2011.07.26-28 HLN & FOX (Weekly) News Coverage - Caylee Anthony

[askfornina]

By far the worst episode of NG I have seen in a while! I couldn't watch it all, it was too much. This is what was relayed on the show:

KC is a hot commodity
KC is very smart
KC is just playing the game and calling the shots
KC has a right to make money since she is not marketable to employers
KC is very sexually attractive
Everyone wants an interview with her and she is worth millions
She will still be worth millions months from now
KC is like the hot girl at prom that everyone wants

Guest callers included someone who works for National Enquirer.. He is the one who kept referring to KC as "hot and sexually attractive" . He says that is why people are interested in the case and he also made the prom reference. :sick:

Everything about this case is sickening, every single thing.

while i do think most of this stuff is ridiculous and meant to stir to pot and get people angry (for whatever reason) i DO think if casey did an interview, people would watch it. i'm not saying people on this board would watch it, but think about people that did not follow this case. the average layperson. on the day of the verdict, EVERY SINGLE status update on my newsfeed on facebook was about casey. i know for a fact these people didn't follow the trial. the fact is, if casey did an interview, all of those people would watch it just out of curiosity. i do think there is a huge market for it. imo

 

[suzihawk]

I did not care for coverage and comments by The Honorable O.H. Eaton, Jr..

That said......I think quite highly of Ann Finnell and won't hold this case against her.

I did too, SOTS. One of the things I respected her for is that she remained humble and shyed (sp) away from any media hoopla. Even in the wake of her work in her case defending Brenton Butler about ten years ago. (See the well done documentary, "Murder on a Sunday Morning".)

That's why I'm deeply diasppointed to see her jump on the BS train with such comments in the following article:

http://jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2011-07-26

“The whole case was weird. I’ve never seen anything like it. We had a really cute white child who was dead. On top of that, we had a mother who was an attractive woman who couldn’t explain where her child was for 31 days,” said Finnell.

“The jury verdict, I think, was a fair one. I think the jurors went into the jury room and determined they didn’t know what happened, so they couldn’t convict her,” she said.


"Cute white child?" "Attractive mother?" What, pray tell, does that have to do with anything?!

She thinks the verdict was fair because the jury couldn't figure out what happened - despite mountains of evidence from BOTH sides?!


Sometimes it's just better to keep quiet.

 

[cyberborg]

WHY does HLN keep telling us we do want to hear KC's story??? :maddening: 3 nights in a row now I have heard this crap. Tonight on NG it was likened to a car wreck and you just can't look away. I find it enraging that they keep saying "the public wants to hear her story " The public will watch the interview' "The public will buy JB's book"

NO, NO and NO I do not/will not, thank you!

Agreed ... Because the story will be a 'story' and what we want to hear is the 'truth'.

 

[NavySubMom]

Maybe they'll ask for the Henkel duct tape back that was found at the crime scene as well ...

and the cans with the air samples from the back of the car.....the air was also a part of the car, ya know....how many are left, 2? 3? ...maybe they could take bets Vegas-style on whether or not the air still smells like decomp! Like a 50-50 raffle, may as well take their 50% and "donate" if to their foundation where they will take salaries, but they REALLY do not want to make any $$ off any of this stuff per Lippman, :floorlaugh:
IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I disagree for this reason.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

This reply is not intended to argue with your POV...just to elaborate on my original statement. Me in red.


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/freespeech.htm

Three Possible Approaches to
First Amendment Analysis

Absolutist: Asks the question...Is the action or conduct truly "speech" or is it "conduct"? "Conduct" is subject to reasonable government regulation. Mr. Schmidter was not speaking...he was handing out flyers in a corridor adjacent to the juror holding room. Had his intent been to "speak" there was an area designated on the plaza for that purpose. His "message" would have been heard by far more people than he could expect to reach in a hallway. Media coverage never read on camera his "message". They only covered the "event". That said....his message was lost.

Categorical: Designates the "speech" by category such as obscenity or a threat. Mr. Schmidter did not fall into any category.

Balancing: This perspective sees the Absolutist position as impracticable and the Categorical as artificial. Balancing weighs the individual right to free speech against the government's interest inn restricting the "speech" in question.
IMO Judge Perry did just that. His interest was in preserving the rights of Casey Anthony, and the trial as a whole.

 

[Schu7]

"Absolutely, it's going to have a chilling effect," Sudbury said. "This is the public square. This is the town square. This is where everything comes together. And he has banned all First Amendment activities. There's no way for anyone to know what they can or can't do at the courthouse."

EVERY GREAT FALL BEGINS WITH A SMALL STEP. Is this the start of free speech being allowed only on a small square in the middle of Death Valley here???

