Seeking Justice

by Katherine Scardino 

Anthony Graves is now 46 years old. He was sentenced in 1994 by a jury to die for committing capital murder in Texas and has been incarcerated since August 1992. In 2006, his conviction was overturned by the appellate court for prosecutorial misconduct. The misconduct was the state’s failure to tell the defense that the co-defendant had been trying to tell the prosecution for a long time that he lied on Anthony, saying that Anthony Graves had nothing to do with this case. The co-defendant was also tried by a jury and sentenced to death. In 2000, he was executed. While lying on the gurney, waiting for his lethal injection, he turned to the people watching this killing, and announced, again, that Anthony Graves had nothing to do with this crime. That is about as powerful a statement as you can get.

One week ago, I received a call from the prosecutor. She told me she was dismissing the case against my client, Anthony Graves. I lost my breath. It was an astonishing statement to hear in a case like this. Anthony’s defense team has been fighting for his innocence for years. I have been on this case only three years, and there have been other lawyers before me. My co-counsel, Jimmy Phillips, Jr., and each and every one of those dedicated, smart lawyers told me that we were representing an innocent man. And, I do not mean “technically” innocent, or “not proven,” or that the evidence was lost, stolen or somehow dissipated over the years. I mean really purely innocent. He did not commit this crime.

So, what happened to make a newly appointed, seasoned, tough prosecutor make such a pronouncement? Especially knowing that it would be one she would have to defend. It is very simple. She and her investigator actually investigated. One would assume that in 1992, when he was accused of this crime, there would have been an investigation. There was, but the investigation was skewed by unethical, dishonest law enforcement and prosecutors who heard what the co-defendant said and believed that the case was over. Nothing would stand in the way of finalizing a serious case in this small county--not even an alibi by the accused.

But, then, there was Anthony’s trial in 1994. Was there some investigation done in that year? No. How about in 2006 after the judges sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed this case for a totally new trial? One would think the powers that be in this particular county would do some re-thinking about their position. Sadly, it was not done then either.

Only now, with a jury trial looming in the not-so-distant future, did the prosecution think that perhaps a serious investigation needed to be done. This time it was--and it was done right. This prosecutor and her investigator talked to every person involved in this case. They turned over every stone and looked at every piece of paper. In the end, there was no other conclusion but that Anthony Graves was innocent.

I have been asking myself how I really feel about the awesome experience of seeing this man walk free in the sunshine, wearing a sports jacket and slacks, hugging his mother for the first time in 18 years. I think I am angry. I am angry because people were lazy and ignorant. Anthony is black, he was in a small community and it was 1992. I do not need to say anymore. No one cared. No one wanted to go out of their way to be absolutely certain that all the proper work had been done. And, it wasn’t.

Someone asked me last week, "Does this dismissal reinforce your belief in the criminal justice system?" My response was, “No, it scares the hell out of me.” If one mean-spirited prosecutor, who had the power to make life and death decisions, could do this to my client, he or someone like him could do it to your son or daughter, husband or wife. Then, we had our Governor make a statement like “this shows that our criminal justice system worked.” I tracked down the reporter who published that story and I told him that Gov. Rick Perry had to be joking. How could he say that the system worked, after an innocent person spent 18 years incarcerated for a crime he did not commit? Not to mention that 14 of those years were spent on death row, where Anthony lived in a box and was fed through a slit in the door, with one hour a day alone in an alley-like place where he was exposed to the sunshine.

But, enough about me and my feelings--what about Anthony Graves? How is he doing? Absolutely amazing! This man never gave up hope. He always believed that he would win his freedom one day; he just did not know when that day would come. He maintained his dignity and integrity throughout, which is obvious to anyone who has a conversation with him now. Anthony says he does not want to give those people any more of his energy. No bad feelings from Anthony. He wants to get on with what is ahead of him now during the last half of his life. They took away his best years. You know, those years where you get married, raise children, play baseball with your son. He missed all that. But, he is not angry. One reporter asked him, “What now? Are you going to sue the county? Are you going to try and get your compensation from the state?” Anthony said all he wanted to do was “seek justice.” Personally, I hope that this justice involves compensation from the state.

I think justice would be best served if the prosecutor who failed to investigate this case during his tenure, which caused Anthony’s conviction, would spend 18 years of his life in prison. I suppose I have all the anger that Anthony refuses to acknowledge. That is probably good. Anger at ignorant, arrogant people is a dead-end street. But, in this case, it will be a while before I can say that I am no longer furious at the people responsible for this travesty.

