Friday, November 9, 2012

Statement Analysis: Original Casey Anthony Statement




by Peter Hyatt

Casey Anthony's original police statement is now used around 
the country for the purpose of learning.  If you want to learn,
this is a great place to start.  Once the few principles here
are learned, you may begin your journey by applying them
to each and every statement you encounter.  You will see
how the principles will guide you to truth.  

For those of you already familiar with the principles we use, 
it is a great tool for practicing Statement Analysis, as we all
already know that Casey Anthony was lying about killing
her own daughter. 

  In the original statement we have the
 first signals of deception to the police. 

Within the initial statement we are able to discern 
the nature of her deception.  Within her 
deception we also note what is missing: 
 verbal indicators of sexual homicide nor references to her own sexual abuse at the hands of George Anthony, as told us
by her lawyer, Jose Baez. 

In sexual homicides, the subject often has references to water 
that enter the statement.  For a linguistic view of participation 
in a sexual homicide, review the analysis of the statements of 
Amanda Knox.  

Although everyone washes their hands, for instance, such 
references are rare in police 
statements, and when they appear, the analyst is now on alert 
for sexual homicide, 
molestation, rape, and so on.  In child trafficking, or pimping 
out a child, we would expect to see multiple references.  

Here, we have plain deception to cover murder. 

We have a cold-hearted sociopath of whom a child was an 
inconvenience to her lifestyle and a source of anguish, as the 
attention of Cindy Anthony passed Casey, and went on to 
Caylee, instead. 
There isn't much mystery and theories proposing mystery will only set the stage for Casey 
Anthony to sell a "tell all" book, (or movie) which will actually resemble 
the statement following rather than the truth. 

There are some mysteries that remain unsolved in the death of Caylee Anthony, in particular:

What was George Anthony's involvement post death?
When did Cindy Anthony know the body was in the woods?
What was Lee Anthony's need for immunity?

These are some of the questions that we will cover, via 
statement analysis of their 
statements and writings, including full analysis of George 
Anthony's "suicide"
letter.  For now, let's start at the beginning, seeing what police
first saw, and applying the same principles to the statement of 
Casey Anthony that we apply to all other statements.  





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.

----------------------------analysis-------------------------------------------

This is what police had to work from, initially.  Although knowing Casey Anthony's lies, let's see what happens when we apply the same sensitivity signals to her original police statement.  The most important thing to see is the color blue: 


 I got off of work, left Universal driving back to pick up Caylee like a normal day.

The word "left" when used as a connecting verb (departing a 
place) indicates missing information.  This missing information
is 70% likely due to rushing, and 30% likely to be critical
missing (deliberately withheld) information. 
In this case, we know she did not work at Universal. 

Q.  Why was leaving Universal so very sensitive?
A.   Because she did not have a job there.  

Other than the leaving or departing of a place as being very
sensitive in a statement, the reason why someone does 
something is the other level of extreme sensitivity.  When 
someone should simply tell us "what happened?" has a 
need to tell us "why" something happened, it is, along with 
"left" to be considered the highest level of sensitivity in 
a statement.  It sounds as if the subject anticipates being 
asked why something was done, so she thinks to herself, "I 
better tell they why I did this in case they ask me..."

Here we have the 2nd indicator of the highest sensitivity as she tells us the reason why she had to drive "back" :
"to pick up Caylee"  

It is, therefore, noted, that "picking up Caylee" is something that is extremely sensitive to Casey. 

Q.  Why was driving back to pick up Caylee so very sensitive?
A.  Because Caylee was dead and not in need of being picked up

Note "normal" day:  this enters someone's language when they wish to portray the day as "normal" and is a signal that it was 
anything but.  It makes for good story telling, as even a young
reader knows that it is a signal that something abnormal or
extraordinary is about to happen. 


And I show up to the apartment knock on door nobody answers. 

The word "And"is in the beginning of her sentence:  this 
indicates that there is missing information between the 
sentences. 
"I show up" is deemed "unreliable" because it is in the present
tense. 

Q.  Why is it in the present tense?
A.   Because Casey was making it up.  There is no connection
to experiential memory.  

"Nobody answers" is also in the present tense.  There was no 
apartment so it is that she was also making this up, just as the 
language employed suggests.  

