High profile criminal case decisions could negatively impact juryselection

[caption id="attachment_11536" align="alignleft" width="319"] Casey Anthony - wikimedia commons[/caption]

Carol Forsloff---In a just and humane system, everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law, which was the reason for the concept of selecting juries  from a community of one’s peers to decide on the guilt or innocence of any given person in a civil or criminal case.  But will the effect of the George Zimmerman verdict and other high profile cases have a negative impact on jury selection?

Some media outlets speculate that the Zimmerman case will be one that will linger both in the public’s memory as well as in legal analyzes, future trials, and law school curriculum.

It took more than two months to select the jury in the OJ Simpson case, with the trial moved to the Los Angeles area to ensure a racial balance in the composition of those jurors selected.   Additionally they were told by Judge Ito that they had to complete a lengthy questionnaire of 79 pages with 295 questions, some of which caused some jurors to protest the personal nature of those questions.  This was added to the fact that Marcia Clark had complained to the judge that some of the people in the jury pool had lied in order to get on the jury and demanded a lie detector test be administered to all those anticipated to be selected.

All of this time and controversy became increasingly shrill over the progress of the Simpson case with the result, when Simpson was not convicted of killing his wife Nicole Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman  , there was an outpouring of sentiment both in favor the verdict and against it, with much of that sentiment fueled by discussions about race and the American system of justice.   There were intimations about white people being especially concerned about the verdict of Simpson’s innocence based upon the sentiment of the African American community, represented by those on the jury themselves.

The Casey Antony trial also provoked strong emotions.  Casey Anthony was tried in Florida for killing her toddler, Caylee.  Again questions were raised about the biases of jury members, the composition of the group and the fairness of the verdict, to the extent that many of the jurors refrained from disclosing their identities.  One of those jurors, Dean Eckstadt,  was quoted as saying on the Today show “We are upset that so many people think we are incompetent.” He did not think the jurors were afraid for their lives after the verdict, but most of the jurors on the case preferred to remain anonymous.  However one of the jurors, referred to as Juror No. 12, quit her job and left town because of the death threats she was reported to have received.

In the case of George Zimmerman, juror B37 maintains the deliberations and the decision was emotionally trying for all members of the jury.  She also tearfully explained they had been careful to arrive at a fair verdict.  Still most of the jurors have preferred to remain anonymous, and like the verdicts in the Simpson and Anthony cases, people question the juror’s decisions and the framework used to make those decisions.  Four of them distanced themselves from the opinions of Juror B37 who had said that Trayvon Martin had played a significant role in his own death.    They have requested privacy, issuing this statement: “Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us,” the statement said. “The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do.”

In the aftermath of the Simpson trial there was speculation about the racial divide but not specifically the safety of the jurors themselves, despite the unpopularity of the verdict of not guilty rendered by the jury.    In contrast, however, jurors on both the Anthony and Zimmerman cases have expressed concerns about their safety following their decisions.

How many people, of any race, after learning how juries are selected, the time it takes to make the decisions about a jury composition, and the potential personal vindication they might receive following a verdict if it does not follow public opinion will be willing to serve on a jury on a high profile case?

How might that impact the administration of a potential humanitarian and just decision when jurors must fear the aftermath of their decisions?

Death penalty inequity on trial in the United States

[caption id="attachment_9438" align="alignleft" width="242" caption="Troy Davis"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Casey Anthony was declared innocent of killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee in Florida, despite a host of incriminating, circumstantial evidence, according to experts, while Troy Davis was executed in Georgia for killing a policeman, as  the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) report released in July concluded that “race, geography, money, and other arbitrary factors continue to make receiving the death penalty as random as being “struck by lightning,” as Justice Potter Stewart observed in 1976.

Although Casey Anthony became a hated public figure, given the descriptions of how two-year-old Caylee’s disappearance was not reported by the mother until more than 30 days had passed and that the condition of the child’s body revealed horrific circumstances related to both the death and disposal of the body. Legal experts and others took turns proclaiming how clear the evidence was in pointing to Casey Anthony’s guilt. Objections to the verdict of innocent came from every part of the culture, when Casey, a young, white mother in Florida, was found innocent of killing her child. Even George Anthony, Casey’s father, told Dr. Phil in an interview after the trial he believes that his daughter was somehow involved in Caylee’s death, perhaps through an accident, but an accident that involved an extensive cover-up.

Troy Davis was executed on Wednesday night, following years of appeals and more than a million signatures on a petition requesting the courts to reconsider the death penalty in his case. Seven eyewitnesses at the trial recanted their testimony years later, while another man actually confessed to killing the policeman for which Davis was sentenced to death. Davis was a black man in Georgia who was found guilty of killing a white policeman.

While there are deviations from the DPIC report with respect to some of the specifics involved in comparing these two cases, eyewitness reports, that were recanted, had been the evidence used for the death penalty to be ordered for Davis. Circumstantial evidence of numerous types along with a lifetime of lies as background, with respect to Casey Anthony’s character, were underlined as insufficient for a guilty verdict, especially in a capital murder case.

