Why I Believe Cindy Anthony

/in /by
I believe Cindy Anthony is telling us the truth because her behavior is not consistent with someone who is being deceptive.

Put yourself in Cindy Anthony’s shoes and imagine your daughter accidentally killed, or allowed harm to be caused, or caused your granddaughter’s death. Let’s say you decided to cover for your daughter so she wouldn’t have to spend the rest of her life in jail, and that you know what happened to Caylee and ultimately where Caylee’s body ended up.

Would you ever consider:

  1. Calling the police?
  2. Three times?
  3. Would you tell the police you want your daughter arrested?
  4. Would you tell them your daughter as well as your granddaughter have been missing for a month?
  5. Would you say that her car smells like a dead body?
  6. And that she stole from you?

Remember, by protecting a criminal, you, too, are committing a crime.

Read moreI think I can say confidently most people would be mortified to do so, if they were harboring this secret–especially if they knew information or were involved in someway.

We all know that when we attract attention to ourselves, we will likely be scrutinized and looked at with a fine tooth comb–especially in a missing person’s case–and that is the last thing we ever wish to invite when we are lying.

Granted, there are people among us who think they are brilliant, and can pull off the perfect crime, and dupe everyone. These people do exist.

Could this be Cindy?

To dupe everyone, you have to have an extremely self-assured, bordering on arrogant personality. More often than not, too, these people demonstrate an exceptional level of intelligence. While we see a steadfast desire and strength in Cindy hoping that Caylee will return, I don’t believe we’ve seen supremacy or arrogance. Furthermore, Cindy’s personality is not consistent with the types of personalities who typically do this.

If Cindy were in on this secret, we can likely guess she would have also questioned and spoke to George who once worked in law enforcement. She would have gotten some good advice on how not to tip off the police, and I can be pretty confident George would tell Cindy and Casey to lay low, and to not draw attention to themselves–which is exactly the opposite of what they did. This doesn’t support a planned cover-up.

You can also bet Cindy and Casey, or Cindy and George would have dreamt up a much better story than the one about Zenaida Gonzaleous. They certainly would have made sure (a) that Zenaida babysat Caylee before, (b) that she truly lived where they said she did. That’s just plain old logic and common sense!

Even if they called the police and reported Caylee missing, I don’t believe they would have made any big fuss as we have seen here. This is too crazy to be scripted.

Sure, they may have called 911 weeks after Caylee disappeared, but I don’t believe that they would have supported Casey in taking off for weeks on end. After all, it is in these weeks after Caylee was last seen that Casey is accused of stealing money from her friends, her mother, dating multiple men, steal gasoline from her parents, lying to just about everyone she met, and was seen partying at a night clubs as if nothing was wrong. All of these images would build a horrible public opinion–which is the last thing Casey or her parents would want in case if they were in cohoots!

And if Casey’s parents are in on the secret and can be held accountable, you can bet Casey’s parents would have had a much more forceful hand on Casey and kept a much tighter rein on her, but they did not.

Outside of all of this, Cindy Anthony’s facial expression, body language, spoken words and actions are all consistent with a mom who is in complete denial that her daughter could do something so monstrous.

Nothing has been a red flag for me that Cindy is being deceptive about Caylee. Instead, I have only seen deep denial, genuine concern, and fear for her granddaughter which would be difficult to fake if she knew all the details of what truly happened.

If she were lying, I would see incredible self-doubt, and some level of paranoia, too. I also would have expected to see her thinking-on-her-feet to answer questions, stammering for words, stuttering or word searching– anything which indicates she isn’t experiencing this as she is leading us to believe. I don’t see any of this.

Based on all of these things, I don’t believe Cindy Anthony knows where Caylee ended up. Instead, I think she is living in a personal hell. Not only does she have to come to grips with the fact she may never see her granddaughter again, but she may have to accept her own daughter did it or played a part in it.

That has to be one of the hardest things to accept for any living soul. That’s too much for any sane person to have to cope with. I don’t blame Cindy for her emotional and raw pleas, her denial and outburst in this most challenging of times. If anything, my heart goes out to Cindy Anthony for all that she has had to endure in front of millions of people. It has to be any parent’s worst nightmare.

See Reader’s Opinion on Cindy:
July 25th – August 29th
August 29th – Sept 1st


Poll 2: Cindy Anthony

/in /by

Now that several weeks have past, do you still feel the same way?

To see what I think about Cindy Anthony, click here. My opinion has not changed.

Article on Presidential Candidates

/in , , /by

As you all know, I am not one to comment on political figures for a variety of reasons (see why here), but I thought this article was interesting and that you might enjoy it. The article talks about body language, facial expressions, and voice pitch.

Newswire Today
Clearwater Advisors Report Finds Obama Wins Public Speaking Competition with McCain

Arrest in Nona Dirksmeyer Case

/in , /by

Thanks to a reader, Joyce Ham, for informing me that there was an arrest Friday in the Nona Dirksmeyer case. On Friday police arrested a man, Gary Dunn, who lived in Dirksmeyer’s apartment complex at the time of her murder.

I originally wrote about the case in February of this year after Kevin Jones, Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, was tried for her murder and acquitted. Even though Jones acquitted last July, public opinion was not supportive of Jones.

“…even after being acquitted, Jones continued to face public scrutiny in Pope County. Arkansas Tech denied him admission for the fall semester, because Jones said he didn’t send in proper transcripts and the school viewed him as a safety concern. (source)”

Many people did not believe justice was served. That’s when my reader’s wrote me, and asked me for my opinion.

The police found Jones’ behavior questionable and suspicious. Watch as police interrogate Jones here.

Furthermore, Jones had failed a polygraph, and police believe they had Jones DNA on the murder weapon.

Nona’s parents also made it very clear on 48 Hours as well that they believed Jones was Dirksmeyer’s killer, too. Yet a jury didn’t find enough evidence to convict Jones.

Upon watching Jones speak on 48 Hours, I knew without a doubt he was innocent. I had no doubts about it. This case is particularly pleasing to see come to light now because Jones is a good man who does not deserve this injustice.

I will be curious to see how this case plays out. In the end, you have to wonder if the DNA on the condom wrapper in Dirksmeyer’s apartment is what finally brought Dunn into focus. Only time will reveal the details as right now as the police are keeping the details mum.

Guest Post: Opinions and the Law

/in /by

About the Guest Writer:
While he is choosing to remain anonymous, our guest writer today is a practicing attorney in the U.S. who is published nationally and abroad. He has been reading Eyes blog for over a year now on the account of being very curious about all things psychological. With that, he was kind enough to write a piece on opinions and the law that I thought readers of Eyes for Lies would enjoy. It applies not only to me, the author of this blog, but to you, the commenter as well.

When is an opinion libelous or slanderous?

There have been some comments on this site about whether Eyes for Lies could be held liable for publishing her opinions. I thought this might be helpful to explain the law in a way that I would explain it to my neighbor. The short answer is that Eyes for Lies has the right to publish her opinions on matters of public interest.

The Freedom of Speech

The first thing to recognize about the tort of defamation, which includes both libel and slander, is that it’s purposes are somewhat at odds with the first amendment. Defamation punishes certain types of speech, yet the first amendment more or less grants us the freedom to say what we want. If so, how does this all work together?

Read moreThe first amendment appears to protect anything anybody might say, but its not that simple. The first amendment does not protect a person from saying, “I will pay you to kill Mick.” Such a statement would be a conspiracy to commit murder, and as such, is clearly punishable by law.

This brings us to the first important distinction, which is between an act and an expression. The mentioned statement is not merely a statement about the state of reality, but rather it is an attempt to change the nature of reality. In essence, the statement is an act.

Unfortunately, finding the line that separates an act from a mere statement is difficult. The famous example given by the US Supreme Court is shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. This may cause people to flee in panic, creating a dangerous situation. And yet fleeing the theater is not illegal. So the difference comes down to an intention to create a direct harmful result which is different from an intention to express a fact or belief.

A couple of differences help to separate the two. The first is difference between an opinion and a fact. If one visits a car salesman, and the salesman says that his car would be great for me, and he is wrong, he has not committed fraud. It is his opinion that the car will be great for me.

If the salesman tells me that his car gets 75 miles to the gallon and he is wrong, and it only gets 30 miles to the gallon, then he has committed fraud. Here the salesman is stating a fact which is incorrect.

Another important difference, however, is between a true statement and a false statement. The line, thankfully, has not been drawn so strictly as to only protect statements that are actually true. The US Supreme Court has held that this would create an atmosphere of self-censorship and fear–where people might not speak out of fear that their statement may prove to be false. Instead, the line is drawn at speech the author knows to be false or could not reasonably believe. This is also a part of the tort of defamation. Therefore, lets move on to Defamation.

Defamation

The tort of defamation is typically understood as “any false and malicious statement published in a way calculated to injure a person.” This is what makes a statement defamation.

The statement must be false to be defamation. Therefore, a wise writer will express beliefs as beliefs, and not facts. For example, imagine reviewing a video of a woman accused of killing her husband. If you write “she is lying,” you may be saying something that is not true; and therefore, making a false statement. If you write “I do not believe her,” then you are making a true statement, even if it turn out the woman did not lie. This is because you are making a statement about yourself, and not the accused.

Notice how this is pretty much the same thing as stating an opinion protected by the first amendment. In essence, you have made it clear this is an opinion, which invites critical thought and enables the search for truth.

Another important part of the tort of defamation is that the statement has to be calculated to cause injury. Therefore, there has to be an intention to cause harm. Accidentally causing harm is not good enough, which brings us to the heart of the difference between commentary and defamation.

To be guilty of defamation, one has to be attempting to harm the subject. An example would be a man who wishes to marry an affianced woman. Therefore, he maliciously spreads lies about her fiancee to break up the planned wedding. Another example might be a banker who spreads lies about a competitor going bankrupt. In such cases, the reason for the lie is to cause harm.

Notice these are pretty much the same thing as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. The speaker is trying to hurt somebody. So this part of defamation is a lot like the protections provided by the first amendment. If the person really thought there was a fire, then he would not be doing anything wrong shouting “fire” because he is trying to help.

All in all, the freedom of speech means that careful authors are permitted to discuss the facts and offer opinions on public controversies without fear of lawsuits. As Justice Brennan wrote in Time, Inc. v. Hill, the first amendment guarantees “are not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us. A broadly defined freedom of the press assures the maintenance of our political system, and an open society… The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and the press.”

Disclaimer
(We attorneys love this type of thing! It is a sickness, I know.) This is not a legal memorandum or brief. As such, it will greatly summarize the law, which inevitable means that the loss of technical detail causes accuracy to be lost. I am not writing a textbook. If you write a long commentary about how my gloss overlooks some important doctrines arising out of New York Times v. Sullivan or otherwise act like a law school professor, I shall read it with all the contempt you have merited. If you have an honest question or comment, I shall endeavor to answer you with respect. If you desire a legal memorandum, I shall charge you accordingly.