Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Casey Anthony Story Pulled?

I was reading a story early this morning on the CNN web site. It featured comments by one of the jurors in the Casey Anthony case. He (at least I think it was a guy) said they didn't feel they had enough evidence to convict her for the death at the time they made their verdict. Now, however, after having read all he has about the case, he said they would have likely convicted her.

He went on to say that the jury wasn't privy to much of the information everybody else had as they were often removed from the courtroom when certain evidence was presented. That goes along with one of the legal talking heads I was listening to after the verdict who said the jury didn't really see the same trial everyone else did. I agreed, but I still think there was more than enough evidence to convict on a lesser charge such as Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child.

I went to look for that story within an hour after I first read it and couldn't find it. I still can't find it after doing countless Google searches. I'm wondering if Anthony's lawyer got wind of it and threatened to sue CNN unless they took the story down, or maybe some judge said it should be removed?

6 Comments:

At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/23/florida.casey.anthony/

Yesterday: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-22/justice/florida.casey.anthony_1_circuit-judge-stan-strickland-probation-casey-anthony?_s=PM:CRIME

Pundit blog: http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/baez-says-tot-mom-back-in-florida-appeal-filed-as-probation-deadline-approaches/?hpt=ng_mid

No conspiracies. You just couldn't find it.

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Except you didn't find it, either. The links you provided just deal with her probation status, from what I'm reading. I did see those stories all over the web but wasn't all that interested in them.

Maybe I'm missing something?

I expected someone to quickly find the news item I was referring to, but you didn't do it. Sorry, but thanks for the try.

 
At 8:44 PM, Anonymous grackle said...

The following People Mag article is linked at CNN.


http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20521892,00.html?xid=rss-fullcontentcnn

 
At 5:40 AM, Blogger Fred said...

That's it. Thanks.

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger Ernie Branscomb said...

Justice is no longer justice, but a game between lawyers. For justice to happen, a juror should be able to ask questions, and seek needed information.

Do you trust a lawyer to tell you what you need to know?

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger Fred said...

For justice to happen, a juror should be able to ask questions, and seek needed information.

Agreed, although I couldn't say how that should actually work and still protect the defendant's rights.

Back in the mid-70s my girlfriend had jury duty. The case involved a guy who stabbed another guy in Old Town.

She felt really flustered after the trial because she didn't think jurors were given the whole story. She and the rest of the jury had a number of questions related to the defendants behavior the night of the crime but there was nothing they could do to get them answered.

One question, for instance, was why the defendant left the party only to return a short time later to end up stabbing the guy.

She told me she thought jurors should be able to ask their own questions to the defendant and witnesses in the case if the prosecution or defense attorney didn't. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works and verdicts probably suffer because of that.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home