The DPIC report states, “Many of those who favored the death penalty in the abstract have come to view its practice very differently. They have reached the conclusion that if society's ultimate punishment cannot be applied fairly, it should not be applied at all. The report then goes on to tell us that most of the nine justices who declared the death penalty did not violate the Constitution agreed the experiment had failed. Justices Blackman, Powell, and Stevens changed their minds and would have agreed with Justices Marshall and Brennan that capital punishment was unconstitutional.

The report goes on to review the inequities in capital punishment cases, especially that those defendants who are African American and kill white victims are more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill members of other races, especially white victims.  Most executions occur in a handful of states, largely in the South. Costs figure greatly in the quality of defense one receives. Finally, the states have different ways of reviewing cases so that in some states virtually all death sentences are upheld by state courts while in others they are overturned.

Troy Davis was executed in Georgia on September 21, 2011, after a state court upheld his execution on a vote of 3 to 2 and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

Scheduled execution amid the lessons of forgiveness

[caption id="attachment_7102" align="alignleft" width="163" caption="Mark Stroman"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - While some victims’ families long for justice with the severest punishment at times, others approach their grief with forgiveness as a Muslim man has done for a man scheduled to be executed  today.

After 9/11 Mark Anthony Stroman, 41,  a Dallas stonecutter, became enraged about the terrorism he believed would spread so he shot three people, killing two of them: Vasudev Patel,  a Hindu immigrant, and Waqar Hasan, a Pakistani-born Muslim.  The third victim, Rais Bhuiyan, a former Bangladesh Air Force pilot, was shot in the face at close range, but survived.

Stroman is to be executed July 20 at 7 pm EST for the shooting deaths, while Bhiuyan has pleaded for the life of the man who is scheduled to die for the hate crime committed after the terrorist bombing incident in New York on 9/11/2011.

A third shooting victim, Rais Bhuiyan, 37, a former Air Force pilot from Bangladesh, survived after Mr. Stroman shot him in the face at close range. Mr. Stroman admitted to the shootings.

Bhuiyan was blinded in his left ey in order to plead the case of the main who shot him.  He has also personally met with officials in Texas to prevent the election.

During an interview with the Death Penalty Organization, Bhuiyan discussed his concerns and what happened the day he was shot.   He said when Stroman came into the store where Bhuiyan was working as a clerk.  Stroman had asked, “Where are you from” before shooting Bhuiyan with a double barrel gun.   After describing the pain of the shooting and his fear before being shot, Bhuiyan continued, “Then he left the store. I could not believe he shot me. I thought I was dreaming, going through a hallucination. I didn’t do anything wrong. I was not a threat to him. I couldn’t believe someone would just shoot you like that.”  Even then Bhuiyan said he felt himself praying, realizing he was still alive and said, “ I was asking God, asking for forgiveness, saying I would do my best. Reciting verses from the Koran. I said I would dedicate my life to the poor. I felt my eyes were closing and it felt like my brain was shutting down slowly.

Before the execution Bhuiyan implored people to give Stroman a second chance and said he has trouble sleeping knowing that the killer of two other men will die for the crime before being able to make some sort of recompense.

The interviewer followed his telephone meeting with Bhuiyan than called STrroman and asked, “What do you think of Rais Bhuiyan’s efforts to keep you from being executed?”

Mr Stroman answered this: “Yes, Mr Rais Bhuiyan, what an inspiring soul...for him to come forward after what ive done speaks Volume’s...and has really Touched My heart and the heart of Many others World Wide...Especially since for the last 10 years all we have heard about is How Evil the Islamic faith Can be...its proof that all are Not bad nor Evil.”

“Not only do I have all My friends and supporters trying to Save my Life, but now i have The Islamic Community Joining in...Spearheaded by one Very Remarkable man Named Rais Bhuiyan, Who is a Survivor of My Hate. His deep Islamic Beliefs Have gave him the strength to Forgive the Un-forgiveable...that is truly Inspiring to me, and should be an Example for us all.

Rais Bhuiyan has made the following video that is being shown on websites asking for a moratorium of the scheduled execution.  In it he relates his story, how he was shot and what happened to him at the time and afterwards, as he pleads for Stroman’s life.

The Dallas News has joined others in asking that Stroman be spared execution. “Retribution, in fact, is one element of the death penalty that the Supreme Court has cited in allowing its use. With the victims of the Stroman spree now dropping the demand for retribution — vengeance, essentially — the state is left alone in seeking it. Moral authority, though, has fallen away.”

At the same time, people continue to ask for some sort of punishment for Casey Anthony, in the wake of the not guilty verdict in the trial where she had been accused of killing her tot, Caylee.   Many people hope for some sort of retribution for Caylee's death, and a penalty for the mother despite the jury verdict, blaming the members of the jury and People and looking at how the law can be changed in some way to prevent what they consider an unjust decision.

