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 ...
That depends on what you consider to be “actual evidence”. I think you could infer from what was offered that a crime had been committed. Whether you accept in your mind that it could have been an “accident” is up to you and the jury.
Looks like a great read for when I return home (I’m aways). Thanks for posting this.
It’s a tough job for anyone who has to preside over one of these circuses.
That would only be true if Anthony had been found guilty. BTW, I, too, think she killed her daughter, accidentally or on purpose.
“I think you could infer from what was offered that a crime had been committed.”
I have always been convinced that a crime was comitted because no one “covers up” an accident. The trick of the thing is that there was no DNA, no video, no audio and certainly no witnesses to support a murder charge against Casey Anthony.
I believe in my heart of hearts that she is guilty of murder. Just as I believe in my heart of hearts in a loving God that created everything and everyone.
The problem is proving it to a group of impartial people.
Read my post #13—the jury was going on what they see on television dramas like Law & Order, rather than the actual legal definition of the term “reasonable doubt.” Then again, I’m not sure the distinction was made to them. If not, it should have been.
Sadly, there are plenty in Hollywood who’ll be happy to schmooze with Casey Anthony, if it provides the opportunity to make a buck. Start with the entertainment lawyers and their ilk who bundle media projects for fun and profit. Add in the book publishers, movie producers and TV interviewers, along with the writers, directors and actors who would willingly participate in the Anthony project. And that list includes a lot of people who are expressing disgust at the verdict; the almighty dollar is king in Hollywood.
There won’t be any shortage of people willing to further sensationalize the case for their careers (and profit). Casey will make millions of dollars and get her next 15 minutes of fame.
In fact, the scenario goes something like this. Jose Baez will negotiate the deals for Casey and take at least 20% off the top. Casey will use her new-found wealth to engage in the party girl lifestyle that she so enjoys, and blow through her money at a rate that would make a Kardashian blush. The wealth won’t last and within 3-5 years she’ll be on the usual trajectory for someone of her ilk, third-rate reality show, followed by a “new” career as a stripper and porn star. She’ll probably acquire an addiction or two along the way, and that will put her in trouble with the law (again).
And, just like O.J., she won’t get off the next time around.
But, on the Maury, "horny spermdoners who want to Octomom Casey"...
Well, that was my original opinion, too. But since the trial was over, some very peculiar things have happened that make me question that theory.
1. Baez signed with a booking agency, and it was all in the news. The next day, the agency dropped him like a hot potato, no reason given.
2. Casey was offered a job going a XXX porn flick for quite a lot of money, but again, the next day that offer was rescinded.
3. Jerry Springer was supposedly going to have her on his show for $1M, now he’s insisting he never made the offer. The original story came from fairly reliable sources, so this looks like another U-turn.
Not sure what is going on, but it appears that nobody, at least right now, wants to be associated with this woman or her lawyer. That is, except Barbara Walters, who I understand is having Baez on her show for an interview. When even Springer and porn companies don’t want any ties to her, that’s quite a strong statement.
I liked the judge; but he had his hands full with Baez.
If Juror #3 is serious and doesn’t change what she said via a PR firm when she said they felt Casey was guilty; but there was no evidence; she is IMIO one of the most dishonest persons I have ever heard.
LOL—I haven’t heard about an offer from Maury yet, so maybe she has hope after all.
I think a lot of the blame goes to the jury itself. The punishment should never have been considered, only the guilt or innocence—and they were never concerned with looking at the evidence. I’m really disgusted with them.
Yes, I did. In fact, much more than I should have watched due to summer flu.
Yep, they bought the defense con job.
Give the media/entertainment industry crowd a little time; once the furor settles down, they’ll come knocking. And obviously, some of the early offers are nothing but publicity stunts. It’s fairly common for a porn producer (or Playboy) to offer a woman money to appear in a X-rated movie (or a magazine centerfold) after they achieve sudden fame. The offer is made with the full knowledge that it will, most likely, be rejected.
One more thing: Springer’s offer was far too low. Casey make $200K back in 2008, granting use of family photos/videos to ABC News. Rights for her TV interview will be in the mid-seven figure range, with more from a book and movie deal.
That skank could easily pocket $10 million (or more) from her trial and acquittal. And I’ll bet she sleeps just fine at night, given the sociopath personality.
Not to mention that Baez was told twice to keep his hands off of Casey when visiting her in the jail. Correction officers talked to him about inappropriate touching, hugging, twice...
The Bar Association should go after Baez for unprofessional conduct. I read if they found him guilty, Casey could be retried...
Wouldn’t that be something?
‘Tech Effect’ let Casey Anthony win
lauren ritchie
July 10, 2011
If Casey Anthony had been tried 30 years ago in that same Orange County courtroom, she probably would be facing a death sentence today instead of the few measly years she spent awaiting trial.
The 25-year-old mother who last week slipped out of a conviction on charges of killing her toddler seems to be the beneficiary of something that has come to be called the “Tech Effect.”
The premise is simple, but the results are dramatic: Juries today expect — nay, demand — complicated forensic evidence. And when prosecutors don’t give it to them, they acquit the accused.
They do it most often in cases precisely like Anthony’s: where the circumstances add up to a conviction but little scientific evidence backs up the case. A can of stink from Anthony’s car trunk, suggesting a body had been there, wasn’t good enough.
Before fancy forensics, juries would have connected the dots and applied common sense. In this age of information technology, jurors don’t trust their instincts the way they formerly did. Sending people to their death is too big a decision — they know forensic science is available, and they won’t take responsibility if it’s not presented.
Excerpt. More at:
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.