• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Casey Anthony judge felt 'shock, disbelief' at not-guilty verdict

Superfly

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
54,745
Reaction score
43,061
Location
From Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehachapi to Tonopah
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Casey Anthony judge felt 'shock, disbelief' at not-guilty verdict

http://www.today.com/news/casey-anthony-judge-felt-shock-disbelief-not-guilty-verdict-6C9791042

Two years after jury selection began for the Casey Anthony murder trial, Judge Belvin Perry, who presided over the case, said the Florida mother was "very manipulative."

"There were two sides to Casey Anthony," he told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY Monday in an exclusive interview. "There was the side that was before the jury, where she portrayed the role of a mother who had lost a child, someone who was wrongfully accused, and then you could notice the change and transformation in her when the jury went out.


"She was very commanding, she took charge of different things, and you could see her sometimes scolding her attorneys."

During the trial, Anthony's attorneys discussed with her the possibility of taking a plea deal for aggravated manslaughter instead of first-degree murder. Perry described Anthony's behavior as she talked with her lawyers in a holding cell near where he was sitting.


"I will never forget that day,'' he said. "All of a sudden, you heard shouting coming from the holding cell, some four-letter words coming from the holding cell, and she was quite upset. So upset that one counselor suggested that she was incompetent to proceed."

Perry, the chief judge on Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, became famous during the trial, which made national headlines from May to July 2011. The jury found Anthony not guilty of the first-degree murder of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. Her daughter's remains were found in a wooded area near Anthony’s home in Orlando in December 2008.


The jury found Anthony guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, and she was released in July of 2011 after getting credit for time served.

Perry described his "surprise," "shock" and "disbelief" at reading the verdict.

"There was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of murder in the first degree in this case," he said.

"I thought they had proved a great case, but you’ve got to realize this was a circumstantial evidence case. All the defense had to do was create that reasonable doubt, and that’s what they did."


Perry credits Anthony's lawyer, Jose Baez, for his effect on the jury.


"The state had better lawyers, but Mr. Baez was very personable,'' Perry said. "He came across as someone that you would like. It’s like someone trying to sell a used car. Who are you going to buy it from? The most likable salesperson."

In Florida, television cameras are allowed in the courtroom. The Anthony trial rippled across Twitter and Facebook. The high-profile trial earned Perry the nickname "The Velvet Hammer" on social media.

"In Florida we’ve always had cameras,'' he said. "I think people need to know how their justice system works, and that’s the only way it can work."
Click to expand...



Not surprising. I always have wondered if the jury had heard the story behind the story if they would have found her guilty.
 
I suspect that Ms. Anthony was guilty of the crime. Having said that, the legal process requires that one prove a suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no incontrovertible evidence to do so (or at least the prosecution failed to provide it) and the physical evidence was lacking. That context made it reasonable for at least some jurors to have doubt precluding a conviction, especially with the stakes that the suspect could have been eligible for the death penalty. IMO, the limitations of the evidence, not personalities involved in the case, are far more likely the reason for the verdict.
 
Our justice system plain sucks.

I'm proud to be an American for many reasons, but our judicial system is absolute garbage.
 
Superfly said:
Not surprising. I always have wondered if the jury had heard the story behind the story if they would have found her guilty.
Click to expand...

This is not the focus of your thread, but I have to say that I find it disgusting that a trial judge, a person charged with the impartial conduct of a trial to seek justice for society, the victim and the accused chooses to opine about a case he presided over. Such opinions should be kept to himself to respect the jury trial system and respect the jurors in the case.
 
I don't know, John. He's entitled to his opinion. There's no way that she'll ever be tried again, so nothing he says can be used against him. That entire trial was a miscarriage of justice, and his face will always be attached to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom