Casey Anthony Jury Consultant Seen on 48 Hours Only Did “Focus Group” Which Acquitted Casey Anthony, Not A “Mock Trial” Which May Have Given A Different Result

 

I saw  the 48 hours piece where they showcased Casey Anthony . They used a lot of early footage from a previous 48 hours before Caylee’s bones were discovered. The reason they most likely  aired it  again  in my view,  and just added a few elements like Linda Baden’s opinion and the focus group by Richard Gabriel,  was simple – ratings and sweep season.

Sweep season is the time of year when shows and networks do everything in order to garner huge ratings. If they do get the ratings during April and May, they get top advertising dollar for their show. So in my view that is why viewers saw the show again.

ISNT LINDA KENNY BADEN SUPPOSED TO REMAIN SILENT AS A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR CASEY?

As far a Linda Kenny Baden is concerned, isn’t she supposed to remain quiet as a former attorney for Casey? Aren’t  attorneys supposed to never speak about a client or their case if they are no longer representing the person? Aren’t there some ethics that they have to abide by in this regard? Personally, since she was a member of the defense team in the past, she has no business discussing the case, especially on the air.

I could understand it is she was a legal commentator and it wasn’t a case she was involved with, but to me it verges on being a bit unethical. She admitted that Casey lied and then on the next breath said there was no DNA on the duct tape and that it didn’t have Casey’s or Caylee’s DNA on it. Of course it wouldn’t have anyone’s DNA on it if it was underwater for months and months and eaten by animals and plant growth was on it.

The fact that duct tape was anywhere near Caylee says enough to me if I was a juror.  It wouldn’t matter if it had Caylee or Casey’s DNA on it. Just the fact that it was near her and that the  child was dead would make me put two and two together in  terms of what Casey did with that duct tape in relation to Caylee.

Then when Linda admitted Casey lied and was so nonchalant about it, I found it appalling. She in essence said, so what if Casey lied!  That doesn’t mean that if she lied,  she murdered Caylee. Well,  Ms. Baden, it also can mean that if she lied, she didn’t NOT murder Caylee.  Casey didn’t just lie to a boyfriend or to her parents. She lied to law enforcement which is HUGE! She send them on a wild goose chase which is HUGE!!!! A jury will hate that!

FOCUS GROUP IS NOT A MOCK TRIAL OR A REAL TRIAL

I thought that the focus group was  very misleading to viewers. It  gave the impression that a  mock trial was done and Casey was not found guilty of first degree murder. This was only a focus group . It was was NOT  a mock trial. The focus group evidently acquitted  her of first degree murder. All of  those in the  focus group  gave her involuntary manslaughter. They said it was an accident and that poor Casey was afraid to tell anyone or call her parents.

 In a real trial it is essential to know who is on that jury. Who were the people on this jury? Were they  young single mothers who identified with Casey? Were there people who didn’t get along with their parents? Were there any men who may have an affinity for Casey?

JURY SELECTION

During jury selection these perspective jurors will be asked a multitude of questions before they are accepted by BOTH sides to serve on the jury. Baez and Gabriel will want to choose people who were young single moms, girls who like to party or partied hearty in the past, non educated people white single men in their 20’s,attractive young women and men, non religious people, people who have had problems with their parents  in the past and still do, people who have been sexually molested in the past, people who have not been that responsible in their lives.

The prosecution will want scientific type people, educated people who don’t have any difficulty understanding the English language, Latinos (who tend to be very family oriented), strong Black women who are no nonsense, men and women tend to be very family oriented, people with no parental issues, no sexual molestation or abuse issues, responsible people, professionals, single  mothers who work and have a job.

When you do jury selection it is not based on political correctness. Instead, it is often based on cultural  behaviors of certain sex , educational,  racial, and ethnic groups as well as behavioral manifestations. To be a great jury consultant you have to know people from all walks of life and how they most likely think.

Richard Gabriel is a  very good jury consultant as he has done it for many years and even wrote a book on the subject. That is why I am very concerned about him. He will choose the very best jury to benefit Casey, just as he chose the best focus group which acquitted Casey.   

The prosecution needs to be up to par with Gilbert or even better and one step ahead of him. Unfortunately the prosecution has decided to not use a jury consultant as they want to do this on their own because of budgetary and who knows what else reason. Those in charge of the attorneys have naively stated that they want to treat the Anthony case just like they treat their other homicide cases in Central Florida and not get caught up in the media frenzy.

Personally I think they are being extremely naive. This is the case of the century besides OJ .  This case requires a LOT of special attention especially since they have Richard Gilbert on the defense team . If they get someone locally do help them out they will be doing themselves a huge disservice. They need someone equal to or savvier than Gilbert who can really read people and who can make sure that someone has not leaked into the jury box who with certain prejudices  which may be harmful to the prosecution and justice being served.  

You not only need jury selection expertise who need someone in the courtroom for two months of the trial who is looking at each of the jurors and scrutinizing them when you examine and cross examine the witness to see how they are perceiving you. You need to see which juror is with you and which ones aren’t. Only an astute jury consultant can tell you what is really going on.   

A JURY WILL NOT LIKE CASEY REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH MAY SUPPORT HER CASE

Casey cannot control her behaviors. Her arrogance and aberrant behaviors will surface just as they surfaced every time  she appeared in the courtroom thus far.

We have all seen her up close and personal and frankly she is not likeable. They will also detest Cindy when she gets up on the stand and they will be repulsed by brother Lee. Some may find sympathy for George while others will detest him as well. When they see the jailhouse tapes of him they will see kowtowing he is towards Casey and will not respect him in the least. So Casey’s dysfunctional family which she obviously runs and controls will have a negative impact on how the jury perceives her.

A jury will like Jose in my view who may very well be her only saving grace int he trial. No matter what you think of Jose and his lack of experience  and past behavior a jury will like him more than they like anyone else on Casey’s team.As they say in Portuguese , he is less worse.  A jury will be completely turned off by Cheney Mason if he keeps touching and whispering to Casey and is accepting of her flirtations. They will wonder what is going on between the two of them.

In contrast the jury will love Linda Drane Burdick’s professionalism and demeanor and will respect Jeff Ashton’s bold and direct and no nonsense approach.

  Who is on that jury is the key to what will happen to Casey Anthony. Friday Judge Belvin Perry said that he would keep the cameras on when they have jury selection. That will be awesome to see. I can’t wait to watch it.

Having just done jury selection on a capital case in Orlando, Florida last month, since I chose a jury of six plus one alternate. It may be different in Casey’s case but I don’t think so. Everything will rest on what they think and feel about Casey and what they think she did or didn’t do to Caylee.

A defendant may have all the evidence working in their favor and the best attorneys, but if the jury can’t stand you or doesn’t believe you, you can forget about it. To many jurors, fact that Casey lied to law enforcement means that she could easily lie about what she did or did not do to innocent little Caylee.

WHAT ACCIDENT????

When Cindy said that Caylee was not Casey’s  child, she belonged to all of them it spoke volumes to Then when she denied that Casey had a problem with her she was either in denial or lied .  Of course Casey had a problem with her or she wouldn’t be in the predicament she is in. Cindy told Casey that she wad going to throw her out and keep Caylee so Casey left with Caylee. The reason why Casey did whatever she did to Caylee was because of Cindy and their relationship in my view. Cindy was large and in charge and tried to take over. Casey resented it and in her sociopathic passive aggressive way eliminated Caylee from the picture.

‘I don’t buy that it was an accident as some of the focus group attendees said in the 48  Hours piece. Even if Casey gave Caylee chloroform to put her to sleep and then  put the duct tape over Caylees mouth to keep her quiet in case she woke up in the trunk where she was placed so that Casey could party this is not an accident. Even if  Casey was too drunk and accidentally placed the duct tape over Casey’s nose and mouth  instead of  just her mouth, that was not an accident in my view. Even if Caylee drowned in the pool, that was not an accident in my view. How can a child drown in a pool if a parent is there holding the child? If Casey was on her cell phone and left Caylee in the pool by herself that is not an accident. Subconsciously Casey wanted Caylee gone and out of her life and proof of that was her partying when Caylee went missing.

There is no excuse or explanation one could manufacture for that to happen. Deep down Casey resented Caylee and any “accident” was done subconsciously  on purpose in my view. I hope that the prosecution will probe into this so that no juror comes away thinking that Caylee’s death was an accident. When an accident happens there is an immediacy of dealing with it- not 31 days later. And her fear of her mother is bogus. As a jury will see from the jailhouse tapes,  Casey  ran both her father and her mother!  The only “accident” was that Casey considered Caylee a huge  accident when she became  pregnant with Caylee and lost her social freedom. Tragically,  Casey made Caylee pay for that” accident”  with her life.  

 www.drlillianglass.com

About these ads

65 Responses

  1. DR.GLASS I LOVED WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY WITCH I DO AGREE WITH YOU.I NEVER LIKED BADEN AND SHES GETTING PAID I GARENTEE YOU.BAEZ WOULD DO ANYTHING LEGAL OR ILLEGAL TO WIN.AFTER 3 YEARS OBSERVING HIM NOTHING SURPRIZES ME WITH HIM.HE SHOULD BE DISBARRED BY NOWWELL IF SHE WALKS I WILL PICKET EVERY DAY.

  2. The part that irritated me the most was when Cindy said Caylee ALWAYS came first with Casey. That was (one of many)the biggest lie she has ever told. How could she say that with a straight face? She NEVER took care of her baby…EVER

    • Diana, but there must have been times when Casey effectively pretended to be a “great Mother”…the reason I think that is because her former fiance’ Jesse Grund described her that way several times. He seemed totally sincere when he described how Casey loved Caylee. He seems like a good reporter, and I doubt that he’d make that up. There were several depositions where witnesses claimed that Casey doted on Caylee. It seems inconceivable that she could go from a loving Mom into a cold murderess. (But she did!) It is going to be next to impossible to explain without a “mental” defense.

  3. Dr. Glass, spot on!!!! I loved the last part of this article, about how Casey “wanted this”. I was a lot like Casey when I was her age, and I was NOT maternal (and I knew it). Ironically, my Mother was like Cindy! (Well. Not certain that this is “ironic”..it’s probably more logical than ironic. Women like Cindy create people like me and Casey!) Fortunately, I did not become a Mother…I was smarter than little Miss-Passive-Agressive-I-can’t-be-bothered-to-look-at-the-fact-that-I-am-pregnant-Casey-Anthony. Here is something shores up what you are saying..when I was about Casey’s age I was furious with my Cindy-like Mother. I went through a red light (and had a huge collision with an innocent car coming through their green light). I remember clearly doing that on-purpose, not on purpose. It is a next to impossible thing to explain, unless you have Casey type characteristics. That is exactly what Casey did to Caylee…she did it, while not knowing exactly why…and like my car accident, she is 100% responsible.

    • Zoe
      Thank you for sharing such intimate details.
      ITA, ICA is 100% responsible for her actions. Her MO is to live life without accountability. Her mother IMO created & definitely facilitated ICA’s entitlement issues, with murderous consequences.
      If we had known sooner, would Caylee still be here? I play that what if game every time I look at my own little girls. The outrage we all feel stems from the helplessness of Caylee’s loss, sadly 31 days too late.
      If we could have held ICA & her family accountable sooner, we would have. All that remains is the pursuit of justice on Caylee’s behalf, posthumously. It’s the least we can do, especially since it didn’t have to be this way JMO

  4. How about that!

    ==The field of jury consulting is not an exact science. People are by nature unpredictable. Often one finds a jury consultant commenting on the likelihood of high profile cases being won or lost. Such predictions, when correct, can further the career of the jury consultant. Frequently, multiple jury consultants will be found commenting on high profile cases with quite opposite opinions. Reading people, reading testimony, and rendering decisions is a somewhat risky business when there is no opportunity for the jury consultant to have direct contact with jurors. ==

    No need to worry about Mr. Gibert. He will try his best to pick jurors that will create a hung jury and a mistrial hence giving him the opportunity to work for the defense again at a later date (re-trial)…therefore, making more money and more of a name for himself.

    But, people aren’t stupid and while Mr. Gilbert is being portrait as a person to watch out for, Casey and Mr. Baez need to watch out for JUSTICE that could put the needle in her arm.

    • Leslie- Understandung human behavior is essential in jury selection. While human behavior is unpredictable when you have the educatiion, years of experience and skill you can see that behavior in certain people can be very predictable. As I have said all along the fate of Casey rests on who is picked for the jury. Richard Gabriel will help Jose Baez pick a great jury in their favor and hopefully the prosecution can counter it by picking jurors who are more favorable to them. Thank you for you comments.

