Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 2
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 11:00AM In its SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS from the INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, concerning Casey Anthony’s four misdemeanor convictions of lying to law enforcement officers, her defense wrote:
There’s three points on appeal. First, the lower court [9th Circuit] erred in denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress her statements to Detective Melich. The record establishes that the Appellant was placed under arrest, never Mirandized, and subsequently interrogated. Either the statements occurred at the Appellant’s residence or Universal Studios. At both locations, the Appellant was in custody. At her residence, the Appellant was unhandcuffed and questioned to purposely avoid informing her of her Miranda Rights. At Universal Studios, the Appellant was in custody, placed in a small room for questioning by three members of law enforcement, confronted with evidence against her for an extended period of time, and never informed of her rights under Miranda. In either scenario, the Appellant’s statements were involuntary [emphasis mine] and, therefore, the lower court erred in denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress.
This article will focus on one aspect of the three points on appeal; whether Casey was read her Miranda warning and whether it was necessary while being questioned by law enforcement prior to her arrest. This will be a lengthy article, and most of the legal information comes from a post I wrote and published on March 9, 2011, A Sneaking Suspicion. Ultimately, I feel the appellate court will rule 2-1 against Casey. I base my decision on several things; all legal in nature. Please pay particular attention to the final part of this post, where the charges are listed. Remember, Casey was not charged with murder until October. Also, there’s an interesting video to watch. It’s short and, in it, she tells her brother that she WAS Mirandized, although the State did not argue that in court on Tuesday.
§
Keep in mind that this was written almost two years ago:
While sitting in the courtroom, I must say Cheney Mason impressed me. His voice was stronger than it usually is. During one of the detective’s testimony last week, he asked if he was familiar with the term unarrested. The detective responded positively. Yesterday, Mason exclaimed that there is no such thing as being unarrested. He went on to scrutinize the tactics of the deputies and detectives from the first hours they spent with Casey to the final moments they pressed the Anthony family into service to visit her in jail. Agents of the State? Please.
When Casey was driven to Universal, he asserted that the detectives were already aware that she wasn’t employed there. They had set the meeting up with the chief of security, where a small room was awaiting her for questioning. The door was closed, he said, and the intimidating tactics began. Voices were raised. Was she free to go, he wondered. No, of course not. She was at their mercy. No car and no one telling her she had a right to leave. The only way it could have been a voluntary interrogation would have been if she drove herself to meet them there.
He said it would have been impossible for trained law enforcement personnel to not treat her as some sort of suspect once they took a whiff of her car that first night. Where the defense had been weak in citing case law, Mason let loose here with the case of Ross v. State of Florida and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling upon appeal:
After carefully reviewing the issues raised on appeal, we reverse the convictions and sentences of death because of the police conduct in interrogating Ross on January 9, 2004. Specifically, the police, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), obtained inculpatory admissions, and when the warnings were finally administered midstream, minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation—all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.
In Ross’s case, the court wrote that investigators mishandled his interrogation days after his parents were beaten to death with a baseball bat more than seven years ago. On 7 January 2004, Ross, then 21, called 911 to report that someone had murdered his parents. No weapon was ever found. The Supreme Court ruling described a pressure-packed investigation two days later in which a detective questioned Ross for hours without reading him his Miranda rights. The high court ruling states the detective deliberately delayed reading Ross his rights in an effort to obtain a confession, while assuring him that he was not under arrest, amounting to an involuntary confession. Specifically, law enforcement, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the Miranda warning. According to the ruling, when Miranda warnings were administered “midstream,” detectives…
… minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation — all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.
There is another case in Florida that is a real puzzler. In Ramirez v. State, 1999 WL 506949, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed Nathan Ramirez’s conviction and death sentence for his role in the execution-style murder of Mildred Boroski, a 71-year-old widow. He and another man broke into her home, killed her dog, tied her to a bed and raped her. Then, they forced her into a car, dead dog and all, and drove her to a remote field where Ramirez shot her twice in the head.
Investigators with the police department discovered some of the woman’s possessions in Ramirez’s custody and asked him to go to the station for a taped interview. He agreed. The investigators began the interview without a Miranda warning because they thought he was only a witness rather than a murder suspect. Within a few minutes, he began to sing like a canary and one of the investigators stopped the interview to suggest he be Mirandized. The colleague immediately read Ramirez his rights which the (now) suspect acknowledged and waived. He proceeded to detail what transpired that day.
Sadly, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Ramirez’s conviction and sentence despite how careful and diligent the investigators were. Why? Four of the justices claimed that his Miranda warning was given in a manner that unconstitutionally minimized and downplayed the importance of his rights. They exploited his pre-Miranda admission about being in the house.
That’s bad enough, but back to the matter at hand. The most startling revelation made by Mason was his assertion that the first time Casey was Mirandized was not until 14 October 2008, when she was indicted on first-degree murder and other charges. I beg to differ with him. According to Casey’s ICJIS (fraud) Arrest Affidavit, she was read her Miranda warning by OCSO Detective Johan Anderson on 29 August 2008 at 2135 hours, or 9:35 pm:
I responded to 4937 Hopespring Drive and made contact with defendant Anthony. She was placed under arrest and transported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. I read defendant Anthony her Miranda Rights and she advised that she did not want to speak to me without her lawyer. I terminated my interview and she was transported to BRC without incident.
Whether she was read her rights prior to this date is not readily available, but the above log refers to the fraud charges only. In any event, technically, she was read her Miranda Rights prior to 14 October. Was she advised of her rights before this exchange occurred on 16 July 2008?¹
“What happened to Caylee,” an investigator asks on the tape.
“I don’t know,” Casey Anthony said.
“Sure you do,” and investigator said.
“I don’t know,” Anthony said.
“Listen, something happened to Caylee,” an investigator said. “We’re not going to discuss where the last time you saw her (was). I’m guessing something bad happened to her some time ago and you haven’t seen her, so that part is true — is you haven’t seen her because she’s somewhere else right now.”
“She’s with someone else right now,” Anthony said.
“She’s either in a Dumpster right now, she’s buried somewhere, she’s out there somewhere and her rotten body is starting to decompose because what you’re telling us…,” an investigator said. “Here’s the problem. The longer this goes, the worse it’s going to be for everyone. Right now, everything you’ve told us — we’ve locked you into a lie. Every single thing that you’ve told us has been a lie.”
If she wasn’t read her rights before being interrogated, this could be a real problem because, clearly, she was the only suspect that law enforcement had as evidenced by their line of questioning. They were already on to her tricks.
On the other hand…
When Linda Drane Burdick approached the podium, she calmly stated that at no time was Casey in custody - there was no custodial interrogation. When at Universal Studios, Cpl. Yuri Melich wrote in his arrest affidavit, interestingly dated July 15:
At this time, we found a small conference room in which to talk to the defendant. This conversation was also recorded. Prior to beginning this interview, we stressed that the door was unlocked and were in the room for privacy only. She understood and agreed to speak with us on tape.
At no point in the arrest affidavit was it written that Casey was read her Miranda Rights. If there was ever a time for a sinking feeling, it may have come in the courtroom on Monday if she was not read her rights. There’s something else. Cpl. Yuri Melich made this notation in his affidavit:
I first met with the defendant inside her residence and spoke with her alone and away from other family members. Before asking for a recorded statement, I reviewed her original four page written sworn statement and asked if this was her version of what happened. She said it was. I told her that the incident was very suspicious and her version suspect.
Later that day, several of Casey’s friends and boyfriends called OCSO to report what they knew. It was a shock to everyone that darling Caylee was missing. Melich continues:
Once at our central operations center, and after I started receiving the above phone calls reference the defendant and her child, the defendant was given one more opportunity to change her story. She did not. She was then placed under arrest for child neglect, and providing false information to us regarding this investigation.
The official charges were:
- Neglect of a child 827.03 (3)(C)
- False Official Statements 837.06
- Obstruct Criminal Investigation 837.055
However…
At no time did Casey express an interest in remaining silent. Initially, as Linda Drane Burdick was quick to assert, Casey was not a suspect in the disappearance of her child when she was briefly cuffed and held in the back seat “cage” of Dep. Acevedo’s patrol car. She was never suppressed inside her house, nor was she ever held without her permission. Of course, common sense tells you when an officer of the law carries on a conversation and/or asks you to do something, you’d better comply, so there are gray areas defense teams are trained to exploit. Rightfully, Burdick contended that law enforcement merely treated Casey as a possible witness to some sort of kidnapping and there was no reason to Mirandize her.