As we progress, we see, already, enough indicators of sensitivity to conclude deception.  Casey, however, is not finished:

So, I call Zeniada cell
phone and it’s out of service. It says the phone is no longer in 
service, excuse me.

Q.  Why is calling Zenaida's cell phone given the color blue?  

A.  Blue is the highest level of sensitivity in SCAN.  It is given 
for only two reasons:  1.  the leaving of a place  2.  the reason
why. 

Here, it is extremely sensitive to Casey that she called 
Zeniada's cell phone.

Q.  Why is it so very sensitive to Casey that she called 
Zenaida's cell phone?

A.  Because Zenaida did not exist; therefore, her cell phone
did not exist. 

Another indicator of sensitivity is repetition.  Anything that is 
repeated is important to the subject.  Here we see that the 
phone is out of service.  This is sensitive to Zenaida. 

Q.  Why is the phone being out of service sensitive?
A.  Because it did not exist and she needs to explain to the 
police why they will not be able to reach the cell.  She appears
to be burying herself under an avalanche of lies. 

The jury, however, will see it otherwise. 

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.


This has now become a "Statement Analysis 101 Sample" for
 training.  It is useful for learning how to discern deception as 
it is easy to use hindsight and the details after applying 
principle.  

What do you notice first about this portion of her statement? 
 Even without 
training, it is likely that the reader  caught this:

1.  Casey reported what happened the day her daughter disappeared, and her statement should have been in the past tense.  In her first 5 sentences, she is in the present tense.  This is a strong indicator that not only is she lying, but she is making it up on "the fly" (the volume suggests this) and not everything is prepared.  Later, through analysis, we saw that Casey did operate 'by the seat of her pants' having a high level of confidence in her own ability to deceive, which is what likely led to the controversy where she was examined by psychologists at the end of her trial, for fitness to testify.  

It not only shows deception (present tense) but it now allows the analyst to enter into Casey Anthony's psychological profile, howbeit in a small manner:  they are dealing with a confident liar; one who works as she goes along.  This would give a strong indication to police, having never met Casey Anthony before, that they are dealing with, perhaps, a pathological liar, one who has had a great deal of success in childhood lying.  It is a red flag of trouble. 

She has been lying since she learned how to 
speak. 

Remember:  a child is "missing" and what is the mother doing?  She is lying. 

If you continue your analysis, going by principle, you would have highlighted the word "left" for sensitivity.  

2.  The word "left" when used as a connecting verb is an indication of missing information.

When the word "left" is used as a connecting verb, the analyst recognizes missing information, and percentage wise: 

70% is related to time pressure and 30% is sensitive and perhaps critical information. 

Here is how:  

"I was at work.  I left work at 5PM."

The fact that the subject needs to tell us that he "left" is an indication that there is something on his mind.  70% of the time this is about time pressure, or traffic ahead of him, or, perhaps, he left a few minutes early from work.  It is likely something due to time pressure and not critical. 

But now watch how awkward the word "left" can be. 

"I was in the living room.  I left the living room and went to the bed room."

Here, the word "left" is highlighted as sensitive, as it is an indication of missing information.  Why?  Because if he was in the living room and went to the bedroom, he would not have to tell us that he "left"; as he must "leave" in order to reach a new room.  Therefore, it is "extra" information; that is, a sentence can work without these words.  "Extra" information is doubly important to the analyst.  In the above statement, something happened to cause the subject to leave the living room. It could have been an argument, it could have been nefarious, it could have been innocent, but it is something that must be sought because there is missing information there. 

3.  Repetition.   In Statement Analysis, any word repeated is 'sensitive' or important.  The analyst would note repetition and ask "why would this word be sensitive to the subject?"   Remember, the statement is NOT reality, it is the subject's version of reality.  We are attempting to enter into the subject's reality. 

If, in reality, the subject  lies, we know the subject has a need to lie.  This is critical.  The word "disconnected" is repeated; it has significance to Casey Anthony and due to the already large number of sensitivity indicators, the analyst should question the veracity of the call. 

4.  "Normal"   The word "normal" is highlighted in all statements.  When someone refers to their own selves as "normal" it is an indication that they have been considered not "normal" (by themselves and/or others) in the past.  When a day or event is "normal" in the subject's reality, it is an indication that the day (or event) is anything but normal.

