Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Casey Anthony Judge Speaks

For the first time ever, the judge in the Casey Anthony case did some talking. Yesterday on Today he said that Casey will get what is coming to her someday and that he was shocked at the verdict and that Casey is not the aggrieved person everyone saw on camera in front of the jury.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

33 comments:

Renoblondee said...

What a travesty.

Diane said...

The horror this child (or any child) must of went thru is unbelievable. How can someone murder a child? Sick fucks!

Marieeee said...

Our justice system is sick. Lauryn Hill gets jail time for taxes and Casey Anthony walks away.

MadLyb said...

I don't think it's appropriate for a judge to discuss his cases on national tv.

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

There's a huge difference between public sentiment, especially as ginned up by a disreputable, manipulative "journalist," and evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOlPsUbAHJo

A competent jury who saw actual evidence saw that the prosecutors wanted to convict her of a murder they couldn't actually describe or prove. "We don't know exactly what she did or how she did it, but she killed the kid, look, she's a slut!"

The jury did its job.

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

And thank you, @MadLyb, for making that very important point as well.

SKOR said...

+2 to MadLyb. This reads more like exploitation of the crime than actual concern.

Jennifer H. said...

I agree. The jury did its job with what they were given. I don't personally believe that Casey was falsely accused, but if I ever was, I'd damn sure want a jury intelligent enough to go by the actual evidence.

The judge shows poor judgment for saying anything at all.

msgirl said...

Personally I think there was enough circumstancial evidence to pin it on her, but I have also been on a jury and a funny thing happens to most people there - to abide by the justice system and convict only with "without a doubt".

Lola said...

I agree with MadLyb I think it is entirely inappropriate and unethical for a sitting judge to publicly discuss a case he oversaw.

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

@msgirl, This is a genuine question, not a criticism: Are you privy to exactly what actual evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, was presented to the jury?

Ari said...

I have been DYING to know his thoughts and am so glad he spoke out. Best judge ever

Jacq said...

The interview I saw with several of the jurors helped me to understand. The gentleman who spoke said that they believed that she absolutely did it, but they didn't know and the prosecution couldn't prove without a doubt HOW. His question was, how do you punish someone without knowing exactly what they did?

Dasha said...

Why can't he speak on a case he oversaw? Double jeopardy applies and she's free and clear. He's not bound by any confidentiality agreements. It's no different that Jose Baez talking about the case, or Casey.

surfer said...

I agree with MadLyb as well.

The judge is certainly entitled to have an opinion, but it's completely inappropriate for him to go on national television and say so.

Kind of reminds me of the Anna Nicole judge - everyone's looking for their 15 minutes.

Marieeee said...

I agree. The jury chose what there was proof of. Still think it's further proof of shitty justice.

Martita L said...

I was watching HLN yesterday and this story was discussed by some of their talking head judges/lawyers (NOT Nancy Grace). The consensus seemed to be that the judge is on his way out, i.e., won't be running for re-election or will resign. They all seemed to believe he will be joining their ranks as a legal commentator soon. Makes sense to me.

If anyone is interested, Nancy Grace is supposed to be interviewing him today/tonight.

Sherry said...

Our system isn't always perfect in getting the bad guys every time but it's fairer than other countries. Her life has been altered for the worse and she'll never really be free. I know, not the same as a conviction.

That does make me think however of the lady who just walked away that was recently found. Her husband talked about how his life had been a living hell because everyone thought he had killed her.

Food for thought.

phoenix said...

There's no such thing as perfect justice in an imperfect world, but it's especially disheartening when it involves a small child with a sociopathic mother who was able to throw detectives off long enough for anything of evidentiary value to become degraded to the point of being useless by the time they found her.

Casey's serial lying was enough to convince me she's guilty of deliberate and selfish negligence in Caylee's death at the very least.

The trial is long over. Judges are allowed to express their opinion in due time too.

Jennifer H. said...

A judge doesn't have to choose to discuss a case. That choice to speak about such a controversial, high profile case comes across as very tacky, unprofessional, and opportunistic. If he is truly about to retire his judgeship and become a cable new commentator, then his remarks definitely seem self-serving. He should have taken a higher road. Maybe it's not so much that he did choose to say something, but more about what he chose to say that I find tacky.

phoenix said...

I don't see his remarks as opportunistic as much as getting the burning question: "What do YOU think?" out of the way, especially if he's really moving on to become a TV commentator. How can he draw a line, refusing to reveal his opinion on the most controversial trial of the decade which he presided over, while offering up his opinion on everything else. That would be weird to say the least.

auntliddy said...

My first thought too- isnt judge supp to keep mouth shut? And the decision to aqquitt im sure did not set well with all jurors, but, as in OJ case, jury decides on evidence presented to them. And a big "duh" as to her not being aggrieved. I dont care what happens to the mother. And truthfully? That family is so screwed up and f*cked up, that little girl is better off no matter whereever you believe she is.

msgirl said...

Jonathan, no not at all privy to anything except what was splashed all over the media and my own obsession with reading about it. The pieces fit together and yet if I was on the jury I'd be a less emotional and look at the evidence and realize the puzzle was missing some pieces. That's what I mean - when you're on a jury it really is innocent til proven guilty.

But then again, since I wasn't on the jury, I'm sure there was evidence that I don't know about and who knows how the defense maybe manipulated the people.

As for the judge, I dunno, I think in this case maybe he's just still upset - such an emotional case. Plus he's been around the judicial system and is personally about how he thinks enough of the pieces fit together to warrant a guilty verdict. I'm gonna give him a pass, he's probably still plagued by the horrible images and evidence, and feels like this one got away under his watch.

Silkprint said...

She killed her own daughter and also stole everything and anything that wasn't nailed down . How ANYONE that knows the case can defend that pc of shit is beyond me , Liar , thief and murderer + selfish bitch = Casey Anthony
Remember all those searches when she knew Caylee was dead? Ask Tim FROM Equusearch who she just about bankrupted with her crap.

Lola said...

There is a difference between illegal and unethical. In legal circles, it is considered bad form for sitting judges to discuss their cases in all but (perhaps) academic settings (even that is often frowned upon). It has nothing to do with double jeopardy and it is different than the lawyers speaking as judges are supposed to be above partisanship when serving.

It is the reason you very rarely (if ever) hear a sitting SCOTUS Justice comment on any case they (or any part of SCOTUS) took part in.

Bad form and self serving-- which has nothing to do with my opinion on the guilt (or lack thereof) of Casey Anthony.

phoenix said...

Eh.. scotus is another category altogether because it's a determining decision based on a majority of votes among judges. Totally different scenario than a sole presiding judge who had no participation in deciding the verdict.

Lola said...

Yes, SCOTUS operates differently but the point of it being bad form, at best (and wholly unethical at worst) remains. Judges who are still on the bench should refrain from commenting about cases they've presided over. Period.

fancyscreenname said...

Okay......(side eye)

I am NOT alright with a judge talking like this.

Super WTF....

kelhaz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kyliegirl1234 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kyliegirl1234 said...

I'm sorry but do you need a youtube video of Casey killing her daughter to convict her? The circumstantial evidence WAS enough.

I'm worried about the future of this world. The number of idiots in it are starting to outnumber the smart folks - which is not cool with a lottery jury selection process.

nettalovesrobin said...

I dont know why anyone is throwing shade at the judge! Casey is a fucking child murderer! I dont give a shit who talks about her. And yes there was enough evidence. I have seen convictions with less.

Desiree said...

Amen!