Statement Analysis
5 posters
Page 1 of 1
Statement Analysis
by Snaz Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:14 pm
Here is but one analysis of the lies KC has told.... there's many more out there. Please feel free to post any you come across.
Casey's Deception: Part One: Universal.
by Peter Hyatt
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Here is a short analysis of Casey's first description of her "missing" daughter. We will study it for deception, staying within principles of Statement Analysis.
It is with the benefit of hindsight, but the principles practiced here will be applied in future studies. Casey was (and is) quite generous in her offering of samples for us to learn from. Remember, she was only 22 years old when she had detectives drive her to Universal, and kept up the ruse even to the point of entering the parking lot, entering the building, and walking down the hall towards her "office".
What was she thinking?
The nerve to keep up a lie is stunning. She is rare, as in the upcoming studies we will see.
1. "I got off of work, left Universal"
We have the connecting word "left" here. This is usually an indication of information that is sensitive or withheld.
"Left" when used as a connecting word, is 70% seen as time sensitive; used to describe lateness, being rushed, traffic. 30% is far more sensitive. Here is an easy for to understand it.
"I went to the bedroom. I left the bedroom and went into the kitchen to get breakfast."
What I know from this one sentence is that SOMETHING senstive took place in the bedroom that is being withheld.
Why?
Because in order to go from the bedroom into the kitchen, it is not necessary for the person to also state that they "left" it. Therefore, when this is seen in a statement, it is sensitive.
Recently, I solved a theft because of this ONE word. It showed sensitivity, but there appeard to be no rushing nor late issues. I focused the investigation on this "leaving" (and that the thief mentioned his vehicle in the same sentence) and I learned that as he wrote his statement, he was thinking about the money hid in his vehicle! "Left" was sensitive and it is a red flag which often requires further questioning. This is going to be a recurring theme in many statements you analyze in the future.
2. left Universal driving back to pick up Caylee like a normal day.
We have two red flags in one sentence.
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let everything be established."
We don't establish deception in a statement by only one red flag. We look for several. Casey is generous and supplies us with many.
"driving" is in the present tense. A verb tense can solve a case. Remember in 1997 Susan Smith spoke of her children in the past tense? Casey did it, and Misty did it as well. Mothers of truly "missing" children NEVER speak of their children in the past tense. Even when a mother learns her child is dead, she continues to speak in the present tense.
Casey is supposed to be recalling a past tense event. (31 days prior!) It should be in her memory like a parade passing before her eyes, able to repeat the story backwards and forwards. When a person slips into present tense, we red flag it as possible deception because it may not be coming from memory, as past tense does. It is just a single red flag, and some story tellers tell stories in the present tense but this is a statement, not a story, and it was supposed to be of a missing child.
We look for past tense, with a first person singular pronoun to show ownership.
We also have "normal". Why would anyone describe a day as normal?
If I were to say to you, "I am a normal American male." What would this tell you? It would tell you that someone in life has labelled me as "abnormal". Because it is doubtful that anyone has already told Casey that 31 days ago she had an "abnormal" day, this is another sign of a deceptive statement from Casey.
3. And I show up to the apartment knock on door nobody answers. So, I call Zeniada cell phone and it’s out of service.
We have more indicators of deception: present tense language.
Some have also noted that Casey simply doesn't say that she called her, but called her "cell phone". The absence of details is a sign of deception as is the overabundance of details. Notice in the next sentence, Casey seems to pile on with more details.
4. It says the phone is no longer in service, excuse me.
Red flag: another unnecessary detail. It is just not something a frantic mother of a kidnapped child would need to repeat. The phone was out of service, but now she feels the need to add that the phone said it was no longer in service. "Says" is also in present tense.
With the flow of present tense verbs, it is likely that this is not coming from memory, but is being made up on the fly.
5. So, I sit down on the steps and wait for a little bit to see if maybe it was just a fluke if something happened and time passed and I didn’t hear from anyone.
"Sit, sitting, stand, standing" all creep into statements when there is tension. For someone to mention that they have sat down, usually means stress is associated here. Casey, again, reports it in the present tense. Red flag. Notice how she then reverted back to past tense, which would be proper for reporting a past event?
"I didn't hear from anyone" is past tense. Because of the number of deception indicators, this causes me to wonder if part of this was rehearsed. "time passed" is past tense. "I didn't hear from anyone," not Zanny? Was anyone else expected to call? This inconsistency is small, because she could have said that Zanny's sister would call, so it may not be a red flag, but a "pink" flag. It still has caught my attention.
6. No one showed up to the house so I went over to J. Blanchard Park and checked a couple of other places where maybe possibly they would have gone; couple stores, just regular places that I know Zenida shops at and she’s taken Caylee before
We have the red flag of present tense language "shops" slip into the past tense statement; another indicator that Casey is making this up as she goes along.
Notice the qualifyers skillfully used to give her an "out"? These are to be noted:
"maybe possibly" together are a red flag as she wishes no committment to the other places she mentions. Why not? Why "stores" without names? Why "other places" without names, as the park was named?
Verification.
Had she gone to specific stores to enquire about a missing child, it would be something verifiable by investigators. This is the vagueness, even within lots of extra silly details, that is a red flag of deception.
As you can see, we have already gone past our "2 or 3" red flags of deception.
7. And after about 7:00 when I still hadn’t heard anything I was getting pretty upset, pretty frantic and I went to a neutral place.
Here we have rough estimates. I think that a mother who cannot find a child knows what time it is, knows where she was, and needs to estimate nothing. Casey uses the qualifyers again, in order to be deliberately vague. She is very weak in her emotional response with the 2nd use of "pretty" without a pronoun. A mother of a kidnapped child is not going to be "pretty" frantic or "pretty upset"; minimizing. This aappears an attempt to persuade; not report.
But what strikes me most is the word "neutral". This is a strange term and means "neither positive nor negative". What in the world is Casey referring to??
If Caylee were in a custody battle, a "neutral" place might be where either parent is accepted and welcomed. Neutral speaks to a place where there is not tension, fighting, danger, or...
questions being asked.
I think Casey is stating that on the day she killed Caylee, she went to a place where people did not question beyond a perfunctory "where's Caylee?" because they would not care so much. At Cindy and George's home, it would not be neutral because, we have since learned, Cindy and Lee were doing their own "investigation" going out searching for Casey.
I think Casey is telling us that she went some place where no one could have cared less where Caylee was and even that this place was somewhere where it was preferred that Caylee wasn't present; in the way of whatever activities Casey was involved in.
Casey's mother wanted Caylee, if for nothing else, than to hurt Casey, but there appeared to be people who did genuinely care about Caylee: remember the jail house phone call where her friend bursts into tears and said, "if something happened to Caylee..."? The concern sounded real and Casey was clearly annoyed and demanded her boyfriend's phone number instead. This would not be a "neutral" place.