5.  Negative.   Anything reported in the negative is important.  It is the analyst's job to learn why something is sensitive.  Here, Casey reveals high levels of sensitivity in reporting things in the negative.  A truthful statement is not only first person singular, past tense, it tells what happened; not what did not happen, nor what was not thought, felt, etc.  When someone tells us what did not happen, or what was not thought, it is to be highlighted as sensitive to the subject.

Note:  "nobody answers" is in the negative.  We often see this in theft.  "I saw nobody run across the lawn..."   sounds silly, but it is an indicator that either the subject is in fiction mode OR he did see someone run across the lawn.  

She also says, "didn't hear from anyone" is not only in the negative, but Zanaida has now been referenced as "anyone". 

6.  Change of language should represent reality and if there is no apparent change in reality, there is likely deception. 

7.  "Because"   We highlight any words that explain rather than report, as sensitive.  "So, since, therefore, because, hence, and hence (Patsy Ramsey), etc" are all highlighted as the subject is no longer telling us what happened, but telling us why something happened.  This is sensitive.

8.  Body posture:  We highlight "sit, stood, stand, sitting, standing, ect" as sensitive because when body posture enters a statement, it is often an indicator of strain or tension. 

9.  "And" is highlighted as an indicator that the subject has more information about the sentence that has not been revealed.

10.  Temporal Lacunae    "time passed" Casey said.  A temporal lacunae is sensitive as the subject has jumped over time and is withholding information.  Samples:  "and the next thing I know..." and so on.  They are always flagged for sensitivity.


From just this small portion of her statement to police we have highlighted multiple indicators of sensitivity, and we have only just begun.

 Thus far, we do not have indicators of sexual criminality within her statement.  If this was part of  a sexual homicide, we may have found an indicator.  Had Caylee drowned in a pool, we would have 
likely seen indicators, including "leaving" the house where
George Anthony was. 

 Had she been drowned, we would expect to see it creep into her langauge since her language is her version of reality, and would have been a dominant theme for her.  
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.

"No one showed up" as "no one" and "nobody" does not exist. 
Here we have her explaining the reason "why" she went
to the park.  She would go on to say "Caylee loved the park." in the past tense, only to correct herself with "Caylee loves the 
park."

If you did nothing except color code this statement, you would 
find more than 2 "blues" on the paper, which is called a 
"cluster of blues" allowing you to see the extreme sensitive 
nature of the statement. 

 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. 

Emotions in a statement.  

Emotions in a statement are often an indication that someone is telling the truth; reliving the experience. It is, therefore, 
the location of the emotions that indicates to us whether 
or not the person is being truthful or deceptive. 

Principle:  When emotions are placed in the logical or 
"perfect" part of the story, it is a strong indication that they
have been placed there artificially, indicating deception. 

Q.  Why does placing the emotions in the story, where they 
appear to belong, make it deceptive?

A.  In truthful statements, emotions are found after the main 
event.  Psychologically, it takes humans time to process our
emotions.  If someone was held up at gunpoint, for example,
she may write about the experience, and if from truth, 
the adrenaline of "survival" hormones means that after the 
danger has passed, the person considers her emotions.  In the
above account, a truthful recalling would have three sections:

1.  Pre event:  what happened just before 
2.  Main event:  the hold up
3.  Post event;  what happened after the event, calling 911, and 
the inclusion of emotions. 

The account may be counted by either lines, or words used. 
Truthful accounts have the following breakdown:

25% of the words or lines are what happened just before
50% of the words or lines are what happened
25% of the words or lines are what happened afterwards. 

Anything that strongly deviates from this is to be considered
"Deceptive on its Form."

Emotions in truthful statements are found in the last portion.
For an easy example of this, search on Tiffany Hartley.  She
uses lots of emotions in her description, and the emotions
are placed in the 'perfect' or 'logical' portion of her 
statement indicating artificial placement. 

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. 

First, notice anything in the negative as important. 
Note also that she didn't "really"; indicating that she was 
conflicted about going home.  
Note "come" home and not "go" home. 
Caylee "coming back" so that Casey could pick her up is of the highest sensitivity to Casey. 

