of her two roommates were home. I have briefly met Raquel Farrell, and Jennifer Rosa, on various occasions. After calling Zenaida to see where she and Caylee were, and when they were coming home I waited outside of the apartment. I had called her that afternoon, her phone was no longer in service.
In Statement Analysis, we view the order in which something is reported. When something is found out of order, it is flagged as an indicator of deception. Here, not only do we have more verifiable detail, but we have Casey going out of chronological order. She reported calling Zanaida to find out where they were; but then stated that she learned earlier in the afternoon that the phone was no longer in service.
This lie was easily picked up by investigators.
Two hours passed, and around 7pm, I left the apartment, and headed to familiar places that Zenaida would go with Caylee. One of Caylee’s favorite places is Jay Blanchard Park. I spent the rest of that evening, pacing and worrying
Statement Analysis indicates deception here as well.
In a statement, people report what happened. In an honest statement, people will report what happened in the event, but after the event, they will then report what they thought and felt; but not during. It takes time to process emotions, so when emotions are put into the 'perfect' or logical place of the account, it is an indication of story telling; that is, deception.
Deceptive statements have been found to include emotions or thoughts during the event, rather than after.
Here, Casey told us what she felt while waiting. This would be flagged as deceptive.
The reason being is that while something is taking place, people do not normally think about their feelings until later, and their writing reflects this.
In Statement Analysis, we do not declare a statement to be deceptive on a single indicator; we look for 2 or 3 indicators. Here, we have one after the other. The inclusion of emoticon and thought are indicators that this is being made up at the time of the writing, and not a recall of what happened.
at one of the few places I felt “at home” my boyfriend Anthony Lazzaro’s apartment. For the past four weeks, since Caylee’s disappearance, I have stayed at Anthony’s apartment in Sutton Place. I have spent everyday, since Monday, June 9, 2008, looking for my daughter.
Note it is "Caylee's disappearance" not since the nanny took her and left.
Note also: More easily verifiable information for the police. S/A would say that Casey is fond of her boyfriend (good social introduction would indicate that there weren't problems in the relationship) which would mean that when they spoke to Lazzaro, they aren't likely to encounter domestic violence or discord. Detectives would also now see a reason why Casey may not have been at work since June 9, 2008, a date repeated (again) showing high sensitivity. As to being easily verifiable, they would expect to find an exhausted and scared boyfriend, who has been searching and fretting over the disappearance of his girlfriend's child.
We know that when they met her boyfriend, he hadn't any concerns about Caylee. "She's with the nanny most of the time", Casey told him. His shock that she was missing quickly precluded him as a suspect. Even more shocking to police was when the boyfriend reported that Casey never mentioned a missing child, nor did she seem concerned.
I have lied and stolen from friends and family, to do whatever I could by any means, to find my daughter.
Extra words, those that the sentence works without, give us additional information. Casey qualifies most of her sentences this way. Here, "by any means" is added.
Casey ties together the theft and deception with searching for Caylee.
Liars attempt to "muddy the waters" as much as possible, hoping that others will tire of attempting to separate fact from fiction. This is done by defense attorneys seeking "reasonable doubt" from a juror: find one who can be so confused that he will become disgusted and think that a doubt exists, even if it is not "reasonable" or within reason.
As unreasonable as it is, Cindy Anthony asserts that she "believes" Caylee is still alive, in hopes that if enough people get tired from separating truth from fiction, perhaps just one person will be on the jury. It is an attempt to taint the jury pool.
Can it be successful?
The answer is found in another question:
How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't believe anything she says; it's all lies!"?
This is someone who is frustrated and has stopped using discernment.
It is actually the attitude that Cindy hopes to cultivate: people get so tired of all the wild lying and stories and simply sit back and HOPE that Caylee is alive and this is all just a horrible mistake.
I avoided calling the police, or even notifying my own family out of fear. I have been, and still am afraid of what has, or may happen to Caylee. I have not had contact with Zenaida since Thursday, June 12, 2008. I received a quick call from Zenaida. Not once have I been able to ask her for my daughter, or gain any information on where I can find her.
Note the word "avoided" indicating that the police need to be avoided. Notifying family was something else that Casey needed to "avoid"
Note that "out of fear" is the same as "so, since, therefore, because" as an attempt to explain away something rather than report truthfully.
Note that when someone reports what didn't happen, or what wasn't said, it is sensitive. Here she reports what she could not do.
Note the soft language of "ask her" for my daughter; overly polite for a kidnapping.
Casey introduces new "details", including the full date
"Thursday, June 12, 2008" which would sound rehearsed.