      • Human behavior is predictable. The role of the jury consultant in Fl v Anthony is to find jurors whose unpredictability doesn’t adversely affect their client.

        When selected jurors walk into the courtroom or leave for deliberations they do so with their past experiences and belief system. These experiences and beliefs are their guide to understanding and evaluating the evidence and coming to a group concensus relative to guilt or innocence.

        Nothing is ever as bad as it seems and it’s never as good as it appears. Will Mr Gabriel be just another person to “blame” should Ms Anthony be convicted? No.

        It will never matter how educated he is or how much experience or skill he has-the evidence has a way of making all of that moot. Truth is not relative.

  5. I respect Ms. Glass but now doubt how helpful she could be as a consultant. Why? Because of her favorible opinion of Jose Baez. The man is a revolting piece of trash on par with his defendant Casey. He’s as univedrsally hated as the Anthony’s, if not more so because he’s been in the public eye more. He’s a fat, pompous arrogant fool minus any inteliigence & barely skimmed by to become an attorney at the lowest rated university on the planet.

    Visit most blogs and 99% of those writing about the case from authors to bloggers are repulsed by Baez as they are the newest old fool mumbling Mason.

    She got exactly what she deserves with these two impotent fools. The reason Baez wants camers off now during trial is because he knows he’s a subpar idiot who spews ignorant drivel everytime he opens his big mouth. Judge Perry will continue to have to educate the moron on the law during this joke of a trial.

    • I have been very successful as a jury consultant and whether you like it or not a jury will like Jose Baez more than they will like anyone else associated with Casey.

      • When you put it THAT way, Dr. Glass, I would have to agree with you.

        But his arrogance is really a turn off. I believe if there are Latinos on the jury that Baez’ head will swell as being the first Latino lawyer to have such a high profile case. Back in the beginning of this case I was on a blog that had a Latino commentor who said that she and her Latino womens’ group could not stand Baez and even thought of him as an insult to Latino males. She also said that Latinos are very much into the family and she did not think it would be good for Casey if there were to be Latinos on the jury. This was back when Baez wanted a change of venue to Miami/Dade.

      • Dr. Glass -

        Would you be interested in taking on the task of being the “Jury Consultant” to the State’s Prosecution Team?

        Would you be prepared to offer your services?
        And thereby, stand opposite of Richard Gabriel?

        I know that there would be some costs associated with you taking this on, but
        would the State of Florida not take on, and pay out these fees?

        And if not, if we all got together and pitched in to assist with your expenses, would you offer the State your services?

        Like some of the others here have mentioned -

        Your detailed observations, and familiarity and knowledge of Gabriel has sort of got many of us worried with the State NOT having a Jury Consultant!
        Especially in light of your take and stance on this issue.

        Perhaps you could contact and advise the State, of what you believe they require at this point. This could assist in garnering the BEST JURY possible, being that they will be the “Triars of Fact” in this Capital 1st Degree Murder Case.

        I’m quite curious to know, whether the State would respond positively and accept you as their Jury Consultant.

        On that note, please know Dr. Glass, that I have read your blog on a regular basis, for quite some time now, and though I have never posted a reply here, after reading your latest post, I felt compelled to drop in, respond, and post the comment.

        I am from CANADA, am LE-Affiliated and also practice part-time as a Paralegal.

        I’ve learned much from reading your Body Language Analysis’ on various subjects, along with Peter Hyatt’s Statement Analysis.
        I’m intrigued with your work, and will be looking at purchasing two of your books in the near future.

        I do hope you will continue to post your reports on analysis’ you’ve applied to the on-going cases out there.

        You are much appreciated out here, and I thank you for all that you bring to the people.

        Thank you, Dr. Glass!

        CptKD

      • Dr. Glass, are you just BLIND!???? Do you not see the incomptence of Baez??? He doesnt want cameras in the courtroom so they will not show him flirting and eyeballing Casey, he looks at her from the sidebar, like she is going to leaver or something, he seems like a jealous husband. He is totally unprofessional, but, is so obviously protective of Casey!!! Maybe she promised him a future with her if he frees her. Ans Casey hugs Chaney like a wife, in the courtroom!!!! And WHY is she not in CUFFS?????

      • I agree with that. I really cannot understand the vial, inmature comments that is thrown at the Casey Attorneys. I truly believe this country is lacking some serious common sense.

        Isn’t that the kind of dysfunction CAylee Anthony grew up in , and that ultimately took her life? I just dont get it

    • It seems like you & Casey are the only ones fond of the smirking, pen clicking jack-ass. Even Cindy & George hate him.

      I usually agree with you. But I admit, you have me worried about Richard Gabriel. But at this stage what can the State Prosecutors do?

  6. I hope the people in the jury will use their brains and not be guided by a bleeding heart for Casey. There is nothing that the defense could say to make me buy their story. As for Casey I think the murder of Caylee was because she was an inconvienience. I bet Casey loved the attention while pregnant maybe enjoyed the attention from Caylee when she was first born and she quickly became disenchanted with it. I think Cindy is a control freak and Caylee was a focus of tension Casey found out she could have her cake and eat it too by hurting Caylee.

    • If the jury does their job right they’ll vote to set her free on murder charges and convict her on lying and misleading authorities then they should demand LE to go back and investigate the real perp within that home! Why would you convict an innocent person and let the real perp walk? There’s no link to KC,,,,dont you get that? Why would you want anyone to pay for a crime she did not commit and allow the real killer to walk free???

      • That is what a jury will do. They will hear ALL the evidence and will watch Casey and her team like a hawk and make a responsible decision. Everything depends with who is on that jury.

  7. Diana I sympathize with you completely. I was a Casey too, the difference was I had a concience after my son was born, later diagnosed with schizoid pd. I never was malicious to this day my Cindy like mother sucked the joy from my life made me numb. I will always pretend to share in the joy of my family without feeling a thing its my burden to bare. Cindy like women destroy lives they do create Caseys they hurt generations. Its my responsability to never let my kids hurt like me, Casey did kill and its inexcusable.

  8. We eat and drink and throw out the trash every day.
    We make choices every day and have to live with the consequences…good or bad. You cannot kill another human because it is inconvenient to either be around that person, or married to that person, or be friends with that person or be the parent to this person…you cannot take another persons life. And that is what she did, wheather she did it premeditated or in a fit of rage, or if she had a breakdown or a hate attack or any of that. You cannot take another persons life and think that it is excusable in any way. That’s what Casey thinks..and Baez…that is should be excusable…like she didn’t mean to do it and didn’t know what she was doing. This is Florida, not Canada or some City in Europe where you might get 5 years for killing someone and where the Death Penalty does not exist. This is the UsA and if you kill your child in a heinous way (DUCT TAPE) and you hide the body and tell lies to authorities, you pay the price. And that price should be DEATH!

    • You are so right! I just did jury selection on a criminal case in Orlando last month and Orlando jurors are very serious and extremely harsh when it comes to crime, especially any crime allegedly involving a child, even if there may be favorable evidence towards the defendant. As I said earlier there is a lot that goes into a jury’s decision and their seeing and experiencing Casey up close and personal will not be a good outcome for her in my view.

    • Lona –
      I am from CANADA, and I am also LE-Affiliated.

      I do not know where you get your sources from, but just because Canada chooses to NOT have the DEATH PENALTY, do not kid yourself into thinking that we do not PUNISH and dole out “LIFE W/O PAROLE” sentences.

      It happens, and that IS the price you pay!

      Have a “DANGEROUS OFFENDER” applied to your record, and you are garuanteed to NEVER see the light of day outside of Prison,

      Please do NOT lump my Country, into other Cities or Countries in the World.

      Our Justice System is VERY SIMILAR to that of the United States’:
      - Minus the DP!
      - And different WORDING/TERMINOLOGY between our RIGHTS, our LAWS, CHARGES, CONVICTIONS and SENTENCES!

      That’s it -
      Beyond that, they are one in the same, really.

      Just thought I’d clarify!
      CptKD

  9. I Agree….. It was No accident period.. There will be JUSTICE for Baby Caylee

  10. Oh yes the jury will indeed like Bozo. He is doing his job as his title demands. But he is an arse for lying for and along with his convicted felon murderer of a client. His poking his tongue out/all his antics was ,is such an unprofessional immature way to act in the Court Rm.Thx as always Dr.Glass for ur expert opinions.

  11. Dr. Glass you are so right! I love reading what you think. Thank you so much for sharing! Sure wish you were consulting for the State! I will continue to read your blogs.

  12. Dr. Glass,
    I think you are spot on about the jury selection. I totally agree with you on who the defense and the prosecution want on the jury. I would think that it would require very careful questioning to find out these things about potential jurors.

    I wish you would volunteer to help the state. I am also curious as to your opinion of Mr. Ashton. Lately, he looks very very stressed to me. His somewhat premature graying tells me that he may have cardiac risks. When I watched him in court Friday, I kept thinking, “lord, please don’t let him have a heart attack.”

    As much as I hate to admit it, I also agree that the jury will like Mr. Baez. He will be soft spoken and he will smile at the jury. But, I also think that his message may get lost with them. His tone is boring and monotone and he isn’t able to make his point in a succinct way.

    Please tell me why you think the focus group decided Caylee’s death was accidental. There is NO evidence of an accidental death. Her mother would not have sat in jail for the past 3 years if this was an accident. She would have come forward long before now, if that were the case. Don’t you think so?

    I really enjoy your blog. You are soo spot on!

    • Charlotte-It is not my impression that Ms Anthony was charged with a felony in the first degree because anyone believed Caylee died as a result of an accident. Jurors will be told that the evidence must point to premeditation and if jurors agree they must convict her on the first degree felony which carries the death penalty. They can avoid the death penalty altogether and convict her of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. This is also a first degree felony. That will be an automatic life sentence which carries no eligibility for parole. This, I would think, is what the defense is hoping for.

      Aggravated Child Abuse – 30 years.

  13. Mr Gabriel has been working on this case and preparing for “voir dire” for 9 months. We don’t know what he has done but we can assume that he has a juror profile prepared and we know his focus group was death qualified but willing to give Ms Anthony punishment that did not include the DP.

    Ms LKB can exercise her right to speak on behalf of Ms Anthony at any hour of the day or night. Ms Anthony has given her permission to sing her praises or to set the record straight (“There is no Zanny”). Mr Baez has finally realized that he has nothing substantive to say. He looks scared and apprehensive-probably the first time we have seen him look so defeated outside of the courtroom. He didn’t know how to handle the media in July 2008 and he knows his actions caused much of the uproar that he is hoping a jury consultant can mitigate.

    Mr G.’s primary goal will be helping Mr Baez find the hidden bias of potential jurors. How affected were they by the negative pretrial publicity? The main focus of jury selection for both sides is “stricking” those they DO NOT want.

  14. Dr. Glass, I mean no disrespect, as I do regard you highly.
    However, I do have a big problem with the profession of Jury Consultant. It seems to me that this activity is approaching jury tampering. I believe that juries shoud consist of peers of the defendant and not hand-selected by a psychologist. They should be run of the mill every day citizens who can look at the evidence and make a decision on that evidence. I also believe that jurors should not be required to answer page after page of personal information about themselves. This too, is a form of jury tampering, IMO, and a gross violation of privacy. Four or five questions should do it: “Have you or a member of your family been arrested? Have you formed an opinion about this case? Can you make a decision based solely on the evidence presented in court? Do you know any member of the defence, prosecution or the family of the defendant?” Assuming the answers are satisfactory, seat the juror.

    I suppose because I do not like Jose Baez that I’m assuming others will not like him. But to see him in action is a sickening experience. His performance should be used in law school as a demonstration of how to not defend a client accused of murder. Maybe you didn’t see him bobbing and weaving to block the cameras and then sticking out his tongue at the cameraman. And the winks at Casey? The laughing and flirting that goes on between them. I don’t think a jury would like that at all and I don’t think a jury would like him.

    But everything is subjective and you could perhaps be correct.

  15. Thank you again, Dr. Glass, another fine assessment…
    I too fell this “focus” group was one sided for we weren’t told what evidence was presented to this panel. I believe the most crucial evidence wasn’t told, like the duct tape and those 31 crucial days of freedom and partying hearty…
    If something happened to Caylee and truly was an accident, one call to 911 to get aid to your child is what you do first. You do not make that call yourself, what if Caylee died in the pool and could have been resusitated..NO. I’m not saying this is what happened, could be what the defense will try and state…
    Her behavior after June 16, 2008, is what will be a finding factor in culpibility…why run or evade your parents for 31 days, if you had nothing to worry about or hide. If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.
    No credible information out of the mouth of a mother who allegedly had a missing child, a child this imaginanny never returned.
    This revelation from Linda Kenney Baden about ICA lied, I think everyone knows she’s lied, CA doesn’t! Cindy said she can’t imagine this is a person Casey just made up…Well, yeah…it is. She can’t be found for she doesn’t exist..
    Now if she lied to the police than are we to expect this will be the truth, now?? This prisoner lost her credibility and I don’t see her overcoming that either…At any cost, whatever excuse the defense comes up with, it must come out of this prisoners own mouth..she must tell it, not her attorney…
    I do think she is at the end of that Universal hallway..if this focus group gave her a sense of confidence I do hope she’s not that disappointed when a guilty verdict is reached…
    She and only she is responsible for Caylee’s demise…and that the prosecution will show in court…
    Not once have we seen the prosecution comment on this case or the evidence…they aren’t in the media as their counterparts are, and it will be devasting when those jurors come back with guilty as charged…
    I pray for justice for Caylee, this child should be in kindergarten, not deceased. I also believe this physical altercation that is adamantly denied by Cindy, was what ended Caylee’s life. This love/hate relationship, especially concerning Caylee gave this prisoner the anger and rage. When Cindy said Caylee wasn’t just Casey’s child, she was OUR child, she belonged to all of us she has minimized Casey’s role as mother and thought of herself as Caylee’s mother had built up over time. Some of Casey’s former friends can attest to that. Cindy acted more like Caylee’s mother than this prisoner had. I also suspect this prisoner is not maternal. Just because a woman gives birth it doesn’t make her a mother. Some woman just should have children and I believe Casey is one…she’s too immature, too self centered and selfish to put Caylee’s needs first…
    I would truly love to have this prisoner diagnosed but I don’t feel I would be shocked to hear she is a sociopath with narcisistic tendencies and also a pathogocial liar…JMHO

    Justice for Caylee

  16. Great article Dr. Glass! I’m just finishing up my MSW, and this case has been an excellent assessment for me!!!

  17. Who is Gilbert stated above in your article? Isn’t the jury consultant’s name Richard Gabriel?

  18. Dr. Glass, please volunteer to help the Prosecutors out and little Caylee.

    I’m not so sure the jury will like Baez after listening to him for two months. He is very boring and has a tendency to keep repeating himself. Personally, I just don’t like him. I think he is a poor example of an officer of the courts. He is immature, juvenile and has no respect, whatsoever, for the legal system, the judge, and the prosecutors. He is not very knowledgeable. He may have the suits and ties that go along with being professional, but he is very lacking in
    professionlism.

  19. I just want to state that I believe Casey “acted” like
    she was a good mother in front of people and in front of the Camera, as you have all seen by now, Casey puts on a big show.
    It is all about her, she was nice to Caylee when around people to show them she is a good person, and a good mother, it is always all about Casey.
    Every good deed the chic does, is intended to come back to Casey and compliment her.

    • Right on Ruth! Casey was a good mother when it suited her purposes but when she wanted to go out and party and Caylee’s presence precluded that, I believe she drugged her to put her to sleep, put her in the trunk and then went out and had her good time. I think Caylee died as a result of too much choloroform being administered on Casey’s part on one of those occasions. That makes her guilty in my opinion.

  20. Dr. Lillian thanks for posting this about the 48 hour program. I am so glad to hear that you had serious concerns regarding Anthony’s former atty’s comments and the ethical violations involved.

    I’m also really grateful that you clarified that this was NOT a mock trial but a focus group. I was one of the viewers that was duped into believing that this was a jury from a mock trial, not the focus group that it was!

    I am also very worried about the decision that the prosecution team has made to not utilize a high power, top notch, nationally recognized jury consultant; for not just the selection of the jury but for the trial, such as yourself. You are correct, this is the trial of the century except for OJ. The prosecution is all but doomed without some one of Gabriel’s caliber. I really do believe that and hope so much that I am wrong.
    Question for you. I thought that criminal juries were composed of 12. Is FL different? I’m asking because you mentioned that you recently completed a consultant jury selection postion in Orlando that was composed of 6 jurors & an alternate. Thanks in advance.

    • I used to think they were 12 as well and I always did 12 in the past in my jury selction. But this was the first time I did six with one alternate in Orlando, Florida for a = criminal State Case that was a capital case. I guess we will have to wait and see what Judge Perry allows as the jury is selected.

    • Florida does not allow a 12 person jury unless the case is a death penalty case.

  21. Very informative article Dr. Glass! Especially where you described “the type” that each side would be aiming to seat on a jury. I’ve been curious about what type of person each side would consider to be an ideal juror for a long time now. I do wish the state attorneys had an official jury consultant as well, but it’s understandable fiscal restrictions won’t allow one.

  22. Dr. Glass, I am confused by your statement:
    “Friday Judge Belvin Perry said that he would keep the cameras on when they have jury selection. That will be awesome to see. I can’t wait to watch it.”

    What do you mean? Are we going to see them questioning jurors?! I thought we don’t ever get to see the jury? Can you please clarify? (gosh I would LOVE to see this too!)

    Thanks so much I enjoy reading your posts!!!
    Stephanie

    • In Florida this is what I think happens during jury selection. People who are interested in seeing the process of jury selection can walk in and sit down and watch. Cameras are not on prospective jurors but defendants are often there to witness what’s going on. That is their right.

      When Judge Perry begins jury selection for Casey Anthony he is going to ask jurors if they have any hardship issues, how were they affected by PTP, if they have any problems about the death penalty and if the defendant is found guilty are they willing to sentence her to death. Both sides will have a go at the jurors and can ask them any number of questions, etc.

      If jurors pass all four areas they can leave their contact information and go home. We will not know who these jurors are. For the purposes of getting accommodations in Orlando the court used fake names for the 12+alternates.

  23. This is a very interesting post by an attorney in Orlando:

    What are the Odds?
    Apr 12th, 2011 by Richard Hornsby.

    So let me get this straight.
    On March 18, 2010 Casey Anthony was declared indigent by Judge Strickland after Jose Baez revealed he had blown over $250,000 received on Casey Anthony’s behalf – $200K of which was paid by the “American Broadcasting Company” as “licensing fees” for Casey Anthony’s “pictures.” Of importance, was the fact Jose Baez said he had “no more money.”