But those who support the peaceful way of managing feelings about hate and violence have been asked by the Texas Moratorium Network to join Bhuiyan and others in stopping the execution of Stroman by calling Governor Perry at 512 463 2000 or writing the governor using  a form on his website.  People were also told they could join a Facebook event page for a silent vigil with Bhuiyan.

One of the most famous examples of forgiveness occurred following the killing of six Amish girls by  Charles Carl Roberts in a one-room school in Pennsylvania in October 2006.  After authorities approached the area after being alerted that Roberts was holding ten girls at the school, intending to rape and potentially kill them, Roberts asked the girls to pray with him.  They did, and yet were still shot dead before Roberts shot himself with the same gun he used on the children.

The Amish community responded with public forgiveness, to the extent that they attended Roberts’ funeral and allowed the wife of the man who had killed their children to attend the funerals of some of the girls. Among many of the reports of Amish forgiving response was this statement by one of them, "Even though there has been this terrible thing [that has] happened, [we] don't need to think about judgment, [we] need to think about forgiveness and going on."

The Friends Journal points out how some of the media wondered in print and on television, in shock and amazement as many were at the level of forgiveness of the Amish, whether in fact replicating that in the rest of society might be foolhardy.  Others said it offered a unique opportunity for people to examine their hearts and consciences and see if there might be a better way than to seek death for death as retribution.

The Journal quotes the essay by Joan Chittister about applying that same forgiveness after 9/ll and perhaps it might be appropriate in the light of a pending execution to look at the level of forgiveness of Bhuiyan and the Amish in the way we manage our feelings and behaviors following such terrible crimes as child murders and 9/11.  As Chittister has said, deep down we have a chance to do the same.

Yet even as the Amish asked forgiveness and Bhuiyan pleaded for clemency from Governor Perry, Stroman was put to death at 9:53 pm, ET, according to a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

s

Witness Protection Program as refuge for N.O. detective

[caption id="attachment_7085" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Danziger Bridge"][/caption]

A detective involved with the Danziger Bridge shooting decided to open up to authorities,  and there is speculation whether he can be hidden  in the witness protection program for testifying about police shooting of  innocent people who were seeking  help during Hurricane Katrina.

Wbrz.com relates the story of a conversation that occurred between Sgt. Robert Gisevius and a former detective who had been cooperating with the FBI, where the detective speculated about what was going to happen to him after the trial.   Gisevius is also said to have wondered if a “weak link could sink the ship,”  in reference to Sgt. Arthur Kaufman who had agreed to speak with federal authorities about what happened the night of the shooting.

While Casey Anthony, recently released from jail after being declared not guilty in the death of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, has gone into hiding, according to media reports, witnesses who testify on behalf of the government can be protected under a special program called the Witness Protection Program.  This has some similarities to Casey’s assistance from her lawyers and others to hide her from angry people who may be outraged enough to harm her following the controversial verdict.  Her security, however, is not the same as the type the government affords for witnesses.   Whether that lifetime security will be available to a police officer in the case of the policeman involved in the Danziger Bridge incident that occurred in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina may only be speculative on the part of those who talk about it now.

The Witness Protection Program is a service that protects witnesses in special, major criminal cases from intimidation and harm.  It is a security program that allows the person to be given a new identity and place to live.  It not only applies to witnesses but close family members as well.  The evidence the witness provides must be substantial and related to a major felony.  If a witness’ life is threatened after giving such testimony, witness protection can be offered.

Some of the people who have been given witness protection are known criminals.  It may be surprising to learn that crooks are protected by the government when they give testimony aiding the prosecution in a case, but that evidence they provide has to be substantial, as the cost of protection is considerable.

Naked Law has examined the Witness Protection Program and observes that whereas the US marshals maintain that no one under their security has been harmed, the problem arises when a witness moves outside the rules that are set forth in the program.  That program requires the witness not contact others, return home or be involved with past acquaintances or even family members.  The website also points out that 14 states have witness protection programs and despite the promise of security a number of witnesses have been harmed.  Naked Law cites Colorado where at least 16 witnesses in the state’s witness protection program have been killed.  Furthermore the conditions for security are not the “Club Med” type of environment, but that it does provide 24 hour security.  Unlike television dramas, witnesses are not required to change their appearance or fake their death in order to receive protection.

The policemen in the Danziger bridge trial may have been under duress in the trial, but the Witness Protection Program has strict parameters for an individual to be included and no guarantee that any given individual will receive that protection in exchange for testimony unless there has been strong evidence provided, threats against the witness' life and a previous agreement for that protection.

A killer in the family: everyone has a story

[caption id="attachment_7022" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Alone"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - It’s hard to grow up loving someone and then find that person becomes a killer, something that can hurt for many years and impact whole families.

“Everyone has a story,” she says, and it is this that keeps her secure and able to function past the sensation that the killing caused years ago and that encompassed her entire family.