Q.  Why is picking up Caylee of the highest sensitivity?
A.   Because Caylee is dead and cannot be picked up. 


And I ended up going to my boyfriend Anthony’s house who lives 
in Sutton Place.

"ended up" is passive language.  She uses passive language to 
conceal identity or responsibility.  Here, she does not want to 
say that she wanted to go to Tony's while Caylee was missing
so she uses the passive "ended up" as if it was something that
was beyond her control or responsibility. 

Social Introductions:

Casey was writing to the police.  This is her written statement. 
The rule of social introductions is the same in analysis as it is
in life. 

"my boyfriend, Anthony" has 3 components:

1.  Possessive pronoun:  my
2.  Title:  boyfriend
3.  Name:  Anthony

This is an indication of a good relationship.  This is how she
perceives him, even using his full name, "Anthony" rather 
than the common, "Tony."

Her perception of the relationship was very high according to
Statement Analysis. 
This was confirmed later when she was in jail she wanted
to talk to Tony rather than talk about Caylee or talk to 
her parents, or even a lawyer.  She only wanted to talk to 
Tony.  

This reminds us to look at all the names in a statement.  We 
look at all names, including pets, as some people love their 
pets more than humans.  We also list phones or calls (texts, 
emails) with names.  (Phones don't call people:  there is a
person behind the phone call, text, email).  

We note how each person is introduced indicating the quality
of the relationship. 
We note the order in which people are introduced as well. 
When Casey wrote about not "really" wanting to come home
it is her parents (and brother) who live there. 

They  are not mentioned by name. 

Yet, she said that she did not know what she would "say"; this
is communicative language.  In order for her to "say" anything,
there must be someone to say something to.  
At "home" were her parents.  She brings up the fact that she
didn't know what she would "say", indicating her parents' 
presence. 

She gives no social introduction to her parents which indicates
to us that the relationship with them is a very bad relationship.

As to those who know the story and watched the trial, this 
is an understatement.  She went many months refusing to 
take a visit or phone call from them.  

Later, Cindy Anthony, her mother, would perjure, boldly, 
and without Florida prosecuting her for it, to set the killer
of her granddaughter free.

She did this while making an oath to God, to tell the truth.  

21 comments:

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ladyluck WI said...

another indication besides the present tense is she says: "driving back to pick up Caylee"

When I get done with work and go to pick my daughter up, I dont' say that I left work and drove "back" to pick up my daughter.. that doesn't sound right to me. I just say that I went to pick up my daughter. that little addition doesn't seem right.

Dee said...

OT - @ John...

I haven't heard of this investigation before. It's interesting. He contradicts himself in the two statements included in the article. Did he visit Wrexham only once in the company of another or has he never been there as he states in the second statement? Or is he saying he's been to Wrexham once but not to the school itself? The second statement, the one of denial, sounds pretty strong to me. He uses I, past tense and names the specific allegation.

He said he had visited Wrexham "only once" and that was in the company of an agent from Conservative Central Office.

A statement from Lord McAlpine read: "I have never been to the children's home in Wrexham, nor have I ever visited any children's home, reform school or any other institution of a similar nature.

"I have never stayed in a hotel in or near Wrexham, I did not own a Rolls Royce, have never had a 'Gold card' or 'Harrods card' and never wear aftershave, all of which have been alleged.

"I did not sexually abuse Mr Messham or any other residents of the children's home in Wrexham."

sha said...

I like how the apartment turns into a house.....

Ladyluck WI said...

Good point. I have lived in several apartments. I didn't refer to them as a "house". Maybe "home" but not house. I currently live in a townhouse. I believe I have referred to it as a house,to my family as in, "were almost to our house". it is very large. However I know that when describing my home to others, i specifically call it a townhouse.. because a house conflict with my description/interpretation of where i live

Anonymous said...

Billie Dunn's so called PI resigned.

BostonLady said...

I've read about halfway thru the book written by Jeff Ashton about Casey Anthony and he mentions the past tense references. And, he goes into detail about how Casey led them on the wild goose chase at Universal to find her office. Which we now know she never had. Casey expected her lies to be believed. Just like Billie Jean Dunn.