I think before we continue, it’s important to clarify the written statement made by Casey. It came before she was handcuffed and placed in the police car.
Here comes the judge…
While Mason was arguing his case, Judge Perry broke in and asked him if he was familiar with Parks v. State (1994). Mason said no, and the judge advised him to read it. Now, if you want my opinion, when a judge suggests something to read, you’re darned-tootin’ I’m going to read it! The mere fact that a judge mentions case law is ominously significant, so here is where I think the judge will go with his decision regarding Miranda…
In the case of Darryl Parks v. State, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, the appellant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. He asserted four issues on appeal:
- whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
- whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
- whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
- whether prosecutorial statements in closing arguments amounted to a comment on appellant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.
The appeals court affirmed as to all issues. However, their affirmance of issues one and two did warrant discussion. The following is quoted directly from the ruling. I will highlight key points:
On January 16, 1991, an individual wearing a mask entered a business in Broward County, began waiving a gun, and demanded money. The gunman was joined shortly thereafter by a second individual. During the course of the robbery, the owner of the business was fatally shot.
Five days after the shooting, appellant was arrested on an unrelated robbery charge. He was brought to the Broward County Sheriff’s Department homicide office for questioning concerning the murder. He was handcuffed and shackled. However, doubts arose concerning whether there was sufficient probable cause for appellant’s arrest. It was decided that appellant would be released. Appellant was advised he was free to go, the handcuffs and shackles were removed, and he was offered a ride home. Thereafter, but prior to leaving, appellant was asked whether he would remain and talk about the shooting. Appellant said he would talk to the officers about it. After appellant was informed of his Miranda rights, he was questioned by detectives. During this questioning, appellant made incriminating statements concerning his involvement in the murder and robberies. Appellant said he was present and he only intended to rob the place. However, he admitted using a substandard quality gun and “it just went off.”
The evidence shows appellant freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police. Even if the police lacked probable cause for the arrest on the unrelated charge, the fact appellant was released from custody and voluntarily remained to answer questions breaks the causal link between the arrest and his making of the incriminating statements to police. Appellant’s agreement to discuss the crime when he was free to decline and go home was an act of free will sufficient to purge any possible taint from the arrest. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress appellant’s incriminating statements.
Parks asserted that the trial court improperly allowed a prior statement by his accomplice into evidence to help build the case against him. The day after he was arrested for the murder, Terrance Batten was brought to the police station for questioning. After being informed of his Miranda Rights. He then gave a tape recorded statement to police which implicated himself and Parks in the murder. About 22 months later, Batten received a plea deal from the state.
At trial, Batten testified about the shooting and robberies. He said appellant shot the victim. On direct examination, Batten acknowledged he gave a statement to police shortly after the shooting. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Batten was extensively questioned about his plea deal with the state. The details of the deal were spelled out for the jury. Batten was also questioned about the circumstances surrounding his prior statement made to police. Batten acknowledged the detectives told him that they did not want him, but wanted appellant. Batten also acknowledged he was told if he did not cooperate, he would be charged with murder and sentenced to the electric chair. He admitted he was thinking if he gave a statement to the detectives he could go home, but if he did not give them a statement he was going to be held on the murder charge.
Defense counsel also questioned Batten about specific contents of his prior statement. Batten was asked about his comments concerning who he was with prior to the robbery. Defense counsel noted that Batten said in his statement to police he was cooperating because the victim was shot. Also, Batten acknowledged there is no mention of a mask in his prior statement.
During the testimony of one of the detectives who questioned Batten, the tape-recorded statement was admitted into evidence over defense objection. Defense counsel had argued the prior consistent statement itself was made after Batten had an improper motive. Therefore, it was inadmissible.