Her brother killed his wife and children.  The newspaper story uncovered and reported the details.  Family members were approached for their responses, as they tried to go on with their lives.  They were asked repeatedly how they felt about having a killer in the family.

“I said as little as possible, “ she told a journalist one afternoon.  “I answered, ‘how do you think I feel,” to those who inquired about it.  Of course, it was a tragedy, something I won’t forget.  But I loved my brother and still do.  Loving a family member means sorting out what the person does from the relationship that exists long before.  It means hating what happened but not the person.  It might be something other people can consider when thinking about their feelings when someone they love commits a crime.”

The media asks questions of crime victims’ families and family members are asked what signs they might have seen that their violent family member exhibited that hinted of potential problems.  But often the families are grieving, as they express the kind of loss that takes place when someone is killed, and it is their loved one who has been accused or found guilty of the crime.

Some families deny the guilt altogether.  Other families are torn by the stress.  Some go on with their lives, not forgetting, but also not letting those memories of the worst impact what they do in the future.

For some, like Susan Smith, the mother from South Carolinia who killed her children by driving a car with them into a lake, the aberrance within the family is said by some to have been a motivating factor in her behavior.  Her father committed suicide in Susan’s childhood, and her stepfather was said to have sexually molested her to the point Susan had to have counseling, while the family rejected her pleas.

Scott Peterson, 36,  received the sentence of death in March 2005 when he was convicted of murdering his wife Laci and unborn son, Conner.  He is now appealing his conviction and is supported by his family in that appeal.  Furthermore he has frequent visits from family and friends, plays basketball  and has recreation with other inmates five hours daily in his prison home, San Quentin,   He is perceived as killing his wife and the subject of the death of the son is seen differently than if he had directly killed a child, according to sources that have followed up the case.
Samuel Robinson, a lieutenant with the California Department of Corrections,  is quoted as saying that Peterson has a fairly full life with friends and family visits and keeps a picture of his wife, Laci, prominent in his cell, as those supporters protest his innocence, in spite of a trial conviction.   "He has a significant amount of money in his account from people all over the world,"  Robinson told People magazine.

While the media presented a negative profile of Jeffrey Dahmer’s mother, those who knew her before her death in 2000 from breast cancer tell the story of a woman in anguish over having a son who committed such terrible crimes.  Joyce "Rocky" Flint was 64 when she died.  With a Masters degree in counseling, Flint had worked as a mental health counselor in the treatment of AIDS patients as well as a case manager in a retirement facility.  She was employed as a counselor the year Jeffrey, her son, was arrested, charged and convicted of killing 17 young men and boys in Milwaukee, after mutilating and cannibalizing them.   The Los Angeles Times reported on Flint’s death and quoted Julio Mastro as saying, "She was enthusiastic, and she was compassionate, and she turned her own tragedy into being able to have a great deal of empathy for people with HIV," Julio Mastro was then executive director of the Living Room, an HIV community center.   Dahmer himself had told his attorneys she was a great mother.  But the accent by some of the media was on Dahmer’s being alone at age 18 when his parents both left the home, intimating the mother's culpability in creating the personality of Dahmer who could commit such terrible crimes.

Casey Anthony is to be released on Sunday, with the plans under wraps today.  She was accused of murdering her child, Caylee and found not guilty of the crime.  Her family was described during the trial as dysfunctional.  That family faces an unknown future, with some who may move on like the woman whose brother killed his family.  But some may use what happened to motivate them to do good in the world and some may deny any problems at all,  but the memories like others will last.

The woman whose husband killed his family had this to say at the end, the value of which may be far greater than just getting past an event.  “Everyone has a story.   I remember that.  That can be a severe illness, the loss of a loved one, the ruin of one’s reputation, or the pain from something terrible  happening, that affects the person or a member of the family.    When we think we’re the only one who has had to suffer, we turn the corner and learn of the tragedy of someone else.”

Then she reminded me of the great poem “Desiderata,” and an excerpt that says this:

"Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here. "

Mob mentality, media sin and response to Casey Anthony verdict

[caption id="attachment_6526" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Judge's tools"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - The Orlando Sentinel in Florida covered the case against Casey Anthony for three years, and that coverage has been bastardized with opinion arguments by other newspapers, bent on making judgments far too soon in a fashion that demoralizes the fabric of our justice system.

It is that tendency to create a mob mentality that is likely at the core of the media’s lingering demise and lack of public trust.  It is the tendency on all sides to make judgments before the facts are in.  This has been true in criminal cases and politics, where it’s the latest  sport to follow the popular view instead of the facts themselves.

Objectivity has been lost in many ways, from the Andy Weiner saga to the Casey Anthony case.  Weiner’s public career is ruined, his marriage likely frayed, and his personal life in disarray because the amount of media focus along with judgment made more melodrama than fact for entertainment.   The titillation about the sex itself was of far more consequence than understanding the nature of the behavior itself and how in many ways it has gripped so many folks.

