Baez team announces new attorneys
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:47AM 
The Baez Law Firm announced last week that Dorothy Clay Sims, an attorney specializing in cross-examining medical expert witnesses, had joined Casey Anthony’s defense team pro bono. She specializes in debunking junk science and cross-examining medical experts. She is a founding partner of the law firm Sims & Stakenborg in Ocala, Florida and was the first woman chair of the Worker’s Compensation Section of the Florida Bar. Orlando attorney William Jay, who represents Anthony Lazzaro, said that she has been known to anger forensic experts.
At a press conference this morning, Sims said she hasn’t owned a television in more than ten years and has kept herself up-to-date with the case through the Internet.
Also at this morning’s press conference, Jose Baez announced the addition of two new pro bono attorneys, one to handle her civil case, and the other to help challenge the state’s demand for the death penalty.
Civil attorney Charles M. Greene, of The Law Offices of Charles M. Greene, P.A. replaces Jonathan Kasen, who had been representing Casey in the civil lawsuit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez through attorney John Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan. Greene specializes in a variety of civil and criminal legal areas, including criminal defense, civil litigation, trial practice and product liability.
Ann E. Finnell graduated from Duke University and the University of Florida School of Law. According to her Web site, she “has handled homicide and death penalty cases since 1981. She specializes in complex homicide litigation including death penalty mitigation. In addition, she has tried serious felony cases including second degree murder and manslaughter cases, capital sexual battery, and other sexual battery cases, kidnapping, armed robbery, armed burglary and violent personal crimes.”
She was featured in a 2002 documentary that won an Oscar. The film, Murder on a Sunday Morning, chronicled the successful defense of young man falsely charged of murder. She is very experienced. Baez noted that she will serve as the defense team’s death penalty expert. “Her experience is second to none,” he noted this morning.
Casey Anthony’s defense is filling up with distinguished attorneys. No matter how dumb anyone thinks Jose Baez and Cheney Mason are, they know how to surround themselves with smart lawyers who specialize in areas where they need the most help. I wouldn’t call those stupid moves. Not in the least.
Dave Knechel | tagged Roy Black | in Andrea D. Lyon, Ann E. Finnell, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Charles M. Greene, Cheney Mason, Dave Knechel, Death Penalty, Dorothy Clay Sims, Human Interest, Jeff Ashton, John Morgan, Jose Baez, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts, Morgan & Morgan, Zenaida Gonzalez | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (88)
OJ s gloves were also soaked in chemicals used to detect the presance of blood.Leather shrinks when wet .The verdict in OJ s trial came against the backdrop of the police officers aquitall in the Rodney King beating Also a Korean woman shopkeeper was found not guilty of murder for shooting a teenage African American girl in her shop for stealing a can of soda pop.
Is this what Cheney meant when he said this trial would be fun? How many more want that fifteen minutes of fame? They can argue with the experts all they want, but the one fact that she never reported Caylee missing, there is no way to find agood answer for that. Thanks for another good article Dave.
New Puppy - It wasn't just Cochran. It was a combination of the defense and the prosecution. The defense was smart enough to capitalize on the mistakes the prosecution made. Here is a link to the video: OJ tries on the gloves
I must agree with you. There are different sides to a case and the court system keeps that in mind. It is the prosecution that must prove guilt, not the other way around. I notice that a lot of people like to say there is a fingerprint on that tape, yet no one from the state side has said so. Is that the smoking gun the state has that everyone is sure exists? I don't think so, and without it, can the state prove beyond a doubt it was murder when the cause of death cannot be established? I'm only being pragmatic about it instead of burying my head in the sand. Suppose Casey is found guilty and during the sentencing phase, she blurts out that it was an accident. What happens then? Is she sentenced to death anyway, where she stands a better chance of an appeal after a revelation like that? Or should she be sentenced to life? There are still a lot of options open and we can't just take a position with no room to move around. Personally, I feel if the jury convicts, they did so because she is guilty. If she's acquitted, it still doesn't mean she didn't, but that would be the way the system fixes it, whether any of us like it or not.
Sure, Patti O, racial tensions were elevated, but still, the prosecution messed up.
In Casey's case, nothing will come to her rescue. No race card and no sexual discrimination. No one likes a baby killer, guilty or not. Even considering OJ's guilt, this isn't a contest of semantics. A glass half full is identical to a glass half empty, but the end result is the same. The glass is not full, so if Casey is found not guilty, that's the end of it, just like it was for OJ. Was it karma that got him later on? No, it was his own doing by not living a clean life. There are way too many innocent victims for karma to fit into play. What did Caylee do to deserve the heaviest dose of Karma a person could ever receive?
As for meeting in Orlando next May, I'm all for it. I will already be here.
That's a very good point, ecossie possie. So, it was probably a combination of outside humidity and moisture on the ground, chemicals and blood. There was also that shopkeeper and King, but had the prosecution done a bang up job, OJ would have been found guilty, in my opinion.
I guess that's what Mason meant. I think he really enjoys a good challenge and that was what he meant, but that's not what he said, and the fact that this is a capital murder case where the victims mother stands accused, there could never be anything fun about it. That Casey never reported her daughter missing and seemingly searched for her inside bars is the same as OJ looking for Nicole's killer on a golf course.
Thanks, Margaret. I'm glad you liked it.
Mr Knechel, this is to inform you that I found your responses to the commenters to be very well thought out and articulate. Sorry, I did not get back here as planned but will mark a time on the calendar for tomorrow. This turned out to be a good post and generated way more comments than I thought it would. Intelligent contributions make for a great blog and it was shown here today. Thanks to all.
Nite nite...
I was just thinking we hadn't heard anything on the Anthony case in a while and then what do we get.. a press conference to announce in part what was already announced by the news. I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a news conference has been called I expect to hear something really important to the case instead of yet another lawyer coming or going. This case has been a revolving door of lawyers, so it's not really that newsworthy in my opinion. They can just issue a press release to cover it. I'm wondering if it was more because of the second half of that news conference announcing the delay of the trial of Greer(?? can't remember the name??) than it had to do with Casey. Because, after all an election is coming up. They just used the Anthony case to get the media out there.
I get really irritated with the comparason to the OJ case because it just doesn't compare in my opinion. She's just another mother who allegedly killed her own child. The OJ case was completely different.. they had hard evidence in the form of OJ's blood leading away from the scene, Goldman's blood inside the bronco, those infamous gloves, eyewitness testimony of hearing a loud thump behind the guest cottage, and the cut on OJ's hand. What the defense had going for it was OJ's fame, that's all. To me the defense changing out pictures on the wall in OJ's home constituted a form of jury tampering or influencing and I'm still amazed they got away with it. But then that goes right along with defense lawyers giving their clients complete makeovers to show juries that their client is this frumpy or clean cut person they just weren't at the time of the crime.
I kept thinking of the number of depositions they could have started or done in the amount of time it took to hold that news conference. Did I watch? Nooooooo, I'm like the new lawyer, I rarely use my tv set.. I read/watch it all on the internet.
The two newest lawyers do interest me though. Dorothy Clay Sims just might be able to put doubt in the minds of jurors about the trunk odor. I doubt she'll be able to do much about the body farm though because it's been around for years. They'll probably also try to use her to debunk the bug evidence, but today's jury is CSI overdosed and just might not fall for it. Even though I live in Jacksonville, I'm not that familiar with Ann Finnell even though I am very aware of the cases she's been in. That could just be because she doesn't "use" the media to prove the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence. Baez is right that Jacksonville is tough on crime. That's because it has to be. It ranked higher than Miami at one point. The sheriff's office cleaned up one gang up here and it's been a quieter place this past year. I doubt Ms. Finnel is in it for the fame or the money - she was a public defender for way too long for that to be true. Baez and Mason finally got some weight on their side of the courtroom in my opinion.
Now if we could just get them to stay away from the media. Baez was already on a downward slope for me and then he made the comment "what taxpayers? Why are you always worrying about the taxpayers?" to Kathi Belich's question of how he'll spend taxpayers money after Casey was declared indigent. See? Just one sound byte too many can stick in a person's head and influence their thinking. I'd stay away from the cameras if I were the defense team.
Let's keep in mind that when OJ asked one of his friends for help (he was worried the glove WOULD fit!) he was reminded that if he stopped using his steroids (for joint pain) his hands would swell up. Brilliant, really. Even OJ could put that one together... Stopped the steroids, hands swelled up, gloves were already 12% shrunken from the thorough soaking in blood they had had, there you go. The fact is, they were his gloves- State had the sales receipt, Nicole had purchased them for him on her card some years prior, and there were few pairs like that (size, color, brand, etc.) available in LA. He was also photographed wearing them at a (Bills?) game he was doing commentary on, holding his mic with them. I am still boggled by that one...
Dave, Thank you for the Video of OJ trying on the gloves. I had not remembered that he tried on both gloves. We did get a lesson in law in his case that is to be remembered. I dare say disappointment in OJ because of his celebrity status, "how could he do such a thing" outweighed compassion for the victims. This will not be with the Casey Anthony trial because the victim is the celebrity with all the heartfelt interest of the general public focused on wanting Justice for Caylee.
Thank you, Snoopy. Articulate! Nice word. Yes, this has generated some mighty fine comments.
I am saying a prayer for John Allen today, don't you know he is being grilled and grilled today. The thought of being interrogated by Baez and Mason, knowing they are trying their best to trip you up , has got to be a night mare . Hope he is as tough as he seems. Dave, with all these lawyers signing on, Casey must really be feeling like the celebrity she thinks she is. I think I would be a little afraid.
I know this isn't about the O.J. trial but since so many people are commenting on the glove I thought I would bring up the socks!!!! How is it the socks had blood on both sides of each one. In other words how did the blood get to the other side of the socks. It is presumed that someone placed that blood on the socks in the Bedroom. There was also other bits of discrepency regarding the back gate, having blood the second time it was checked but not the first time. The limo driver said he saw O.J. chipping golf balls on the front lawn. In other words there was quite a bit of evidence for the jury to go through. In the end it was the glove that got him off. Since I wasn't there I don't know for sure, but all the behavioural aspects of O.J. does make me think it was really him that did the killings. If a person is that angry they can be quite powerful and overcome more than one person at a time. It was quick, swift and dasterdly.
This doesn't really have any bearing on Casey Anthony. I don't think it would be a stretch to say the Defence will imply that Casey could not have killed her daughter and covered it up like the Prosecution claims. She is too small, not strong enough to lug the body to the woods. Perhaps they won't even consider getting into that aspect. I believe they will try to show that there was equal opportunity for various other people to have done this horrible crime. Mulligatawny Stew would come to mind. It's true they don't have to prove anything but reasonable doubt. The question is: How Reasonable?
Perhaps the number of Lawyers will confuse the jury, make them angry that the show is going on far too long. I don't believe we will know much until the trial starts. Just that Casey is getting the royal treatment, no matter how much of a liar she is.
Connie - The new lawyers are very good at what they do. One obvious thing to ponder is one of finger pointing. Everyone points a finger at Baez and says he must know his client is guilty or he is really stupid. Well, add 3-4 more attorneys to that list. How can Sims and Finnell be stupid enough to take on a client like this? Are they stupid, too? Look at Mason, with a highly successful practice. How could all of those attorneys be that stupid and successful at the same time? Oh, it was that stupid Baez guy who put this team together. That explains it. I must give him credit for it, but it still doesn't mean a not guilty verdict. He sure has put a very good team together.
One thing we have to remember is that this is, and always will be, a high-profile case. That means high profile in the media, too.
I just don't like Baez or could ya tell? lol. I think Cheney Mason, though, is one crafty little dude and even though I don't agree with some of the things he's done, I think it's him more than Baez who has been instrumental in bringing in these latest lawyers. Like Baez said it takes a lot of talking to get a lawyer to take on a case pro bono like these are doing. I would also think it would take a lot of experience at asking also, and I think that comes from Mason more than Baez. Cheney Mason's experience is showing big time for me lately. Bringing him into the case might be one of the smartest things Baez has done. I also give him credit (but only partial credit) for keeping Casey off the prison's visitor's cameras and phones. She's her own worst enemy. So, no, I don't think Baez is stupid, but I also don't think he's the sharpest tack in the toolbox and his inexperience showed big time in the beginning.
Oh, in answer to your question about the finger pointing. I think defense lawyers take on hard cases like this one more for the opportunity to prove the state wrong than any belief or disbelief that their client is guilty. I think Ms. Sims is here to debunk the science of the case more than she is to prove any innocence on Casey's part. To create that reasonable doubt. I think Ms Finnel is here for the death penalty portion of it because of a belief that it is wrong in this situation more than her belief or disbelief in Casey's innocence. She is probably like a lot of us in thinking that this case doesn't necessarily warrant the death penalty and will do her best to get it taken off the table. It's Baez and Mason that are here for Casey and personally I don't think they know Casey is innocent or guilty, because I don't think she has it in her to tell even them the truth. I think it's just the challenge of proving the state has no case against her.
I'm a little late, Margaret, but I'm sure Sgt. Allen did fine. I have met with him and spoken to him several times and he is a very confident person, very knowledgeable and highly professional. There's no way the defense could have tripped him up. I guarantee it.
Casey's a celebrity, alright, but so is Phil Spector, only he was famous before he was convicted of murder
Excellent comment, Weezie. Downright first-rate. This will be a very challenging trial. While the circumstantial evidence points to Casey and no one ese, the now powerful defense will paint a completely different picture. I look forward to the trial.
Thank you for that.
Good morning, Connie - I agree that Mason was very instrumental in bringing the other attorneys on board. He's powerful enough to coax some of the finest, many of whom he's probably worked with over the years. It's interesting to note that Sims and Finnell are residents of Florida, too, so travel between Jax/Gainesville and Orlando won't be as hard as Chicago/NY, although I haven't heard yet of Linda Baden Kenney's departure. I agree that Casey is her worst enemy and keeping her away from cameras is of primary importance, at least the audio portion. It's her mouth that fails her.
It's no secret that a defense attorney understands the nature of the beast. The plaintiff/prosecution must prove a case, plain and simple. Going into it, the defense has that mindset and its role is to discredit the evidence against their client. As far as I know, Baez wouldn't have asked her if she was guilty or not and even if she did do it, she wouldn't have told him. Great comments, by the way. I agree with you, it's the challenge that drives them.
Gee, New Puppy, you almost snuck right by me, but I knew you were in there. I think that OJ's celebrity staus had something to do with it, although I could never, for the life of me, understand how sports figures reach the status of "hero" for being nothing more than highly paid professional athletes. A person who rushes into a burning building, ignoring his/her own life to rescue another is a hero.
The times were different then. Today, anyone can post a cideo on YouTube and become the newest sensation. There are so many "reality" shows on TV that any high school dropout can become a superstar, and for what? But I digress. There were racial tensions then, and the prosecution did a bad job. Today, and in the Casey case, this is a well orchestrated team of prosecutors. The magnitude of a penalty of death raises the stakes exponentially. Why not aim for the sky? Hey! You just gave me an idea for a new post. Thanks! By the way, there's a video link that shows OJ wearing those gloves...
OJ wearing the gloves
OJ "wearing the gloves", nice guy right there! Had good going for him. What jealousy and control willl do to cause a man like that to fall is not unusual though. I don't know if status made him believe he was untouchable or if he was always on the edge of doing something. They say sports wrings a lot of those tensions out of young men. Obviously, his were only lying low and raised their ugly head.
I am thinking Casey is probably pretty pumped and confident with the new high profile attorneys on board for her defense. I still wonder if Andrea Lyons will step back in. Good posts lately Dave, you got people really thinking again. Haven't heard a word out of Cindy and George since their attorney changed. What's going on with them, are they still in their house. That door got shut.
Thanks, New Puppy. Yes, George and Cindy are still in their house. They worked out a settlement with the bank by renegotiating the mortgage.
I don't think Andrea will ever set foot in the case again, but she might proffer advice if needed. I doubt it, though, because Finnell fits the bill.
I think with OJ, his head was more swollen than his hands ever were. Although I liked him before the murders, he still had that attitude of "I'm OJ. I can do anything in the world I want."
Dave; thanks for your sweet comment. Yes, you are really marking the pace here. Two posts:
Did O.J. do it?
Will the Prosecution prove its's case beyond reasonable doubt, with what they have?
I would be interested in both subjects. Many thanks Dave. I love to read your posts and your reader's comments.
Hello, Weezie - It is always a pleasure when you comment. It is very uplifting.
In my opinion, there's no doubt OJ did it. The court deemed him not guilty, but in the court of humanity, he's as guilty as sin.
In response to your second question, yes, the prosecution must prove Casey is guilty of murder in the first-degree beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt exists, they must acquit. Anything less than 100% means she's not guilty in the legal sense. All the defense has to do is put that one element of doubt in the jury's mind. Another way of saying it is "to a moral certainty." In other words, you'd better be darn sure.
Sometimes, there's confusion over another term, which is "preponderance of the evidence." That is used in civil cases, and it may mean casting a judgement in favor of the plaintiff on lesser proof than in a criminal trial.
"An attorney was representing a murder suspect in a case where no body was found. He announced to the jury that the victim would be walking through the courtroom door at that very moment. When the jury turned to look, the attorney said that their turning proved reasonable doubt existed. " Cited by Atty Roy Black
This sounds strikingly familiar as in the movie "From the Hip" with Judd Nelson portraying Robin (Stormy) the defense attorney who pulled this trick on the jury, and with John Hurt portraying Dr. Benoit the murder suspect/defandant.
I wasn't aware this 1987 film was based upon a true story. Or perhaps Black is recollecting this scenario incorrectly.
Dave; Gosh I remember that with the 2nd O.J. trial. You are right again. With all the evidence coming in, the Prosecution will have a very tough time of stopping the "leakage" so to speak. That means that all of the evidence must point to Casey? or is it the whole of the matter? In other words, when the jurors go to deliberate, what if one single piece of evidence doesn't necessarily point to Casey. Does that mean they have to acquit? or when they take all of the evidence which may only point to 90% beyond reasonable 10% not sure. Can they vote guilty? I have often wondered with juries, how much is left in doubt on the table, but the majority of the facts laid out point to guilty. Therefore that is what is given.
Hello, George - That's interesting. I never saw that movie, but I did meet Judd Nelson once at a fancy French restaurant in Winter Park that burned down many years ago. I've never been awestruck by famous people. I remember seeing Paul Newman there once, too, and he always stayed at the Park Plaza Hotel overlooking swanky Park Avenue. He'd sit out on the front balcony and watch the crowd of people going about their business at night, like shopping and dining.
Weezie - Most evidence already points to Casey and investigators told prosecutors their leads went nowhere else. If you think about it, there is no nanny and the defense seems to have acknowledged it by never pursuing that avenue. Police did look elsewhere, but when the missing child's own mother plays stupid games, where else is there to go but to her? I think the defense will try to convince the jury that investigators focused only on one person when others should have been looked into more deeply, like the Grunds and Roy Kronk. Will the jury buy into it? No. Personally, I think it's a waste of time and resources because nothing points directly to any one of them. Only to Casey so far.
You know, I remember my first love. That was ages ago. When we broke up, I was still 100% in love with her. As time went, which heals all wounds, I thought I was only 10% in love with her because other women had come along by then. In the end, and only after many, many years of introspection, I realized that I had been in love with her all along. There was no in love/not in love sharp line that separated the emotion. So, in that sense, Casey can only be 100% guilty or 100% not guilty. There is no doubt in my mind, she is guilty of something, and the judge will make clear how the jury must compose itself and realize it's a beyond a doubt thing; nothing more, nothing less. As for my first love, yes, I still love her and I always will, but I am not in love with her. Not that way, anymore.
Wow Dave. Guilty of something? So it's possible, to find her responsible for not protecting Caylee, but not of the murder itself? I'm just going to the other side for a moment. If the jury can not collectively convict her of any type of murder, is there another charge that they can convict on?
The only reason I am pondering this, is that I'm starting to get an uneasy feeling about all these lawyers!!! If they whittle away all the evidence, it is conceivable that Casey could be found not guilty of murder, but manslaughter or less?
About you love. My very first serious boyfriend still lingers in my mind. I too was so in love and thought I couldn't live without him. It took a long time to get over it. I still dream about him. Isn't that strange? I guess that's how life is. You always remember your first kiss, your first ---------
(romantic encounter), your wedding, babies being born and of course death of loved ones. It's impossible to remove from the heart. A piece of it is broken and replaced by someone or something else. Thanks for sharing that personal note Dave.
Casey was charged with other crimes, Weezie, not just first-degree murder. There's aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter and four counts of false statements to law enforcement. She will never get off scot free. I do not think the murder charge can be dropped down.
It's never possible to let important emotional times in our lives to just escape us. That portrait I did in 1975, in the sidebar, is Lois, the girl I first loved. Oh well.
Reading here about being in love brings to mind that Casey was not in love with the man/boy with whom Caylee was conceived. A part of our love life which unites us to a partner and a child from it. It is a cold thought that in not knowing who the father was or in not caring about him, Caylee was nothing more than an object of an encounter to Casey. Most of us can come to love a child, our own or not, but in Casey's case she may have actually hated or disliked the person she had been with therefore not able to care about Caylee. Her situation with the father is very odd, she did not pursue it at all. More like she blocked 'him" out of her mind, just as she has put "Caylee" out of her mind, as though they never existed. Apparently no man ever paid her to keep quiet or she wouldln't have had to steal. What a compliment you give Lois to have her painting on your blog where all can see the girl you deeply loved. Does she know it it here? Sorry if too personal to ask. Back to Casey, it also seems odd that George and Cindy did not insist on knowing who Caylee's father is. They way Cindy is I would think she would have really gone after that information. That tells me she did not want the father in Caylee's life also. Well, maybe I should just believe it when Casey said he was killed in an accident.
Casey certainly didn't want Caylee's father in the picture at all. I believe she knows who the real father is, too, and he is still among the living.
As for Lois, I don't know if she knows it's there or not. We parted ways in 1975. A couple of years later, she married and moved to the Wilkes Barre area. That was in the late 70s and I moved to Orlando in '81. I visited her parents a few years later on a trip back home, and that's about it. I will always care about her.
That's very nice Dave. Very interesting how some just fit right into other peoples hearts and leave an impression while others are totally ignored in life. If Caylee's father is still alive, I wonder if he knows he is Caylee's father. or if Casey just didn't want him around. How sad it would be for a man to maybe be reading all about this case and not even know this was his baby and maybe he could have been the one to have made a very wonderful life for her. It is a selfish world. We think we are a part of it or something in it, just a little bit, then after a long haul, it hits, we are not at all. Existence becomes fantasy and those who see themselves as the most important, the inner core, find nothing of value in those around the fringe, even though the fringe are most supportive of the inner core, who must experience the same in some way, as the fringe of another inner core. Nothing is real, that is not also empty, except pain. Pain is real. Lois is very fortunate that after so many years there is someone that thought she was special, still does and still speaks of her. I hope she knows, because it surely is a treasure to be so remembered. Then there are those like Casey, an empty shell. As hateful as people feel toward her, I find it sad that she maybe became as she did because of the feeling like she was never a part of anything in life and her way of trying just never worked with the so called "in" crowd. It is too bad that Casey did not recognize her child as being the greatest piece of her inner core. Instead, Casey pushed her aside. Just didn't like her. Might say Casey was young. Adults do the same. .
I am quite sure Caylee's father is still alive and there's a good chance he knows but is afraid to come forward. That's just a guess, though.
As for Lois, she had several children, mostly girls, I believe. For a long time, word would trickle down to me here in Florida, but when I think about it today, some of those children are in their late 30s. Hardly children anymore. She's got plenty of love around her. Also, remember that my memories are of a distant past. That young cutie is now a grandmother and I don't know what sort of friendship we would have today if given the chance. I am probably more in love with her memory than I am with her, but like I said, it's not a deep love I feel, just a love that's mostly based on fondness. I will always want nothing but happiness for her and her family.
woo hoo Another controversial spike in this story. And Dave thanks to you we get to hear about it. So interesting all the views regarding the extra lawyers. My question was also WHY? It just amazes me that so many of these high profile attorneys are joining up. I find it hard to believe they need this kind of publicity because they have to know the majority of the public will not take too kindly to this since Casey has already been convicted in the media.
So what motivates them? I'm sure there is something in it for them but I can't say it's publicity....at least not the good kind which like you said - that can backfire. But it does have me wondering....do you think because it's such a sordid tale? With all its caricatures? Because this case is loaded with them. I think all of the Anthony's are caricatures especially Casey. Between her behavior after Caylee went "missing" to the wild goose chase she lead police on after it was reported she has proven to the world that she is a caricature of a mother - well - a human being actually..... I think these kinds of cases - they are so shocking to people - THATS - what makes them so high profile - just like the menendez brothers who were NOT celebrities like OJ was. But they became celebrities because of the nature of their crime and also because of their behavior after the murders. Same with Casey - so is it possible she attracts these lawyers because the case is so sordid?
I have to agree with you 100% on the OJ Simpson case. I followed that very closely during the trial. I watched almost every minute of it. And I say hands down he was let go because of the bungling mistakes the LAPD made and the LADA's office monumental mistake in choosing Marcia Clark who when she wasn't coming off harsh seemed discombobulated and the passionate, angry Chris Darden who seemed irrational at times because of his emotional outbursts as the PA's on the case. Mark Furhman was a red herring to throw off the impropriety of the lead detectives who really are the ones who screwed up the entire investigation, from Vanatter's taking home Simpsons shoes before turning them over to evidence to Tom Lange's lack of knowledge about the case throughout the investigation and allowing all those people to walk thru BOTH crime scenes, BEFORE they completed their collection of evidence..... those 2 broke almost every single rule of standard police procedures in a murder investigation. The defense team were very experienced and it was like shooting fish in a barrel for them to point the attention away from the crime and made them all look like the Keystone Cops. In the words of Barry Scheck.... "How about THAT Mr Fung?"!
I almost forgot this. One of the things I've always believed about that case was that they "framed" a guilty man. I'm not talking about the glove either. I'm talking about everything they did that was wrong or sneaky and improper handling of evidence, and the cops lied too - they shouldn't have done that.... I think if they had conducted themselves properly from the beginning there would've been a lot more credibility towards the LAPD and the DA's office.
But the LAPD had probably never encountered an intelligent rich black man who was a defendent AND a celebrity. OJ was incredibly savvy to hire the best and the cops and the DA's were not prepared to deal with such pro's as F.Lee Bailey, Cochcrane, Shapiro, etc...
Mystical. I am in total agreement with you. Good post.
Thanks Weezie, your post was what prompted me to think about the case because there were lots of opinions going around about why he got off. The jury did consist of 5-6 men & women of color, but I don't believe the Rodney King case influenced their decision. I don't think it was about race..... to the jurors at least. Heaven knows the media and other pundits tried to make it about that, maybe even some of the attorneys.... there might be a certain degree of the race factor in the back of minds but its not a deciding factor- not in this case.
It was such a sordid tale - just like the Anthony case. Between OJ's treatment of Nicole - to Nicoles partying, her affairs & promiscuous behavior at times... and some of her "friends" - ick! And then there was her parents...who basically looked the other way when they knew he was hitting her because they didn't want to loose their cash cow....it left me feeling like I needed a shower..
Dr. Lee testified and explained what had happened with the blood on the socks was impossible. He was very credible. There were many other discrepancies - the blood at the front door initially was OJ's and then some was Nicoles too.....The vial of OJ's blood that was supposed to have been taken to the evidence truck but somehow wound up in Van Atters possesion and was missing 1.5 cc's.........a missing evidence page checklist....etc.
It could've been Al Cowlings walking across the lawn - I think he helped OJ get rid of evidence. and I think OJ came home saw - the limo in the driveway - then went around to the backyard and entered the kitchen on the side of the house. Remember his bronco was parked on the street instead of in his driveway. The noise Kato heard - those "thumps" - was probably OJ.
I say the police framed a guilty man. when they realized how badly they screwed up and how awful they looked because of it - it was national news & fodder for comedians everywhere relentlessly...they decided to play dirty. but what if he was innocent? (he wasn't but thats beside the point) What does it say when cops play god like that and how is it perceived by the public? Both lead detectives were retiring very soon when the murders occurred - they didn't seem to care at all about the victims. they just wanted to go out with one last "hurrah" under their belts. typically arrogant people like that don't get it - shoddy, sloppy and a lackadaisical attitude - on top of suspicious impropriety and arrogant behavior, doesn't make you look better - it makes you look worse. So much so that you're perceived to be worse than the criminal on trial.
I believe that perception was a major factor in the verdict. The "Dream Team" managed to spotlight the disgraceful way the investigation went, the arrogant and highly suspicious manner of lead detectives Phil Van Atter and Tom Lange. (c'mon....WHO takes a suspects shoes from a crime scene then turns them over to evidence hours later? then testifies first he turned them over immediately until the defense produced a video of him walking to his car with the shoes on top of his clipboard - unbagged, putting them in his trunk.....with no gloves on. then he said it was only 2 hrs because he went to lunch then brought them in but another cop testified later they were recorded into evidence 8 hours later) Combine that with Furhman's testimony and his subsequent fall from grace - which of course made it look even more like OJ was being framed...that cinched it for the jurors.
No their decision was not about race. If anything, it was about a well like celebrity, who had over the years a carefully crafted image of a "nice guy" and..... a sloppy investigation with shady police. At some point the race factor could've occurred to the jurors but it most likely would've been when they got to the point where they decided he was being framed. It would've been an afterthought but only because of the decision they had already reached.