Sidebar Discussion #4

[Horace Finklestein]

Congrats Logical Girl! I love your posts.

Also, I'm not sure why people are criticizing Judge Perry so much. This country was (and still is) ANGRY when she got away with murder, and he HAD to take steps toward protecting her or it would have been his * if something had happened to her.

It was not his way of showing her preferential treatment, he was being responsible. Period.

He is a smart man and an exemplary judge. I am sure he is as disgusted by Casey Anthony as we all are. The man has dedicated his life to seeking justice. He knows when a travesty has occurred.

I don't understand your claim that Judge Perry would be in trouble if she were harmed. Why? Is it a judge's responsibility to protect someone after they are found not guilty? No, it isn't. He was only concerned about appeals, not justice.

I am angry with him for several reasons - the mere fact that the DT was allowed to delay for 2 years - then Perry decides to rush the jury selection, and his decisions during jury selection were unbelievable as well. Suddenly there's a strict timetable. I won't even delve into the nonsense he obliged for the jury.

Secondly - he exceeded his responsibility imo. there were no attempts on FCA's life, there was no evidence that anyone would try to harm or kill her. He assumed she was in danger. Yes, people were mad. That doesn't mean they're going to gun her down like Jack Ruby. In hindsight Perry looks foolish because she isn't the least bit concerned, considering her videos and her Starbucks strut in Ohio. This is just how I feel about him.

I try to be fair but I really think he stacked the deck ever so slightly in favor of the defense and justified it with his "death is different" refrain. There is also the coaching he did for Baez, extending deadline after deadline, the never ending lies the DT was allowed to get away with, the bizarre and sometimes nonsensical witnesses he allowed, CA's blatant, BLATANT perjury (really don't know who to blame for her getting away with that).

I can't even blame the DT for doing everything they could once Perry began to cave under the pressure of his good buddy Mason. Oh what laughs they shared! All the while we we basically got the message that we need to shut up - they know what they're doing, Perry is brilliant, perjury is common so it's ok, the Anthonys have been through enough...as if people in the legal system are the ones to determine these things. The public was not considered, only endangered.

 

[logicalgirl]

"1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

Bible verse posted by a certain pastor!

Speaking of such things - I sure have missed having a little "fruit" on the threads for the last couple of days....:innocent:

If y'all get my drift......:seeya:

 

[LambChop]

This is only my opinion, but through his music therapy, he could have turned her into another dancing chicken, to get his foot back in the door. Think PT Barnum or Col T Parker, kwim? Don't fault me, I read a lot and can't help to think why is it that the players surrounding her, for the most part, have a Screen Actor's Guild card or an ASCAP card? I just about choked on my coffee when I read CA has one too! What I call point values, go up when you carry those cards and you have to be sponsored to get 1. Ticks me off about that.:furious:

Like attracts like. I have not read anything about him except what has been posted here but if he immediately has gone on the defense......he should NEVER, NEVER be counseling anyone. He lacks the experience and education to do so. An educated counselor would have handled this situation much differently than to use scriptures from the Bible to intimidate people. jmo

 

[ZsaZsa]

Like attracts like. I have not read anything about him except what has been posted here but if he immediately has gone on the defense......he should NEVER, NEVER be counseling anyone. He lacks the experience and education to do so. An educated counselor would have handled this situation much differently than to use scriptures from the Bible to intimidate people. jmo

Well said!
Some of his responses are odd to say the least, he is attacking and sniping by scripture quotations...

 

[LambChop]

I don't understand your claim that Judge Perry would be in trouble if she were harmed. Why? Is it a judge's responsibility to protect someone after they are found not guilty? No, it isn't. He was only concerned about appeals, not justice.

I am angry with him for several reasons - the mere fact that the DT was allowed to delay for 2 years - then Perry decides to rush the jury selection, and his decisions during jury selection were unbelievable as well. Suddenly there's a strict timetable. I won't even delve into the nonsense he obliged for the jury.

Secondly - he exceeded his responsibility imo. there were no attempts on FCA's life, there was no evidence that anyone would try to harm or kill her. He assumed she was in danger. Yes, people were mad. That doesn't mean they're going to gun her down like Jack Ruby. In hindsight Perry looks foolish because she isn't the least bit concerned, considering her videos and her Starbucks strut in Ohio. This is just how I feel about him.

I try to be fair but I really think he stacked the deck ever so slightly in favor of the defense and justified it with his "death is different" refrain. There is also the coaching he did for Baez, extending deadline after deadline, the never ending lies the DT was allowed to get away with, the bizarre and sometimes nonsensical witnesses he allowed, CA's blatant, BLATANT perjury (really don't know who to blame for her getting away with that).

I can't even blame the DT for doing everything they could once Perry began to cave under the pressure of his good buddy Mason. Oh what laughs they shared! All the while we we basically got the message that we need to shut up - they know what they're doing, Perry is brilliant, perjury is common so it's ok, the Anthonys have been through enough...as if people in the legal system are the ones to determine these things. The public was not considered, only endangered.

But Horace, he's suppose to be a judge. Objective to both sides which he clearly was. Mason tried to have Judge Perry recluse himself, also. You just can't blame the judge when defense decides to use the "molestation" card. The jury, regardless of what they say, justifed whatever KC did as the end result of being molested as a child. The jury made the decision, not the judge. It could have gone either way. It just is amazing that a jury would convict her of lying, four counts, and yet believe there was truth in her defense. Anyone with common sense would have found her, in some way, responsible for the death of her child. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't understand your claim that Judge Perry would be in trouble if she were harmed. Why? Is it a judge's responsibility to protect someone after they are found not guilty? No, it isn't. He was only concerned about appeals, not justice.

I am angry with him for several reasons - the mere fact that the DT was allowed to delay for 2 years - then Perry decides to rush the jury selection, and his decisions during jury selection were unbelievable as well. Suddenly there's a strict timetable. I won't even delve into the nonsense he obliged for the jury.

Secondly - he exceeded his responsibility imo. there were no attempts on FCA's life, there was no evidence that anyone would try to harm or kill her. He assumed she was in danger. Yes, people were mad. That doesn't mean they're going to gun her down like Jack Ruby. In hindsight Perry looks foolish because she isn't the least bit concerned, considering her videos and her Starbucks strut in Ohio. This is just how I feel about him.

I try to be fair but I really think he stacked the deck ever so slightly in favor of the defense and justified it with his "death is different" refrain. There is also the coaching he did for Baez, extending deadline after deadline, the never ending lies the DT was allowed to get away with, the bizarre and sometimes nonsensical witnesses he allowed, CA's blatant, BLATANT perjury (really don't know who to blame for her getting away with that).

I can't even blame the DT for doing everything they could once Perry began to cave under the pressure of his good buddy Mason. Oh what laughs they shared! All the while we we basically got the message that we need to shut up - they know what they're doing, Perry is brilliant, perjury is common so it's ok, the Anthonys have been through enough...as if people in the legal system are the ones to determine these things. The public was not considered, only endangered.

I can understand your frustration but would like to point out that Perry didn't handle the case for the full three years and by the time he took it over he was under crushing budget constraints.

Also, he has to follow the law to the letter, not by his own feelings or his personal opinions. I suspect to him the evidence was overwhelming and he could not anticipate a not guilty verdict. His job was to bring the trial to a close, period.

IMO he thought Mason was a buffoon and I only saw a few sidebars were they all had a chuckle. I saw no preference to Mason at all.

What exactly do you believe Perry did post trial to protect OCA? The Parole folks made the decision to hide her details and her method of reporting.

It was Lawson Lamarr, the State's District Attorney's decision not to charge CA with lying. He chose not to.

Considering the budget constraints and coaching Baez - would you have preferred he dump the trial and order they start over again? Perry's job was to see it to the end as quickly as possible as he had to go to the top for extra funding even to complete the trial.

I'm with you on being upset with the not guilty verdict and much of the way OCA has been handled post trial has been infuriating. But let's put the blame where it belongs - and I don't agree that it was on Perry's shoulders. As always he was following the law to the letter, as is his job.

 

[LambChop]

Well said!
Some of his responses are odd to say the least, he is attacking and sniping by scripture quotations...

Attacking by scripture quotes....in lieu of a weapon. The heaven above must be proud. lol jmo

 

[BigMomma]

I caught that

:great: Have to share this. 1st thing yesterday, I cranked up the sound, stuck in my earpods and was listening to Roy Orbison's last concert CD and saw your hillarious avatar...That chicken has some fine talent! Kept the beat to most every song, especially pretty woman. Now, I'll have to try with a little Doug Kershaw and Diggy Liggy Low:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

Well said!
Some of his responses are odd to say the least, he is attacking and sniping by scripture quotations...

Yup - there's nothing like the "righteous" to feel a large amount of entitlement in their opinions....

 

[jon_burrows]

That is possible, (his being sick of the whole thing) but I disagree. People tend to make snap judgements without really knowing how the justice system really works. The public is angry and wants someone to blame. The judge MUST protect the constitution and her constitutional rights in all of his decisions, no matter what. That is his job, no matter WHAT his bias' and personal feelings may be about her and her case.

I am not a judge and therefore I cannot speak for him, but I do not believe in any way, that Judge Perry granted her any slack to just be "done with it." I also don't believe that he made any decisions regarding her during or after her trial that didn't follow the law.

She was found not guilty whether we like it or not and I place all of the blame on the jury for that. Perry probably followed standard procedure or whatever the law and precedents outline regarding time off for good behavior. I will criticize him for coddling the jury too much though, his trying to make them SO comfortable backfired and sent the message that the trial was an imposition instead of their DUTY. They didn't take it seriously, and I do think he unwittingly fed into some of that.

He also ORDERED her to come back to Florida to serve her probation. I don't see any preferential treatment or special protection there. Judge Perry handled a monster of a case that was in intense media spotlight with integrity and professionalism.

You want to see an idiot of a judge.....remember Judge Ito. Perry was stellar.

JMO.

BBM - That is my point, she did not display good behavior. She did not follow the rules. She knew what she was doing was wrong---telling the other inmate to flush her letters down the toilet. She schemed in there, passing letters in a book then telling the other inmate which book to read so she could receive her letter. Perry had every right to keep her in there for her full sentence. If she truly was a model inmate he had no leeway but that was not the case. The rules are in place for a very good reason and they should be applied to every inmate. Inmates scheme to make weapons, get/buy drugs, hurt the guards (my uncle was a guard in a prison and the stories he told were scary), the list could go on.

If you could show me in the constitution where it states that judges must grant an early release for good behavior to prisoners who don't follow the rules, I'd like to see it.

Strickland is the reason she is on probation, not Perry.

I know how the justice system works, a friend of mine was murdered. I can assure you, it was nothing like that circus in Perry's courtroom.

Perry lost control of that courtroom. A mockery was made of our judicial system under his watch. Jury selection was a joke. He never followed through with any of his threats.

FCA testified every day by shaking her head, saying things like 'that's not true or that didn't happen', etc. Perry didn't even enforce his own rules in that regard.

IMO

 

[bayouland]

:great: Have to share this. 1st thing yesterday, I cranked up the sound, stuck in my earpods and was listening to Roy Orbison's last concert CD and saw your hillarious avatar...That chicken has some fine talent! Kept the beat to most every song, especially pretty woman. Now, I'll have to try with a little Doug Kershaw and Diggy Liggy Low:floorlaugh:

Glad I could help entertain you.....:great:

See y'all later.

 

[logicalgirl]

LG, the withdrawls from not being able to get in here last night were the worst! I actually had to do something constructive, so I made some 9x13 pan size Rocky Road peanut butter fudge. Want some? It's edible, but came out a bit grainy.:waitasec:

Woohoo! Pass the pan with a huge Thanks for sharing!!! Rocky Road Peanut Butter - it's heaven!!!! :loveyou:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

But Horace, he's suppose to be a judge. Objective to both sides which he clearly was. Mason tried to have Judge Perry recluse himself, also. You just can't blame the judge when defense decides to use the "molestation" card. The jury, regardless of what they say, justifed whatever KC did as the end result of being molested as a child. The jury made the decision, not the judge. It could have gone either way. It just is amazing that a jury would convict her of lying, four counts, and yet believe there was truth in her defense. Anyone with common sense would have found her, in some way, responsible for the death of her child. jmo

I'm saying Perry tipped the scales in a way that gave the DT enough latitude to basically force their nonsensical claims on the jury in a way they should not have been allowed to. The grief "expert", the delays, etc. I would be repeating myself to go back over it all. He most certainly was not objective to both sides. He chastised both sides when only the DT committed an offense, he allowed Baez to lie and deceive the SA many times.

I think Perry believed this was a slam-dunk for the SA and was trying to bend over backwards for the DT almost out of pity. That helped tip the scales as a derelict, non-critical thinking jury weighed the evidence (to the extent they even did that). Judge Perry was anything but objective...I mean he led Baez through many minefields and prevented him from making mistakes, heck he even gave him hints along the way.

 

[krkrjx]

Like attracts like. I have not read anything about him except what has been posted here but if he immediately has gone on the defense......he should NEVER, NEVER be counseling anyone. He lacks the experience and education to do so. An educated counselor would have handled this situation much differently than to use scriptures from the Bible to intimidate people. jmo

Exactly. An open mind is extremely important if one hopes to effectively counsel.

 

[LambChop]

I'm saying Perry tipped the scales in a way that gave the DT enough latitude to basically force their nonsensical claims on the jury in a way they should not have been allowed to. The grief "expert", the delays, etc. I would be repeating myself to go back over it all. He most certainly was not objective to both sides. He chastised both sides when only the DT committed an offense, he allowed Baez to lie and deceive the SA many times.

I think Perry believed this was a slam-dunk for the SA and was trying to bend over backwards for the DT almost out of pity. That helped tip the scales as a derelict, non-critical thinking jury weighed the evidence (to the extent they even did that). Judge Perry was anything but objective...I mean he led Baez through many minefields and prevented him from making mistakes, heck he even gave him hints along the way.

But it's not JP's job to pick sides, he's a judge and has to remain neutral. The grief expert was not bad for the state. Her little story of the mother at the gravesite should have had an impact on that jury because that is how a normal mom would act. It certainly had an impact on LDB, enough to make her tear up. Problem is, this jury stopped listening at some point. They lacked the ability to focus on important issues, almost as if they all had collective ADD. They didn't even notice that JB never produced anything to support his opening statement. That is very, very sad. This is what happens when the field is narrowed down to a certain select few who all had something in common. They never cared enough to pay attention to news. They just did not care. They lack the passion we see here.

I personally don't think Judge Perry is all that fond of CM, whether he laughed at his jokes or not. CM took a jab at the judge's credibility and lost on national television. Not something the judge is likely to overlook on a "personal" level. Professionally, the judge will appear to all as "business as usual." jmo

 

[Spice]

I don't understand your claim that Judge Perry would be in trouble if she were harmed. Why? Is it a judge's responsibility to protect someone after they are found not guilty? No, it isn't. He was only concerned about appeals, not justice.

Of course it was his responsibility to make sure she had protection when leaving the jail, it was also his responsibility to keep the jurors names sealed. He ordered her back to Florida to serve her probation--before he did that she was free to be wherever she wanted to be. How did he "protect" her by ordering her back to the Florida? His decisions are made on behalf of the courts not on behalf of himself personally. I don't understand the confusion?

I am angry with him for several reasons - the mere fact that the DT was allowed to delay for 2 years - then Perry decides to rush the jury selection, and his decisions during jury selection were unbelievable as well. Suddenly there's a strict timetable. I won't even delve into the nonsense he obliged for the jury.
The DT wasn't "allowed to delay" by the judge. The DT was admonished REPEATEDLY and held in contempt by judge Perry. Again, our system is set up to protect against violations of the constitutional rights of the defendant, NOT THE VICTIM. ( and I say that with a heavy heart). The defense is allowed way more leeway in the judicial process than the prosecution. He did not create our judicial system and he did not create the constitution or the bill of rights. It is his job to uphold them. He is not to blame for the tomfoolery, questionable defense strategies, and stall tactics of the this defense team and every other defense team across the nation that operates in much the same way. Law is a game of chess and the prosecution starts out with one hand tied behind their backs. It is what it is for sure.

Secondly - he exceeded his responsibility imo. there were no attempts on FCA's life, there was no evidence that anyone would try to harm or kill her. He assumed she was in danger. Yes, people were mad. That doesn't mean they're going to gun her down like Jack Ruby. In hindsight Perry looks foolish because she isn't the least bit concerned, considering her videos and her Starbucks strut in Ohio. This is just how I feel about him.

We do not know that some crazy person would take it upon themselves to kill Casey Anthony. I can't stand her and am not defending her but it is very probable that an attempt could have been made on her life. Vigilante justice in a case such as this, where a baby murderer walked free, was statistically very probable. He took a responsible stance and I do not think that he looks foolish at all. Judges operate on common sense and interpretation of law, not emotion. Casey's actions after she got out are part of her narcissism which have nothing to do with Judge Perry.

I try to be fair but I really think he stacked the deck ever so slightly in favor of the defense and justified it with his "death is different" refrain. There is also the coaching he did for Baez, extending deadline after deadline, the never ending lies the DT was allowed to get away with, the bizarre and sometimes nonsensical witnesses he allowed, CA's blatant, BLATANT perjury (really don't know who to blame for her getting away with that).

See my above response. In my opinion, Judge Perry operated with integrity, grace, and most importantly within the law which is his job to uphold. Our system is defendant centered, not victim centered. (Sad but true) which is what is frustrating you and I totally understand why. It is entirely set up to protect against innocent people being convicted for crimes they have not committed. Because of that process, the guilty sometimes walk free and the victim is almost ALWAYS lost in the mix. Blaming Perry for upholding the system that we have had in place for over 200 years is like shooting the messenger. He had a job to do and he did it accordingly.

I can't even blame the DT for doing everything they could once Perry began to cave under the pressure of his good buddy Mason. Oh what laughs they shared! All the while we we basically got the message that we need to shut up - they know what they're doing, Perry is brilliant, perjury is common so it's ok, the Anthonys have been through enough...as if people in the legal system are the ones to determine these things. The public was not considered, only endangered.

I don't agree at all. They shared laughs because they work together and have for many years. You would be very surprised I guess to realize that defense attorneys, judges, and prosecutors laugh together every single day outside of the courtroom, in sidebar, and in chambers. They have a rapport. There is nothing untoward about that. Judge Perry knows the power he holds is great as a judge and he cannot violate the law due to his personal feelings about Casey. It would be up to Ashton and the prosecutors to go after Casey's family for perjury, not the judge. Judges do not prosecute! They oversee trials and hand down sentences.


I hear your frustrations and I understand how upsetting it all is, but Judge Perry is not the scapegoat here. The jury failed miserably and there is not a person in the world that could control that.

 

[Spice]

BBM - That is my point, she did not display good behavior. She did not follow the rules. IMO

In the grand scheme of "good behavior" in prison, passing letters to another inmate (while a violation of the rules) would not be seen as severe enough to cancel out her time served.

We are social animals and die without contact, prisoners are constantly trying to contact other prisoners. Its beyond common and seen as a common violation. We are not meant to be solitary and we will do anything counter that.

She didn't fight, get violent, do drugs, shank anybody or anything else for that matter. She was generally seen as compliant other than passing rambling letters to cookie.

 

[atthelake]

Speaking of such things - I sure have missed having a little "fruit" on the threads for the last couple of days....:innocent:

If y'all get my drift......:seeya:

Yep, it was right after that EXTREMELY funny cartoon of a fisherman with his hook in his backside - I can't recall who posted that but I was SCREAMING of laughter...... :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[jon_burrows]

In the grand scheme of "good behavior" in prison, passing letters to another inmate (while a violation of the rules) would not be seen as severe enough to cancel out her time served.

We are social animals and die without contact, prisoners are constantly trying to contact other prisoners. Its beyond common and seen as a common violation. We are not meant to be solitary and we will do anything counter that.

She didn't fight, get violent, do drugs, shank anybody or anything else for that matter. She was generally seen as compliant other than passing rambling letters to cookie.

BBM - Passing letters is severe. That is why the rule is in place. Inmates plan times/places to injure/kill guards. They make weapons and pass them on. I could go on. The same rules apply to all inmates. I don't care about the content of the letters, she repeatedly knowingly broke the rules.

When exceptions are made for one person then they have to be made for all. It's a slippery slope when one inmate is exempt from any consequences for breaking the rules.

If excuses are made for breaking the rules by saying people are social animals then the rules don't really mean much. Who decides what rules inmates are allowed to break?

IMO

 

[rose222]

In the grand scheme of "good behavior" in prison, passing letters to another inmate (while a violation of the rules) would not be seen as severe enough to cancel out her time served.

We are social animals and die without contact, prisoners are constantly trying to contact other prisoners. Its beyond common and seen as a common violation. We are not meant to be solitary and we will do anything counter that.

She didn't fight, get violent, do drugs, shank anybody or anything else for that matter. She was generally seen as compliant other than passing rambling letters to cookie.

A violation is a violation. It has nothing to do with whether we are social animals or not. Why bother having rules if it's alright to disregard them?