Read More

The Michael Jackson Trial: An Anatomy of the Defense

by Anne Bremner

"Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy"

- F. Scott Fitzgerald

The Michael Jackson case was won by excellent preparation and lawyering by Thomas Mesereau (who was nothing short of “mesmerizing”). The trial ultimately became a three-ring circus—the circus outside of court, a circus inside the court and a circus in the mind of the accuser’s mother, who ultimately became the fulcrum of the trial and the downfall of the prosecution. The netherworld of the Neverland trial fascinates to this day.

The Defense Packaged Jackson Well

"All Children, except one, grow up."
- J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)

Rather than as advised (putting Michael Jackson in a suit with one hand holding a girlfriend’s hand and the other holding a Bible), the defense dressed Michael Jackson in ornate costumes every day of the trial. During the course of the pre-trial, he wore a white three-piece suit with a gold arm band, the white symbolizing purity and innocence. On Cinco de Mayo, in a town that is 60% Hispanic, he wore a Cinco de Mayo vest. On the day of Jay Leno’s testimony, Jackson wore a joker’s vest, thereby showing a lack of hubris and some humility while facing the man who has been making fun of him on the nightly air waves and calling him a pedophile for months.

Michael Jackson entered as if on a red carpet accompanied by an umbrella holder every single day of the trial. On good days, he would carry his own umbrella and I noted those days on the air. Many celebrities have made mistakes in terms of what they wore to court, including Martha Stewart, who did not show much humility when she arrived for her trial carrying a Hermes Birkin Bag (a style that cost thousands of dollars). Or Courtney Love, who, when tried on charges of being under the influence of cocaine, looked like a rock star train wreck dressed in grungy cardigans and even a black strapless evening gown, showing disregard for the seriousness of the charges. Michael Jackson wore multi-colored jackets, different colored armbands, royal crests and military medals. Sometimes he looked like a toy soldier; other times he looked like a prep-school dandy. Throughout all, Michael Jackson conveyed to the jury a constant reminder that he is not like everybody else. He is rock-and-roll royalty, he is a celebrity, and he deserves special consideration. The Los Angeles Times called this the "fashion defense."

Michael Jackson Was Portrayed As Being in Tragic Decline

"Michael Jackson is one of the last living Innocents."
- Steven Spielberg

During the course of his trial, Michael Jackson visited the hospital on five separate occasions. He appeared vulnerable, childlike and sweet before the jury. Unlike Scott Peterson, his courtroom demeanor was absolutely perfect for this trial. He was respectful to the jurors, to the lower court staff, to the judge, and to everyone else involved in the trial. He also appeared to be in tragic decline throughout the trial. It was as if the trial was killing him. It would be difficult for the jury to convict and send to prison for the rest of his life a man who was barely holding on during the course of the trial itself. He weighed approximately 115 pounds. There were times during the trial that he had to go to the restroom to be sick, and he often appeared to be in obvious physical distress. He was taken to the hospital during jury selection, missing court, and showed up late for court in his pajamas, having been hospitalized yet again. The jury was aware that he was hospitalized twice during jury deliberations. It is human nature not to want to take out somebody who is already gone, and the defense sent the subliminal message through this that Michael Jackson had been punished enough (if there was some specter of belief in the jury’s mind that he was indeed guilty of child molestation).

Tom Mesereau was Mesmerizing

"If you squint your eyes it all makes sense"
- Anonymous producer regarding a made-for-TV movie about the Mary Kay Letourneau trial.

Thomas Mesereau was not the typical celebrity lawyer. He worked hard, he was dogged, he was prepared, and he pandered to no one. ABC News analyst Dana Cole stated, “Once Tom came on board, there was no more Hollywood slickness. He just decided to dig in and do the work, and I think that brought a lot of integrity and credibility to this case.”

Through the work of the defense, Michael Jackson’s world all made sense to the jurors. He was portrayed from the beginning, in the opening statement, as an odd genius who sits in a wishing tree and writes songs, as a Peter Pan and vulnerable child who would rather hang out with chimps than humans, one who surrounds himself with little children but is also the patron saint of children. Michael Jackson’s songs have healed the world and make the world a better place for children, and “What More Can I Give” and “We are the World” conveyed well to the jury. Michael Jackson was shown to be vulnerable throughout his life, because he was a child star, and that people only wanted to take advantage of him and that he never knew who to trust.

The culmination of that victimization was the prosecution brought by Santa Barbara County against him. Here the defense successfully put forth the theme that the case was about “money, money and more money,” and that the family simply wanted a conviction so they could extract even more money out of Michael Jackson. While the prosecution portrayed Neverland as “Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island,” the defense showed it as a refuge for children, the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, and the needy from all over the world. Neverland Valley Ranch had a full zoo, full arcade and movie theater, guest houses and its own fire department and miniature train and train station.

The Defense Closing Was Compelling

"Everybody gets so much information every day they lose their common sense."
- Gertrude Stein

The defense brought home its central theme in closing: if you have the slightest doubt regarding the credibility of the victim and his family, then Michael Jackson must go home. If you have the slightest doubt about the credibility of this family, then the prosecution fails. If you do not believe this family beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit. This is a family of con artists, liars and actors. Perjury is a habit for them. It is a pattern. The defense was able to show that the prosecution oversold their case and underperformed miserably, and instilled in the jury complicated feelings about the child star who grew up before all of our eyes. They pulled on the jury’s heartstrings about Jackson, his three little children and his family, including his mother, who were also dependent upon him.

The twists, turns and misfires in the twilight zone of the prosecution’s case were all turned against them. The defense called to the jury, essentially saying that jury duty is the highest calling in citizenship per Abraham Lincoln, and that the jurors needed to rise to the occasion and do the right thing. The verdict of acquittal was more reminiscent of the Scottish verdict of “not proven,” and that result was the natural progression from a very well-prepared and tried defense case and a failed prosecution.

The defense won because, (1) they were prepared; (2) they hit a home run in opening statement; (3) they destroyed the mother on the stand and thereby the son; (4) at every opportunity, they played the rebuttal video where the family denied being falsely imprisoned by, and spoke of their love for, Michael Jackson; (5) they presented Michael Jackson as a victim of opportunistic vultures and in tragic decline; (6) Debbie Rowe, the mother of two of his children, was a gem; (7) they had beautiful PR; (8) they had appropriate themes; (9) they capitalized on Michael Jackson’s celebrity; (10) they had a clear lead on the defense team; (11) they showed family support and had the mother Kathryn Jackson front and center; and (12) they took on Thomas Sneddon as a character out of Les Misérables.

“He could sing in front of 90,000 people but in front of 3 it is very difficult for him. We have sat in my studio when he is going to sing a new song and I had to close my eyes and turn my back.”
- Quincey Jones

Michael Jackson has left the building. He felt absolved. He was fully exonerated, although jurors have now indicated they have doubts about their verdict. The question is, was he bad? Was he the pedophile he was painted to be, or was he invincible? Was he truly innocent?

The prosecution had the haunting words of the accuser’s mother, “Michael Jackson has fooled the world.” Perhaps he did fool this jury. If Michael Jackson was indeed guilty and was wrongfully acquitted, perhaps his most lasting legacy is not (as he has claimed) helping children as the “patron saint of children.” Instead, it is in raising awareness regarding child molestation and the difficulty in proving these cases, thereby ironically helping to protect our world’s children from people like Michael Jackson in the future.

"I have seen him with children; they won't let him go to the bathroom without running in. They won't let him out of their sight. They even jump in bed with him."
- Lisa Maria Presley

Read More

Come out and see me!

by Kathryn Casey

Everyone in the Houston area, this is just a short note to tell you that I'll be at Murder by the Book signing my new mystery, The Killing Storm, next Saturday, November 13th, at 3 p.m. It's the third in the Sarah Armstrong mystery series, and, besides fighting a hurricane, Sarah's faced with solving the riddle of cryptic symbols left on the hides of slaughtered longhorns and rescuing a missing 4-year-old abducted from a Houston park. Publisher's Weekly called The Killing Storm the "best in the series to date," and Kirkus noted its "pulse-pounding action."

So drop in at Murder by the Book. I'd love to meet you. Be sure to mention that you're a Women in Crime Ink reader!