She added that she was not able to "ask her for my daughter". What hindered from even asking? What did they talk about? What was this "quick call" about? "Ask" is polite and not reasonable for a mother of a kidnapped child.
This is another easily verifiable detail: cell phone records.
Everyday I have gone to malls, parks, any place I could remember Zenaida taking Caylee. I have gone out and tried to find any information about Caylee, or Zenaida, whether by going to a popular bar, or restaurant. I have contacted Jeff Hopkins on several occasions to see if he had heard from, or seen Zenaida. Jeff currently lives in Jacksonville, Florida.
Note: "I have gone out" is something we now know she did. Note all additional words she employs including "popular" bar.
Note that she contacted Jeff "Hopkins" (full name) on several "occasions". Would you classify a phone call to find a kidnapped child an "occasion"? The language is not fitting to the situation. Casey is not a brilliant liar, just a detailed one.
In Statement Analysis, we color code all names, and note any changes. If there is a change, we seek to know why. If there is no indicator of why a name has changed, it is noted for deception. For instance, in a statement you said, "my husband, Joe Anyman" and later, you might call him "Joe" now that he has been introduced. The change from Jeffrey Hopkins to "Jeff" without the last name would suggest closeness or familiarity. The inclusion of the last name with an abbreviated first name nullifies that. The police likely knew that she was making this up and forgot what she originally called him, or didn't take careful note of what wording she used earlier.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2008, around 12pm, I received a phone call from my daughter, Caylee.
Because we note names and pronouns, we find that Casey not only says "my daughter" as she has, but adds in the actual name. The inconsistency is noted. She would not need to tell the police that Caylee is her daughter. Pronouns are learned from about age 2 onward. This inconsistency is a strong signal of deception.
Today was the first day I have heard her voice in over 4 weeks.
NOTE: there is some confusion on the date this statement was given whether it be July 15 or the next day, July 16. Because she uses "today", it may have been on July 15 and is not noted as an indicator of deception.
I’m afraid of what Caylee is going through. After 31 days, I know that the only thing that matters is getting my daughter back.
This weakened assertion shows deception. The mother of a missing child would say "the only thing that matters..." and not "I know that the only thing that matters...". For a mother of a missing child, story telling is not in her mind, nor is their a priority of things: there is just one thing: finding her child.
We will continue Casey's statement by way of review for new readers of Statement Analysis.
Source URL: https://wallpaper-com.blogspot.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-original-statement-to.html
Visit wallpaper-com for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Statement given to Police by Casey Anthony on 7/16/08.
On Monday, June 9, 2008, between 9am and 1pm, I took Caylee to the Sawgrass apartments, located on Conway Rd.
Note the time frame as first indicator of deception.
When a mother drops her child off with a babysitter, she knows the exact time. We would expect to hear either an exact time, or something like, "between 9Am and 9:10AM, I dropped off my daughter..." as a norm. Given that this was a Monday, a work day for most, we may even expect an exact time. The 4 hour time span would immediately catch the attention of the authorities as an attempt to deceive. For an accomplished liar who successfully fooled her parents for 2 years, this was a critical mistake. Note also the inclusion of the address. What was Casey expecting would be found there? Perhaps she had hoped that the people who lived there would become suspects when they denied knowledge of Zanny? Did Casey know that the particular apartment was not only vacant, but hadn't had an occupant in months? .
Caylee’s nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, has watched her for the past year and a half, to two years.
A truthful statement to police will be in chronological order. Any deviation should be considered deceptive. Already we have our second indicator of deception.
Here, she began, chronologically between 9AM to 1PM but now, parathentically, goes back to two years.
Zenaida is twenty-five years old, and is from New York. She is roughly 5 foot 7 inches tall, 140 pounds. She has dark brown, curly hair, and brown eyes. Zenaida’s birthday is in September.
Here, Casey goes into too many details. The description is okay, but adding in when her birthday is is a bit much. Remember, too many details, just as too few details, is an indication of deception. Casey, however, is not finished with details. Too many details indicates an attempt to persuade, rather than report. The many details may have impressed her parents, but not likely seasoned investigators.
I met Zenaida, through a mutual friend, Jeffery Michael Hopkins. She had watched his son, Zachary Hopkins, for about 6 months, to a year. I met Zenaida in 2004, around Christmas.
Note that she is, again, out of chronological order.
Note the name given in full of her "mutual friend" This is a formal introduction but unusual to add a middle name. This would put the investigators on alert. But then she says "Zachary Hopkins" rather than "his son, Zach" which would have been norm. The use of the full name of the son would be seen as redundant and an attempt to persuade.
Casey gives verifiable details. These inclusions are helpful, as an investigator can simply pick up the phone and ask Jeffery Hopkins how his son, Zachary, is doing.