In the Casey Anthony trial, and the background before it began, much of the media focused early on Casey’s alleged guilt.  The back story of how decisions are made for trial had little focus when the fun was in the description of an alleged baby killer, made worse by the fact that it was a mother accused of killing her child.

Public response reveals, however, that the truth is lost in the lie fostered early on, a lie that Casey Anthony was guilty of killing Caylee before the facts were known and sorted out by experts.  People took the sides that had been outlined by the media, reinforced by talking heads on television too.

Those who care for justice, and for the long-term welfare of the news and the true preservation of American values, hesitated to give their public views.  There were experts early on, like Kim Iannetta,  a behavioral profiler, who cautioned folks should wait and not crucify Casey Anthony, as was happening in the press.  Instead her analyses focused on the kind of behaviors that develop aberration in families and the learning we can derive from understanding those behaviors.   The courts, she pointed out, are the true places where decisions are made.

Decisions should also not be made by the press who have not been given the authority to establish one’s guilt or innocence, as occurs in a court of law.  It is not their Constitutional position.

When the decision was announced that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing two-year-old Caylee, the commentators issued their surprise and interviewed the people all around the courtroom who gave the same response.  Surprised they were, and we should not therefore be surprised when the truth about the law is lost in the maze of media  hype.  Those of us who focused on case elements to demonstrate how the system works were pummeled by page-view hounds who looked for ego strokes instead.

American justice outlines a process that may not always seem fair when folks don’t understand just what that process means.  In the case of Casey Anthony, the goal was to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  When doubt is reasonable, the legal innocence is fair.  The moral guilt or innocence has other judgment apart from human view, the pain and suffering that occurs in trials such as these.  It also comes in other ways we must now trust and remember as we do, that judgment always comes in its own way.

The 'bad seed’ diagnosis and the Casey Anthony case

[caption id="attachment_6307" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Bad tree from Bad Seed"][/caption]








Carol Forsloff - Years ago a famous movie called The Bad Seed depicted a girl seemingly without conscience whose  bad behavior pervaded her relationships, including those with her family, the kind that Casey Anthony is compared to now; but is there such a thing as “a bad seed" in a legal case involving the killing of a child?

The storyline of the film, The Bad Seed, is this, according to the description provided by the creators of the film: “Christine Penmark seems to have it all: a lovely home, a loving husband and the most "perfect" daughter in the world. But since childhood, Christine has suffered from the most terrible recurring nightmare. And her "perfect" daughter's accomplishments include lying, theft and possibly much, much worse. Only Christine knows the truth about her daughter and only Christine's father  knows the truth about her nightmare.”  The film was made in 1956.

Today Casey Anthony is on trial, accused by the prosecution in a death penalty trial in Florida, of killing her two-year-old daughter, Caylee.  Numerous talking heads from law, psychology and the media analyze the elements of the case as it has unfolded in the trial and point to details that mirror the Bad Seed movie script.

But Casey Anthony’s trial is not a movie script, although the screaming “fans” were shown fighting for position to get into the courtroom where the drama of the trial took place.

Cindy Anthony, mother of Casey, is accused of lying to protect her daughter.  Both the defense and the prosecution also point to deceitful ways of Casey’s father, George, as part of the family problems.   Experts from various fields have looked at patterns within the family and report on its dysfunction.  Furthermore the defense in the case maintains that only Casey’s father, outside of Casey herself, knows the truth about what really happened to Caylee.  The details replicate much of the movie’s outline, so what is the nature of “bad seeds” and are there people with inherent tendencies that produce the type of behavior that would lead to killing a child?

The notion that some children are inherently bad is one some mental health professionals support, while others strenuously disagree and maintain dysfunction occurs because of specific types of behaviors a child models in the environment and the constellation of the family.

Amy Webb, Ph.D., examines Dr. Richard Friedman’s contention that some children are badly behaved “because everyday character traits, like all human behavior have hard-wired and genetic components that cannot be molded entirely by the best environment.”  Dr. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry who was interviewed by the New York Times in 2010 to discuss whether or not there is such a thing as a “bad seed.”  He uses the example to show how all other children in a family can be well-behaved but one may stand out as “bad.”

Webb takes exception to Friedman’s argument and says, “I strongly disagree with this idea and I think much of the child development research does too. Yes, children have genetic predispositions towards a lot of characteristics, both physical and psychological. However, this is just a predisposition, not fate. Much of what determines how a predisposition is expressed depends on how parents, teachers, and others in the environment react to the child.”

One of the most prevalent explanations for the type of behavior that leads to  a“bad seed” is one advanced by Dr. David Lykken.  He maintains that psychopaths are distinctly different than other people beginning in childhood and don't respond with normal inhibition.  He also says that most antisocial behaviors where the child seemingly has no conscience and exhibits antisocial behavior is actually caused by poor parenting, absentee fathers and inadequate mothers as a usual pattern.