Read More

Triple Juries: Quite a Trial

by Donna Pendergast

As every prosecutor or defense attorney knows there is nothing in the criminal trial arena more stressful than a murder trial. Unlike other types of cases, in a murder trial a life has been taken, and the stakes don't get any higher. For both sides, you have one chance to get it right. There are no "do overs," and it is up to the attorneys to see that justice is done. For the prosecution, a failure to adequately address an issue that the jury later finds to be significant or a miscalculation on how the evidence should be presented to a jury, and a person who has committed a heinous crime can go free. For a defense attorney, their clients' freedom rests in their hands. For both sides, this means that extensive pretrial preparation is necessary to make sure you know your case inside out before you ever enter a courtroom.

Murder trial preparation for a prosecutor can be exhausting. Speaking from 24 years of experience, hundreds and, on occasion, thousands of hours may be required in advance of trial to read all of the police and evidence reports, research and analyze issues, consult experts, develop trial strategy, and prepare for the issues that the defense will likely raise. All of that must occur before a prosecutor ever begins to prepare a theme for trial or draft an opening argument that will effectively explain the issues in the case and lay a road map for what the prosecutor expects to prove to the jury. A prosecutor must also be prepared to summarize their case effectively for a jury in a closing argument. Preparation for a great closing argument begins during pretrial strategizing and continues throughout the entire trial.

Now, imagine having to do that same preparation for multiple juries--yes, multiple juries. It is not unusual for a prosecutor to encounter a situation where multiple trials or multiple juries are necessary in one case to protect the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant. This situation usually arises when a criminal defendant has made a statement to the police in which he implicates a co-defendant in some manner. Under the theory that a co-defendant has a motive to implicate others in an effort to make himself or herself look better at the expense of others, case law precludes using a defendant's out-of-court statement against other defendants in trial in most circumstances. This means that certain testimony can only be heard by a jury considering the culpability of a specific defendant who made the statement.

When the situation occurs that certain statements or testimony is only allowable against one defendant, the judge has to make a decision on whether he will hold multiple trials, or have two or more juries in one trial. A court often opts to use multiple juries in one case in the interest of saving time and sparing the witnesses the inconvenience of having to testify multiple times in multiple trials. Sparing a victim's family from having to go through the rigors of a trial multiple times is also an important consideration.

I have tried multiple two-jury cases. A two-jury trial is a logistical nightmare for a court and courtroom staff. Arrangements have to be made for dual courtroom seating and dual jury room accommodations in courtrooms designed for one jury. Courtroom security for multiple juries has to be addressed, and the court has to make legal determinations on what evidence can be heard by which jury in advance of the trial. Trying to keep it all straight is a difficult task for the judge, courtroom staff and the attorneys involved. Because of the complexity of the preparation required, if more than two juries are required, a judge will usually opt to do multiple trials with one or two juries in each.

In most jurisdictions, having three juries going at the same time is never even contemplated. Trying to make arrangements to accommodate three juries and keep rulings straight as to which jury can hear which evidence is an almost insurmountable task with three juries. However, on rare occasion in large jurisdictions like Wayne County, Michigan, which services the City of Detroit, a three-jury trial will take place.

I have tried one case with three juries going at the same time. Trust me; it's enough to make your head spin. Imagine having to prepare multiple opening and closing arguments and then having to argue the cases one after another to separate juries while keeping the facts straight on each and remembering not to mention what they can't hear. Since the prosecutor carries the burden of proof in a case, they are allowed a rebuttal argument after the defendant's closing argument. With a triple-jury case, that means the prosecutor gives six closing arguments in total, three initial closings, and three rebuttals--quite a feat even for someone who loves to talk, like myself.

My experience trying a case with a triple jury came in a Detroit homicide case. Three men were doing work rehabbing an vacant house for its owner. They decided to rob and murder the homeowner when he came by to check on their progress. When the homeowner arrived, he was beaten with two-by-fours and shovels, and was ultimately shot. His body was disposed of in a Dumpster that was at the curb for the next day's garbage pick up. His body would never be recovered at the city dump, despite a week-long search by detectives. The amount of garbage brought into the dump every day made finding the body almost impossible.

In the case, all three defendants made statements exculpating themselves and inculpating the other two defendants. That meant that either we needed separate trials or each defendant needed a separate jury when we got to the part of the trial where the defendant's respective statements were introduced as evidence. A "no body" case is a difficult trial to begin with. When the judge decided to do a triple jury trial, I thought to myself, "It doesn't get much more difficult than this."

I was wrong.

In a twist straight from a movie, the detective in charge of the case was arrested the night before the trial started. The allegations were that he solicited a prostitute while in a city car. The police department had no replacement to send over so I was stuck sitting at the table alone in court with no officer to coordinate witnesses and assist me during a triple-jury trial. I was forced to handle everything from procuring witnesses from the hallway to testify, to lugging the packaged two-by-fours and shovels that were evidence in the trial back and forth between the courtroom and my office. I remember grumbling to myself one day, "I'm not Superwoman," but I got through it, and all three defendants were eventually convicted.

I have had some complex and exhausting cases in my life. Out of all of those experiences, the triple-jury case remains the most physically exhausting. In every sense of the word, it was quite a trial.

Statements made in this post are my own and do not reflect the views opinion of position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Read More

The Journey to Justice: Garvin County, Oklahoma

By Susan Murphy-Milano

On October 14, I arrived in Garvin County, Oklahoma. I was brought in by family members to review and bring attention to their cases involving possible murder, cover up and corruption. I went to Oklahoma, knowing there were threats to harm me, but I felt this trip was important to secure information about each of these cases in front of new eyes.

What I found was beyond what I expected. There is a difference when meeting these families face to face and going to the actual areas where the crimes took place at "ground zero" instead of looking at photos or talking on the phone. It was immediately apparent to me that something, many things, were wrong with the initial "howdy doody" so-called investigations. This included staging the original crime scenes from bogus shell casings to cleaning up a bloody witness, and removing blood-soaked sheets, blankets or rugs, to actually dragging a body from the inside of a home out to the backyard. And at least one additional murder, possibly two, also directly relate to the cases

Meeting with each individual family was an eye-opener. Seeing, for myself, the landscape in which these crimes were committed would now give these cases a chance at justice. After reviewing never-before-seen crime scene photos, documentation and, in my opinion, new evidence added by the sheer determination of these families, I put the cases of Chanda Turner, Sheila Deviney and Tom Horton, now identified as “The Garvin County Three,” into a national spotlight. I had a lot of help, including a former prosecutor with whom I would report my findings. We would strategize my daily methods of gathering solid information and shipping it out by carrier the next day. You need to establish what is known as "a pattern of conduct." If you build the framework around this, you definitely have a case. And indeed, I did.

It was interesting to go into restaurants and businesses and see firsthand the treatment these families received--some good, some not so good. Like being shunned, or having a contagious disease, people were obviously in fear of being seen talking to them. It was gut-wrenching as I witnessed this happening before my eyes. It reminded me of a time when my own hero of a father murdered my mother before taking his own life. Those in my Chicago community, many of whom I had known my entire life, would publicly turn their backs or threaten my life if I continued “disgracing the Chicago Police Department and maligning my father’s good name."

By day three of my investigation at “ground zero,” the hostile climate turned and the curtain of fear in the surrounding towns of Paul’s Valley, Lindsey, Norman and Maysville began to rise. People were talking about the truth, the facts I was releasing nightly on the nationally syndicated program The Roth Show. People were coming forward providing crucial evidence and supplying statements. One by one, townsfolk expressed their embarrassment for how their community has been portrayed in the national spotlight. You saw them taking a stand with the truth, knowing that if things continued as they always had in Garvin County that justice would never be served and that others might be harmed in the process, possibly one of their own children or loved one.

Working within a system with a scandalous medical examiner’s office, a questionable sheriff, and a small town where families with money help keep things in control, the families of “the Garvin County Three”would not give up. My greatest pleasure, and the best part of my trip, was getting to know them better. These are real people who have been handed one of life’s biggest disservices, injustice.

As my time in Garvin County continued, I was surprised to see that other families were contacting either myself or attorney Jaye Mendros of Justice for the Dead site. This included people who had a lot of information surrounding these cases. It almost seemed as if there was a new consciousness, and some were finding that maybe their own consciences were finally getting the best of them after so many years of holding the secrets. Those secrets are now documented.

In the midst of a controversial upcoming election for a new sheriff in Garvin County, I found the tensions mounting all around me. Many people in the county were trying to keep the old guard in office to keep things as they have been for the last 11 years. Also, maybe some were trying to keep their own loved ones from facing the music they were hiding from behind the very ones who were present on each of the crime scenes of Sheila Deviney, Chanda Turner and Tom Horton, The Garvin County Three.

On November 2, the people of Garvin County spoke up loudly and clearly that it was finally time for a change. They elected to give the old sheriff the boot and bring in someone who has promised to do what is necessary to get their cases re-opened and re-examined. The task facing new Sheriff Larry Rhoades is daunting, and we have to believe that he will see this through.

There is still a lot of work to do in Oklahoma, but the process has begun to get the ball rolling in the right direction. Justice will be served for The Garvin County Three.

There are so many people I would like to thank, and you all know who you are, especially my colleagues here at Women In Crime Ink. Without your support and prayers, this journey would have been much more difficult. Also, a special thanks to Dr. Laurie Roth and Doug Hagmann; I always knew you had my back every step of the way. And to those now at the beginning stages of the preliminary investigation as it relates to the long-awaited truth for Chanda Turner, Sheila Deviney, Tom Horton and each of their families who know justice is now a step closer.

Read More

The Ten Most Toxic Men Behind Bars

by Dr. Lillian Glass

The sequel to my book Toxic People has just been released this week. It is called Toxic Men: 10 Ways of Identifying, Dealing With and Healing From Men Who Make Your Life Miserable. It’s not a book about male bashing, but, rather, a book to empower your relationships. It teaches you how to identify any toxic man by his body language and communication patterns.

Therefore, I thought that it would be a fitting opportunity to discuss 10 of the most Toxic Men in the news who are presently behind bars. There are different types of Toxic Men, from the Emotional Refrigerator to the Bully, to the Cheating Liar and the Silent But Deadly Erupting Volcano.

Here are some of the most notorious types of Toxic Men and the faces and personalities behind their toxic types.

1. Joran van der Sloot (Psycho/Sociopath) -- He is suspected of killing teenager Natalie Holloway in Aruba and accused of killing Stefany Flores in Peru, where he sits in prison awaiting a translator and a trial.

2. Bernard Madoff (Seductive Cheating Liar) -- He was convicted of running a Ponzi scheme where he stole millions of dollars and lied to investors.

3. Scott Peterson (Sneaky Silent But Deadly Erupting Volcano) -- This former fertilizer salesman seemed mild mannered and like the idea loving husband, according to his in laws. He is now on San Quentin’s death row for killing his pregnant wife Laci and her unborn son Conner.

4. Joseph Fritzl (Angry Bullying Control Freak) -- This monster abused and imprisoned his own daughter in a basement dungeon for decades as he impregnated her with six children. He now sits in a dungeon of his own- the mental section of a prison in Austria where he will remain for the rest of his life.

5. Phillip Garrido (Angry Bullying Control Freak) -- This is another monster who kidnapped an innocent school girl, Jaycee Dugard, kept her in a prison like area in his back yard for decades, and impregnated her with two children. He awaits trial and will most likely die in prison.

6. Drew Peterson (Emotional Refrigerator and Arrogant Know It All) -- This is a cocky former policeman who is in an Illinois jail awaiting trial for the alleged killing of his third wife Kathleen Savio and missing forth wife Stacy Peterson.

7. OJ Simpson (Me, Myself and I Narcissist) -- A former football great who killed his wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman. He literally got away with murder. But 13 years later, he was convicted of armed robbery in an attempt to get his memorabilia back. He will most likely sit in a Nevada prison for the rest of his life.

8. Mario Andrette McNeill (Wishy Washy Spineless Wimp) -- This horrific coward raped and strangled five-year-old Shania Davis. He remains in a North Carolina jail awaiting sentencing.

9. Brian David Mitchell (Arrogant, Self-Righteous Know It All) -- on trial for kidnapping a then-14-year-old Elizabeth Smart, raping and torturing her. He is presently on trial for his heinous crimes.

10. Omar Abdel-Rahman (Instigating Backstabbing Meddler) -- Also known as the "blind sheik," he was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He traveled freely to the US and preached regularly at mosques in New York City where he incited Muslim extremists to destroy the West.

While these are 10 of the most extreme types of Toxic Men who are, luckily, behind bars, many other types of Toxic Men are less extreme. While they may not be behind bars, they may still be causing severe havoc in your life.

The book Toxic Men is designed to empower you by helping you learn how to identify any toxic man in your life by analyzing his body language and communication patterns. You no longer have to remain a victim. Besides walking away or unplugging from a toxic relationship, you now have options available to you. If you have walked away and still carry the emotional scars, reading this book can help you heal.

Read More

Is 'Adequate and Competent' Enough?

by Diane Fanning 

Down in Orlando, the Casey Anthony pre-trial hearings are stirring up serious legal questions concerning an indigent defendant’s right to qualified defense counsel. Unfortunately, up until now, this issue has been obscured by the circus-like atmosphere that has surrounded this case since Cindy Anthony called 9-1-1.

Many people are complaining that someone like Casey Anthony does not deserve for a single penny of taxpayer money to be spent paying her high priced attorneys. Part of the reason for this outcry is the long amount of time that has transpired since Caylee Anthony disappeared. When jury selection begins, it will be nearly 35 months since Caylee was last seen alive.

The other part of the objection is the apparent guilt of Casey Anthony. I’ll admit that I found the forensic data and the interviews with Casey to be compelling evidence of her involvement in the death of her daughter. Nonetheless, our judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence. Everyone is entitled to have the determination of guilt be made in a court of law. To strip people like Casey of that right is to imperil all of our civil liberties.

The third aspect of the response is an emotional one. On one side of the equation, we have a self-centered, selfish, spoiled young woman. On the other side, an adorable, innocent child, not quite three years old. Your heart must side with Caylee. To make matters worse, the accused murderer has been proven to be a liar, even by her own admission. She has been proven to be a thief by stealing from her own grandmother. She has been proven to care little for her own daughter, as shown by the 30 fun-filled days she spent before being forced to admit that Caylee was missing. It's hard not to despise Casey and nearly impossible to give her the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when it comes to the legal presumption of innocence, it is her right. And, it is in our best interests to ensure that right is not violated.

The issue is much larger and more important than Casey Anthony. It goes to the basic premise of equality under the law. Eighty per cent of the experts in the field of capital case law agree than there is bias in the administration of the death penalty based on social class. In other words, the more money you have to spend on your defense team, the less likely you are to receive the death penalty. That very concept thwarts our principle of equality under the law.

Take the case of Robert Durst. He decapitated his neighbor and claimed self-defense. He had millions at his disposal to buy the best defense team available. In the end, he walked away from the courtroom after the jury bought into the arguments of his attorney. Do you really think the outcome would have been the same if the story had involved a poor man who had no choice but to rely on the adequate and competent counsel of a court-appointed attorney? I certainly don't.

How can we uphold our principles that ensure justice is blind and we are all equal in the eyes of the law?

Ideally, every guilty person would honestly acknowledge their responsibility when charged with a crime, leaving only the decision of how much weight to give to mitigating circumstances when assessing a sentence. But it is not, and never will be, an ideal world. Someone who is willing to take another's life is not going to balk at lying to attempt to save his skin.

Casey Anthony is certainly a case in point. To date, her defense has cost approximately $300,000. Since she was ruled to be indigent in March of this year, the defense has received nearly $40,000 in taxpayer funding, although her legal team has requested far more than that.

Last week, Jose Baez and his team asked for more money for their private investigator (300 additional hours at $40 per hour). Judge Blevin Perry granted only one-fifth of that amount. Perry would not allow any travel expense reimbursement for the new death penalty expert. When the defense asked for $7,500 for a psychological expert, he only granted $2,500. The judge made his position clear: The law requires an adequate defense, not the best defense possible. "I'm not going to write an open check."

WKMG's Tony Pipitone summed up the day in the courtroom: "The law says indigent defendants are entitled to a defense that's competent. But they are not entitled to an O.J. defense unless they can pay for it themselves."

But is that right? Should people like O.J. Simpson be entitled to a better defense than you or I merely because they can afford it? Is that what justice is all about--the size of your wallet

Maybe it's time to think about trial financial reform. The scales should be balanced. Nonetheless, it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayers to shoulder the additional burden of the best defense for the indigent. Maybe we should consider restricting the expenditures of wealthy defendants.

I don't know if that's the answer or if it is even a possibility, but equality under the law requires consideration for all solutions that might lead to the elimination of bias in the courtroom.

Diane Fanning is the author of Mommy's Little Girl: Casey Anthony and Her Daughter Caylee's Tragic Fate.  When the Casey Anthony trial begins next year, you'll find daily updates of the case on Diane Fanning's blog, Writing is a Crime.

Read More