    On May 6, 2010 a budgeting hearing was held by Judge Perry; notably, he denied Jose Baez’s request to have JAC provide funding for a “Jury Consultant.”

    On July 30, 2010 Jose Baez, Dorothy Clay Sims, Michelle Madina, and Jeanene Barrett meet with Casey Anthony in jail; notably, they are accompanied by a man named Richard Gabriel.

    On April 9, 2011 CBS (the Columbia Broadcasting System if you’re reading Jose) released a teaser for “48 Hours Mystery,” which shows an assembled focus group (read, “mock jury”), moderated by an unknown person, who asks: “If the only charge was First Degree Murder, who here would vote to acquit [Casey Anthony]? Please stand up.”

    And just who is that unknown person moderating the assembled focus group; many astute followers of the Casey Anthony trial have opined that if you remove the beard, it looks remarkably similar to Richard Gabriel, whose website biography describes him as a “leader in the field of jury research, jury selection, and litigation communication.” The biography goes on to inform us that he “ is currently working with attorneys in the Casey Anthony matter.”

    So what are the odds that the unknown moderator is both jury consultant Richard Gabriel and the Richard Gabriel that met with Casey Anthony on July 30, 2010.

    If it is, there are two very interesting questions that are raised.

    1. Was there a Privilege Waiver?
    As most of you know by now, there are two primary mechanisms that protect a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves and their Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. These two mechanisms are the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine.

    However both privileges can be waived if the defendant or her counsel communicate privileged information to third parties.

    Normally communications by a defendant or her attorney with personnel like paralegals, investigators, interns, over-the-hill attorneys, and jury consultants – yes, jury consultants – carry the same protection as communications directly between the attorney and the defendant so long as they work for the attorney; as the privilege is imputed directly to them.

    But if the defendant, attorney, or the personnel divulge this information to a third-party with no expectation of privacy, the privilege is waived.

    So if the Richard Gabriel that visited Casey in jail, and jury consultant Richard Gabriel, and the unknown moderator of CBS 48 hours Mystery are all the same person; it makes you wonder if Richard Gabriel disclosed “privileged” information to 48 Hours – did the defense waive any privilege that they might have enjoyed as to either their defense strategy or statements made by Casey.

    2. How was Richard Gabriel Paid?
    Which brings me to my final question.

    If Jose Baez wanted a jury consultant, but Judge Perry denied him funds for a jury consultant, and yet Jose Baez subsequently shows up to the jail with a Jury Consultant; how did Jose Baez pay for the jury consultant.

    Could it be that rather than pay Jose Baez “licensing fees,” CBS simply footed Mr. Gabriel’s fee and the focus group’s services (yes, they would need to be paid to listen all that evidence and testimony) in exchange for the Casey Anthony defense team providing CBS with exclusive rights to film the focus group’s reaction and have insight into the defense team’s planned defense?

    Which raises a very academic, yet timely question: Do in-kind services have to be reported to JAC?

    Sounds like some more Jose Baez chicanery to me.

    http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

    .

    • I would think that Mr Gabriel was paid by CBS and that it was all legal. I hardly think that all three lawyers would go on the show and say or do anything that would further jeopardize Ms Anthony’s quest for freedom or at the very least her constitutional right to a fair trial. The judge said JAC would not pay for a defense jury consultant but that didn’t mean they couldn’t go elsewhere – who better than 48 Hours Mystery?

  24. FYI and with all due respect Dr. Glass, there’s a few typos in your article. The name Gilbert was used in lieu of Gabriel a few times. No big deal, I just thought you’d want to know because it can confuse your readers. I had to stop and say to myself, who’s Gilbert but realized it was meant to say Gabriel. I just thought you might want to correct this. I value your opinions very much and enjoy reading your blog and seeing you as a TV guest expert on the various shows.

  25. Dr. Glass,
    How do you feel about Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi appearing on the 48 Hours program? Altho she spoke in favor of the State, and against the Defense, personally, I wish she hadn’t even taken part in the program. I guess I just feel she should not have even acknowledged the Defense’s shenanigans. In a way, her appearance could be seen as potentially tainting a jury, same as many people have been screaming that the Defense was attempting to do just that. Would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

  26. I’m curious about that too Kitt. Pam Bondi had spoken up, offering her opinion in the role of “a prosecutor” in the 2009 48 Hour Mystery show. I’m wondering if they didn’t just re-edit her previous comments to make it look like these were current comments. Somehow I doubt the Attorney General of Florida would involve herself in this very high profile case. That’s my guess. I could be wrong and I’ll retract my comment if it’s proven she chose to involve herself in this case while being the Attorney General. We’ll soon find out what the story really is.

    • It seems that they did as this was an old peice they did over a year ago and just re edited it with the focus froup and Linda Baden.

  27. Very interesting article. Like most I disagree that the jury will like baez the best of all the defense. I think they will like Finnell or Simms better. baez just automatically sets off our gag reflexes.

  28. Bees-You are correct. Research, although limited in Florida, does suggest that death qualified jurors overwhelmingly trust the prosecutor. Those death qualified jurors are more accepting of the aggravating than to the mitigating circumstances.

    There have been lots of high profile murder cases in Florida and this research was a result of Fl v Joseph Peter Smith. IMO the process will be speedy especially when both sides can strike often during voir dire. Because it is impossible to set aside attitudes and beliefs it is equally difficult to set aside what you know to be true (child was reported missing by mother 31 days after the fact). Death qualified jurors are educated, read newspapers and listen to local and national news. They want the facts but aren’t the type to “shoot the messanger” but they will be struck by Mr Baez’s ability to feign his grasp of the law. That will be something.

  29. Dr Glass-No, the research I cite was not authored by Ms Baden nor was it re-edited by anyone. I would think that any jury consultant would be interested in these results especially Mr Baez and Mr Gabriel.

    The focus of the research I read and cited above involved 200 residents of Florida’s 12th Judicial Circuit. Participants completed questions measuring participants’ level of death-penalty support, death qualification status, knowledge of the facts surrounding an actual criminal case, and attitudes toward the defendant in the aforementioned case (see above post). Results indicated that death-qualified participants were better able to correctly identify the defendant, recognize most of the factual details of the case, think that the defendant was guilty, and recommend the death penalty. In addition, death qualified jurors were more likely to feel that the pretrial publicity (PTP) surrounding the case would have minimal impact on the defendant’s right to due process. (the paper discusses the legal applications and implications).

  30. The author of the research I cited is well known in Florida and does highly applied, policy oriented research that concerns the social-psychological factors that jeopardize defendants’ right to due process. Her area of scholarship includes prejudice, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, defense attorney concessions, capital jurors’ decision-making processes, expert testimony, individual differences, the insanity defense, post sentence-civil commitment, capital judges’ decision-making processes, defendants attractiveness, PTP, and the psychological pain of imprisonment. She has a Ph.D in Legal Psychology and is a Mitigation Psychologist.

  31. As far as the number of JURORS goes…

    My understanding is, that HHJP has already decided that the count for this case will be 20.

    12 – Sitting, with 8 – Alternates

    • 12 jurors

      • Yes – That’s 12 ‘Sitting’ JURORS,
        And 8 alternates (NOT called JURORS)
        They ARE called “ALTERNATES”.

        I apologize if I confused anyone, with my previous reply.

    • Just for you, Anon:

      This is a link to the actual Government of Canada, with reference to the Canadian Criminal Code.

      Please scroll down to Section 631.
      Here you will find confirmation to my previous reply.

      http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-458.html#h-211

      Enjoy the read!
      And thank you –

      I’ve actually enjoyed bantering back and forth with you!

      Nice to know, I’m still up ‘on my toes’! LOL!

      It’s been fun!

      CptKD

  32. It’s probably important to point out that Judge Perry does not make up the rules relative to the number of jurors. He is guided by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.270)

    “Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and 6 persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.” Alternates are not jurors. They will sit and listen to the evidence presented but they are not called to participate in reaching a verdict unless they replace an ill juror or a juror who is unable to serve.

    The Canadian Criminal Procedure relative to the US is very different. The fact that the death penalty does not exist has no bearing on the absence of alternates in the Canadian Criminal Code. Once a 12 person jury is seated and two become ill or unable to serve, the judge will request that two additional jurors be seated.
    see http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.html

    • “The Canadian Criminal Procedure relative to the US is very different. The fact that the death penalty does not exist has no bearing on the absence of alternates in the Canadian Criminal Code. Once a 12 person jury is seated and two become ill or unable to serve, the judge will request that two additional jurors be seated.”

      You ARE correct -

      HOWEVER;

      On occassion, and I’ve seen it happen –

      If one of the 12 JURORS becomes ill, or must remove themselves from the trial, the presiding JUDGE can continue the trial with ’11′ JURORS, instead of introducing a NEW JUROR.

      Oft times, should it occur during the latter part, or near the conclusion of a trial, they will continue on with the remaining JURORS, and the Justice will not request a new Juror be brought in.

      This happens when no ‘Alternates’ have been chosen prior to trial, or the Alternate(s) has been removed or released for, and with good reason(s).

      • In this day and age…
        If they CAN manage to get 12 seated Jurors, they will go ahead and begin the trial.

        That being said, it IS preferable to have one or two Alternates, and so depending on the situation, the Justice may go ahead and order that alternates be chosen for that trial.

      • In the Canadian Criminal Code trials go forward with 11 jurors-it is went they have less than 10 that the judge request two additional jurors.

        To the best of my understanding there are NO ALTERNATES in criminal trials in Canada (see link above for further clarification).

      • Ok, Annon -

        I am NOT going to argue about this with you anymore, and so consider this my final reply on the subject.

        Behind me, in my curio-cabinet, on the two top shelves, there rests 20 years/which means twenty copies of CANADA’s “Martin’s Criminal Code”.

        This IS Canada’s Criminal Code Bible.

        My newest version, 2011 is unfortunately in my office at work, however:

        I have checked, and in the section of the Criminal Code entitled:

        Procedures in Jury Trial

        Under S.631
        EMPANELLING JURY

        If you refer to Sub-Section (2.1)
        It clearly states:

        If the JUDGE considers it advisable in ther interests of justice to have one or more ALTERNATE JURORS, the Judge shall so order before the Clerk of the Court draws out the cards under subsection (3).

        Subsection (3) Goes on to explain the manner and procedures of how this is done.

        It is basically going back to the Juror Cards that were submitted in the beginning of Jury Selection.

        Now, I rest my case, and trust that this has answered your questions, and satiated your continued desire to prove me wrong.

        I am a CANADIAN, and I know our Laws.

        Though I may not know everything ‘verbatim’ within the Criminal Code…
        I am very familiar, and versed, with our Justice Sytem, and the procedures, and processes that go along with it.

        I trust this answers your continued inquiries/comments, and puts to rest any further comments about Canada not having Alternates in a Jury Trial.

        I am not sure exactly WHERE you got your information, as the link you provided did not post.

        In my experience, and after verifying in the Criminal Code, it IS at the Judge’s discretion to order Alternates and/or move forward with a typical 12 panel Jury.

        Are we good, now?
        LOL!

  33. Was this group of people told about the placement of the duct tape? If they were, I’m wondering how they came up with the idea of an accident. The day I read the autopsy report is when I knew, to my own satisfaction, that this was no accidental death. Also, nobody sits in jail for 3 years because their baby died accidentally, in my opinion. Casey could never claim it was an accident and had to make up a kidnapping story and it is my opinion that she HAD to do so because of that duct tape she put over Caylee’s face. I wonder how many times she’s kicked her own butt over that damned duct tape.

    • Forrest-A “Mock Trial” and a “Focus Group” are completely different. A “mock trial” is made up of two separate groups – usually there are 6 persons who represent the plaintiff and 6 persons who represent the defendant. Participants take on the roles of the lawyers, witnesses, using critical thinking skills, debate skills and thorough knowledge of trial law.

      A “focus” group Mr Gabriel assembled were people who did not believe Ms Anthony was charged properly. They were hesitant about punishment but it was still a possibility. They would not have been qualified as jurors in Florida. Think “invidious” when you think “focus”. Many who engage in this type of group are unaware of the unseen discriminatory practices.

