Self-defense or Cold Blooded Killer (48 Hours)?
Did you catch 48 Hours this weekend?
Was it a mystery for you, or did you see the truth clearly?
For me, this was a very black and white case.
Vote below and I’ll share my thoughts in the coming days!
[polldaddy poll=8829069]
It seemed very obvious that she was lying. Her crying after the verdict was so unbelievable. I don’t doubt that she was devastated, but no one cries like that. Her son seems to truly believe her, but the poor boy is in a bad position. I found the victim’s children completely believable. Her story kept changing in subtle ways and the evidence didn’t support what she was saying.
The crying was unbelievable but I didn’t believe Anita’s son either.
He stabbed me.
I stabbed me.
Was it his knife? Were her fingerprints on the knife? If that was addressed, I missed it. The design is very skeletal, but they should have been able to pull partials at least.
Why did she do it, crushing so many other lives besides his? The pain all the people who love them both are left in is so cruel and senseless. Nothing can be worth that.
I think the same but she thought she would get away with it. Surely though she could have found another way out and I agree.
I really hope, for whatever reason perhaps for the Grissom children, Eyes can show us at which point Ms. Grissom is telling the truth. This seems to be so clear cut; at no point civilly, circumstantially, or legally does Ms. Grissom’s scenario make sense. that’s without the tells.
At about 10:50 her friend Jessica said “Robert had made it clear to me that she would not be leaving that marriage……. alive on more than one occasion”. That looks like a complete fabrication to me. It’s almost as if she knows how uncredible she’s sounds so she tries to downplay it as much as possible.
As far as Anita I think the jury got it right. I wish they went into motive. I don’t think she was fearful of him. Was she jealous? Was she trying to get around a pre-nup? Did she have more assets than him that she didn’t want to lose in a divorce? I like to think people do this kind of thing for a reason and not just because.
Yes I’m also curious what her motive was if it wasn’t domestic violence.
Definitely. Just found a story that illustrates that a female accuser will be believe no matter how credible her claims are (in most cases). The summary is this woman has a history of mental illness and false reporting. She falsely accused her ex of sexually molesting her chihuahuas. When she didn’t get the divorce settlement she wanted she falsely accused her ex’s son of rape. The police did no investigation, the DA convened a grand jury that indicted only on her testimony. They guy was jailed on a $1 million bail and spent 53 days in jail before the charges were dropped. Lying to a grand jury is a felony but no charges will be filled. I need to stop reading stories like this, I just get too angry about it. https://www.facebook.com/groups/honeybadgerradio/permalink/1152882324737909/?pnref=story
She shot him in the back, right? Makes no sense to tell him she has a gun, then wait for him to be in a non-threatening position to use it. She could have gotten up to escape while pointing the gun at him, threatening to fire if he moved towards her. So, either she would have escaped with him unharmed or he would have been shot in the front of his body if he came toward her. She wanted him dead.
I believe her. First, the history she described is consistent with being a victim of domestic violence. Some examples: There was a previous incident of DV, and she both called the police and left the home; her son described her parking her car in the back of the hotel so her husband would not see her car; she often placated her husband with sex to keep the peace; she returned to him and pretended everything was okay. She claimed Robert took her phone when she tried to call police (confirmed by the son). She felt in danger that he might kill her after separating from him. These are all common experiences and coping mechanisms of victims of domestic violence.
Second, the Robert’s sister (the police officer) says that Anita had claimed her previous husband abused her, and the fact that Anita did not file for a restraining order was evidence that she was “playing the victim.” It is common for DV victims to go from one abusive relationship to another. Also, 70% of DV homicides occur when the victim has filed a restraining order or attempted to leave her abuser. The fact that Anita did not file for a restraining order or ask that charges be filed (which is the state’s job, not hers) is not proof of anything. It is common behavior for abuse victims. Statistics have found that that most abusers have committed 75 acts of abuse before they ever see the inside of a courtroom. In addition, Anita stated that she was embarrassed to admit the abuse because she was educated. This too, is a common response. With better DV training, Robert’s sister would would not make this error. It is a concern that this officer is responsible for protecting DV victims in her community without even basic knowledge of the dynamics of a batterer/victim relationship.
Third, the confession is not necessarily valid. Aside from the fact that Anita was sleep deprived and traumatized, and was not provided access to an attorney, her confession of guilt is not necessarily damning. Many abuse victims will falsely confess to abusers that they’ve been unfaithful etc, just to make the abuse stop. The idea that Anita would give a false confession in a situation where she was already traumatized and being browbeaten by two male officers just to make it stop is again, a common coping mechanism for abuse victims. Also the fact that her memory was spotty – also common following trauma or abuse.
More here: http://www.ncadv.org/need-support/what-is-domestic-violence
I hope her appeal is granted, I believe she was a victim of domestic violence and I’m interested to see what Eyes has to say about this case.
I’m curious what you think after reading EFL analysis on the next post.
I was reading some older posts the other night and your comments on the Jahi McMath case were very informative. Sad that’s still continuing. Hopefully someone that may face a similar situation will at least learn something from it.
Hi remi,
Thank you.
EFL’s analyses are usually pretty spot on, and I’m sure this is no different. I guess what bothered me about this case is that the reasons that the sister, the police, prosecutors, etc gave for believing Anita guilty were flawed. (ie — not filing a restraining order means a victim wasn’t really being abused.) Florida justice system is notoriously terrible with regard to dealing with domestic violence, and Anita got the little details of DV right. I think there’s more there.
Comment on your second paragraph:
Robert’s sister made clear to the journalist that she was protecting her brother’s character. So her suspicion that Anita wasn’t a victim of DV can be seen as defending her brother rather than showing uninformed policing. You’re correct that the sister’s statement, which is only inference and suspicion, doesn’t prove Anita wasn’t a DV victim.
However – this doesn’t count for Anita as evidence that DV is occurring.
Also because someone fits the profile of a victim doesn’t mean they are a victim. Analogy: A person may drive an old car and wear old clothes but that doesn’t prove they’re poor. Similarly just because Anita fits the profile and actions of a DV victim doesn’t prove she is one. You might be suspicious she is but because Anita is claiming she killed Robert because of DV you would, and should, expect to be provided with clear evidence that DV occurred. Suspicion isn’t enough, not when a potential murder is in question.
To me, paragraph 2 provides no evidence for Anita or DV whatsoever, only suspicion.
Thanks for the comment, but I disagree with your statement “So her suspicion that Anita wasn’t a victim of DV can be seen as defending her brother rather than showing uninformed policing.” It’s a bit hard to swallow that the sister would assess that Anita was not a DV victim by her first husband because she didn’t file a restraining order or ask the State’s Attorney to press charges — but the sister would understand that this is common behavior with DV victims because of dependence, fear, etc and behave accordingly at her job to protect victims under the exact same circumstances? Either the sister knows the dynamics of domestic violence or she doesn’t, and her statements make clear that she doesn’t. Which is a shame, because unless she’s writing parking tickets all day every day, she’s putting lives at risk with her uninformed misconceptions.
Yes it could be true what you say. My point of view was that you will probably never remove the partiality of the sister from her testimony.
I am truly conflicted on this one. It is obvious that she is lying about at least some of the details, but yet many of her behaviors are consistent with a victim of domestic abuse. Is it possible the truth is somewhere in between, maybe they had a volatile relationship that escalated and she found herself in a situation she couldn’t handle so she shot him? Then realized she was going to jail and decided to make it look better for herself? I am eagerly awaiting Eyes response, because while I believe Anita is lying, I am still not sure it was cold-blooded murder.
Running commentary as Im watching, only slightly edited:
I don’t believe her when she says that she misses him. High pitched whine.
When looking at wedding pictures, the reporter asks “Happy day for you?” – her response is somewhat flat. At the time she believed this man to be the answer to her prayers, as second marriages often are. Weird.
NO WAY am I leaving my children of any age alone in the house with an escalating violent person, while I run to the neighbors. Nor would I ask my kids to hand over the phone. I might yell “Get out, now! Go to [neighbor’s name] and call 911!” Weird.
When she talks about it being crazy to move back in, she looks up, as if to catch the reporter’s reaction.
Wait – what day of the week did this happen? If it was a Monday, she did know why he was there, as he had come over often on Mondays for sex. Also, you’re having drinks with a man who you’re divorcing, and who has an anger problem, and who has raped you? Why was she drinking?
[whole thing about coconut oil, that was made redundant 10 seconds later in the clip]
Roberts sister would greatly benefit from learning how and why DV victims behave the way they do.
Those lovey dovey text messages mean nothing. A violent person will often try to appear as the most kind, loving, “normal” person. Contrary, some people with a genuine anger problem, who haven’t learned to regulate negative emotions, and appropriate behaviors, can still be sweet and loving in between outbursts. He seems to have seemed help, and that makes me think he was the latter.
“I didn’t want him to kill me, it’s not fair to my kids” has got to be the flattest fight or flight reasoning I have yet to hear.
Paraphrased: ‘I didn’t have to stab myself, I had enough other injuries to prove self defense’ vs. ‘Robert stabbed me’.
She doesn’t trust her own legal team.
I started out being inclined to believe Anita did not murder her husband. I don’t think she was ever in true fear of her life, however. So, yes, I think the jury got it right.