Speaking of BJD, the p.i., Mac Sanford, that just started working on the case has made an announcement that he is no longer going to work on Hailey's case. He didn't even last a month. Why did he leave? According to Facebook, he left because Billie Jean decided to contact another p.i. online - Joey Ortega - at the request of another. When Mac found out, he ended his involvement.

Mac stated that the only stipulation to him taking the Hailey case was that he be the only p.i. working the case. He said that Billie was aware of this stipulation and agreed. Well, now Billie is on FB saying her typical "Nobody told me I couldn't have more than one p.i." Gee she has said "nobody told me" when Connie Jones told her and Nancy Grace that Hailey was afraid of Shawn Adkins.

Anonymous said...

I too wondered from the beginning how long Billie's pro bono "personal" PI would last on the job. I figured as soon as he started catching onto her lies which doesn't take long. Ha. But there she was, the little ungrateful twit, already cheating on him by running around seeking out other PIs.

She knew better. Idiot. Keeps on cooking her own goose. Or, was this her ploy to cause him to quit, like maybe he was suspecting Billie's involvement and she wanted him off the job? She's a clever one, calculating, can't underestimate her little head games.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I'm glad to see you will be analyzing Cindy's statements, like when did she first know Caylee was lying dead out in the woods; George's so-called suicide note, etc., and Lee's immunity and why did he need immunity.

I've already determined (in my own analysis of them) that both George & Cindy knew from the day Caylee was dumped in the woods that she was dead, which BTW, we don't even know what date that was; and that likely they both knew from the day (or evening) that Caylee died that she was dead. Their actions and everything they did and said points (to me) towards their knowledge from the beginning, and possibly their participation in one way or another.

I'm not sure at all that George wasn't involved in Caylee's death. Either or both of them would be capable. I will always believe that they both had more to hide and cover up than just covering up for Casey in Caylee's death. They BOTH knew things that involved THEM that had to be kept hidden.

I don't buy for one minute that their entire cover up and all their lies was just for Casey and to protect Casey. It was to protect THEMSELVES. They WANTED Casey to be blamed entirely and to take all the guilt while they made themselves look totally innocent but "helping" their daughter to cover up what SHE did by lying for her. THEY ran the show.

As for Jeff Ashton, he makes me sick. He put on such a show with 'here come da judge' Perry, leading us all to think "we're gonna git Baez" after all this is over, git him brought up on charges before the bar, git his license to practice law; when they never had any intentions of doing diddly squat to Baez. What a performance they pulled off!

Either Perry or Ashton could have brought charges against Cindy (AND George)for their many perjuries and did nothing. All for show. So how far WAS Ashton in cahoots with Cindy and the defense team? What a show.

I wouldn't pay a plug nickel for Ashton's book. If you were to base your analysis on anything in his book I'd have to seriously question that, because as it turns out, Ashton TOO is a liar who did NOT value our court system and it's laws against perjury. So what else did he do or NOT do?

Anonymous said...

Wow. I agree about Ashton. He lost a winnable case by his courtroom antics and his collaboration with the lying Anthonys.

And to top it off, he got to play the hero of the mess he helped create.

The prosecution did not need the Anthonys on their side. They never got it, anyway. Ashton should have declared Lee, George and Cindy hostile witnesses from the get-go! Cindy masterminded the defense. George was willing to be labeled a molester and murderer to get his sicko daughter off. Lee...well he had deep sibling problems of his own.

Vita said...

Casey: I got off of work, left Universal driving back to pick up Caylee like a normal day.

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.
--
Left driving back to: Caylee
where was she? in the play house?

No one showed to the house: Cindy did not show, she was at work extra early, after her vacation.

Went to J.Blanchard park: will comment next post.

Regular places, I know
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.

*Casey was infamous for stealing others identity's to use shopping.
As it has been proven she was not employed, not since 2004.

After 7am or 7pm ?
CA: And after about 7:00 when I still hadn’t heard anything

CA: 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.

Night of June 15, which would be am of Mon June 16th, she Casey never slept, her cell phone activity proves it:
http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days-061608.htm

Monday June 16, 2008, Cindy went to work early, earlier than her usual. George the one who said in testimony he saw Casey and Caylee leave that day, near 1PM. He the last to witness Caylee alive, outside of Slore.

Her chosen word " neutral"
I was getting pretty upset, pretty frantic and I went to a neutral place.

Why was she frantic and upset? because no one answered, no one called her back, she is not upset that Caylee was unaccounted for.(Caylee was dead) placed in her play house, then put into the trunk, her car sited by witnesses, parked with the AC running. She in the clubs.

Neutral place, would this be the woods? where Caylee was tossed like trash? Her neutral place that she went to in earlier years to hide from her parents, bury her pets.

CA: I didn’t really want to come home.

One doesn't come home, they go home. She feared her mother, she was pissed off, her mother did not answer or call her back, so she went to her neutral place, to think or to contemplate how she would, where she would dispose of Caylee.

Within Casey's rambles I do believe she did interweave bits of what did happen, she could not help herself. I think she thoroughly in thought, you're so stupid, I am telling what happened, relishing her coded speak. She is a Sociopath.

Vita said...

J.Blanchard Park. Slore voluntarily in her texts, IMs, conversations, to mention JBP.

She had Amy hook line and sinker that she and Amy would take over the Anthony house. Mother was divorcing, GA was a cheat, a liar, had heart problems, and all soon would be over, the two girls would prevail. Caylee never part of this equation. Surmise it, as GA & CA were to be her victims soon enough. Amy along for the ride, not realizing who she had made friends with.

She stole Amy's identity, as she worked very hard on this. She had Amy's personal mail (without Amy's knowledge) forwarded to her parents house. Cindy called her out on it, and Casey said it was for a package. Cindy to say, Um No. She drugged Amy before her trip, took her cash, already was given permission to use her car, she had her checkbook. She went shopping and emptied Amy's life savings.

She was enabled by Cindy, to use Cindy's credit, her signature, she signed her mothers name on stolen checks. Stole her credit cards, shopped, signed Cindy's name, Tony as witness. She stole checks from her Grandfathers fixed living account, no issue there. No one said Boo about it.

This phantom woman Zenaida who she conjured up? or was it she did exist, only not as a person in Casey's circle, she found her name online. She found the card from Sawgrass, of the applicant, ZG, and went with it? or there is much more to this, that has not been investigated.

There was a brutal argument, one of many? Cindy choked Casey, and said she was taking Caylee away from her, she would be on the street. Grandma Shirley in emails stated Cindy was depressed, had nothing to live for. Her money drying up, GA a loser, Casey and he both stealing her blind.

Cindy attempting sanity chose counseling. She chose to go to a women's center, within the local community. She did not want it on her insurance? a group of interns were providing the counseling services. The counselor told Cindy what to do, this then was not on Cindy's conscience it was told to her, the blame then on the counselor.
" Casey" kick her out. Cindy dared Casey, as she allowed a 2nd party into the Anthony Universe, this the ultimate betrayal.

On June 10, 2008, a 26 yr old local woman went for a jog, J.Blanchard park, to vanish. Her dead body found within 24 hours inside the park. No arrests have been made. It's a cold case.

Her name Nicole Ganguzza.
Ganguzza was currently working on completing her Master's degree in Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling at UCF. She Ganguzza provided counseling at the very same place Cindy went for counseling.

Who did Nicole study under in her education, a woman, professor by the name of Zenaida Gonzales. There was a break in at the University, June 11th I believe was the date, the day after Nicole vanished, the day her body was recovered, Professor Gonzales office was ransacked her laptop stolen.

She the Professor wrote online, in a forum, after Caylee was reported
" missing" I am not the NANNY !!!
My office was ransacked, my laptop stolen,I have enough ongoing, stop the nonsense,...

Was this a crime of opportunity on Casey's part? she to have her in's with her boy " friends" to gain entry to the University. There is no such thing as a coincidence.

She attempting stealing her (Professors)credentials, the professors identity. This professor to be bilingual(Spanish) and world traveler. Casey said it herself in IM, she needed to brush up on her Spanish, once she was able to obtain a " EB" Visa she would be able to work outside the country.

Google Nicole Ganguzza and see her photo, she is the ZG that Casey descriptively created. Her dead body found June 11th. Casey an avid jogger made contact with Nicole prior? Nicole's name to crop up in Cindy's idle threats to Casey? She Nicole to become the hunted? within the plans of, that foiled, her wanting to off her parents. Caylee killed in place of them.

http://www.amw.com/missing_persons/case.cfm?id=56440

--

Seamus O Riley said...

BL.

are you enjoying the book?

I know that Heather is still not ready to read anything about the case; still smarting from the injustice of the verdict.

How is it impacting you?

Peter

Vita said...

As Boston wrote, Ashtons' saids of how Casey led them into Universal, which she did not work there.

No one stopped her either did they? She to be with a crew of men, following her lead, following her inside the office area. Makes you wonder doesn't it. How she was able to slide in and slide out, to meld in. Cindy to say, Casey was never without her work ID, lanyard. She kept it with her, or in her car.

Where did that go? as we know Cindy cleaned the car, removed all the contents, after George drove it home from impound. There is so many instances that are overwhelmingly obvious Cindy aided ( under Casey's orders?) as she destroyed evidence.

When she was at the same time on her sympathy tour on every media outlet, creating mafia kidnappers, Caylee was sited in 10 states, yadda, she is alive. Yet, she never looked for her, she never searched for Caylee, she held her self up with her hammer, and water hoses, against the minions who demanded answers - Where is Caylee. It goes without saying, not only did Casey Anthony get away with Murder, Cindy did too.

The indictment charges too difficult to understand I guess. So all met with the mindset, lets shorten this argument, see what we can get out of it first, then when we offer our deliberation, it will be " over".

The first three indictments pertained to Caylee.
1. Premeditated Murder,
2. Aggravated Child Abuse,
3. Aggravated Manslaughter of a child

They could not even establish Caylee as a victim of Child Abuse, at the very least. Proven the trunk was Caylee's part time babysitter. She didn't lock herself in the trunk.

They by allowing this to slip slide created history. It set the bar, the bar very high, for the coming/pending, not yet named victims of Child abuse, to be in the courts, after Caylee.

Beyond brain scope.
Epic Failure for not only Caylee yet for all children, who I guess they deemed within their decision, all are to be fair play. The Voiceless kicked back, as they have no rights, how many years?

Priceless

Anonymous said...

Excellent, EXCELLENT post Vita.

Anonymous said...

Vita, your posts are the first I have heard of a woman, Nicole Ganguzza, being abducted from J. Blanchard Park and murdered. I'm not sure I understand correctly what you are thinking. I recall knowing that LE thought Casey got Zenaida Gonzales' name from an interest card she filled out at Sawgrass Apts. But that Zenaida is not a college professor. I'm confused there, and with what this might mean - could Casey have KILLED Nicole and stolen her ID? Zenaida who worked at the counseling center where Cindy sought services (hadn't hear of that, either) and not sure how it could be related.

Anonymous said...

I do recall the murder in the park of which Vita speaks. It was constantly mentioned when the Caylee case story broke in the news when Casey Anthony mentioned that park by name. Then the murder, not long before Caylee's "disappearance" was news, seem to be in national stories linked to the park where Casey supposedly looked for Caylee, brought out theories that the two crimes might be connected. I think then the murder of the jogger in the park was of only local interest.

Anonymous said...

Jury thought she was guilty, only procecution was not able to prove the cause of death.
Of course, so many month has passed. It seems if a body is well hidden or hidden for 6 months or more, there is no chance for justice for abused children.

Disposing and helping to dispose a body should be a crime punishable with long prison time.

Ladyluck WI said...

I don't believe GA & Cindy helped hide Caylee's body..did they have insight into the fact that she was deceased, yes.. but they didn't help casey wrap her up in duct tape and dispose of her so close to the house. GA an ex police officer would never be so dumb. there were probably family secrets to hide, and yes they knew more than they told but i do think Casey was alone in what happened to caylee. things would have gone differently had george and cindy truly been involved. its easy for us to see them cleaning up after casey and think they must have all thisk nowledge about what happened. well they have gut instincts because they know their daughter..therefore they are going to clean up and "shut up" but they truly didn't know all the details in my opinion. at one point i believe casey was able to filter "the woods" through her attorney back to cindy to help look but you can best believe if they truly knew wehre caylee was her body would have never been found there

Picked a Name said...

It strikes me that Casey refers to her boyfriend Tony as "Anthony." Her very own last name.
How far does her narcissism go?