  34. Canadian Criminal Procedure relative to “alternate jurors” does not exist although each Province may go about the process differently. Twelve juors are seated. If the criminal trial is high profile (or for any other reason) the JUDGE believes that he/she might need additional jurors he will ask his clerk to “set aside” two people who would be available to serve as jurors if a potential seated juror(s) becomes ill or unable to serve. There are provinces where criminal cases go forward and only replace jurors once two jurors become ill or unable to serve”below the required twelve and after two are excused”. The Canadian criminal code DOES NOT SEAT ALTERNATES BUT REPLACES JURORS. A major difference/distinction if you are comparing and contrasting jury selection in both countries.

    http://www.legalinfo.org/legal-information/legal-information-content/jury-duty.html#Howarejurorschosen

    • I was NEVER comparing the Jury’s between the two countries…
      At no time was that ever an issue for me to debate.

      I am well aware, that they are very different from each other!

      That goes without saying, and I wouldn’t waste my time trying to dispute otherwise.

      I simply stated that HHJP was going to have 12 seated Jurors, and 8 Alternates.

      I see that you’ve provided a link to a Legal Information Center of sorts, provided to the people of Nova Scotia -

      This is a general overview for that particular province.

      And to be honest, it is lacking in the legalities that are provided in the actual Criminal Code.

      I reside in Ontario, and I go by the CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE.
      The REAL Canadian Government DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

      I do NOT frequent run of the mill web-sites, that concoct their own versions of what they believe the Law to be about.

      Many of these sites, generalize, and try to simplify what processes and procedures are followed.

      Basically, it is put into layman’s terms, and quite often does NOT include all of the intricacies that are found on a Government web-site or the Canadian Criminal Code itself.

      They are not always the most ACCURATE.

      Had you read the link to the Department of Justice that I provided, you would have in fact, seen that I am correct.

      Another thing about the link you provided…
      Depending on where I open it, between, my laptop, home pc and phone, it actually opens up with all sorts of VIAGRA inserts within the sentences of each paragraph.

      I was quite taken a-back when I opened the link in the car, only to find ‘Viagra in the UK’ scattered throughout the whole article.

      Not so sure that I’d want to keep frequenting this web-site, as it appears to have intrusions, and is probably not the safest place to be.

      Again, you might want to stay with what is SAFE and ACCURATE!

      This IS where you want to be:

      http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

  35. The verdict of not guilty is in now. I sit in total shock. At the very least Casey was negligent, which amounts to a charge of child abuse, resulting in the death of a minor child.

    After considering all I heard, learned over the past three years,..listening intently to the trial, I can only come to a few conclusions.

    1. Either the jury did not understand the Judges charges on the verdict slips, or;

    2. There was jury tampering.

    It is reasonable, in my opinion, to believe that the jury did not understand the complicated charges. I have been a paralegal for decades, in another state, and had difficulty with the 1st degree charges parsing. In my opinion, juries need to be able to understand the charges, either by some simple comprehension testing, and/or using plain English when giving them (i.e. no legalese).

    It is not lightly that I am also considering jury tampering. It has happened in other court cases. Consider this, the Defense team, including the defendant, thought that they had a loser, hence the obfuscation, and continual objections by Baez. Leaving a record for appeal by his objections.

    Also, consider that the Anthony’s and Casey are now financially better off than they were prior to Caley’s death. Also, consider that Baez, and his team, did not take the case out of the kindness of their greedy hearts. With so much money floating around in this case, it is not a big leap to consider that one, or more, of the jurors was bribed to influence the others in a not-guilty verdict.

    Jury tampering is a serious criminal offense, but it does happen. The fact that the jury did not even consider Casey guilty on even the ‘lesser’ charges 2nd or 3rd degree, set the hinky-meter off in my head,…very loudly.

    This is not an OJ jury. He was not tried by a jury of his peers. His jury was made up of people ethnically matching him, but poor and middle-class, not rich jurors, who would have been actual jurors of his peers, and the prosecution asked him something for which they did not have an answer, i.e. try to put on the glove. Huge mistake. Leather shrinks when wet.

    This country is in a deep recession, people are hurting for money to keep food on the table, and a roof over their heads. It is not a far-fetched concept that the jury was tampered with in someway. In my career as a paralegal, I see people fighting over $1,000.00,..heirs in estates. It is pathetic and very sad, but it has become a regular occurrence.

    In my opinion, the jury needs to be investigated, thoroughly. Casey did something to cause her daughter’s death. Even if you believe she drowned, which I do not, where was Casey? That gives rise to the child abuse/negligence charges. Yet, the jury returned a not guilty on that fact. A minor child cannot be expected, in any way, to be responsible for itself. It does not understand death, or the consequences of certain dangerous/risky behaviors. That is why a caregiver must be available to protect the child. This is also why I say something about the jury’s verdict is hinky.

    I believe the jury may have been tampered with because the verdict was ‘not’ ‘intellectually’ honest!

    The Prosecution presented an excellent circumstantial case, and circumstantial evidence is as accepted and honored in a court of law, as hard evidence. Murderers do not have witnesses!

    When asked to use “reasonable judgment” that means to use rational thinking. Sound thinking. Follow the evidence, circumstantial is hard evidence. Nobody else profited by Caley’s death, but Casey. Nobody else was hindered by Caley, but Casey. Casey showed consciousness of guilt when she disposed of the child’s body, instead of calling 911 for help.

    Did she believe that once the paramedics arrived they would be able to determine the baby’s cause of death? Of course she did. Hence the lies, her running away from home to live with a boyfriend, and subsequent disposal of that poor child’s body.

    There was no justice done today in court by the jury. The jury is either uneducated, morally bankrupt, or in it for the money.

    Please do not patronize the Anthony’s, Baez, or anybody connected to this case. Whether by watching television shows that they appear on, buying their books, magazines, or movies. Do not reward a murderer and her cohorts with the “Bella Vida”! If you do watch a show where they appear, please consider writing to the advertisers for the show, and tell them that you will not longer watch it, if these people continue appearing.

    We are not a society of miscreants. We punish the guilty. If the jury was not able, or otherwise influenced not to provide justice, we can shun them all, and thereby keep them from enjoying the spoils from an unjust verdict! None of them has anything new to add, nor will they, so do not waste your money on anything they have to say.

    The Supreme Court of the U.S. repealed the Son of Sam Law, thereby making it possible for criminals to profit from their stories of murder, etc. Do not cast your vote, with your hard-earned cash, for a murderer and her family, friends, and attorneys! Make your voice heard by shunning them all, as I will. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 374 other followers

%d bloggers like this: