"Would You Let Casey Anthony Babysit Your Kids?"

Recently in the news, we had an example from the Casey Anthony case that highlights several principles within Statement Analysis.  As the Casey Chanel, All Casey, All the Time, continues its count-down clock, a question was posed to one of the attorneys on Casey Anthony's defense team that allows us to highlight Statement Analysis.  First, however, we begin with what makes for a reliable denial:

"I didn't do it."


The formula for reliability is simple and is found in short sentences, as those who did not "do it" deny without sensitivity.  The formula is:


1.  First Person Singular
2.  Past Tense
3.  Event Specific 


These 3 elements are found in reliable denials.  When any of the three is missing, the statement is deemed "unreliable."  This includes the following example:


In the death of a child:  "I would never harm that girl."   


This has first person singular, but has two elements missing:  
1.  "would" is future/conditional tense
2.  "harm" is soft or minimizing language.  She was not "harmed", she was murdered.  Even if he had said "I didn't harm..." we could not call it reliable.  (You have also noted the word "that" establishes distance from the child; which would be reasonable for a stranger accused, but not for a family member)


Pronouns establish reliability and commitment.  Here are 5 ways in which a subject will run away from commitment. 


1.  change to "we"
2.  2nd person   you
3.  Using the subject's own name
4.  passive language
5.  Dropped pronouns

We will discuss specific examples in future articles.  But for today:

What about repeated pronouns?


If pronouns establish commitment and ownership, what happens when someone repeats a pronoun?  


For today, let's look at the repeated "I" from a non-stuttering person.  We find that the question that provokes such a repetition indicates, by number:  

2, I's  shows increase in stress
3 "I's" shows  anxiety
4 or 5 is close to a personal nervous breakdown
6, 7  or more:  hospitalization likely.  This is rare and usually found in a homicide in which the subject knew his victim and had intense emotions towards.

Let's look at our example.

Celebrating Casey Anthony attorney, Dorothy Sims, full of warm hugs and comfort for Casey Anthony during the trial, was asked by Joy Beihar

"Would you let Casey Anthony babysit your kids?"


Her answer began with a pause, which allows the subject time to think.  This is an indication of sensitivity.  But then she began, 


"I...I...I..."


and went on to avoid answering the question by stating her children were grown, and then upon redirection by the host, she used a gnostic-like answer of 'different' Casey Anthonys.


Firmly, she avoided answering the question:  Indicating sensitive question.  We often say "when the subject hasn't answered the question; the subject has answered the question.  Here, however, we not only have the sensitivity of the long pause, and of not answering the question, we have the pronoun, "I" repeated 3 times, indicating that the question itself provoked anxiety in the subject. 


She would not let Casey Anthony babysit her children.  


She did not want to deal with the stress of lying so she avoided the question (which is in context:  deceptive. It would have been honest to say "I don't want to answer it") but could not escape that strain of anxiety of such a thought:


The thought of Casey Anthony babysitting her children provoked anxiety in Dorothy Sims.   


She may have wanted to be deceptive, but the host as well as the commentators later, saw through her. 


This may indicate that she possesses a conscience that is not finally seared, but is aware that her efforts, even if just supporting the deceptive defense practices, has set a killer of a child free, and may pose a threat to children in society.