Parents with poor child-rearing abilities will respond inadequately or inappropriately during the time the child is being socialized.  Lykken suggests the child often irritates them, and the child then acts out.   Although there have been research studies using twins to assess criminality,  Lykken acknowledges that it is true twins raised separately  may each have a criminal-type behavior, showing aggression and sensation seeking, but that these behaviors can be channeled into doing good or bad things.  It is up to the parents to guide the child in making the right choices.

In addition to the psychological and psychiatric debates, neurologists point to brain activities that suggest psychopaths have brain activities that are abnormal.  Consequently those afflicted with this neurological pattern end up doing things that excite the nervous system, thus becoming involved in thrill-seeking activities.

Bad seed theories examine  the various mechanisms that are intertwined in creating violent behavior.   A cogent explanation on how a Gary Gilmore or a Dennis Nilsen, both serial killers, can become seriously violent is through a process that seems to most promote antisocial behavior is advanced by Psychologist Lonnie Athen.  She tells us that such a person,"is a victim of violence and feels powerless to avoid it. Then he is taught how and when to become violent and to profit from it. Then he acts on that. If a person from a violent environment does not become violent, it is because some part of the process is missing.”

The Anthony family has been outlined by experts following the trial as having serious dysfunction and patterns of deception, while the defense maintains the father, George Anthony, molested his daughter throughout her childhood, a type of violent behavior that is conducive to developing antisocial  behavior.   The lack of coherent testimony about various details related to the death of two-year-old Caylee reflects the differences within the family core.

Experts differ on the specifics of how antisocial behavior develops and the bad seed theories that proliferate in cases like that of Casey Anthony, but they all agree that there is such a thing as an antisocial person seemingly without conscience who can have an outwardly normal appearance and a family the face of propriety that can lead to violence and murder.  The clinical enumeration of those “bad seed” behaviors can be found here, in a summary of the traits defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the text used for diagnosing and classification of mental disorders.

Maternal parenting dysfunction in Florida murder case

[caption id="attachment_5983" align="alignleft" width="214" caption="Criminal -profiling expert, Kim Iannetta--Trialrun"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Handwriting analysis is often criticized for its lack of scientific foundation and the lack of serious study found in its application in the courts, but Kim Iannetta has solidified her work in recognizing dangerousness in writing in an advanced way  as she examines the murder case against Casey Anthony and the role of  Casey's mother, Cindy, in the development of her daughter’s dysfunctional patterns.

Iannetta has practiced handwriting analysis for nearly fifty years.  During that time she attained a reputation for her superior ability in pinpointing the deviance of different individuals who have mental illness or criminal behavior.    To solidify that reputation,  years ago she participated in a scientific study at Hawaii State Hospital where her analyses of psychiatric patients were found to correlate significantly with those of professionals in psychology and psychiatry.

Over the years Iannetta has been admired for her uncanny ability to assess specific behavioral  characteristics of people through her system of profiling.  Her book, Danger Between the Lines, is used by security departments, police officers, detectives, psychologists and others in the mental health or security professions as a tool to assess dangerousness in clients or crooks.

One of the most famous cases in Hawaii  that utilized Iannetta’s proficiencies, was one involving former Chief of Police Gibbs and a threatening letter.  Police were trying to determine the letter’s author because of the potential danger from those threats.   Iannetta was asked to identify the writer, and to do so she used techniques of both document examination and behavioral analysis, two specialties in which she has expertise.   Working with the police Iannetta used writing samples from the Department of Motor Vehicles in Hawaii and identified the writer of the threatening letter, leading to criminal experts in security, law and behavioral sciences to rely upon her work in future cases.

In the case of Casey Anthony, the mother accused of killing her daughter Caylee in a high profile trial being followed by millions of people around the world, Iannetta has examined the  elements of it  as well as handwriting samples that have been printed in the Orlando newspapers.  Her careful eye for detail and her ability to synthesize data from a variety of sources has allowed her  to make a reasonable estimate about serious problems within the Anthony family.  Parenting problems helped form the personality of a daughter who could lie without apparent emotion and be involved in a murder as heinous as the one of Caylee Anthony, the tot allegedly  killed by her mother,  Casey, according to the prosecution in this case.

What Iannetta has concluded is the Anthonys to be a dysfunctional family in its broadest and most classic sense.  The core of lying behavior is seen in Cindy Anthony, a cold, distant and punitive mother of Casey, whose need to  look good even when circumstances are bad led to a pattern of manipulation and deceit within the family constellation.  It is the reason Casey Anthony might lie about the death of her child and continue to fabricate more and more stories over time, each different in focus than the other and each revealing how the Anthony patterns of deceit have been dramatized at their worst.

Iannetta examined the  writing of all family members, however this article looks primarily at the assessment of Cindy Anthony whom Iannetta describes as having personality defects that helped set the stage for Casey's acting out behavior and potential to kill  Caylee.   Iannetta strongly believes in the American system of justice of innocence until proven guilty and theorizes that Casey could have killed her daughter accidentally, then covered up the crime.  But Iannetta’s focus has been to look at the  individual members of the family to hypothesize about the motivation for their behaviors as opposed to making a judgment about the guilt or innocence of Casey specific to killing Caylee.

Iannetta at the outset tells us, “This is a very dysfunctional family, “ then goes on to describe Cindy Anthony as the foundation for much of that dysfunction.

[caption id="attachment_5984" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Cindy Anthony handwriting"][/caption]

“In looking at Cindy’s writing, one can observe the characteristics thsat show her to be  conventional, organized, a doer, but someone for whom appearances are more important than substantive truth.  When things don’t look right, she can lie and make up stories, something that is said to have become a pattern in her daughter Casey’s life.

Cindy’s focus with her family is to hurry to make things right.  Her writing reveals a lack of empathy for real feelings to be expressed.   While her husband, George, relies on her for family connections; it wouldn’t be surprising to learn he had affairs because of Cindy’s over-riding conventional concerns and lack of warmth.

It’s in the relationship with her daughter Casey that Cindy’s handwriting gives evidence of control, jealousy and lack of warmth in maternal parenting behavior.   She has likely been jealous of the emotional ties between her husband, George, and Casey, as it is likely Casey got her affection mostly from her father.  That jealousy has led to more lies in order to cover up the family problems now revealed in the murder trial against Casey.  Casey, immature, and narcissistic, needed to get free.

The tragedy, Iannetta concludes,  does not just come from in the constellation of the family dynamics, but those that have taken place outside the courtroom as well.  That too is a type of dysfunction Iannetta sees in a culture that has not strayed far from those maddening crowds of long ago that enjoyed the spectacle of gladiator games when folks were killed.  “We need to remember Casey is on trial for her life, and any addition I am making to the understanding in this case is done in order to help folks recognize how family patterns can lead to awful things, as happened in the case of the Anthony family, where one of its members is facing a murder conviction and the death penalty.”



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Handwriting examples provided by Trialrun:

[caption id="attachment_5988" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Casey Anthony writing"][/caption]











[caption id="attachment_5989" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Casey Anthony signature"][/caption]











[caption id="attachment_5991" align="alignleft" width="244" caption="George Anthony"][/caption]

Jury selection issues that make the difference in major criminal cases

[caption id="attachment_4505" align="alignleft" width="228" caption="Danger Between the Lines by Kimon Iannetta"][/caption]

Attorneys like Andy Weiner, now of the Obama administration, have used behavioral profilers, as have other attorneys, many of whom say that they can be helpful in making a decision about who might be the right choice for a jury, as is particularly significant in a case like that of Casey Anthony.

Casey Anthony is accused of killing her young daughter Caylee, who went missing in 2008 when she was two years old with her body found months later near the home of the grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony.  Evidence, according to the prosecution’s investigation, points to Casey Anthony, the mother of the child, as the killer.  The high-profile case begins today with jury selection.

Guilt or innocence is something justice says must be decided fairly.  Yet a key problem in the case has to do with the widespread publicity and whether Casey Anthony will have a fair trial.   The justice system upholds the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, which is the right Casey has before the law.  On the other hand, when there is so much sentiment and media glare, it is difficult to get an unbiased jury.  That’s when behavior profiling can count.

Kim Iannetta is a behavioral profiler with considerable experience over more than 20 years.  Her book called Danger Between the Lines has been used by criminal experts for many years, as she has research that supports the efficacy and value of her approach to behavioral analysis.  She is one of the few that has research to support her work.  She says, “This is a difficult case, but trained observations of behavioral details both in person and then those tell-tale signs of writing, can be helpful in making the right choice for a jury.  Iannetta’s book has been a useful guide for experts in making these assessments.

While behavioral profiling may be questioned, most attorneys want to use whatever they can find to be fair and accurate in getting the results they want.  The better choices, the more fair, the better the outcome of the case, so it won’t have to be retried or an innocent person found guilty.

Casey Anthony is beginning that journey to the concrete standing before justice in the courtroom.  Fair and honest support for finding the right jury, Iannetta tells us, is an important way in making sure that justice prevails.

What is it like to be a family member of a killer or accused killer?

 

[caption id="attachment_7199" align="alignleft" width="193" caption="Rev. Jim Jones"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - John Wayne Gacey, one of America's worst serial killers, and the son of Jim Jones were on the Oprah Show last week speaking of the complications caused by a family member who has killed, so how has this issue impacted others? 

Gacey's sister and Jim Jones Jr. both reiterated the fact they had to deal with their feelings for a long time, with difficulty, and that there were conflicted feelings in how they emotionally managed to get through the process of continuing to love the person and despise the deed that was done. 




Their message was just that, maintaining a balance of loving the family member in the recall of positive events that had occurred in the relationship, which allowed them to deal with the knowledge there was a killer in the family, and in the case of both Gacey and Jones, serial killers of renown. 

How have others handled this type of issue in families, when a family member is either found guilty of murder or is accused of killing?  Some high profile cases  reveal the ambivalence and emotional pain experienced by family members of people accused of, imprisoned or executed for horrible crimes. 

