The judge who presided over the trial of Casey Anthony said Monday he believed there was enough evidence to convict the Florida mother who was acquitted of murdering her 2-year-old daughter.
Judge Belvin Perry told NBC's "Today" show that he thought there was sufficient evidence for a conviction on a first-degree murder charge, even though much of the evidence was circumstantial.
Anthony was acquitted almost two years ago of killing her daughter, Caylee, following a trial that attracted worldwide attention. She was convicted of making false statements to police and got credit for time served. More
5:58 there was sufficient evidence to convict that little tramp. Not enough for the death penalty which I said would never occur just as it will not occur with Jodie Arias, but she should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter. The jury system as we know it, needs to be reevaluated especially since trials like OJ, Anthony and these idiots in Arizona taking 3 days to come up with a verdict in the Arias case. Posters like 5:58 should not be on juries
It's a shame to be reading some of these comments. This person was tried and judged by a group of "her peers" as our Constitution allows. Her peers, regular citizens, determined the verdict. Don't become one of those who are now, knowingly or unknowingly, undermining and threatening our Constitution. No, I don't like what happened, but a jury decided the case......Let it be. Don't point or accuse, or as this immature judge (yes, I said immature) did by going on national television and making such comments. This was grandstanding, he wanted his 5 minute in the limelight. Be better, be stronger, it's done, and it was decided by US, the average citizen that was on that jury.
It is possible the "his/her" peers should not be on juries. In the Anthony case, if my memory is correct, the vast majority of people educated in the field of law were, along with the judge, very upset and confused over the verdict as they were w/ the OJ trial. As you stated it was decided by the average citizen and maybe the average citizen is not versed enough to make decisions like this. Time to rethink the system????????????
9:16, I have to agree. She may have been guilty but the system has put away many innocent people as well. "Reasonable doubt" casts a very wide net but it is the law of the land. Just wait and watch for the Trayvon verdict and you'll see an innocent man convicted. Sometimes it goes both ways.
Jack, Do you really think it's okay for a jury to convict someone of even the lessor manslaughter when the death was offically listed as "undetermined?" Even if it is 'likely' or 'probable' that someone commits a murder, they must be acquitted. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as the so called experts that are 'educated in the field of law' and appear day after day on TV most haven't ever tried a jury trial in their lives. Most haven't even sat through a full jury trial even. The real experts-Abramson, Dershowitz, Kenney-Baden, etc all agreed with the verdict.
You just do not like her, Jack. You cannot convict someone because you detest them and think they are a little tramp. Name one piece of evidence/testimony that points to murder or aggravated manslaughter? She wasn't charged with "simple" manslaughter.
@10:02 I said the biggest fault with the prosecution was putting the death penalty on the table. This was never going to happen. There is no way in hell that I could be convinced that Casey had NOTHING to do with her daughter's death so accordingly she should have been convicted of something, not just walk away with no consequence Not sure that the three that you mentioned even remotely felt that the overall ending was correct.
@10:06 You are absolutely correct...I along with millions of others do not like the little bit--. As I mentioned there should have been no death penalty on the table. Do you really think she should have walked away unscathed?????? C'mon!!!!!
Now Jack-You many be convinced she's guilty of something but where did the state show something that could be treated as fact, real or concrete that the child died by Casey's hands? They couldn't. They tossed a lot of superfluous BS around (tattoo, partying) none of which proves anything remotely related to murder and should not have been allowed in the trial to begin with had the judge knew what he was doing. For the time being she should have only been charged with something along the lines of endangerment and quite possibly something would have turned up which happens all the time. Instead the prosecutors were more interested in showing off and grandstanding and it came full circle to bit them in the butt. Same with the ME Dr "G." She was out of town and the ME who did the autopsy couldn't rule in or out homicide. Dr "G" (another show off and grandstander) changed the death cerificate to manner of death homicide with an undetermined cause. That's unprecedented as an ME report should be medically/forencially fact based and not guessed at. I am not saying she is innocent only that there is nothing to support the child died intentionally at Casey's hands and that was exactly what she was charged with-not a thing lessor.
As far as the OJ trial that judge too had no business overseeing a trial. He allowed "evidence" in that had no business being in the trial. The Furmann tapes for one. Just because he said the N word years before the trial didn't give credence that he planted the glove.
Oh my gosh people, it's really not that hard. Caylee was last seen ALIVE with her mother, then found down the street in a trash bag with duct tape over her mouth. Meanwhile Mom is out partying and doesn't bother to call the cops to report her child "missing." What did the jury want, video of her murdering her daughter? Too stupid. Seemed easy enough to connect the dots to me.
.jpg)
However anyone feels the prosecution did a crappy job and there were too many shadows of a doubt in this case.
ReplyDeleteuneducated jurists who go on emotion. this isn't the first time the obvious has been overlooked. sad.
ReplyDeleteDAH! Really anyone with common sense new this.. EXCEPT the jury..
ReplyDeleteThe judge is wrong. Without knowing a cause of death there was reasonable doubt. A jury should not ever have to assume, speculate or guess.
ReplyDelete5:58 there was sufficient evidence to convict that little tramp. Not enough for the death penalty which I said would never occur just as it will not occur with Jodie Arias, but she should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter. The jury system as we know it, needs to be reevaluated especially since trials like OJ, Anthony and these idiots in Arizona taking 3 days to come up with a verdict in the Arias case. Posters like 5:58 should not be on juries
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame to be reading some of these comments. This person was tried and judged by a group of "her peers" as our Constitution allows. Her peers, regular citizens, determined the verdict. Don't become one of those who are now, knowingly or unknowingly, undermining and threatening our Constitution. No, I don't like what happened, but a jury decided the case......Let it be. Don't point or accuse, or as this immature judge (yes, I said immature) did by going on national television and making such comments. This was grandstanding, he wanted his 5 minute in the limelight. Be better, be stronger, it's done, and it was decided by US, the average citizen that was on that jury.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible the "his/her" peers should not be on juries. In the Anthony case, if my memory is correct, the vast majority of people educated in the field of law were, along with the judge, very upset and confused over the verdict as they were w/ the OJ trial. As you stated it was decided by the average citizen and maybe the average citizen is not versed enough to make decisions like this. Time to rethink the system????????????
ReplyDelete9:16, I have to agree. She may have been guilty but the system has put away many innocent people as well. "Reasonable doubt" casts a very wide net but it is the law of the land. Just wait and watch for the Trayvon verdict and you'll see an innocent man convicted. Sometimes it goes both ways.
ReplyDeleteJack, Do you really think it's okay for a jury to convict someone of even the lessor manslaughter when the death was offically listed as "undetermined?"
ReplyDeleteEven if it is 'likely' or 'probable' that someone commits a murder, they must be acquitted. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As far as the so called experts that are 'educated in the field of law' and appear day after day on TV most haven't ever tried a jury trial in their lives. Most haven't even sat through a full jury trial even.
The real experts-Abramson, Dershowitz, Kenney-Baden, etc all agreed with the verdict.
You just do not like her, Jack. You cannot convict someone because you detest them and think they are a little tramp. Name one piece of evidence/testimony that points to murder or aggravated manslaughter? She wasn't charged with "simple" manslaughter.
ReplyDeleteA jury of peers? Its a joke. If that's the case, OJ would have a jury of Heisman trophy winners who played in the NFL and killed their wives. KMA
ReplyDelete@10:02 I said the biggest fault with the prosecution was putting the death penalty on the table. This was never going to happen. There is no way in hell that I could be convinced that Casey had NOTHING to do with her daughter's death so accordingly she should have been convicted of something, not just walk away with no consequence Not sure that the three that you mentioned even remotely felt that the overall ending was correct.
ReplyDelete@10:06 You are absolutely correct...I along with millions of others do not like the little bit--. As I mentioned there should have been no death penalty on the table. Do you really think she should have walked away unscathed?????? C'mon!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNow Jack-You many be convinced she's guilty of something but where did the state show something that could be treated as fact, real or concrete that the child died by Casey's hands?
ReplyDeleteThey couldn't. They tossed a lot of superfluous BS around (tattoo, partying) none of which proves anything remotely related to murder and should not have been allowed in the trial to begin with had the judge knew what he was doing.
For the time being she should have only been charged with something along the lines of endangerment and quite possibly something would have turned up which happens all the time.
Instead the prosecutors were more interested in showing off and grandstanding and it came full circle to bit them in the butt. Same with the ME Dr "G." She was out of town and the ME who did the autopsy couldn't rule in or out homicide. Dr "G" (another show off and grandstander) changed the death cerificate to manner of death homicide with an undetermined cause. That's unprecedented as an ME report should be medically/forencially fact based and not guessed at.
I am not saying she is innocent only that there is nothing to support the child died intentionally at Casey's hands and that was exactly what she was charged with-not a thing lessor.
As far as the OJ trial that judge too had no business overseeing a trial. He allowed "evidence" in that had no business being in the trial. The Furmann tapes for one. Just because he said the N word years before the trial didn't give credence that he planted the glove.
Trials over people.Lets move on.
ReplyDeleteBenghaz is over, but do we just forget about it or hope that there are changes for the better. Heads need to be taken out of the sand.
ReplyDeleteOh my gosh people, it's really not that hard. Caylee was last seen ALIVE with her mother, then found down the street in a trash bag with duct tape over her mouth. Meanwhile Mom is out partying and doesn't bother to call the cops to report her child "missing." What did the jury want, video of her murdering her daughter? Too stupid. Seemed easy enough to connect the dots to me.
ReplyDeletewhy are we talking about this person? she is old news. she got away with the crime. who cares about her.
ReplyDelete