8. "I didn’t really want to come home."
"really" is an additional word. "I didn't want to come home" is plain, or "I didn't want to go home" is also plain, though this now raises the question:
Where did Casey make this statement that she uses "come" home, rather than "go" home?
Where was "home" to Casey since she appears to have been running from Cindy for quite some time.
9. "I wasn’t sure what I would say about not knowing where Caylee was still hoping that I would get a call or you know find out that Caylee was coming back so that I could go get her. "
Would the mother of a kidnapped child no longer concern herself with the child, but rather what to say to her own mother?? This begs credibility.
We have the slip in verb tense again, which by now, you are familiar with and see how this points to someone not working from memory.
In a statement of what happened, we highlight the word "so" or "because" in usage because they are explainations rather than reporting. Casey is supposed to be telling what happened, but she feels the need to explain her behavior, which creeps into her language. In any open statement, highlight "so" "because" or "since" as they are not words of reporting what happened, but WHY something happened, which is outside the scope of the question: "What happened?"
"you know" is highlight. We don't know. Sometimes this is habitual, other times it creeps into someone's language as an attempt to persuade. With Casey, we don't see it that often, so it is to be noted.
10. And I ended up going to my boyfriend Anthony’s house who lives in Sutton Place.
Passive language is ALWAYS noted. "the gun went off" or "the car drove into the ditch".
Guns don't go off usually, unless someone pulls the trigger.
Cars don't aim for ditches unless someone turns the steering wheel towards the ditch.
The employment of passive language is a strong red flag where personal responsibility is avoided. It is true that "the gun went off" but what is missing is the person pulled the trigger!
Casey didn't want to say "I went to my boyfriend's house" because she knows it sounds so callous. This may have been her "neutral" place where after the initial, "hey, where's your daughter?" is asked and answered, "she's with the Nanny" that her boyfriend did not have an interest in Caylee's wellbeing and would likely just leave the issue alone.
Casey cannot just "end up" at her boyfriend's, she would have to "go" there, under her own power. She is reducing her committment to this because she knows how it sounds. She added the detail, "who lives in Sutton Place" likely thinking that her extra details sound authentic, but in reality, sound stupid. "who lives on Sutton Place" would sound more normal. Because Casey is being deceptive, she is attempting to keep her cool, but foolish little slips like this happen.
Let me say that Casey is one terrific liar.
Could you, at 22 years of age, have gotten in a car with detectives and had them drive ALL the way to Universal, and even down the hall to your "office" without cracking?
Wow!
This is impressive.
90% of deception is in withholding information. Only 10% will actually fabricate reality. In this minority, we often find too little details, or too many details; both of which speak to deception. We saw the attempt to include emotions; far too weak for a missing child. We have the constant slip into present tense langauge, of a past tense event; clearly showing deception.
Of course we all know by now that Casey was lying, but her statements are valuable for study, and as principles are learned, you will be able to apply them to other statements.
Today we saw:
1. The word "left" in use. We will see this alot.
2. Verb tenses are important.
3. Passive language is an attempt to conceal information; often times identity. Guns don't just go off; cars don't drive themselves, etc. Ask why is this being minimized? What is being hidden or withheld?
4. "So" or "because" or "since" are all attempts to persuade, rather than report. This will also show up in future statements. Always highlight them to note what folllows.
These four principles all show a highly deceptive statement from Casey.
Regarding the inclusion of emotions, you must remember this
A person that speaks from PERSONAL memory will have appropriate emotions. A person who is speaking from memory may still be deceptive:
1. Was it from memory of a rehearsed event?
2. Was it seen on TV or in a book?
3. Was it from someone else?
It may be from memory, but not from personal experiential memory.
This is just another reason, in a long list, of why we look for several indicators of deception before we declare something deceptive.
We'll continue using Casey's statements for further study!
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/04/caseys-deception-part-one-universal-by.html
Casey's Deception: Part One: Universal.
by Peter Hyatt
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Here is a short analysis of Casey's first description of her "missing" daughter. We will study it for deception, staying within principles of Statement Analysis.
It is with the benefit of hindsight, but the principles practiced here will be applied in future studies. Casey was (and is) quite generous in her offering of samples for us to learn from. Remember, she was only 22 years old when she had detectives drive her to Universal, and kept up the ruse even to the point of entering the parking lot, entering the building, and walking down the hall towards her "office".
What was she thinking?
The nerve to keep up a lie is stunning. She is rare, as in the upcoming studies we will see.
"I got off of work, left Universal driving back to pick up Caylee like a normal day.
And I show up to the apartment knock on door nobody answers. So, I call Zeniada cell
phone and it’s out of service. It says the phone is no longer in service, excuse me.
So, I sit down on the steps and wait for a little bit to see if maybe it was just a
fluke if something happened and time passed and I didn’t hear from anyone. No one
showed up to the house so I went over to J. Blanchard Park and checked a couple of
other places where maybe possibly they would have gone; couple stores, just regular
places that I know Zenida shops at and she’s taken Caylee before. And after about
7:00 when I still hadn’t heard anything I was getting pretty upset, pretty frantic
and I went to a neutral place. I didn’t really want to come home. I wasn’t sure what
I would say about not knowing where Caylee was still hoping that I would get a call
or you know find out that Caylee was coming back so that I could go get her. And I
ended up going to my boyfriend Anthony’s house who lives in Sutton Place."
1. "I got off of work, left Universal"
We have the connecting word "left" here. This is usually an indication of information that is sensitive or withheld.
"Left" when used as a connecting word, is 70% seen as time sensitive; used to describe lateness, being rushed, traffic. 30% is far more sensitive. Here is an easy for to understand it.
"I went to the bedroom. I left the bedroom and went into the kitchen to get breakfast."
What I know from this one sentence is that SOMETHING senstive took place in the bedroom that is being withheld.
Why?
Because in order to go from the bedroom into the kitchen, it is not necessary for the person to also state that they "left" it. Therefore, when this is seen in a statement, it is sensitive.
Recently, I solved a theft because of this ONE word. It showed sensitivity, but there appeard to be no rushing nor late issues. I focused the investigation on this "leaving" (and that the thief mentioned his vehicle in the same sentence) and I learned that as he wrote his statement, he was thinking about the money hid in his vehicle! "Left" was sensitive and it is a red flag which often requires further questioning. This is going to be a recurring theme in many statements you analyze in the future.
2. left Universal driving back to pick up Caylee like a normal day.
We have two red flags in one sentence.
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses, let everything be established."
We don't establish deception in a statement by only one red flag. We look for several. Casey is generous and supplies us with many.
"driving" is in the present tense. A verb tense can solve a case. Remember in 1997 Susan Smith spoke of her children in the past tense? Casey did it, and Misty did it as well. Mothers of truly "missing" children NEVER speak of their children in the past tense. Even when a mother learns her child is dead, she continues to speak in the present tense.
Casey is supposed to be recalling a past tense event. (31 days prior!) It should be in her memory like a parade passing before her eyes, able to repeat the story backwards and forwards. When a person slips into present tense, we red flag it as possible deception because it may not be coming from memory, as past tense does. It is just a single red flag, and some story tellers tell stories in the present tense but this is a statement, not a story, and it was supposed to be of a missing child.
We look for past tense, with a first person singular pronoun to show ownership.
We also have "normal". Why would anyone describe a day as normal?
If I were to say to you, "I am a normal American male." What would this tell you? It would tell you that someone in life has labelled me as "abnormal". Because it is doubtful that anyone has already told Casey that 31 days ago she had an "abnormal" day, this is another sign of a deceptive statement from Casey.
3. And I show up to the apartment knock on door nobody answers. So, I call Zeniada cell phone and it’s out of service.
We have more indicators of deception: present tense language.
Some have also noted that Casey simply doesn't say that she called her, but called her "cell phone". The absence of details is a sign of deception as is the overabundance of details. Notice in the next sentence, Casey seems to pile on with more details.
4. It says the phone is no longer in service, excuse me.
Red flag: another unnecessary detail. It is just not something a frantic mother of a kidnapped child would need to repeat. The phone was out of service, but now she feels the need to add that the phone said it was no longer in service. "Says" is also in present tense.
With the flow of present tense verbs, it is likely that this is not coming from memory, but is being made up on the fly.
5. So, I sit down on the steps and wait for a little bit to see if maybe it was just a fluke if something happened and time passed and I didn’t hear from anyone.
"Sit, sitting, stand, standing" all creep into statements when there is tension. For someone to mention that they have sat down, usually means stress is associated here. Casey, again, reports it in the present tense. Red flag. Notice how she then reverted back to past tense, which would be proper for reporting a past event?
"I didn't hear from anyone" is past tense. Because of the number of deception indicators, this causes me to wonder if part of this was rehearsed. "time passed" is past tense. "I didn't hear from anyone," not Zanny? Was anyone else expected to call? This inconsistency is small, because she could have said that Zanny's sister would call, so it may not be a red flag, but a "pink" flag. It still has caught my attention.
6. No one showed up to the house so I went over to J. Blanchard Park and checked a couple of other places where maybe possibly they would have gone; couple stores, just regular places that I know Zenida shops at and she’s taken Caylee before
We have the red flag of present tense language "shops" slip into the past tense statement; another indicator that Casey is making this up as she goes along.
Notice the qualifyers skillfully used to give her an "out"? These are to be noted:
"maybe possibly" together are a red flag as she wishes no committment to the other places she mentions. Why not? Why "stores" without names? Why "other places" without names, as the park was named?
Verification.
Had she gone to specific stores to enquire about a missing child, it would be something verifiable by investigators. This is the vagueness, even within lots of extra silly details, that is a red flag of deception.
As you can see, we have already gone past our "2 or 3" red flags of deception.
7. And after about 7:00 when I still hadn’t heard anything I was getting pretty upset, pretty frantic and I went to a neutral place.
Here we have rough estimates. I think that a mother who cannot find a child knows what time it is, knows where she was, and needs to estimate nothing. Casey uses the qualifyers again, in order to be deliberately vague. She is very weak in her emotional response with the 2nd use of "pretty" without a pronoun. A mother of a kidnapped child is not going to be "pretty" frantic or "pretty upset"; minimizing. This aappears an attempt to persuade; not report.
But what strikes me most is the word "neutral". This is a strange term and means "neither positive nor negative". What in the world is Casey referring to??
If Caylee were in a custody battle, a "neutral" place might be where either parent is accepted and welcomed. Neutral speaks to a place where there is not tension, fighting, danger, or...
questions being asked.
I think Casey is stating that on the day she killed Caylee, she went to a place where people did not question beyond a perfunctory "where's Caylee?" because they would not care so much. At Cindy and George's home, it would not be neutral because, we have since learned, Cindy and Lee were doing their own "investigation" going out searching for Casey.
I think Casey is telling us that she went some place where no one could have cared less where Caylee was and even that this place was somewhere where it was preferred that Caylee wasn't present; in the way of whatever activities Casey was involved in.
Casey's mother wanted Caylee, if for nothing else, than to hurt Casey, but there appeared to be people who did genuinely care about Caylee: remember the jail house phone call where her friend bursts into tears and said, "if something happened to Caylee..."? The concern sounded real and Casey was clearly annoyed and demanded her boyfriend's phone number instead. This would not be a "neutral" place.
8. "I didn’t really want to come home."
"really" is an additional word. "I didn't want to come home" is plain, or "I didn't want to go home" is also plain, though this now raises the question:
Where did Casey make this statement that she uses "come" home, rather than "go" home?
Where was "home" to Casey since she appears to have been running from Cindy for quite some time.
9. "I wasn’t sure what I would say about not knowing where Caylee was still hoping that I would get a call or you know find out that Caylee was coming back so that I could go get her. "
Would the mother of a kidnapped child no longer concern herself with the child, but rather what to say to her own mother?? This begs credibility.
We have the slip in verb tense again, which by now, you are familiar with and see how this points to someone not working from memory.
In a statement of what happened, we highlight the word "so" or "because" in usage because they are explainations rather than reporting. Casey is supposed to be telling what happened, but she feels the need to explain her behavior, which creeps into her language. In any open statement, highlight "so" "because" or "since" as they are not words of reporting what happened, but WHY something happened, which is outside the scope of the question: "What happened?"
"you know" is highlight. We don't know. Sometimes this is habitual, other times it creeps into someone's language as an attempt to persuade. With Casey, we don't see it that often, so it is to be noted.
10. And I ended up going to my boyfriend Anthony’s house who lives in Sutton Place.
Passive language is ALWAYS noted. "the gun went off" or "the car drove into the ditch".
Guns don't go off usually, unless someone pulls the trigger.
Cars don't aim for ditches unless someone turns the steering wheel towards the ditch.
The employment of passive language is a strong red flag where personal responsibility is avoided. It is true that "the gun went off" but what is missing is the person pulled the trigger!
Casey didn't want to say "I went to my boyfriend's house" because she knows it sounds so callous. This may have been her "neutral" place where after the initial, "hey, where's your daughter?" is asked and answered, "she's with the Nanny" that her boyfriend did not have an interest in Caylee's wellbeing and would likely just leave the issue alone.
Casey cannot just "end up" at her boyfriend's, she would have to "go" there, under her own power. She is reducing her committment to this because she knows how it sounds. She added the detail, "who lives in Sutton Place" likely thinking that her extra details sound authentic, but in reality, sound stupid. "who lives on Sutton Place" would sound more normal. Because Casey is being deceptive, she is attempting to keep her cool, but foolish little slips like this happen.
Let me say that Casey is one terrific liar.
Could you, at 22 years of age, have gotten in a car with detectives and had them drive ALL the way to Universal, and even down the hall to your "office" without cracking?
Wow!
This is impressive.
90% of deception is in withholding information. Only 10% will actually fabricate reality. In this minority, we often find too little details, or too many details; both of which speak to deception. We saw the attempt to include emotions; far too weak for a missing child. We have the constant slip into present tense langauge, of a past tense event; clearly showing deception.
Of course we all know by now that Casey was lying, but her statements are valuable for study, and as principles are learned, you will be able to apply them to other statements.
Today we saw:
1. The word "left" in use. We will see this alot.
2. Verb tenses are important.
3. Passive language is an attempt to conceal information; often times identity. Guns don't just go off; cars don't drive themselves, etc. Ask why is this being minimized? What is being hidden or withheld?
4. "So" or "because" or "since" are all attempts to persuade, rather than report. This will also show up in future statements. Always highlight them to note what folllows.
These four principles all show a highly deceptive statement from Casey.
Regarding the inclusion of emotions, you must remember this
A person that speaks from PERSONAL memory will have appropriate emotions. A person who is speaking from memory may still be deceptive:
1. Was it from memory of a rehearsed event?
2. Was it seen on TV or in a book?
3. Was it from someone else?
It may be from memory, but not from personal experiential memory.
This is just another reason, in a long list, of why we look for several indicators of deception before we declare something deceptive.
We'll continue using Casey's statements for further study!
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/04/caseys-deception-part-one-universal-by.html
Last edited by Snaz on Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:47 pm; edited 3 times in total
Snaz- Posts : 4972
Join date : 2009-07-11
Location : Florida
Mood :
Haleigh Cummings & Caylee Anthony & A Long Discussion (Blogger News Article)
by FystyAngel Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:56 pm
**NOTE** I have posted this in BOTH sections.
Haleigh Cummings & Caylee Anthony & A Long Discussion
Posted on April 23rd, 2010
http://www.bloggernews.net/124386
I had the opportunity to have a pretty in depth discussion with Statement Analysis expert Peter Hyatt a couple of days ago. His brand of science and art is not Voodoo, it makes perfect sense. Just like the polygraph reveals deception so does the written and spoken word if you know what to look for.
In many ways he backed up the age old theory that in every lie there is a grain of truth. Sometimes it is hard to find, but it is there. The real challenge is finding all of those grains and piecing together the puzzle.
Cases such as Haleigh Cummings and Caylee Anthony become convoluted quickly. Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame rule seems to become the norm. As a case ages, the spider web of ‘important’ people seems to grow at an exponential rate.
There can be no better example of this phenomena as the Haleigh Cummings case. In the rabid need to bring news to the public, just about everyone that is even remotely related to the little girl has spoken out. It does not matter that they had not seen her in years, it does not matter that they knew nothing about her circumstances at the time of the disappearance, they are all experts.
Who holds the real key to Haleigh Cummings? It is not the battling grammies, it is not the aunts and uncles, and probably not the infamous cousin. The truth lays within a very small group of people. Alas this magic band are not being forthcoming.
There is a triumvirate and they do hold the key, Misty Croslin, her then lover Ronald Cummings, and Misty’s esteemed brothers Tommy and Timmy. OK, some one will point out that a triumvirate is three, and I have mentioned four. I believe that when this case is solved three of those four will be implicated.
Based on the crash course that Peter Hyatt gave me, I have been reading and thinking about what all of these people have publicly said over the past 14 months. It gets depressing faster than a speeding bullet. His analysis of the original 911 tape is incredibly revealing. An even more compelling analysis of the case concerns the early investigation. Read this, oh and make sure that your tray tables and seats are in the upright position!
Read it here.
I was talking to him yesterday and he said something that caught my attention, “Reading the truth is boring. The truth is the truth. But reading deception is fascinating”
Oh I can’t wait to talk to him on Sunday. You will not want to miss this program, the link is here.
Simon Barrett
Haleigh Cummings & Caylee Anthony & A Long Discussion
Posted on April 23rd, 2010
http://www.bloggernews.net/124386
I had the opportunity to have a pretty in depth discussion with Statement Analysis expert Peter Hyatt a couple of days ago. His brand of science and art is not Voodoo, it makes perfect sense. Just like the polygraph reveals deception so does the written and spoken word if you know what to look for.
In many ways he backed up the age old theory that in every lie there is a grain of truth. Sometimes it is hard to find, but it is there. The real challenge is finding all of those grains and piecing together the puzzle.
Cases such as Haleigh Cummings and Caylee Anthony become convoluted quickly. Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame rule seems to become the norm. As a case ages, the spider web of ‘important’ people seems to grow at an exponential rate.
There can be no better example of this phenomena as the Haleigh Cummings case. In the rabid need to bring news to the public, just about everyone that is even remotely related to the little girl has spoken out. It does not matter that they had not seen her in years, it does not matter that they knew nothing about her circumstances at the time of the disappearance, they are all experts.
Who holds the real key to Haleigh Cummings? It is not the battling grammies, it is not the aunts and uncles, and probably not the infamous cousin. The truth lays within a very small group of people. Alas this magic band are not being forthcoming.
There is a triumvirate and they do hold the key, Misty Croslin, her then lover Ronald Cummings, and Misty’s esteemed brothers Tommy and Timmy. OK, some one will point out that a triumvirate is three, and I have mentioned four. I believe that when this case is solved three of those four will be implicated.
Based on the crash course that Peter Hyatt gave me, I have been reading and thinking about what all of these people have publicly said over the past 14 months. It gets depressing faster than a speeding bullet. His analysis of the original 911 tape is incredibly revealing. An even more compelling analysis of the case concerns the early investigation. Read this, oh and make sure that your tray tables and seats are in the upright position!
Read it here.
I was talking to him yesterday and he said something that caught my attention, “Reading the truth is boring. The truth is the truth. But reading deception is fascinating”
Oh I can’t wait to talk to him on Sunday. You will not want to miss this program, the link is here.
Simon Barrett
FystyAngel- Admin
- Posts : 5614
Join date : 2009-07-02
Age : 62
Mood :
-
Re: Statement Analysis
by randilynn Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:30 am
thanks for that article snaz..
very interesting look into the speech patterns of a LIAR!!
all of these little things, add up to one BIG THING. i hope that is conveyed to the jury.
very interesting look into the speech patterns of a LIAR!!
all of these little things, add up to one BIG THING. i hope that is conveyed to the jury.
randilynn- Posts : 743
Join date : 2009-07-16
Mood :
Re: Statement Analysis
by Snaz Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:02 am
You are certainly welcome, Randi. I hope someone else will post some of the other analyses that are out there floating around. I have read some good ones, but no longer remember where they might have been.
I find them all to be so fascinating.....
I find them all to be so fascinating.....
Snaz- Posts : 4972
Join date : 2009-07-11
Location : Florida
Mood :
Re: Statement Analysis
by Piper Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:00 am
Very interesting. She always adds unnecessary words or information, embellishment I'd guess you'd say. She would certainly make a perfect lab rat for study.
Piper- Posts : 10277
Join date : 2009-07-12
Mood :
Re: Statement Analysis
by Snaz Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:44 pm
Angel of Death Row
Monday, May 24, 2010
Will Andrea Lyon quit the Casey Anthony team in order to keep her undefeated record against the death penalty?
Our words reveal us.
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh". (Christ)
I have long admired those in the art community who are able to "profile" an artist's personality by viewing a painting. In a sense, everything is autobiographical. What we do to express ourselves, exposes ourselves. In Statement Analysis, it is something that becomes evident as we look at the words chosen to describe a particular event or person.
For instance, if I say the word "boy" to a room of 25 investigators, and ask each to tell me what they are picturing in their minds, they offer:
a blue sticker on a baby's bassinet at the hospital
a 10 year old boy playing Little League baseball
a son, in Iraq, perhaps in harm's way
a grandson
a boy sitting at a table doing homework
These are just a few of the responses I have heard in trainings. The word "boy" conjured up various images. This is an example of the "personal internal dictionary" that we all have.
When conducting an interview, the Interviewer must enter into the subject's personal dictionary. This is why it is vital for the Interviewer to NOT introduce new words, but wait for the subject to introduce new words and new topics. The words the subject chooses reveal much about what is going on inside his or her mind. It is not only for interviews, but this is practices by skilled therapists as well.
Andrea Lyon, author of "Angel of Death Row" prides herself as a champion for those on death row. She is said to have a winning record, without a single loss. It appeared to be an impressive statistic.
Recently, while listening to blogger radio, an attorney said that there was a reason why Andrea Lyon had such an impressive "undefeated" record, which, the attorney claimed, was misleading.
He said that in her state, rather than having a jury vote by majority to have the death penalty imposed, it takes only ONE VOTE by ONE JUROR to have it discarded. This means in the jury pool, it only takes one anti-death penalty person to gain Ms. Lyon's "victory" and keep her "perfect record".
This changes things quite a bit.
Question: Will Andrea Lyon stay on the Casey Anthony case and risk her "undefeated" record, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of premeditation and the inclusion of more than a single Aggravating Factor?
Will Andra Lyon quit the team if no plea is struck?
I don't sense a willingness on the part of the Prosecution to offer a plea.
Will Andrea Lyon quit to save her own record?
I don't know the answer; and perhaps, Ms. Lyon herself does not know the answer.
However, we do have a clue.
It may depend upon how Andrea Lyon feels, personally, about Casey Anthony.
Andrea Lyon is not only an attorney, but she is a human being, with emotions, passion, drive, empathy, and has in the past, had some strong bonds with the people who faced the death penalty, and fought passionately to get that one juror to deny the ultimate penalty.
It may come down to how Andrea Lyon feels about Casey Anthony. We already know she is personally against the death penalty, so that is not in question.
Lyon is facing a seemingly impossible task to have Casey Anthony avoid death. She is facing a Prosecutorial team that was insulted by Jose Baez from the beginning, (including before Ms. Lyon came on board). An attorney of her experience knows better than to ridicule the prosecution before the case develops. Jose Baez, from day one, ridiculed law enforcement, locally and federally, as well as the prosecution team. Though prosecution did not do any media appearances, Jose Baez was incessantly before the cameras, that is, at least until Ms. Lyon joined the team. Since then, his exposure has decreased significantly.
How does Ms. Lyon feel, personally, about Casey Anthony? How does she feel about facing a death penalty case where the jury will hear that a mother reported her child missing 31 days prior, yet went out partying, rather than "searching" for the missing child? Her personal attachment to Casey Anthony may impact her drive. If her attachment is emotionally powerful, we can expect it to impact Lyon's efforts. If her attachment is a nervous or weak attachment, we can expect that to be a force of "draining" on Lyon's stanima.
Andrea Lyon sought to argue, therefore, to the court that there may be a prejudicial opinion formed by those who view the pictures of Casey out partying, while Caylee was unaccounted for. She clearly wanted to tell the court that those who saw the partying pictures would believe Casey to be an unfit, immoral mother, and wanted the pictures to be kept from the jury. Andrea Lyon wanted to argue that potential jurors would view Casey as immoral.
Andrea Lyon did not say that, however. We must listen to what she said and not interpret.
Words chosen reveal us. The words that Andrea Lyon chose, reveal how she thinks and how she feels.
"People don't say, you know, ‘She's a,' it's an impolite word, but, you know, ‘She's a whore, so she should die.' Right? They don't say that out loud. Oh, well, they do in the blogs, your honor," Casey's death penalty-qualified attorney, Andrea Lyon, argued in court Tuesday morning. "But they don't say that here in court ... but underneath, that is what's going on."
"People don't say" is passive. Lyon does not say "I don't say" which would show ownership. She is speaking of people in general and begins in the negative, and the fragmented sentence shows tension. We would expect a polished experienced attorney to speak fluidly, so when we encounter fragmented words, or stuttering from someone who does not normally stutter or speak in fragmentation, we flag it as "sensitive". She is not telling us what people say, but rather what they do not say. This negative form is significant.
Lyon does not complete her thought and is clearly uncomfortable with what she is about to say.
"you know". Some people use this word frequently and habitually. When it comes from someone who does not use it habitually, it shows an attempt to persuade. "You know" means that she seeks the hearer to agree with her, even before she makes her point. I have not found this to be in Lyon's speech as habit.
‘She's a,
Andrea Lyon struggled to say the word. As said before, she could have said that the pictures are prejudicial because 'people may form an opinion that my client is immoral', which would have been a short and clear statement, without much sensitivity attached. For Andrea Lyon, this is a struggle for one who does not struggle with speech in a court room.
"it's an impolite word"
Notice the grammar is correct as Lyon is an accomplished speaker, making her struggle even more pronounced for us. She has now communicated to us that people who view the photos will view Casey Anthony in a negative way and by saying it is an "impolite word", we all know the meaning. This is soft language. But for Lyon, her personal dictionary is not finished, even though she has already made her point. This is where she is unable to keep herself OUT of her statement, and this is, I believe, the revelation of how she personally feels about Casey Anthony, and she is still attempting to persuade with her 2nd use of "but, you know".
How does Andrea Lyon view Casey Anthony?
"She's a whore"
Andrea Lyon said these words.
"She's a whore"
No matter how it may be attempted to explain away as representing the opinion of others, studies have shown that when someone speaks a statement forming words together, it is because this is what they are thinking, personally.
Some examples:
When we look for guilt or innocence, we look to see if a suspect frames words of guilt in their own sentences and statistically, if they do, they likely are guilty.
"because people think that I did it..." When a suspect is able to say "I did it" within a sentence, even when attributing these words to others, statistically, they have guilt.
"for those of you who believe in my guilt..." Pronouns show ownership. Innocent people do not say "my" guilt.
OJ Simpson wrote in his book, asking people to keep an open mind. "my guilt" shows the pronoun ownership of guilt, wording innocent people do not employ.
We look for any formation of "I did it" in the sentences of the accused and find that innocent people do not generally, in open statements (unprompted by specific questions) use these words. If so, it is a red flag and means more work is needed in the investigation.
"Tell us plainly if you are the Son of God!" the middle of the night court demanded of Christ.
"Thou sayest it", was His answer.
But, it can be argued, they didn't say it, they asked Him.
Christ pointed out that their words framed truth. They had seen Him suspend the laws of nature, including miracles of healing before their eyes, and had watched their political power go down the drain. Now they looked to accuse Him of blasphmey in order to end His popularity, which threatened to displace their position and power in the ancient world, under Roman rule.
This is the same as in Statement Analysis we look for the words "I didn't do it" in open statements; unprompted by any questioning. Richard Jewel, accused Atlanta Olympic bomber, before the press, was able to speak these words easily.
However, when they come in a line of questioning where the words are repeated back, they do NOT hold the same strength but still need further questioning.
"Did you do it?"
"No, I didn't" is a repetition of the Interviewer's own words. It is prompted by a question.
Joe Overstreet offered "I didn't do it" in his lawyer's office before the camera. What we don't know is if this was part of an open statement or if it was in response to a question from Media. We didn't see or hear what proceeded the statement. If it was offered openly, statistically, Joe Overstreet did not cause the death of Haleigh Cummings.
Andrea Lyon is not answering the question, "Is Casey Anthony a whore?", rather, she is speaking openly, unprompted by a specific question. Who chose the word "whore"? Andrea Lyon chose the word "whore". It is safe to say that Andrea Lyon was not asked by the court, "Are you implying that Casey Anthony is a whore?"
"She's a whore" are the words framed by the lips of Andrea Lyon. These are the words she chose, for herself, and did not come from a question. Andrea Lyon chose these words, even when she could have stopped at "impolite" with her meaning already presented.
She did not. She, who does not stutter nor speak in fragmented sentences, stumbled, but continued on.
Andrea Lyon is revealing to us that she is personally disgusted by Casey Anthony's ability to go out and party in a sexually charged atmosphere while Caylee was dead. Even if Lyon believes that Caylee died by accident and has been told that the duct tape were part of a panicked cover up, it still bothers Lyon that Casey Anthony was able to go out and party after Caylee was dead (or missing, depending upon what Lyon believes).
Andrea Lyon used these words in correlation to Casey Anthony:
"She's a whore"
But it didn't end there.
"She's a whore, so she should die.'"
Andrea Lyon is representing what she thinks people are saying about her client, yet the words she chooses reveal her own thoughts. There are an endless number of ways to say that people may believe Casey Anthony's behavior in the photos to be immoral.
My question to Andrea Lyon is this:
Do you believe Casey should die?
I don't expect the "Angel of Death Row" to answer this question in the affirmative.
I do believe that her choice of words reveal that this case, the case of Casey Anthony versus the People of Florida has so shaken Andrea Lyon to the core of her foundation, that she herself is questioning her staunch and long held opposition to the death penalty.
Andrea Lyon may believe, personally, that this case was so horrific, cold, and calloused, that in viewing the facts, the duct tape, the heart sticker, the computer searches, the hatred of her own mother, the partying, the jumping from bed to bed while neglecting Caylee, the relationship she had with Baez, and all the facts that she alone may know, that she cannot help but have an internal struggle where she says to herself,
'I have fought for 20 years against the death penalty yet I find myself defending someone who deserves it more than anyone I've ever met before and it is causing me such self doubt as I don't know what I believe!'.
I think that Casey Anthony has deeply touched off, perhaps, maternal protective instincts deep within Andrea Lyon's affections.
"Right?"
This shows how insecure she is. She stutters and speaks in fragmented sentences; she the attorney who does not stutter or halt under pressure. Now she seeks affirmation? This is the "angel" of death row? This is the powerful death penalty foe, stammering and asking if she is correct?
She asked the question, "right?". Andrea Lyon asked this question, but to whom was it directed? The judge is not going to answer her; nor will prosecution. If rhetorical, what is the need for it?
Casey Anthony has deeply touched Andrea Lyon and has caused Lyon to question herself.
"They don't say that out loud. "
Ms. Lyon does not even believe her own statement.
"They" is "people"; undefined. Ms. Lyon is so affected by her thoughts about Casey snuffing out the life of such a cute and adorable 2 1/2 year old child, that she contradicts herself. If you listen to Ms. Lyon in the courtroom, you have likely not heard her speak in fragmented sentences, nor contradict herself in the same statement. She is a highly intelligent professional. Nothing in this statement appears intellectual or professional: it is shear emotion coming from a place that Andrea Lyon does not normally touch into while in court.
"Oh, well, they do in the blogs, your honor,"
This refers back again to "blogs" as we have seen repeatedly by Jose Baez and Brad Conway. "Blogs" are media outlets unimpeded by commercial interests. They represent the voice of the average American who wishes to opine, as well as the people who care enough to read them and comment upon them as well. They represent a new era in journalism in the world; where anyone can have an opinion and be heard.
The Casey Anthony defense team refers to blogs often. Brad Conway even said "blogs and threats" in the same sentence, with his own words revealing how threatened the defense feel.
Our words reveal what is in our hearts. Our hearts are the seat of intellect and emotions. Our brains receive training, very early in life, on forming words. Even a 3 or 4 year old can recognize verb tenses and pronouns. "MY cookie!" shows how a child can take ownership by using a pronoun.
Andrea Lyon formed words that came from her heart; her intellect and her affections. As a professional, she left the safety of professional legalese and stumbled out emotionally into revealing her personal opinion of Casey Anthony, and perhaps, a personal crisis of her life's work, as she dedicated her life to opposing capital punishment.
She worked hard at making sure that if a man kills some one's family member, that family would have to, via tax dollars, pay for the killer's room, board, food, education, medical, dental, and life's expenses, even though their family member, now deceased, have been denied those very things, thus revictimizing the family in the name of "justice".
This work is something that has brought Andrea Lyon both fortune and fame.
Like any of us, Andrea Lyon chose words that held meaning to her. This decision was made in less than a micro second, no different than ours.
Will Andrea Lyon stay on the defense team if it becomes apparent that no plea will be offered, and that her client will face death, ultimately ruining her "perfect record"?
Don't bet on it.
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/05/angel-of-death-row.html
Monday, May 24, 2010
Will Andrea Lyon quit the Casey Anthony team in order to keep her undefeated record against the death penalty?
Our words reveal us.
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh". (Christ)
I have long admired those in the art community who are able to "profile" an artist's personality by viewing a painting. In a sense, everything is autobiographical. What we do to express ourselves, exposes ourselves. In Statement Analysis, it is something that becomes evident as we look at the words chosen to describe a particular event or person.
For instance, if I say the word "boy" to a room of 25 investigators, and ask each to tell me what they are picturing in their minds, they offer:
a blue sticker on a baby's bassinet at the hospital
a 10 year old boy playing Little League baseball
a son, in Iraq, perhaps in harm's way
a grandson
a boy sitting at a table doing homework
These are just a few of the responses I have heard in trainings. The word "boy" conjured up various images. This is an example of the "personal internal dictionary" that we all have.
When conducting an interview, the Interviewer must enter into the subject's personal dictionary. This is why it is vital for the Interviewer to NOT introduce new words, but wait for the subject to introduce new words and new topics. The words the subject chooses reveal much about what is going on inside his or her mind. It is not only for interviews, but this is practices by skilled therapists as well.
Andrea Lyon, author of "Angel of Death Row" prides herself as a champion for those on death row. She is said to have a winning record, without a single loss. It appeared to be an impressive statistic.
Recently, while listening to blogger radio, an attorney said that there was a reason why Andrea Lyon had such an impressive "undefeated" record, which, the attorney claimed, was misleading.
He said that in her state, rather than having a jury vote by majority to have the death penalty imposed, it takes only ONE VOTE by ONE JUROR to have it discarded. This means in the jury pool, it only takes one anti-death penalty person to gain Ms. Lyon's "victory" and keep her "perfect record".
This changes things quite a bit.
Question: Will Andrea Lyon stay on the Casey Anthony case and risk her "undefeated" record, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of premeditation and the inclusion of more than a single Aggravating Factor?
Will Andra Lyon quit the team if no plea is struck?
I don't sense a willingness on the part of the Prosecution to offer a plea.
Will Andrea Lyon quit to save her own record?
I don't know the answer; and perhaps, Ms. Lyon herself does not know the answer.
However, we do have a clue.
It may depend upon how Andrea Lyon feels, personally, about Casey Anthony.
Andrea Lyon is not only an attorney, but she is a human being, with emotions, passion, drive, empathy, and has in the past, had some strong bonds with the people who faced the death penalty, and fought passionately to get that one juror to deny the ultimate penalty.
It may come down to how Andrea Lyon feels about Casey Anthony. We already know she is personally against the death penalty, so that is not in question.
Lyon is facing a seemingly impossible task to have Casey Anthony avoid death. She is facing a Prosecutorial team that was insulted by Jose Baez from the beginning, (including before Ms. Lyon came on board). An attorney of her experience knows better than to ridicule the prosecution before the case develops. Jose Baez, from day one, ridiculed law enforcement, locally and federally, as well as the prosecution team. Though prosecution did not do any media appearances, Jose Baez was incessantly before the cameras, that is, at least until Ms. Lyon joined the team. Since then, his exposure has decreased significantly.
How does Ms. Lyon feel, personally, about Casey Anthony? How does she feel about facing a death penalty case where the jury will hear that a mother reported her child missing 31 days prior, yet went out partying, rather than "searching" for the missing child? Her personal attachment to Casey Anthony may impact her drive. If her attachment is emotionally powerful, we can expect it to impact Lyon's efforts. If her attachment is a nervous or weak attachment, we can expect that to be a force of "draining" on Lyon's stanima.
Andrea Lyon sought to argue, therefore, to the court that there may be a prejudicial opinion formed by those who view the pictures of Casey out partying, while Caylee was unaccounted for. She clearly wanted to tell the court that those who saw the partying pictures would believe Casey to be an unfit, immoral mother, and wanted the pictures to be kept from the jury. Andrea Lyon wanted to argue that potential jurors would view Casey as immoral.
Andrea Lyon did not say that, however. We must listen to what she said and not interpret.
Words chosen reveal us. The words that Andrea Lyon chose, reveal how she thinks and how she feels.
"People don't say, you know, ‘She's a,' it's an impolite word, but, you know, ‘She's a whore, so she should die.' Right? They don't say that out loud. Oh, well, they do in the blogs, your honor," Casey's death penalty-qualified attorney, Andrea Lyon, argued in court Tuesday morning. "But they don't say that here in court ... but underneath, that is what's going on."
"People don't say" is passive. Lyon does not say "I don't say" which would show ownership. She is speaking of people in general and begins in the negative, and the fragmented sentence shows tension. We would expect a polished experienced attorney to speak fluidly, so when we encounter fragmented words, or stuttering from someone who does not normally stutter or speak in fragmentation, we flag it as "sensitive". She is not telling us what people say, but rather what they do not say. This negative form is significant.
Lyon does not complete her thought and is clearly uncomfortable with what she is about to say.
"you know". Some people use this word frequently and habitually. When it comes from someone who does not use it habitually, it shows an attempt to persuade. "You know" means that she seeks the hearer to agree with her, even before she makes her point. I have not found this to be in Lyon's speech as habit.
‘She's a,
Andrea Lyon struggled to say the word. As said before, she could have said that the pictures are prejudicial because 'people may form an opinion that my client is immoral', which would have been a short and clear statement, without much sensitivity attached. For Andrea Lyon, this is a struggle for one who does not struggle with speech in a court room.
"it's an impolite word"
Notice the grammar is correct as Lyon is an accomplished speaker, making her struggle even more pronounced for us. She has now communicated to us that people who view the photos will view Casey Anthony in a negative way and by saying it is an "impolite word", we all know the meaning. This is soft language. But for Lyon, her personal dictionary is not finished, even though she has already made her point. This is where she is unable to keep herself OUT of her statement, and this is, I believe, the revelation of how she personally feels about Casey Anthony, and she is still attempting to persuade with her 2nd use of "but, you know".
How does Andrea Lyon view Casey Anthony?
"She's a whore"
Andrea Lyon said these words.
"She's a whore"
No matter how it may be attempted to explain away as representing the opinion of others, studies have shown that when someone speaks a statement forming words together, it is because this is what they are thinking, personally.
Some examples:
When we look for guilt or innocence, we look to see if a suspect frames words of guilt in their own sentences and statistically, if they do, they likely are guilty.
"because people think that I did it..." When a suspect is able to say "I did it" within a sentence, even when attributing these words to others, statistically, they have guilt.
"for those of you who believe in my guilt..." Pronouns show ownership. Innocent people do not say "my" guilt.
OJ Simpson wrote in his book, asking people to keep an open mind. "my guilt" shows the pronoun ownership of guilt, wording innocent people do not employ.
We look for any formation of "I did it" in the sentences of the accused and find that innocent people do not generally, in open statements (unprompted by specific questions) use these words. If so, it is a red flag and means more work is needed in the investigation.
"Tell us plainly if you are the Son of God!" the middle of the night court demanded of Christ.
"Thou sayest it", was His answer.
But, it can be argued, they didn't say it, they asked Him.
Christ pointed out that their words framed truth. They had seen Him suspend the laws of nature, including miracles of healing before their eyes, and had watched their political power go down the drain. Now they looked to accuse Him of blasphmey in order to end His popularity, which threatened to displace their position and power in the ancient world, under Roman rule.
This is the same as in Statement Analysis we look for the words "I didn't do it" in open statements; unprompted by any questioning. Richard Jewel, accused Atlanta Olympic bomber, before the press, was able to speak these words easily.
However, when they come in a line of questioning where the words are repeated back, they do NOT hold the same strength but still need further questioning.
"Did you do it?"
"No, I didn't" is a repetition of the Interviewer's own words. It is prompted by a question.
Joe Overstreet offered "I didn't do it" in his lawyer's office before the camera. What we don't know is if this was part of an open statement or if it was in response to a question from Media. We didn't see or hear what proceeded the statement. If it was offered openly, statistically, Joe Overstreet did not cause the death of Haleigh Cummings.
Andrea Lyon is not answering the question, "Is Casey Anthony a whore?", rather, she is speaking openly, unprompted by a specific question. Who chose the word "whore"? Andrea Lyon chose the word "whore". It is safe to say that Andrea Lyon was not asked by the court, "Are you implying that Casey Anthony is a whore?"
"She's a whore" are the words framed by the lips of Andrea Lyon. These are the words she chose, for herself, and did not come from a question. Andrea Lyon chose these words, even when she could have stopped at "impolite" with her meaning already presented.
She did not. She, who does not stutter nor speak in fragmented sentences, stumbled, but continued on.
Andrea Lyon is revealing to us that she is personally disgusted by Casey Anthony's ability to go out and party in a sexually charged atmosphere while Caylee was dead. Even if Lyon believes that Caylee died by accident and has been told that the duct tape were part of a panicked cover up, it still bothers Lyon that Casey Anthony was able to go out and party after Caylee was dead (or missing, depending upon what Lyon believes).
Andrea Lyon used these words in correlation to Casey Anthony:
"She's a whore"
But it didn't end there.
"She's a whore, so she should die.'"
Andrea Lyon is representing what she thinks people are saying about her client, yet the words she chooses reveal her own thoughts. There are an endless number of ways to say that people may believe Casey Anthony's behavior in the photos to be immoral.
My question to Andrea Lyon is this:
Do you believe Casey should die?
I don't expect the "Angel of Death Row" to answer this question in the affirmative.
I do believe that her choice of words reveal that this case, the case of Casey Anthony versus the People of Florida has so shaken Andrea Lyon to the core of her foundation, that she herself is questioning her staunch and long held opposition to the death penalty.
Andrea Lyon may believe, personally, that this case was so horrific, cold, and calloused, that in viewing the facts, the duct tape, the heart sticker, the computer searches, the hatred of her own mother, the partying, the jumping from bed to bed while neglecting Caylee, the relationship she had with Baez, and all the facts that she alone may know, that she cannot help but have an internal struggle where she says to herself,
'I have fought for 20 years against the death penalty yet I find myself defending someone who deserves it more than anyone I've ever met before and it is causing me such self doubt as I don't know what I believe!'.
I think that Casey Anthony has deeply touched off, perhaps, maternal protective instincts deep within Andrea Lyon's affections.
"Right?"
This shows how insecure she is. She stutters and speaks in fragmented sentences; she the attorney who does not stutter or halt under pressure. Now she seeks affirmation? This is the "angel" of death row? This is the powerful death penalty foe, stammering and asking if she is correct?
She asked the question, "right?". Andrea Lyon asked this question, but to whom was it directed? The judge is not going to answer her; nor will prosecution. If rhetorical, what is the need for it?
Casey Anthony has deeply touched Andrea Lyon and has caused Lyon to question herself.
"They don't say that out loud. "
Ms. Lyon does not even believe her own statement.
"They" is "people"; undefined. Ms. Lyon is so affected by her thoughts about Casey snuffing out the life of such a cute and adorable 2 1/2 year old child, that she contradicts herself. If you listen to Ms. Lyon in the courtroom, you have likely not heard her speak in fragmented sentences, nor contradict herself in the same statement. She is a highly intelligent professional. Nothing in this statement appears intellectual or professional: it is shear emotion coming from a place that Andrea Lyon does not normally touch into while in court.
"Oh, well, they do in the blogs, your honor,"
This refers back again to "blogs" as we have seen repeatedly by Jose Baez and Brad Conway. "Blogs" are media outlets unimpeded by commercial interests. They represent the voice of the average American who wishes to opine, as well as the people who care enough to read them and comment upon them as well. They represent a new era in journalism in the world; where anyone can have an opinion and be heard.
The Casey Anthony defense team refers to blogs often. Brad Conway even said "blogs and threats" in the same sentence, with his own words revealing how threatened the defense feel.
Our words reveal what is in our hearts. Our hearts are the seat of intellect and emotions. Our brains receive training, very early in life, on forming words. Even a 3 or 4 year old can recognize verb tenses and pronouns. "MY cookie!" shows how a child can take ownership by using a pronoun.
Andrea Lyon formed words that came from her heart; her intellect and her affections. As a professional, she left the safety of professional legalese and stumbled out emotionally into revealing her personal opinion of Casey Anthony, and perhaps, a personal crisis of her life's work, as she dedicated her life to opposing capital punishment.
She worked hard at making sure that if a man kills some one's family member, that family would have to, via tax dollars, pay for the killer's room, board, food, education, medical, dental, and life's expenses, even though their family member, now deceased, have been denied those very things, thus revictimizing the family in the name of "justice".
This work is something that has brought Andrea Lyon both fortune and fame.
Like any of us, Andrea Lyon chose words that held meaning to her. This decision was made in less than a micro second, no different than ours.
Will Andrea Lyon stay on the defense team if it becomes apparent that no plea will be offered, and that her client will face death, ultimately ruining her "perfect record"?
Don't bet on it.
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/05/angel-of-death-row.html
Snaz- Posts : 4972
Join date : 2009-07-11
Location : Florida
Mood :
KariBear- Posts : 928
Join date : 2009-12-23
Age : 63
Location : Florida
Mood :
Similar topics» Cheney Mason distances himself from opening statement
» Kyron Horman -- Missing 6/4/10 #2
» PCSO: Haleigh Cummings Statement
» Statement analysis of Charlie Rogers
» Ronald Cummings To Be Arrested - Statement Analysis
» Kyron Horman -- Missing 6/4/10 #2
» PCSO: Haleigh Cummings Statement
» Statement analysis of Charlie Rogers
» Ronald Cummings To Be Arrested - Statement Analysis
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum