Posted on 08/05/2011 6:14:02 AM PDT by truthkeeper
Yes, the Casey Anthony hearing to revisit her probation order is being televised today at 9:00 a.m. EST. In my area we will be getting it on HLN.
Let's see if she maintains her teflon status.
Thought you all might want to know this is going on today. I’m very busy trying to get something finished, but will have my television on and will listen.
I can’t believe they’re televising this cr&p
Hey, if you’re a stockholder, you’re a happy camper. Don’t shoot the messenger :)
I am surprised how many people blame Casey Anthony for being found not guilty. I am sure she’s guilty too but let’s blame the people on that jury. They were so stupid. I couldn’t believe that they didn’t know that there was no death penalty for counts 2 or 3. When I heard that one juror say that she would have found her guilty but she might have gotten the death penalty with any one of the counts, I was floored. They apparently didn’t listen to the judge and they certainly didn’t read what the judge gave them!
Judge Strickland was the original judge on the case, who later recused himself. According to the commentators, Strickland's original intent, when he signed her check fraud sentencing form, did not pick up on the fact that the words "ONCE RELEASED" had been left off the form...clearly a clerical error...and signed it, so Casey was set free after her criminal trial ended without serving probation on the earlier charge. So here we are today for this hearing.
The commentators are currently saying Judge Strickland has a bias against her. Judge Belvin Perry will be hearing this matter today. Don't know yet who will be arguing for Anthony, but they will be contending this order is double jeopardy.
Hearing is on now. Jose Baez says he has a telephonic witness he would like to be heard. Reporters suspect it will be the probation officer.
Did anyone ever bother to notify anyone of this probable error. I am sure there are people in the probation office that would know that probation is usually served after release?
Answer: "No."
Sounds to me like it could have been her department's error (as they should have asked for clarification of the order) and she now needs to cover herself.
I wonder who will be doing this cross-examination?
I think that is the problem. The DOC didn’t notify the judge that they considered her on probation or he would have amended the order earlier.
Can she be released because of a clerical error? sadly, yes, in this case.
What’s even more odd. She served 412 days. That is a little over a year. I don’t remember what the sentencing for the check fraud was in terms of jail; however the lying conviction was 4 years. How can you get out of jail after serving only a little over a year? Unless, of course, it’s to make a lot of money.
Sorry she served 3 years. My mistake.
No I haven’t. Why would she serve probation in jail where she is not going anywhere? Something smells rotten and stinky.
EXACTLY. The more I hear today, the more I see that this is clearly a blunder. I didn't hear all the terms of probation, but I heard a couple of them: No smoking, drugs, etc., and must report to the probation officer in a timely manner.
Do they do these things IN JAIL? Gosh, what a cool place.
Frank George is the prosecutor handling the cross-examination.
It might be a clerical error; however, most of that stuff is on forms on the computer where they change stuff up like names, dates; etc. However, there would have someone proof reading I would think.
No to both questions.
I think they got her out because of her earning the money while she is hot.
Good for him. I am thinking the same thing. They can be sanctioned big time if they do not do what the judge orders; but I see Jose is covering his butt.
Nope, these things go out with errors all the time. No one ever double-checks them.
You should see some of the stupid, convoluted minute orders we get sometimes. When you get them after the fact (say, after your attorney has been substituted in a case) it can drive you nuts trying to figure out what the heck the judge meant.
When that happens in family law we usually have to order the transcript and read the judge's actual words at the time he made the order, which costs $$$.
What do you care what someone televises? Or do you want some kind of state-run, carefully controlled version of the First Amendment that only allows shows the supreme committee likes? Lucky you, that isn’t the case (yet), and you have the power of the remote—just change the channel if you don’t like it. And if you don’t like these threads either, don’t click on them.
I get so tired of people whining about what is or isn’t on television, or a thread, when they have a choice to watch/read or not.
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.