Question: Why would a liar give an easily verifiable detail?
Answer: Ego. They expect to be believed.
Recall Scott Peterson saying on live TV that he had a conversation with John Walsh. What did reporters do? They called John Walsh to ask how it went when he spoke to Scott Peterson. Walsh was outraged and said he had never spoken to Peterson and questioned Peterson's intelligence on lying about something so easily verifiable.
The success of liars leads them to make such silly mistakes.
In Statement Analysis, we note any repetition as sensitive. In fact, if we have an indicator of sensitivity that is itself repeated, we know that we are looking at something highly sensitive and likely deceptive. The fact that the last name is repeated is an indication of sensitivity, but because we have already seen deception, the indicators of sensitivity should all be examined for deception. In this case, we know that the child did not exist, which is why Casey repeated the last name. We know the reason for sensitivity.
On the date listed above, June 9, 2008,
the same principle applies: the date is repeated and therefore, it is sensitive to Casey. June 9 is sharply in her mind.
after dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment, I proceeded to head to my place of employment, Universal Studios Orlando.
This is an attempt to assimilate with her target: police.
A liar has a target; the person or persons whom she wishes to deceive. She adopts their lingo in order to convince. Most people would say, "after I dropped off, I went to work...". Note also
I have workd at Universal for over 4 years, since June of 2004.
Where did this sentence go, chronologically? 4 years before.
Again, easily verifiable information. This is the ego of the liar; the pride that leads to the fall. Under any scenario invented by Cindy Anthony, there is no reason found to make up such a detailed lie about employment. This is the original statement police were given to go on, and will be what is presented in court.
I left work around 5pm, and went back to the apartment to pick-up my daughter.
"left" is noted. When it is used as a connecting verb, it is 70% likely that information about time pressure, traffic, etc, is withheld, but 30% likely that the information withheld is sensitive.
Note also: if she gets off work at 5PM, what time did work begin? at 9AM? at 1PM? What time did she drop off Caylee? She reported that it was between 9AM and 1PM. Not only is it an indication of lying, but it may be when Caylee was killed and the time frame is so sensitive to Casey that she had trouble collecting her thoughts for the report. It may be emotionally too difficult to enter specific details.
However, after reaching the apartment I realized that neither Zenaida, Caylee, or either of her two roommates were home. I have briefly met Raquel Farrell, and Jennifer Rosa, on various occasions. After calling Zenaida to see where she and Caylee were, and when they were coming home I waited outside of the apartment. I had called her that afternoon, her phone was no longer in service.
In Statement Analysis, we view the order in which something is reported. When something is found out of order, it is flagged as an indicator of deception. Here, not only do we have more verifiable detail, but we have Casey going out of chronological order. She reported calling Zanaida to find out where they were; but then stated that she learned earlier in the afternoon that the phone was no longer in service.
This lie was easily picked up by investigators.
Two hours passed, and around 7pm, I left the apartment, and headed to familiar places that Zenaida would go with Caylee. One of Caylee’s favorite places is Jay Blanchard Park. I spent the rest of that evening, pacing and worrying
Statement Analysis indicates deception here as well.
In a statement, people report what happened. In an honest statement, people will report what happened in the event, but after the event, they will then report what they thought and felt; but not during. It takes time to process emotions, so when emotions are put into the 'perfect' or logical place of the account, it is an indication of story telling; that is, deception.
Deceptive statements have been found to include emotions or thoughts during the event, rather than after.
Here, Casey told us what she felt while waiting. This would be flagged as deceptive.
The reason being is that while something is taking place, people do not normally think about their feelings until later, and their writing reflects this.
In Statement Analysis, we do not declare a statement to be deceptive on a single indicator; we look for 2 or 3 indicators. Here, we have one after the other. The inclusion of emoticon and thought are indicators that this is being made up at the time of the writing, and not a recall of what happened.
at one of the few places I felt “at home” my boyfriend Anthony Lazzaro’s apartment. For the past four weeks, since Caylee’s disappearance, I have stayed at Anthony’s apartment in Sutton Place. I have spent everyday, since Monday, June 9, 2008, looking for my daughter.
Note it is "Caylee's disappearance" not since the nanny took her and left.
Note also: More easily verifiable information for the police. S/A would say that Casey is fond of her boyfriend (good social introduction would indicate that there weren't problems in the relationship) which would mean that when they spoke to Lazzaro, they aren't likely to encounter domestic violence or discord. Detectives would also now see a reason why Casey may not have been at work since June 9, 2008, a date repeated (again) showing high sensitivity. As to being easily verifiable, they would expect to find an exhausted and scared boyfriend, who has been searching and fretting over the disappearance of his girlfriend's child.
