If This Had Been a Non-Jury Trial ....

[hpvdr]

Speaking of jurors...
Greta to interview Juror #11 tomorrow night - the jury foreman. (move this to the appropriate thread if necessary)

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/07/10...an-speaks-out/

I wish I knew if he is being paid for his appearance because I will not support dollars to the jurors.

 

[GetSmart]

Judge Perry would have given her life without parole.

 

[LinasK]

Absolutely he would have convicted her of 1st degree murder, and he's not afraid to give the Death Sentence!!! He was not happy with the jury's verdict, he's seen all the evidence (and all the photos) and he wouldn't have fallen for Jose's BS opening statement. The evidence was there and the prosecution did a good job of presenting it. This jury was either stupid, didn't want to see the evidence, or was tampered with/paid off. This was no accident, and was NOT over-charged!!!:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

 

[travelgal]

Life with out parole!

 

[Jakpot]

And overturned on appeal probably

 

[shotzie]

I believe I read somewhere Judge Perry has been over 8 Death Sentence cases an all but one went to DP..he even attended one..He is not afraid of the DP..He is FROM TEXAS>..YAHOOO!!!!!!
I wish it was a Bench trial.an he sent her away a long time so I don't have to hear or see here Evil Face anymore.

 

[Indy Anna]

If the defense team had their way, this case would never have gone to trial. They wanted the case thrown out, but Judge Perry obviously saw the validity of the evidence presented by the DA and determined to see it through.

Although the DA's arguments for a premeditated murder seemed plausible, I'll concede that an accidental death is possible...however, not an accidental drowning. There is just no rationale for an accidental drowning going unreported. The DT claimed CA covered it up because she didn't want to appear to be a bad mother. Well, how would CA appear for covering up the accidental drowning of her toddler? Like a BAD MOTHER! And, wouldn't she want to at least give her daughter a proper burial rather than stuffing her in a trash bag and tossing her into the swamp like a piece of rubbish? And, I don't believe anyone but CA was responsible for that. She admitted all along that she knew where Caylee was and what had happened to her, although she lied about the details.

I could believe that CA accidentally gave Caylee a fatal dose of chloroform or Xanax, which she used to sedate Caylee while she partied. Then, she may have panicked and concealed Caylee's death knowing that she was culpable for child endangering, child neglect, child abuse, and negligent homicide or manslaughter. I truly believe that, if Judge Perry did not find the evidence for first-degree murder convincing, he would've convicted Casey on lesser charges and sentenced her to at least 30 years.

 

[Sustained]

I could believe that CA accidentally gave Caylee a fatal dose of chloroform or Xanax, which she used to sedate Caylee while she partied. Then, she may have panicked and concealed Caylee's death knowing that she was culpable for child endangering, child neglect, child abuse, and negligent homicide or manslaughter. I truly believe that, if Judge Perry did not find the evidence for first-degree murder convincing, he would've convicted Casey on lesser charges and sentenced her to at least 30 years.

An accidental overdose of chloroform or Xanax ? What's accidental about giving a child chloroform or Xanax ? Just giving a child a sedative like that constitutes aggravated child abuse and the fact Caylee died brings it to felony murder. Which is punishable by life in prison ...

 

[robmom]

I have no idea because I have no idea what he thought of the trial and the evidence. Maybe somebody he'll write a book and let us know.

 

[jjenny]

Judge Strickland has been talking on how he feels about it.
I think it's pretty obvious what would have happened if he was the judge and this was a non-jury trial.

""Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Seldom are cameras running when someone kills a child or a child is abused," he said."

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28512989/detail.html#ixzz1Rpd7eaYV

http://www.wesh.com/r/28512989/detail.html

 

[jon_burrows]

I agree, he would have know exactly how to use the evidence, or lack thereof, and he would have known exactly what the SA had to prove and didnt have to prove. He probably knows how to read people very well also(witnesses, etc)

I really dont think the jurors understood their job. :maddening:

I read an article about JBP a couple months ago where he talked about the woman he prosecuted, was found guilty, and the DP was given. He returned years later to watch her execution via the electric chair. He said she was pure evil. He said that he had never seen that before nor since. I wonder if he sees that pure evil in ICA.

IMO

 

[ButterflyGirl]

I think he would have sentenced her to LWOP....

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

I read an article that another WSer posted but I can't remember which thread it was on. The article was in her local newspaper & written by, I think a local attorney. One thing he pointed out was that HHJP had the option of taking the DP off before the jurors were sent to deliberate if he thought the evidence didn't warrant it or prove it in his mind. If he had, do you think the outcome would have been different? The fact that he did not tells me that he must've thought just as we did that the verdict would be guilty, at least of LWOP.

 

[jjenny]

This jury was supposed to be death penalty qualified. I believe that only first degree murder is even eligible for the death penalty. The lesser charges aren't.
So I am not sure why taking death penalty off the table would make a difference.

 

[Friday]

Based on Judge Strickland's admitted shock over the not guilty verdict, I assume he felt the evidence proved ICA was guilty of one of the 3 major counts. Since HHJP strikes me as being at least as tough as JS on law-breakers, I assume HHJP would have found ICA guilty on one of the 3 major counts.

However, I don't think either judge would have sentenced her to more than maybe 15 years.

 

[Chris_Texas]

Who knows?

By choosing to conceal these juror's names this judge is ignoring or violating both state law and the constitution upon which those laws are based. Why would we then expect anything from him?

 

[shgrbkr]

My vote was LWOP but I was torn between that and 30+ years. he knew very well she was guilty. Unfortunately, it was a no-brainer to put it before a jury. Even Baez can do a no-brainer.

 

[lorann]

I voted LWOP - It would have been a totally different trial. The judge is able to listen to the experts, weigh their testimony, witnesses would not have been paraded back and forth numerous times to insure emotional responses. All of LE that had to be away from other cases to wait to appear in court again and again would maybe have solved other crimes. But the judge would have considered all the the testimony before making a ruling. Would have been a shorter trial, the State of Florida would have saved a bunch of money and the media would not have made as much. Just my :twocents:

 

[Boytwnmom]

and is known as someone who has no problem imposing the DP. Remember what case he cited to CM after his motion to dismiss because of lack of evidence. He cited the case of the judge whose body was never found. HHJP knew what Casey was and is and knows the State had a pefectly sound circumstantial case.

I also know it because he would have otherwise dismissed the case or gotten the state to drop some of the charges because he's not one to waste court time and resources. If he didn't believe this was a 1st degree murder case, it wouldn't have been one. I don't think he ever felt the state overcharged. I also always felt he was so solicitous and intent on catering to the jury because he knew what a tough time they would be having because of finding her guilty of 1st degree murder. Same reason he bent over for the defense-he was ensuring the verdict wouldn't get overturned.

Absolutely he would have convicted her of 1st degree murder, and he's not afraid to give the Death Sentence!!! He was not happy with the jury's verdict, he's seen all the evidence (and all the photos) and he wouldn't have fallen for Jose's BS opening statement. The evidence was there and the prosecution did a good job of presenting it. This jury was either stupid, didn't want to see the evidence, or was tampered with/paid off. This was no accident, and was NOT over-charged!!!:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

 

[Rhyme & Reason]

Who knows?

By choosing to conceal these juror's names this judge is ignoring or violating both state law and the constitution upon which those laws are based. Why would we then expect anything from him?

Exactly.