Posted on 07/09/2011 7:57:35 AM PDT by MizSterious
Posted by halboedeker on July, 9 2011 9:53 AM
Judge Stan Strickland was more than happy that he didn’t preside over the Casey Anthony murder trial and has nothing but praise for Chief Judge Belvin Perry.
Strickland opened up in a revealing interview with WKMG-Channel 6’s Tony Pipitone last night. WESH-Channel 2 talked to Strickland by phone earlier Friday and he revealed his surprise at Anthony’s acquittal in the first-degree murder of her daughter, Caylee.
But Pipitone sat down with Strickland, who raved over Perry. ”Judge Perry is an institution,” Strickland told Pipitone. ” He’s, for my money, the best judge around. There’s a reason he’s the chief judge. He did a great job on this case.”
Strickland is remembered for saying in July 2008, “The truth and Miss Anthony are strangers.” Strickland was frank and charming in another first-rate interview by Pipitone.
Strickland bowed out after Anthony’s attorneys complained that he was biased because of correspondence with a blogger.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.orlandosentinel.com ...
I was stunned at the not guilty verdict, but while I never followed the trial very closely it seems to me that there was no actual evidence that the defendant actually murdered the victim.
Was this true?
Jerry Springer: No $1 Million Casey Anthony Offer
Published on July 08, 2011
by Associated Press
(AP and OfficialWire)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (USA)
OfficialWire News Bureau
Jerry Springer is caught in the Casey Anthony media frenzy and, he says, for no reason.
Springer dismissed a report that his TV show is offering $1 million to Anthony and her parents as “100 percent fabricated.”
The host of “The Jerry Springer Show” said Friday his syndicated program does not feature “known people” such as Anthony.
http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=79341&catid=60
If you mean did the prosecution have the killing on videotape, then the answer is yes, "actual evidence" was lacking. However, if you are willing to connect the dots, the circumstantial evidence was there. I would have had no trouble voting to convict her.
‘the best judge around’
LOL.
At first I honestly thought he was mentally retarded, seriously.
Then as the trial went on, I was convinced.
Eubonics has no place in the court room.
I thought there was plenty. Probably more than with the Scott Peterson case. The jury seemed uninterested in the evidence, but they “liked” the defense attorney. They never even asked for a single read-back or to view any of the evidence. My best guess is that they agreed they’d been there long enough, and spent the remainder of the time on how much money could they get for books and guest appearances.
Did you watch any of the trial? As judges go, this one was pretty good. No Dancing Itos here, and that’s worth a lot.
Pinging a few folks...
Kristen Stewart Not Playing Casey Anthony
After being acquitted by the jury for the gruesome murder of her 2-year old daughter Caylee, it seems Casey Anthony’s brazen and smug demeanor all throughout the trial has caused her to be the most hated person in the world.
(snip)
I will not be surprised if people throw rotten tomatoes or eggs at her when she finally walks out of jail. As far as celebrities are concerned, no one has volunteered to portray her in a movie – certainly not Kristen Stewart.
According to sources, Kristen Stewart is not very pleased with talk linking her and Casey Anthony.
“Her people are really annoyed about the Casey Anthony comparisons. Kristen wants that talk to blow over soon, because it looks really bad.”
The source adds, “Don’t expect Stewart to portray Anthony in a flick anytime soon. She would never for no amount of money portray that girl… It’s grossing her out. All those entertainment shows are doing polls and what not and her people just want it to stop!”
http://www.showbizrenegade.com/2011/07/09/kristen-stewart-not-playing-casey-anthony/6466
Defense attorney Cheney Mason told everyone how he felt about the Casey Anthony coverage.
Then he gestured to show his disapproval. I think the gesture will probably last longer than his lecture about the media. Mason later told TMZ.com the middle-finger salute was for “a guy from a radio station who has been stalking my team for months.”
What was behind Mason’s anger after Anthony’s acquittal? I gained insights from Geraldo Rivera of Fox News Channel. Rivera, a friend of defense attorney Jose Baez, complained about how Baez had been treated by local attorneys on television.
“There’s a big difference between Casey and Jose,” Rivera said. “There was negative press directed at Jose by the local Bar. They were relentless in the attacks on him, people like Mark NeJame. They went after Jose in a way that was vicious. Jose has proved himself. He could have folded a million times. He stood his ground. He was David against Goliath. The Constitution protects unpopular people. The fact is he got paid chump change, sacrificing three years of his life. He is owed a huge apology from the local Bar and NeJame and other people.”
NeJame’s response? “Geraldo has done as much research on me as he did on Al Capone’s vault.”
(Above is an excerpt)
And just in case Casey thinks she’s going to be schmoozing with the Hollyweirdos, not even they want anything to do with her. Everyone from Jessica Alba to Ralph Macchio are outraged at the verdict—and Rascal Flatts has a beautiful tribute song to Caylee on the internet.
“...rotten tomatoes or eggs...”
That should be the LEAST of worries for Casey Anthony once she walks. She will be in someone’s gunsights. When she is released from custody, it will have to be UCOD.
Casey Anthony Case: Reasonable Doubt vs. Shadow of a Doubt
The Anthony Acquittal Should Make Us Take a Good Look at Our Court System
(snip)
What really is at issue is the term reasonable doubt. Over the years, especially on television dramas, it has been used interchangeably with beyond a shadow of a doubt. And one is not the other. That is where the confusion lies.
In fact, the prosecution does not need to prove a case beyond a shadow of a doubt. The legal definition of reasonable doubt is quite clear: “A threshold or burden of proof in criminal cases, and a requirement in most modern criminal law systems, which requires the prosecutor or district attorney to prove to the trier of fact to be sure, not certain, of the accused guilt, before convicting,” according to Duhaime.org.
http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-case-reasonable-doubt-vs-shadow-doubt-193100838.html
(excerpt, of course)
I hear the jurors are not particularly welcome in their hometown(s), either. One restaurant supposedly had a sign saying, No Cayce Anthony jurors are welcome here, or words to that effect.
So then no, there was no evidence that she murdered anyone. Well, I guess they convicted Scott Peterson, they could have convicted Casey.
I can understand, the explanations I have read about the not-guilty verdict for the killing. But how could they not find child abuse when she did not report her daughter missing for 31 days?
There was far less evidence against Scott Peterson and yet he is sitting on death row. Throughout the trial one thing that kept coming up with the "talking heads" was how the jurors were not taking any notes. Here you have an 8-week trial - witnesses coming out your ears - and nobody was taking notes.
All that evidence and the jury never asked to have anything read back to them, never asked to look at evidence again, nothing...Oh and they were worried about the PUNISHMENT - which is something the jury is NOT supposed to do.
At one point, according to a juror, the jury was tied 6-6 on aggravated child abuse. However, as she put it, each of the guilty votes were picked off until it was 12-zip. I personally believe that the jury was sick and tired of being away from their home and families and they rushed through deliberations just to get done. They also were aware that if any of the three top charges were a guilty decision, they would have been stuck another week or so for the penalty phase.
WOW - I didn’t read comments before posting and you and I said pretty much the same dang thing. :)
The search group that spent about $100,000 looking for Caylee Anthony’s body wants its money back and is considering filing litigation.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/08/caylee-anthonys-search-team-wants-its-money-back/
But Cheney Mason, another one of Anthony’s lawyers, told the Law Blog he is doubtful the lawsuit will lead anywhere.
“I can’t imagine under what theory they’d be able to do any such thing, as supposedly a non-profit company that volunteered their services,” he said. “They have no relationship or contract with Casey at all.”
This man continues to floor me. It hasn't occurred to him yet that the Anthony family (likely the parents and daughter) perpetrated a fraud on the search group? Any legal folks who might have an opinion on this, because frankly, I don't trust Mason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.