We know that when they met her boyfriend, he hadn't any concerns about Caylee. "She's with the nanny most of the time", Casey told him. His shock that she was missing quickly precluded him as a suspect. Even more shocking to police was when the boyfriend reported that Casey never mentioned a missing child, nor did she seem concerned.
I have lied and stolen from friends and family, to do whatever I could by any means, to find my daughter.
Extra words, those that the sentence works without, give us additional information. Casey qualifies most of her sentences this way. Here, "by any means" is added.
Casey ties together the theft and deception with searching for Caylee.
Liars attempt to "muddy the waters" as much as possible, hoping that others will tire of attempting to separate fact from fiction. This is done by defense attorneys seeking "reasonable doubt" from a juror: find one who can be so confused that he will become disgusted and think that a doubt exists, even if it is not "reasonable" or within reason.
As unreasonable as it is, Cindy Anthony asserts that she "believes" Caylee is still alive, in hopes that if enough people get tired from separating truth from fiction, perhaps just one person will be on the jury. It is an attempt to taint the jury pool.
Can it be successful?
The answer is found in another question:
How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't believe anything she says; it's all lies!"?
This is someone who is frustrated and has stopped using discernment.
It is actually the attitude that Cindy hopes to cultivate: people get so tired of all the wild lying and stories and simply sit back and HOPE that Caylee is alive and this is all just a horrible mistake.
I avoided calling the police, or even notifying my own family out of fear. I have been, and still am afraid of what has, or may happen to Caylee. I have not had contact with Zenaida since Thursday, June 12, 2008. I received a quick call from Zenaida. Not once have I been able to ask her for my daughter, or gain any information on where I can find her.
Note the word "avoided" indicating that the police need to be avoided. Notifying family was something else that Casey needed to "avoid"
Note that "out of fear" is the same as "so, since, therefore, because" as an attempt to explain away something rather than report truthfully.
Note that when someone reports what didn't happen, or what wasn't said, it is sensitive. Here she reports what she could not do.
Note the soft language of "ask her" for my daughter; overly polite for a kidnapping.
Casey introduces new "details", including the full date
"Thursday, June 12, 2008" which would sound rehearsed.
She added that she was not able to "ask her for my daughter". What hindered from even asking? What did they talk about? What was this "quick call" about? "Ask" is polite and not reasonable for a mother of a kidnapped child.
This is another easily verifiable detail: cell phone records.
Everyday I have gone to malls, parks, any place I could remember Zenaida taking Caylee. I have gone out and tried to find any information about Caylee, or Zenaida, whether by going to a popular bar, or restaurant. I have contacted Jeff Hopkins on several occasions to see if he had heard from, or seen Zenaida. Jeff currently lives in Jacksonville, Florida.
Note: "I have gone out" is something we now know she did. Note all additional words she employs including "popular" bar.
Note that she contacted Jeff "Hopkins" (full name) on several "occasions". Would you classify a phone call to find a kidnapped child an "occasion"? The language is not fitting to the situation. Casey is not a brilliant liar, just a detailed one.
In Statement Analysis, we color code all names, and note any changes. If there is a change, we seek to know why. If there is no indicator of why a name has changed, it is noted for deception. For instance, in a statement you said, "my husband, Joe Anyman" and later, you might call him "Joe" now that he has been introduced. The change from Jeffrey Hopkins to "Jeff" without the last name would suggest closeness or familiarity. The inclusion of the last name with an abbreviated first name nullifies that. The police likely knew that she was making this up and forgot what she originally called him, or didn't take careful note of what wording she used earlier.
On Tuesday, July 15, 2008, around 12pm, I received a phone call from my daughter, Caylee.
Because we note names and pronouns, we find that Casey not only says "my daughter" as she has, but adds in the actual name. The inconsistency is noted. She would not need to tell the police that Caylee is her daughter. Pronouns are learned from about age 2 onward. This inconsistency is a strong signal of deception.
Today was the first day I have heard her voice in over 4 weeks.
NOTE: there is some confusion on the date this statement was given whether it be July 15 or the next day, July 16. Because she uses "today", it may have been on July 15 and is not noted as an indicator of deception.
I’m afraid of what Caylee is going through. After 31 days, I know that the only thing that matters is getting my daughter back.
This weakened assertion shows deception. The mother of a missing child would say "the only thing that matters..." and not "I know that the only thing that matters...". For a mother of a missing child, story telling is not in her mind, nor is their a priority of things: there is just one thing: finding her child.
We will continue Casey's statement by way of review for new readers of Statement Analysis.
Source URL: https://wallpaper-com.blogspot.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-original-statement-to.html
Visit wallpaper-com for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment