Jurors names to be released on or after 10/25

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
suzihawk said:
I'll take a stab at this...

I can't ever remember reading about a mother that went about her business without ever reporting her child 'missing'. That, in and of itself, was riveting. The infamous 31 days. The manner in which the mother casually described the alleged kidnapping and how she looked for her on her own in clubs and bars. The ever evolving story - how she left her child on the steps of the Sawgrass apartments - uh, no... maybe she was taken by force in Blanchard Park, etc. The calm and yet persistent manner in which she lied and lied and lied some more even when thoroughly painted into the corner.

Then, of course, there is her bizarre family. Who behaved in a manner totally opposite from other victims of like crimes. Who, to this day, keep themselves in the headlines with their ongoing antics.

Throw Baez and Company into the mix. Who was against a gag order because he enjoys his notoriety and loves having his smirky, smarmy face on television. Yet complained daily about the excessive media coverage and how his poor client was being tried by the media/public.

These are but a few reasons and just scratches the surface of why this case garnered the attention it does.

IMO
Click to expand...

Yeah, what she said. :)
 
suzihawk said:
I'll take a stab at this...

I can't ever remember reading about a mother that went about her business without ever reporting her child 'missing'. That, in and of itself, was riveting. The infamous 31 days. The manner in which the mother casually described the alleged kidnapping and how she looked for her on her own in clubs and bars. The ever evolving story - how she left her child on the steps of the Sawgrass apartments - uh, no... maybe she was taken by force in Blanchard Park, etc. The calm and yet persistent manner in which she lied and lied and lied some more even when thoroughly painted into the corner.

Then, of course, there is her bizarre family. Who behaved in a manner totally opposite from other victims of like crimes. Who, to this day, keep themselves in the headlines with their ongoing antics.

Throw Baez and Company into the mix. Who was against a gag order because he enjoys his notoriety and loves having his smirky, smarmy face on television. Yet complained daily about the excessive media coverage and how his poor client was being tried by the media/public.

These are but a few reasons and just scratches the surface of why this case garnered the attention it does.

IMO
Click to expand...

BBM ... Check out "The Girl in the Little Blue Dress," a case profiled on Dateline MSNBC about Michelle, last seen by her father (divorced) at the age of three when the mother (full custody), boyfriend, their six-year-old son and the boyfriend's son moved w/o a forwarding address.

When located, mother claimed child was left with friends, then later her mother. 32 years later mother and second ex-husband were charged with murdering the little girl, who was never reported missing and whose remains were never found.

Mother blamed second husband. Two hung juries later, the judge dismissed the charges against her citing insufficient evidence. He said she could never again be charged with Michelle's murder.

So after four years in prison, Donna Prentice was released.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23592454/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/girl-little-blue-dress/
 
jon_burrows said:
"Judge Belvin Perry said in an order Tuesday that releasing the names of jurors "makes a mockery" of Florida's privacy law, especially in high-profile cases where jurors' may receive threats because of their verdict."

I completely disagree with JBP.

Laws were broken under his watch in that courtroom and perjury will not be persued. His courtroom rooms were broken every day by the defendant and her attorneys while he did NOTHING. Before he starts throwing the words 'mockery of justice' around he better look at himself in the mirror.

IMO
Click to expand...

I completely agree and I’m unhappy with many of JP actions. i.e. The sealing of pertinent records claiming they were too prejudicial really bothers me. Even now that the trial is over, why aren’t those records being released?

I also want to know how he can withhold the jurors’ name for approximately 3 months? According to this article, <snippet> “Case law says that, under unusual circumstances, a judge can withhold jurors' names for about a week. "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...s-will-be-released-8212-but-not-today/1179295
 
Little Black Dress said:
I think to assume that Ms. Anthony's attractiveness is the reason this case captured such a high level of attention is to take an oversimplified view of the situation. Yes, I'll agree it's a factor, but the whole saga....Ms. Anthony's bizarre behavior (31 days, anyone?), her more than prolific lying, the multitude of over-the-top dramatic displays by Anthony family members, the um...'colorful cast of characters', the fact that it occurred in the city that contains "the happiest place in the world" (according to Disney), the many twists and turns of the whole thing....I could go on, but you get the point. Bottom line, it ALL adds up to a h*ll of a fascinating story. Such a shame it's not fiction.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that. Quick question though, is this the same trial (publicity wise) if Casey Anthony was a man? Would it have the same attention nationwide? Would it have the same attention on this forum? Everything (the crazy family, lies, etc) are all the same except the gender of the defendant.
 
Giga said:
BBM ... Check out "The Girl in the Little Blue Dress," a case profiled on Dateline MSNBC about Michelle, last seen by her father (divorced) at the age of three when the mother (full custody), boyfriend, their six-year-old son and the boyfriend's son moved w/o a forwarding address.

When located, mother claimed child was left with friends, then later her mother. 32 years later mother and second ex-husband were charged with murdering the little girl, who was never reported missing and whose remains were never found.

Mother blamed second husband. Two hung juries later, the judge dismissed the charges against her citing insufficient evidence. He said she could never again be charged with Michelle's murder.

So after four years in prison, Donna Prentice was released.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23592454/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/girl-little-blue-dress/
Click to expand...

Yea, just because the situation (31 days unreported) is unique doesn't mean it hasn't happened before. I'm sure there are cases across this country where kids go missing and don't get reports for months and then it turns out the parent was ultimately responsible.
 
Sweet Fox said:
I completely agree and I&#8217;m unhappy with many of JP actions. i.e. The sealing of pertinent records claiming they were too prejudicial really bothers me. Even now that the trial is over, why aren&#8217;t those records being released?

I also want to know how he can withhold the jurors&#8217; name for approximately 3 months? According to this article, <snippet> &#8220;Case law says that, under unusual circumstances, a judge can withhold jurors' names for about a week. "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...s-will-be-released-8212-but-not-today/1179295
Click to expand...

He may not release them on Oct 25, that remains to be seen, it was said "on or after". bbm The jurors safety is very important, reading the order it was safety and future implications for juried trials that concerned him, and concerns me as well.

Nothing good will come out of their names being released imo. It's shocking to me privacy laws don't cover this, they should imo/ime. Many things are kept private, for various reasons. The jurors identities and deliberations should have the same protection imo. Deliberations can and should be investigated when needed imo, but not by the public.
 
Good news piece:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzzsiEcVkEA&feature=player_embedded"]&#x202a;A rare look at the Casey Anthony case from a judge&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
 
Flossie JMO said:
thanks, sure, people link youtube all the time, as long as not floodofnoah etc
Click to expand...

Here is the link!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzzsiEcVkEA&feature=player_embedded"]&#x202a;A rare look at the Casey Anthony case from a judge&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
 
Flossie JMO said:
He may not release them on Oct 25, that remains to be seen, it was said "on or after". bbm The jurors safety is very important, reading the order it was safety and future implications for juried trials that concerned him, and concerns me as well.

Nothing good will come out of their names being released imo. It's shocking to me privacy laws don't cover this, they should imo/ime. Many things are kept private, for various reasons. The jurors identities and deliberations should have the same protection imo. Deliberations can and should be investigated when needed imo, but not by the public.
Click to expand...

In many cases it is the grand jury that gets the legal ball rolling via indictment(s). The rationale for not revealing the identities of members of grand juries should apply to jurors as well. Until it does, I will not serve on a jury. Not out of fear, but my and my loved ones' privacy/safety supercedes any civic duty to serve. moo
 
Giga said:
In many cases it is the grand jury that gets the legal ball rolling via indictment(s). The rationale for not revealing the identities of members of grand juries should apply to jurors as well. Until it does, I will not serve on a jury. Not out of fear, but my and my loved ones' privacy/safety supercedes any civic duty to serve. moo
Click to expand...

ITA! they did not volunteer, it is a civic duty and they deserve protection
 
cityslick said:
I agree with all that. Quick question though, is this the same trial (publicity wise) if Casey Anthony was a man? Would it have the same attention nationwide? Would it have the same attention on this forum? Everything (the crazy family, lies, etc) are all the same except the gender of the defendant.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I don't think the gender matters as much as the gender role. In our society, people tend to have visceral reactions to mothers killing their children, more so than fathers. JMO.
 
Flossie JMO said:
He may not release them on Oct 25, that remains to be seen, it was said "on or after". bbm The jurors safety is very important, reading the order it was safety and future implications for juried trials that concerned him, and concerns me as well.

Nothing good will come out of their names being released imo. It's shocking to me privacy laws don't cover this, they should imo/ime. Many things are kept private, for various reasons. The jurors identities and deliberations should have the same protection imo. Deliberations can and should be investigated when needed imo, but not by the public.
Click to expand...


BBM, I could not agree more! I do not agree with the verdict however IMO there is no reason to publish Juror names to the public. MOO
 
jon_burrows said:
"Judge Belvin Perry said in an order Tuesday that releasing the names of jurors "makes a mockery" of Florida's privacy law, especially in high-profile cases where jurors' may receive threats because of their verdict."

I completely disagree with JBP.

Laws were broken under his watch in that courtroom and perjury will not be persued. His courtroom rooms were broken every day by the defendant and her attorneys while he did NOTHING. Before he starts throwing the words 'mockery of justice' around he better look at himself in the mirror.

He rushed jury selection along and 'rehabilitated' people who should have never been on there in the first place. He threatened to go to the homeless camp and pick a jury from there in his rush to seat a jury. No accounting ever took place for the 200k from ABC paid to FCA for pictures after she was declared indigent. The public picked up the tab for a supposed accident.

I don't want to hear anything from him now.

IMO
Click to expand...

What a great post! I could not agree more.

What I find so interesting about this whole mess of a trial is that all research I had done about Judge Perry showed him as a fair and impartial judge, very knowledgeable of the law, no nonsense allowed in his courtroom, etc. Judge Perry even stated once during Casey's trial that trials are about finding "the truth."

While most were ready to canonize this impressive judge, I was bothered by some of the antics going on in the courtroom that went completely ignored by him.

With any trial, the judge should run a tight ship. With a high-profile trial like this, it is even more important to do so. Yet, we saw Casey testify on her own behalf without ever getting up on the stand! She did this on pretty much a daily basis. Plus, both sides are guilty of facial expressions while the other was speaking. Judge Perry had issued an order at the onset that he would not tolerate such displays, yet he did in fact tolerate it over and over. While the judge did several times call counsel on this, he never once called the defense out regarding their client's facial expressions, nodding, head shaking, and mouthing words. I will never believe that the judge did not see this happening.

And it was not even just during the trial that I was concerned about things being lax. I recall one potential juror being sent out in the middle of voir dire and when she returned she reported that a man had approached her and had spoken to her. They went to a secret venue to select the jury so why was the area not secure? A man had freedom to approach a potential juror who had been sent out of the room so that she would not be *tainted* by anything being said? Yes, she was dismissed, but the fact that this happened at all is a huge red flag, IMO.

Judge Perry catered to these jurors for the entire trial. I have no problem with him trying to keep them happy and comfortable as sequestration forces certain discomforts on jurors. However, when the jurors saw the judge bending over backward for their benefit, and then saw what appeared to be the judge doing the same for the benefit of the defense, it is reasonable to be concerned, IMO.

Could the jury have been given the impression that the judge favored the defense, and could that have affected their ultimate decision in this case? Could this jury have simply delivered a verdict that they thought the judge wanted to hear?

It certainly appeared to me in many instances during this trial that the judge catered to the defense, and especially the defendant. Could the jurors have read something into that?

We have a judge who apparently throughout his career did everything by the book and followed the letter of the law in all respects, until the Casey Anthony case. Since his other trials were not televised there is, of course, no way to know for certain that he was not lax in other cases as well, but his exemplary reputation as a judge suggests that this is not the case.

And now post-trial, the judge wants this case treated differently than all others to ensure the jurors' safety. Ok, I agree juror safety should be a consideration, but it should be for all jurors in all cases, not just this one.

If this case is so special that it cries out for special treatment of the jurors post-trial, then the judge should go all the way with that and place a post-trial gag order on the jurors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 66 more.
Total: 1,086 (members: 67, guests: 1,019)

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
1,019
Total visitors
1,086
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,982
Messages
18,213,682
Members
234,016
Latest member
cheeseDreams
Back
Top