When we speak of a Reliable Denial, we think in terms of the three components, disqualifying any addition or subtraction, as well as any word smithing, or linguistic "gymnastics" that are sometimes done.
We disqualify parroting back answers, and simply look for the person to guide us. In 2012 she said:
"Obviously, I didn't kill my daughter. If anything in this world, I was more proud of was my daughter. She was my greatest accomplishment. I didn't kill my girl."
Let's look at it again, this time, with emphasis added.
"Obviously, I didn't kill my daughter.
"Obviously" is a word that is added to her denial. The reliable denial has the first person singular ("I"), past tense verb ("didn't") and meets the allegation. By adding the word "obviously" she has added to her denial, but this is not all that we should look at.
1. "Obviously" means that we should take something without question to be true. Casey Anthony was acquitted of killing her daughter. Is this what she means by "obviously"? She has added to the 3 components, and we do not take her word for anything.
2. Did Xanax or another drug (chloroform) kill her daughter?
3. Did the duct tape around Caylee's mouth kill her?
We also note that Caylee is called "my daughter" here. Her quote continues:
If anything in this world, I was more proud of was my daughter.
She was my greatest accomplishment.
I didn't kill my girl."
Notice the narcissistic nature of the language: the dead child was her greatest accomplishment, placing the focus on Casey, herself.
Note, "I didn't kill my girl" ends the quote, just as "obviously" began it.
What caused the change in language from "my daughter" to "my girl"?
A change in language should represent a change in reality. If not, it is a signal that the person is not speaking from experiential memory.
In context, what is the difference between "my daughter" and "my girl"?
Since the sentence structures are similar, I do not see anything that could justify the change in language.
To say "Deception indicated" would need Casey's own word, "obviously" added to it.
To us, it is not "obvious" that Casey did not kill her daughter, and as she adds the word, "obvious" we see her go beyond the three components to a fourth, disqualifying her denial, but it is her change from "my daughter" to "my girl" that stands out to me. Both are in the same context of not killing.
What would cause her to change her language here? Nothing comes from a vacuum.
I do think that the word "obviously" does refer to the outcome of her trial; that in the eyes of the court, she did not kill her child.
What would a reliable denial have looked like?
A reliable denial looks like "the expected" in Statement Analysis.
"I didn't kill Caylee. I didn't drug her, nor put her in the trunk. I didn't put duct tape around her mouth. I didn't cause her death. "
This is what is expected (the obvious) from an innocent mother. She knows the allegations and can speak directly to them (component number three).
The "obvious" is the expected.
Statement Analysis is confronted by the "unexpected."
In the case of Casey Anthony, the "unexpected" is the norm.
The upcoming movie and documentary will provide no new information for us.
Casey is not going to tell the truth about why she killed Caylee. She continues to hide, while likely seeking out the most lucrative 'tell all' possible, particularly with time passing, in the hopes that the anger of a nation will subside.
Casey will not tell the truth.
Casey was raised by a woman unafraid to lie under oath before God.