Susan Smith’s mother, Linda, has written a book about her daughter and her dilemma as mother of a convicted killer. Susan Smith has been in jail for nearly two decades for killing her two young children.   

Jeffrey Dahmer’s father also wrote a book about his feelings, his experiences, his recollections of the son who was convicted of cannibalizing and killing young men. Will the parents of Casey Anthony, if their daughter is convicted of killing her daughter Caylee, write a book as well? The ultimate pain and shame of parents of children who kill is born out by their stories, some shown in the press at the time, and some told later by way of the books they write. 

Casey Anthony’s parents, George and Cindy Anthony, were on the news frequently after their granddaughter, Caylee, was reported missing.  They implored for anyone who had seen their little granddaughter Caylee to come forward. They were also said to have wavered in their feelings about the guilt or innocence of their daughter Casey. In the eyes of the public, as reflected in the stories written about this case, the grandparents have been portrayed as either being too much in denial about their daughter’s possible guilt or victims themselves in this tragedy. Given this wide swing in social perception, how could it not be difficult for these people during the period while their daughter, Casey, waits to be tried for murder, and possibly face the death penalty, for killing her toddlery, Caylee?

Susan Smith’s childhood was reported to be seriously troubled with her mother, Linda, having married at the age of 17 and the family involved in intense arguing that led one of Susan’s brothers, Michael, to attempt suicide. Her parents divorce was an emotionally fraught experience for everyone, it was said, so much so that Susan’s father, Harry, committed suicide. Susan was sexually abused by her stepfather, Beverly Russel, for years, an issue that continued despite family counseling. So Susan’s mother lives with the killing of her grandchildren, the imprisonment of her daughter for their death, and the memories of the sex abuse also. That contributes to the Linda’s ultimate pain she writes.   Linda Smith explains why she wrote her book My Daughter Susan Smith, as this,

My daughter Susan Smith was never a violent person, never abused her children. She never committed an act of any kind that those close to her could point to later as an omen of the killing of her children. She loved them dearly. They were her life. But she sent 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alex to their deaths in John D. Long Lake on a dark October night.  

 

In the 6 years since Susan was found guilty of murder, I am just now beginning to understand the silent devastation of mental illness. Obviously, I have to accept that Susan was responsible for the deaths of her children. But where does responsibility lie for what happened along the way that got her in that mental shape?

This book is a quest for understanding--for myself and for others.

 

 

Later on an author by the name of Don Davis in 1997 wrote a book entitled Hush Little Babies: The True Story Of A Mother Who Murdered Her Own in which both the lives of Linda and Susan were told. Linda remains grieved, it is said, over the circumstances of her life and that of her daughter, Susan. As of the last report of the family, it was said the members remain silent about the case these days.

 

Lionel Dahmer, father of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, has written his story as well, simply titled A Father’s Story. The contents of the book are described like this:

A Father's Story' chronicles Lionel Dahmer's reflections and reminiscences of his son, Jeffrey, a serial killer. Despite the gory crimes committed by his son, the elder Dahmer finds it hard to judge Jeffrey the way his accusers have. The worst imaginable nightmare for most parents is to discover that one of their children has been murdered. For Lionel Dahmer, the discovery that Jeffrey Dahmer, his son, had murdered so many other people's children is what has turned his life into an unimaginable nightmare. Arrested at his Milwaukee apartment in 1991 and sentenced to 957 years in prison, Jeffrey Dahmer had taken the lives of seventeen men,

 

Some authors have discussed Lionel Dahmer’s book and the confusions he relates and have declared that in many ways, Jeffrey Dahmer was his father’s son. Those stories that will likely continue are sure to continue the pain of Dahmer’s family.

 

 Cindy and George Anthony stand in the same place as other parents with a daughter accused of killing the granddaughter they loved, and having to face a trial in that court of public opinion and the one their daughter Casey must face on charges of killing her child.

The family of Amanda Knox has an especially painful situation, as relayed by the press regularly.  The publicity is said to be painful, and the family is appealing Amanda Knox conviction.  But the court in Italy has been reported as stern and considering adding years to Amanda's sentence because of claims both she and her parents defamed the court. Amanda Knox was found guilty of killing her roommate in Italy and is serving a 26-year sentence for the crime.

 

The public, as with other cases, is likely to be confused as they vacillate between concern for these parents and grandparents and problems concerning any issues the prosecution finds related to them. It won’t be easy for these families in the future, as the cases of other parents have painfully shown.

 

 

Brad Conway, the attorney who has represented George and Cindy Anthony, told Meredith Viera on the Today Show more than one year ago that the Anthony's stand by their daughter but had not visited her for months and won't as long as they have to be watched and recorded during each visit.  They are reported to have conflicts and grief regarding the events surrounding their daughter and the death of their granddaughter.

 

 

It is those conflicts, that grief, and those memories families must weigh, as discussed in the cases of Gacey and Jones today on the Oprah show.