Here’s the clincher, though:
We agree with appellant that the prior consistent statement should not have been admitted into evidence. Generally, prior consistent statements are not admissible to corroborate a witness’ testimony. Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1986). An exception to the rule provides that such statements are admissible to rebut charges of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication against the witness. Id. at 910; see also § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, the prior consistent statement must be made “prior to the existence of a fact said to indicate bias, interest, corruption, or other motive to falsify.” Dawson v. State, 585 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We hold, however, that the erroneous admission of Batten’s tape recorded statement was harmless. The jury was aware of the existence of the prior statement. A reasonable jury could presume the prior statement was consistent with Batten’s in-court testimony. Further, defense counsel delved into some of the specifics of the statement, referring to actual comments made by Batten to police. Thus, portions of the statement were highlighted for the jury, by defense counsel, prior to the admission of the statement in its entirety.
These factors, in combination with appellant’s incriminating statements and testimony linking appellant to an item stolen in the robbery, convince us of the harmless nature of the trial court’s error. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions on all counts.
AFFIRMED.
What does this tell me? Well, when Mason mentioned October 14 - and he did so twice - and the State did not counter, it sent a message. Two times and the prosecution came back with no response. I think the judge is going to allow Casey’s early statements [made in July of 2008] to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police.
§
Back to the present…
If you’ve ever watched COPS, you’ve seen officers detain and handcuff people not under arrest, and they make their point clear about doing so for everyone’s safety; the detainee’s and the officer’s.
Ultimately, Judge Perry did side with the State on both motions filed by the defense. In his decision, Perry wrote that the test of law primarily focused upon the perceptions of the suspect, not the intent of the police. In this regard, Casey was quite aware of what was going on around her, yet she continued to blab, acknowledging that she didn’t need to do that. George Zimmerman spoke freely, too, and this may work against him if he loses his battle in court and goes for an appeal.
Next, I will explain double jeopardy and I promise it won’t be as long.
Dave Knechel | in Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Cheney Mason, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Fifth District Court of Appeal, Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, George Zimmerman, Jose Baez, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts, Ninth Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, marinadedave | 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 (20)
what is the point other than to drag out legal proceedings for the benefit of the felon and her civil suits? She has already served a special type of non productive probation and I guess some fool has paid her fines, so why all this fuss?
At some point this will end and then how will she deal with the other suits sure to come her way?
[There is still a strong interest in Casey - what she does, where she lives, where she shops and eats, and, most certainly, who and what is suing her. When she goes to trial for her civil suits, a lot of people will be watching because they are still obsessed with her. Sometimes, I do wonder whether this will ever end. I am led to believe it will only come with her death. If she lives to be 89, there are those that will say, "See? I told you karma would get her one day."
Some people will be angry for the rest of their lives. Some will be angry with me (and blame me) for simply writing about her, yet they continue to read every snippet - every blurb - written about her. And they continue to fester.]
So interesting. Where did you learn to write so well so that us underdogs can understand the law? I really appreciate the time and effort that you have put into this case. I, like everyone else, am still enthralled with the fact that Casey walked free. There has got to be some kind of justice out there in our courts somewhere. Thanks again
[Thank you, Cindy. I guess it came from the law books that were given to me and my continued writing. The more I write, the better I get, hopefully. That's the idealistic approach and one I certainly strive for. I also understand it's not easy for most people to grasp the law, so the best thing I could possibly do is to put things into a perspective that is simpler to comprehend. I tried to bring readers into the courtroom during the whole Anthony mess, speaking of which, is still a giant mess. Will justice for Caylee ever come? Perhaps, not in my lifetime, but it will someday. I think her misdemeanor convictions will stand, and she will take the stand during her civil trials. If one outfit deserves to win, it is Tim Miller's Texas EquuSearch. The time and money spent looking for Caylee was a travesty. Again, thank you, I appreciate your thoughts.]
charlee....trunkmom now sees herself as a BRAND.
All her life she was enabled by a perfect storm off abuse from a domineering mother
Reward an punishment.Hot or Cold ..Next to my bossum or out in the cold
Theres no middle ground with Cindy an much as she allowed swampmom to slide on lieing stealing behaviour she also allowed her husband george to get away with.
Boy did she let them know it she play the martyr an then some?
Now trunkmom is surrounded by enablers hangers on hopeing to wring more bucks out of a dead babys murder.
An one of the murdress needs is not to have to answer any more sillly questions about that little girl .
Like that whole entire thing was so not me .And so like 2008 an like get over it.
And her present day enablers know that by makeing thease pointless legal appeals.Even if turned down by one court they can start the entire process again at a highr court.
So as long as mspoopypantstrunkmom aka swampmom aka babykiller.Has legal criminal proceedings outstanding'
At her up comeing civil suit for damages being sued by Zenedia Gonzallez
She can take the stand an refuse to answer any questions by pleading the fith.
The civic trial will be delayed untill all criminall matters are resolved wich could take up to a decade.
Plenty off time for her to rehabilitate herself in the eyes of her public remeber she got fan mail in jail/
She wants to push brand swampmom.
Tv apearances..after dinnner talks..lecture tours,,Become the face of pizza delivery company..Or the spokesperson for a new brand super hundred miles an gour duct tape...Or did Roy Kronk get that gig?
[While I agree that Casey has a string of enablers, she will not be able to plead the Fifth in any of her civil suits. She will have to answer the questions honestly. HAHAHA! That's the law, anyway, but getting the truth out of her is like getting lemon juice out of a peanut.]
I, like everyone else, am still enthralled with the fact that Casey walked free. There has got to be some kind of justice out there in our courts somewhere. Thanks again
Cindy you mean to say your happy walked free.....?
Or do you mean enraged?
Or where you being ironic ?
To Ecossie Possie, no I think it was horrible that she walked free. It should never have happened. I just wonder where the justice is in this case. How can 12 people do what they did? I will never understand it.
Cindy nae bother at aw hen
We was all mighty peed of when swamphag skated over thin ice without crashing through to justice..
You said enthralled.
To be under someone thrall is to be enamoured by them under there spell so to speak'.
Thats why I asked if you meant enraged..
I dont doubt that one bit Eco_ thanks for the reply
Dave, Since the state did not mention Casey having had her Miranda Rights, Clearly she made the statement of confirmation in the video to Lee but what else could she have been speaking of which she might possibly have "thought" were Miranda Rights but in actuality could have been some other advising statement. Could the state be timid about making it an issue because it may not have been done at an early enough time, ex: as before, during, after her arrest.
[The bottom line, legally, is not what she said in the video, but that's only because her words are not to be trusted, despite the admission of being Mirandized. This is just one part of the motion, too; the other being double jeopardy, which I will discuss next. Was Casey under arrest when she was placed in the police car? If so, and that's what the appellate court will decide, was she read her rights beforehand? The most important thing to remember is that, during this time, Caylee was merely missing. When she was taken to Universal, she was free to go, but she had no means to go anywhere other than where the police were taking her. She was at their beck and call, and that is an issue the appellate judges must decide. But did that mean she was under arrest? Oh boy. A lot of legal wrangling will be going on beghind closed doors because there is no simple answer here. Ultimately, I don't think she will win a complete reversal, but I was also wrong on her murder conviction, so what do I know?]
Excellent article Dave. Thank you so much
New Puppy.
I am totally dismayed to learn I think I've been banned from the blog Doth Protest Too Much. Sometime ago I commented that what happened in the Anthony case could happen in the Zimmerman case. What I meant was he could just walk free too. Not that the cases were alike just that juries are made up of people and no one knows what those people will do. I was accused of being a "troll",whatever that meant. I explained I was old but not ugly and didn't live under a bridge. After all the nice things you said about me too. Oh well I guess I'll just read over there and comment to myself.
[Thank you, Tommy's Mom. Believe it or not, I did write many articles explaining the law during the entire Anthony case. It occasionally spills over and into the Zimmerman case, too.
Are you sure you were banned at Doth Protest Too Much? I find the blog to be quite reasonable. However, I also understand how tempers can get hot under the collar over controversial issues like these two cases. My guess is that because of the potential arguments, you were temporarily placed in moderation, along with others. Once things settle down, all will be well again. I've found myself doing the same thing to people, but that's the way I handle it. I cannot really speak for another blog, but most of us are reasonable people.
Yes, Zimmerman could easily walk. In this case, I would blame the Sanford police to a degree, but the most important thing to remember is that Trayvon's family and all of the civil right leaders had asked for one thing only - to arrest George Zimmerman and walk him through the court system. That is the only real chance at justice. No matter what evidence "we" THINK we have, it will be up to the State of Florida, not any of us, to prove their case. We saw it throughout the Casey Anthony fiasco, so I agree with you. What evidence will be presented at trial and how the jury looks at it will be the only thing that matters; not what I think, you think, or what any other blog/forum thinks. No matter how much I want justice, I am not self-righteous or delusional about it. What will be will be, and Casey proved it.]
Smile to start your week-end.
Enjoy!
http://video.staged.com/preacher/alcohol_test
Tommys Mom after the verdicts in many many legall trials in America I disstrust American Jurys to the MAX......
The Cops that beat Rodney King not Guilty
Korean Shop keepers Wife Shot an killed a teenager in her store whom took a can of soda.Had every intention of paying had twety bucks an change in her pockets.
Was obviously thirsty on a hot L A Day in the upper 90s/
The shop had been plauged with robberies shop lifftings high crime ect.
So owner had just aquired a hand gun for protection an shown his wife how to use it.
Next week she shot an African American Teen she was also found Not Guilty.
Boot on other foot few months later another L A Jury/
O J Simpson not guilty.
Phil Spectre first trial L A Jury Hung Jury eleven vote guilt one not guilty.
Swamphag Florida Jury Not Guilty.
Eilleen Wounrous Florida justice an Jurours sentence to Death.
Multiple guilty pleas
Multiple Death sentances.
A Woman whom may or may not been sane at the timeframe she comitted multiple murders.
But was clearly i m o insane at the time of her arrest.Incaseration subsiqent multiple court proceedings an her ultimate execution.
Stark Raveing out for lunch wich was a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
If ever an insane mentaly ill person was put down its there for all to see with that an multiple other death sentances carried out on insane therfore ill people.
If I had the inclination an times I could list about 40 from recen decades Garry Gillmore is one another was an African American Christian whom flipped when he discovered his Pastor was haveing affairs mutiple an also underage statuary rape offences.
He lost faith in that church but not of God Heaven an Hell ect.
So decided to end his life.
Suicide is a Sin so he reckoned his best bet was have either the police or state kill him.
Bought a gun an ammo from wallmart an headed to a shopping mall.
First people he saw was an African American an her two children loading groceries into there car.
Thought about shooting them but fel bad as there were children.Plus being the same race as him he wasnt sure he would receive a death sentance.
So he strolled toward the entrance where he spotted an old AgedCouple pushing a trolley towards there weekly shopp.
An he executed them both with headshots i i r c.
.His wish was granted an he received his death sentance.
Ultimitlly this sick ill derranged man whom was receiveing no treatment.
As i the States eyes he wasnt Ill.
He couldnt wait an commited suicide by his own hands.
Can remember his name but there are lots an lots of similar examples..
Some ancient Greek?Or maybe more recently paraphrased by Bernard Shaw?
Cant remamber Karl Marx or Karl Frund
Anyway it goes Somthing like this.
Ultimitelly a society a Civil Civilisation shall be judged not on its great monuments.
Nor by the achivements off the great an the good citizens it produces.
The most telling way to assess a civilisation and if its is indeed all encompaseing civil civilised to all in Society.Not the weathy an succesfull whom can fend for themselfs
But tthe allturistic sign is that of true Civilisation.
To care for the frail the elderlly those whom are cosidered burdemsome.
How we treat the unfoutunates within our society wether we help hinder or abandon them is the true moral test.
To call oneself civillised any society such as Nazis fropm recent times whom looked at the mentally an physicall dissabled as burdens on Society an uthenised them cannot ever in any circumstance be described as civil or civilised...
Because of the arrbiterry nature of some American Jurys to return such obvious wrong dessions in cases Ive studied I have observed the higher the profile a case garners Mainstream media an other sourses.
The higher the chances of a perverse verdict.
The kind of verdict were the jurours return an innocent person guilty
Or a guilty person free is very high in the murder accussed of Killing Trayvon Martin.
I can for seee a mind set of we are lettin the S. O . B .Free/
We know he shot an killed that boy an we dont care.
Threatening race riots if we dont convict.Bring it ON no one threatens us MERKINS tells us what to do
We are MERKINS.
Belive you me its the last thing Id ever want to see.But conviction is not a foregone conclussion moo .
[Hmm... I don't know if your definition of a merkin differs from mine, but that's something to discuss another time. Murder is murder is murder and each one must be examined differently and on its own merits. Good, bad and ugly. What's crazy to one person is normal to another, yet what is the definition of crazy? Better yet, what is the definition of normal?
In my opinion, the death penalty should be abolished, but I have my own reasons to believe that. Some day, I'll explain my opinion here, but will anyone agree with me? Would they think my ideas are normal? Or would they tell me I'm crazy?]
Tommy's Mom, Over a long period of time it finally dawned on me that to become involved in commenting on a blog I must first try and analyze the purpose, the intent of the blogger. In most all, it is not a freedom of the press for the commenters, only for the blogger. This is the most fair blog I have read. Even so, most people are intimidated because it is a private place and very rarely write thoughts without consideration of how it may come across to the blogger. We often find ourselves in a place where no value is placed on what we think because others are thinkers too and naturally hope to be acknowledged. Blogs survive on the attention of people. Regrettably, the fire goes out because people can sense they are no longer valued. Try not to let "troll" bother you, everyone of them are trolls too. It is an intimidating use of a word which is used mostly out of fear by some that another opinion is somehow a threat. I have also noticed that even constructive opinion is not taken with understanding and appreciation. As a matter of fact I am not really here anymore, haven't been for awhile, but noticing the blog is just sitting here, not knowing what is going on and you are still feeling it, so keeping in touch with you a little.
[Great thoughts and excellent advice, New Puppy. Thank you.]
eccossie possie
ITA actually that's the point I was trying to make on that blog,no one really knows how a jury will go. I was surprised by a respomse to my comment om that blog from Zena who said their cases were very different, Well duh,I'm not stupid,of course they're different doesn't mean Z won't walk. A great many people thought KC was "toast" and look what 12 people did. Z's jury will have 6 people who could believe he killed Tray in self defense.
I hope you stay around,as your comments are always excellent and on point,well except the ones about me I don't think I'm near as nice as your comment made me seem.
Gotta to go sweep out some gypies. Have a really great day.
[I find all comments enlightening; yours and Xena's. I also understand that everyone will have issues with each other at some time or another. It takes a good, kind soul to know that all will pass.]
Dave~~do you recall when Nan11 found the info where Casey was read her Miranda rights? She was helping me on my blog at the time. Nan11 passed the info on to me and I in turn passed it on and it finally ended up on WESH news?
[The video at the bottom of the article is what you should have watched. In it, I thanked both you and nan11. I called Bob Kealing on it, citing who gave me the info, and it became the top headline news story of the day on WESH.]
Off the cuff....and Off topic...
It is much easier for a female to own and manage a blog than her male counterpart especially when most of the contributors are women. For instance, Fred Letterman has got it made because his wife, Crane_Station also comments on his blog and it deters many females from vying for his attention by smothering him with compliments.
Granted, he does get praise when he writes a good post and deserves the recognition.
The people commenting on a blog only makes up a small fraction of a percent of the readers who visit a blog seeking information. The blog owner must cater to all the masses, both the contributors and the readers. I would expect more males read than comment but I am just guessing. If you have ads on your blog, the more hits, the more $'s can be realized. I don't think anyone would be able to retire from the pittance they make from the ads.
It is not an easy task to manage a blog and satisfy the masses all the time. When you have different personalities coming together to discuss a topic, there is bound to be dissension and it is to be expected. It is next to impossible for a blog owner to settle disputes without hurt feelings. It reminds you of a school teacher. There are those who want to be the teachers pet? If a student offers to clean the chalkboard for the teacher on a regular basis, it does not mean they are or ever want to be considered the 'teacher's pet. They may just be helping that particular teacher as a friend.
Many blog owners frown upon discussing controversial topics and it is a good rule of thumb to make that known when they first set up their blog.
The above is just my opinion... now I am heading back to my sandbox and hopefully the sand is still in the box...see ya!
[Good summation. But... but... but... I just want people to send me Apples.]
BTW~~I just sent Dave a msg and told him if he found any of my comments here tonight too controversial to delete them. He will have that option and no harm done...
More Off the Cuff and Off topic...
I am going to give you an example of how problems can arise when we are just dealing with type written words and cannot see the expressions of the author.
I wrote quite a lengthy comment at Part One of this post and Dave responded to me but later said his response was referencing all previous comments..
Dave included the following in his response...
You see, it's easy to sit in a chair on the Internet espousing what must be done, but what would any of you actually do if you came face-to-face with Casey other than to spit on her and scream at her?
Immediately, I took exception to the 'chair' remark. Some people lie on the couch with their iPads or laptops...
So this is how I started out my response back to Dave. I did not bold it like I am doing for you.
Dave~~As I 'sit' here.... I did not say one thing about any retaliation against her neighbors or putting them in harms way. Until I read your post, I had no idea where Casey resided.
Since Dave knows exactly what kind of chair I have to sit in, I was sending him a message thus...."Don't mess with me!!"... this is where the 'tough skin' comes into play. I could have retaliated by telling him that I hoped his lancet thingie (his blood tester) would strikes his aorta and he would bleed to death. If he messes with me again, I just might do that.
[You just wrote that females make better blog managers. If that's not sexist, then what is? You're probably right, but I mentioned something arcane about sitting at a computer and look at the firestorm it created.
"Sit" is a generalization. If I had to write every word describing every position every person is in when they access the Internet, from whatever device, which could be any number of things, I would spend way too much time writing a lengthy comment, and my message would certainly be lost before I even get to it. All to accommodate someone who just wrote that bloggers could not possibly accommodate all readers and commenters.
Would you like me to fall on my sword? Instead, I will continue to "prick" myself with my lancet. You may call it whatever you wish. Sometimes, I have to prick myself over and over until I find a spot that bleeds. Over and over again. Every day, multiple times. Perhaps, I am more thick-skinned than others.]
Great post Dave. You're a great writer. You keep me coming back for more.
[Thank you, Joanna. I aim to please, actually, and I'm very happy that I continue to please you with my writing. If I falter, I hope you let me know.]
Dave~ ~Where in the following did I say that females make better bloggers? I said it is easier for a woman to own and manage a blog...thus..
It is much easier for a female to own and manage a blog than her male counterpart especially when most of the contributors are women.
This goes to show it takes a female blogger to keep some male bloggers on their toes.
LOLOLOL
I challenge you to a dual...with real lances... I will remain sitting but you can stand...how about it? I'll test your blood sugar levels and see just how sweet you are!!
[Easier or better, I don't know if it's any easier to operate any type of blog or website based on sex. I think it depends on too many variables, such as scheduling, free time and/or assistance from others. As for dueling, trust me, I bleed enough as it is. I need no help there.]
David B Knechel~~please accept my humble apology for not watching all of the video and seeing you gave Nan11 and me credit...actually, it was Nan11 who deserved all the credit. All I did was see the info ended up in the right hands. For the credit, I will not come after you with a cloak and dagger...at least not today...can't promise you what tomorrow may bring tho.
Why would LE have to read someone their Miranda Rights if they were garnering information about a missing child?
Casey was cuffed at her residence for approx five minutes. I believe Cindy was instrumental in informing LE that Casey had evaded her for 31 days and not let her out of their site. Maybe Cindy should have given Casey a citizen's mirandizing.
Old fart, Mason even tried to make the court believe Casey was cuffed when LE took her to Universal.
Until Casey was taken to jail and booked, there was no need to mirandize her.
Old fart, Mason cannot differentiate between a MISSING child and a MURDER suspect.
[Apology accepted. I never take credit for someone else's work. As for Mason, he's an old time lawyer still plying his bag of tricks - like a carnival barker selling opium and alcohol as a cureall for everything that ails you. He exaggerates everything!]