at least, in jail was for the stolen check charge her former friend filed against her.

With the 4 misdemeanors, they carry a 1 year max penalty for each charge. It appears she will not be going back to jail after tomorrow for any time, as the jail has already issued statements on their plans of driving Casey to a location, somewhere in the community, and releasing her. I understand a distant relative of Cindy’s that lives in Houston Texas offered to take her in. Obviously she has no money, but, if she did her best investment would be in some good plastic surgery. She will never again have a normal life, as if she ever did.

he posts a transcript of the day’s show. I believe he also posts a list of the articles he refers to in his show. From his stack of stuff.

that strikes me is all of the talk about finding common ground between the conservatives and the libertarians. I am a big believer in the Russell Kirk version of conservatism, and he beautifully lays out in an article, the few places where there may be some common ground, but it is little and temporary. It appears that some would actually consider the socons as actually social convicts, who hold all the responsibility for the destruction of the entire Republican party. It sickens me that some would actually choose to participate in that destruction, brought on mainly by the liberals, but seem to be willing partners in that moral fabric disintegration. To paraphrase Kirk, and others, to disintegrate into a society where there is no moral order, is to give up liberty for anarchy, which always can only lead to a government of tyranny. Someone always steps in to regain order and power, and in a disintegrated state, means those such as the Obama Marxists can be that much more successful at prevailing.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/a-dispassionate-assessment-of-libertarians

that could come out of this, would be that these jurors will make enough statements that indicate they did not understand, and therefore did not serve justice in this case. Then maybe there will be some movement to fix a broken system. For starters I would like juries to be selected differently. The lawyers arguing for and against should have no say in the selection process. I would love to see some impartial party or entity to choose the jury for each case, especially capitol cases. What do you think, where are the holes there?

try to cover the motive factor. In closing arguments, prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick (in my opinion one of the very best on the case) went over some of the evidence presented, and made the point that there was no one else but Casey that had access to all of that evidence. Even the defense expert testified that there was chloroform in the trunk. The experts just disagreed on the amount, which is dumb as chloroform dissipates/evaporates over time. Remember Casey was somewhere, who knows where with all her lies, and the tests were conducted some time after her 31 days being somewhere. Casey was the only one with access to the car in all that time. Her mother reported that her daughter had stolen the car while she was gone, wherever.

One of the very last things that Burdick put before the jury before resting was she asked, whose life would be better without Caylee. She played the 911 tape where Cindy was hysterical saying that Casey just told her that her granddaughter was missing for the last 31 days. She read parts of George’s suicide letter showing the utter anguish he was in, and that he wanted to die to be with Caylee. Her very last words were- whose life would be better without Caylee- she walked over to the video and put on the screen a picture of Casey at one of the clubs partying, and the other side of the scree showed Casey’s tatto Bella Vita, the good life, that she got after the so-called accident. Burdick then said, there’s your answer, and sat down. I’ve heard many lawyers and prosecutors say that it was one of the most powerful closing arguments they ever heard. My husband and I literally had the chills. However, it didn’t impress not one juror.

On the first jury vote after first sitting down, 10 believed innocent, 2 believed guilt on the 1st degree charge. On the aggravated manslaughter the first vote was 6 yes and 6 no. Someone in the jury had an awful lot of influence on the other jurors. I still have a problem with one juror saying before being chosen that she didn’t judge people ? wasn’t that exactly what she was going to be asked to do? Another juror said that she was against the death penalty. The judge talked to her then, and she said she could be open minded, and she was chosen. How can you become a juror, on a murder trial, with the death penalty on the table, when you are clearly against the death penalty? Another potential juror was convicted of kidnapping, and served time in prison for it. The defense fought to get him seated, but fortunately he was not.

I am clearly in the box with those that have said, your case wins or loses, or rises and falls, on the selection of the jury. I don’t know much about what lawyers get to pick the jury. Over the years there obviously has been alot of studies and money spent on who to pick by the questions asked of the potential jurors, by both sides. So, that means to me that the jury system has gone off the rails, and we no longer have a jury of our peers. We now have certain jurors picked by the lawyers who they believe will decide in their favor. Isn’t there something wrong with that?

I’ve found it to be quite interesting that some, and I am referring to comments on all kinds of sites, who preface their statements with the fact that they didn’t follow this trial at all, are actually the loudest voices saying the prosecution really screwed up, they overcharged, and that Casey was convicted in the media. They accuse those who have a problem with the verdict of only being emotional. I admit that some of my reactions have surely been emotional, but, my interest has been in the process, and needing to have some kind of understanding of what the defense and the prosecution did or didn’t do is also for my educational benefit.

While I understand that the defense did not have to prove anything, they rightly chose to put up a defense. It would have given Casey a great disadvantage not to have some kind of defense, even though they didn’t have to prove anything. It is my opinion that Jose Baez had as little to work with as the prosecution, as Baez indicated himself in the presser afterwards that he still doesn’t know for sure what happen himself. In the same presser he also vehemently said that this should be a lesson against the death penalty. He said that “we don’t need to kill our own citizens” , as he had just managed to get someone off that almost everyone knows was involved in a death.

I just watched another Perry hearing where some attorneys, representing some media outlets, wanted the names of the jurors released. Perry has never said when or if he would release the names. He is clearly concerned about the safety of the jurors in this case, and said that the personal side of him wants to protect the jurors, but, the legal side of him knows that it is important to keep the open and transparent system we have in place. He spoke to the so-called journalists, and lectured them that they are putting the free speech amendment at risk by not reporting the facts, but write articles just to sensationalize. He said that it is their responsibility to keep the citizens informed with truth, that that is their job. He suggested that the journalists write some articles trying to promote more calmness and acceptance of the way the jury decided.

Of course the HLN talking heads mostly all believe that the names should not be released, which goes against our free speech rights. Only a few believe that the jurors also have a responsibility in our open public system for the decisions they made. One of the attorney’s specifically brought up the accusations Baez made in opening saying that George and Lee sexually molested Casey. She said many people wondered if those statements had an effect on the jury, even though it was not allowed in closing. I am very curious about that also. Did baez bring that up, drag the family through the mud, destroy reputations and careers, only to take the focus off of Casey, or to give her some excuse for her behavior? I just now heard Jane Valez Mitchell say that one of the jurors said the sexual molestation charges against George did in fact influence her decision, even though those charges were never proven. Bingo.

What do you think? I look at the amount of secrecy that goes on in our government with the secret meetings etc. from those that make our laws. Now we would have yet another right to info removed if jurors names were not released. The jurors have every right to not make any statements if they chose not to. One talking head suggested that Congress needs to pass a law saying that no jurors names should ever be released. Of course I know I am watching those on the sister station of Communist News Network.

and after hearing this morning, in court, the prosecution said that the police and investigators involved in the search for a live Casey are going to present Casey with that bill, I especially liked when Coulter said this-

“As long as we’re looking for new revenue streams, how about billing these white trash low-lifes for their massive consumption of police resources? The dregs of society need to be assessed a fee for their abuse of government services and thrown in debtors prison in the unlikely event that they can’t pay.”

I suspect that some of those big bucks she will be making will quickly find their way to paying off what appears to be a mountain of debt that is growing daily. I heard that ABC paid her $200,000. in 2008, and Jose being in charge of the money, never paid the almost $70,000. taxes due on it. The IRS filed a lien or whatever they file. Seems Jose has a problem paying even his own bills, and was not allowed to join the Florida Bar for 8 years because of outstanding debt he apparently tried to run away from. He didn’t even pay a dang $23. speeding ticket charge. Would you say birds of a feather?

in order to round up the non-functioning Anthony family, the entire scream team, and the jurors that obviously didn’t understand what they were put there to do, and to throw them at the location of your choosing. These are not the people who should be any reflection on our society in any good way. If anything they are a lesson in what not to be or do. They belong in psychiatric textbooks.

I remember the OJ trial. At that time, DNA was such a new technology, that an OJ atty. Barry Scheck was successfully able to make it sound like the Baez comments “fantasy forensics.”

I’ve heard comments like there was no Casey DNA found at the scene. As one of the prosecutors said, DNA disintegrates over time, just as Caylee’s flesh and blood did. It seems that some think that if DNA is there it is there forever. The only thing left of Caylee was bone, and Casey obviously didn’t touch Caylee’s bones.

We’ve all discussed the massive dumbing down of our citizens, and with all of the violence being a daily part of our news now, many have been hardened. Parents run out and buy their children some of the latest most violent video games. I’ll go so far as to say that there is an increasing acceptance of the blurring of the lines between good and evil. This case, for me at least, proves the dangerous increase of tolerance that not long ago would not be accepted by very many. Some guy at the courthouse today had a sign saying he wanted to marry Casey. He was asked if he was serious, he said yes, and that she has many good qualities, and that she is a good person. The guy looked to be early 20 something.

By the few statements that have been released by some jurors, it would be most clear that they needed a video of the death in order to prove Casey guilty of anything. Yet they bought the drowning theory, with no evidence, and that George sexually molested her, again with no evidence. There is a major and massive disconnect, as you say.