 

[froginTtown]

You do know what gifting it to the new foundation means. TAX FREE. But they will collect salaries. :banghead:

which is exactly why I will not even give them a wooden nickel....
Monopoly money maybe...

I am in comfort, giving to a reputable lost or missing child org. that IS NOT connected to any of the Anthony's....

Most families join in to such groups, don't they... :waitasec:

Maybe these groups don't want them..... I wouldn't.. They are liars.... and make all of the devoted people of those orgs. look bad.....

Personally... I would go to their door and ask for those T-shirts they were wearing with their org. name on it back...!!!!

 

[cyberborg]

and the cans with the air samples from the back of the car.....the air was also a part of the car, ya know....how many are left, 2? 3? ...maybe they could take bets Vegas-style on whether or not the air still smells like decomp! Like a 50-50 raffle, may as well take their 50% and "donate" if to their foundation where they will take salaries, but they REALLY do not want to make any $$ off any of this stuff per Lippman, :floorlaugh:
IMO, MOO, etc.

The car should be crushed, the trunk was Caylee's coffin for a few days. Highly inappropriate to sell it or even keep it IMO even if renovated. It is as much a crime scene and memorial as Suburban. How low can you go?

 

[cluciano63]

Point well taken....But Perry did nothing to Baez for all of his behavior and violations of judge's orders.

Well, I was one who thought a mistrial could have been granted on a variety of occassions due to Baez's antics, but everyone was screaming "no mistrial"...

As far as Cindy being charged, I don't think that is up to JP is it? Doesn't the state have to bring charges for perjury, and he can only deal with certain acts that take place in and around the courtroom, not testimony itself? Not sure.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

WHY does HLN keep telling us we do want to hear KC's story??? :maddening: 3 nights in a row now I have heard this crap. Tonight on NG it was likened to a car wreck and you just can't look away. I find it enraging that they keep saying "the public wants to hear her story " The public will watch the interview' "The public will buy JB's book"

NO, NO and NO I do not/will not, thank you!

(sry haven't figured out how to BBM from phone)

Why? If I may paraphrase Clarence Darrow: Ever since the Phoenicians coined money, Madam, there has only been one answer to that question.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

This reply is not intended to argue with your POV...just to elaborate on my original statement. Me in red.


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/freespeech.htm

Three Possible Approaches to
First Amendment Analysis

Absolutist: Asks the question...Is the action or conduct truly "speech" or is it "conduct"? "Conduct" is subject to reasonable government regulation. Mr. Schmidter was not speaking...he was handing out flyers in a corridor adjacent to the juror holding room. Had his intent been to "speak" there was an area designated on the plaza for that purpose. His "message" would have been heard by far more people than he could expect to reach in a hallway. Media coverage never read on camera his "message". They only covered the "event". That said....his message was lost.

Categorical: Designates the "speech" by category such as obscenity or a threat. Mr. Schmidter did not fall into any category.

Balancing: This perspective sees the Absolutist position as impracticable and the Categorical as artificial. Balancing weighs the individual right to free speech against the government's interest inn restricting the "speech" in question.
IMO Judge Perry did just that. His interest was in preserving the rights of Casey Anthony, and the trial as a whole.

I think writings have been recognized as speech forever. Handing them to someone is just the same as delivering a speech. If that was not the case then all the mute people in the country would not have the freedom of speech.

Judge Perry has all the rights he needs to assure Casey a fair trial. He had the rule of his courtroom, and jury sequestering. He had the power to control the jury and sneak them in and out with guards present. If the guy had tried to hand a juror member something there was plenty of law to back up an arrest of him and keep the juror from reading it.

The test Perry should have used was could the state pass a law that a news station could not report or talk about the concept of jury nullification while Perry was doing the jury selection. There is no way they would get away with that and there should be no way Perry gets away with this.

 

[denjet]

The car should be crushed, the trunk was Caylee's coffin for a few days. Highly inappropriate to sell it or even keep it IMO even if renovated. It is as much a crime scene and memorial as Suburban. How low can you go?

Apparently, pretty damn low if there's a buck to be made !! I'm sure selling the death mobile and starting off your foundation with the proceeds will bring all kinds of attention to their "cause" ... negative attention and people will detest the Anthonys even more than they already do ... WOW these people are the lowest !!
What next ? Will they auction off Caylee's belongings ? her toys ? the rest of her Winnie the Pooh bedding ? .... gawd I can't stand these people :banghead:

I'll bet the rest of that roll of duct tape would fetch a pretty penny too ...

 

[cyberborg]

Well, I was one who thought a mistrial could have been granted on a variety of occassions due to Baez's antics, but everyone was screaming "no mistrial"...

As far as Cindy being charged, I don't think that is up to JP is it? Doesn't the state have to bring charges for perjury, and he can only deal with certain acts that take place in and around the courtroom, not testimony itself? Not sure.

BBM. I know! I was fearful of a mistrial that favored the DT and a better bite of the apple, in hindsight I would have taken any mistrial for the SA to regroup based on JB's outrageous accusations. Even CM reframed reasonable doubt in such a way it was impossible to put the genie back ... The underdog pulled the rug while HHJBP over-accomodated that dog.

 

[Salem]

JVM talked about the case of Mark Schmidter and this anti-constitution Judge named Perry taking his freedom of speech away and giving him 5 months in jail with a bunch of murderers and drug addicts for handing out pamphlets at a courthouse.

Perry should be the one jailed for taking this guys civil rights away from him.

This guy sits in jail for 5 months and Perry does nothing to Jose Baez for all of this contempt of court. What a joke the good ole boy system is.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-free-speech-trial-20110726,0,590769.story

Hey Doc - my understanding was that Judge Perry went to the FL Bar with complaints about JB. Is that not correct?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Interesting to note....

FIJA actually discouraged Mark Schmidter from passing out Jury Nullification flyers at the Orange County Courthouse becasue of Judge Perry's order.


http://freelinemediaorlando.com/libertarian-activist-mark-schmidter-arrested-at-orange-county-courthouse-for-handing-out-jury-nullification-flyers/
FIJA had actually discouraged Schmidter from distributing the flyers at the Orange County Courthouse because of the judge’s order. Cox said the association preferred to let the ACLU challenge it on free speech grounds, and was worried that if Schmidter got arrested it would discourage other activists from distributing the FIJA flyers in the future.
“FIJA’s stance on this is the courthouse should have been left alone” until the constitutional issues were resolved, Cox said.

Interview from today....[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXlQeSwlMY4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXlQeSwlMY4[/ame]

At 3:21 he states.."No matter what the message is, we all have the right to petition the government on the courthouse steps."

Ummmmm..... he was upstairs 23 floors away from those steps. Loose lips sink ships.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Hey Doc - my understanding was that Judge Perry went to the FL Bar with complaints about JB. Is that not correct?

I think he did on one of the early contempt charges and he instructed the state to prepare one for another contempt but there were several possible contempts he was holding off on for after the trial to make sure Casey got a fair trial.

 

[zadari]

i dunno.. i think the freedom of speech is what messed up this entire case

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Interesting to note....

FIJA actually discouraged Mark Schmidter from passing out Jury Nullification flyers at the Orange County Courthouse becasue of Judge Perry's order.


http://freelinemediaorlando.com/libertarian-activist-mark-schmidter-arrested-at-orange-county-courthouse-for-handing-out-jury-nullification-flyers/
FIJA had actually discouraged Schmidter from distributing the flyers at the Orange County Courthouse because of the judge’s order. Cox said the association preferred to let the ACLU challenge it on free speech grounds, and was worried that if Schmidter got arrested it would discourage other activists from distributing the FIJA flyers in the future.
“FIJA’s stance on this is the courthouse should have been left alone” until the constitutional issues were resolved, Cox said.

Interview from today....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXlQeSwlMY4

Even more Honorable, the Rogue Pamphleteer :rocker:

 

[sparkysmom]

Thanks logicalgirl, a great read that I think illustrates in an eloquent fashion, the key points all of us verdict opponents have tried to convey ....

My favorite paragraph ...

The Anthony trial was an intricate circumstantial evidence case, but it shouldn't have flummoxed a jury of even borderline intelligence. Why did these jurors so lack the courage of their convictions (literally) that they were not willing to fight for their convictions for even one full calendar day? It seems to me that the jurors collectively certainly did not carefully evaluate the evidence in the manner that this circumstantial evidence required — when such careful examination could have resulted in a guilty verdict. None of the reported comments of the several jurors who have communicated, in one form or another, has said anything that inspires confidence that they knew what they were talking about, understood the difference between inferences that could be drawn from evidence as opposed to mere speculation or properly understood what the prosecution was required to prove.

Excellent paragraph and so true! Unfortunately, I am not sure these jurors would understand that paragraph, what with all the big words and such. Sorry, I am feeling kind of snarky tonight..... :banghead:

 

[Schu7]

I'll bet the rest of that roll of duct tape would fetch a pretty penny too ...

Cindy is going to be selling the duck tape with a note of HER authorization that is its real.

And Cindy's word is her bond. Bond to scamming your money that is.:rocker: