the media: emphasized evidence that tended to incriminate, read any blog referencing the Casey Anthony case? imo-yes…what do you think?

I had commented on a blog –
             Posted by: finnperkins | June 01, 2009 at 09:37 PM

Sheppard v. Maxwell


 some one responded with this-

 – “That was relative to publicity and coverage “during” the “trial” and how it affected the “jury” not to be confused with media attention, coverage or discussions “before” the trial or interest from the general public.”

cxxx lxxxxxxxxx


So I replied –

To cxxx lxxxxxxxxx

In response to Sheppard v. Maxwell, would not apply, per your comment – “That was relative to publicity and coverage “during” the “trial” and how it affected the “jury” not to be confused with media attention, coverage or discussions “before” the trial or interest from the general public.”


Taken directly from the 384 U.S. 333-Syllabus [1,2,3 and 4]
During the entire pretrial period, virulent and incriminating publicity about petitioner and the murder made the case notorious, and the news media frequently aired charges and countercharges besides those for which petitioner was tried. Three months before trial, he was examined for more than five hours without counsel in a televised three-day inquest conducted before an audience of several hundred spectators in a gymnasium. Over three weeks before trial, the newspapers published the names and addresses of prospective jurors causing them to receive letters and telephone calls about the case.

[2]Estes v. Texas
Throughout this period, the newspapers emphasized evidence that tended to incriminate Sheppard and pointed out discrepancies in his statements to authorities. At the same time, Sheppard made many public statements to the press, and wrote feature articles asserting his innocence.

[4]Sheppard v. Maxwell
We granted certiorari, 382 U.S. 916 (1965). We have concluded that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, reverse the judgment.



[3]Stroble v. California
“Disclosed that scientific tests at the Sheppard home have definitely established that the killer washed off a trail of blood from the murder bedroom to the downstairs section,”
A circumstance casting doubt on Sheppard’s accounts of the murder, no such evidence was produced at trial.


imo -I will not bore you with the details, except this one- “including but limited to the release of the jurors’ names, address and telephone numbers.”

I ask that if you feel this is OK, then why is there a need for on line screen names, why not use your real names? I think in reality, it isn’t ok with any of you, and that privacy is something none of you here want the US supreme court or any other court to take away from you, so why should a local circuit trial judge be allowed to disregard the rights of the jurors’.
Again, I am not offering any opinion on Ms. Anthony’s claim of innocence; I am only stating that in order for the verdict, that when rendered, when the gavel hits the sound block that the verdict will stand.


Posted by: finnperkins | June 03, 2009 at 02:59 AM


20 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Boston
    Jun 03, 2009 @ 08:27:26

    Finn- You have used the names of your commentors on several occasions.I posted something on your blog months ago and you took my response and made it part of your next post. I saw a partial rendering of my email address using my first name and my last name was@#$ as part of your Headline on Word Press. I did not like that at all but never said a word about it. I felt it was a definite invasion of my privacy.

    As to posting the names of the jurors? Countless jurors are interviewed after a trail and on occassion a group of them get together and write a book that no one reads.

  2. Boston
    Jun 03, 2009 @ 08:29:00


  3. Boston
    Jun 03, 2009 @ 12:52:39

    It was several months ago-it must be in your archives

  4. Diana
    Jun 03, 2009 @ 21:02:17

    Wow…….That’s just WRONG.

  5. Boston
    Jun 04, 2009 @ 00:06:06

    It is wrong and the only reason I didn’t say anything was because others were upset to see their comments in quotes and in the Byline/headline. I can never quite get the reason why it is so important to reprint what others say and use it as fodder for a post. In literary terms it doesn’t fly for me and it brings new meaning to redundancy. Of course some people like it but it’s not my cup of tea.

    • Finn Perkins
      Jun 04, 2009 @ 00:14:12

      My reposting of a comment that was address to me, is done for the reader who hasn’t seen the comment, and therefore my reply is done here. the other site where the comment may have originated is usually slanted in favor of killing Casey Anthony.

      btw I removed your post…I edited out actually. Sorry that it place your id in the trans/protocal..didn’t realize it. opps! please forgive 😦

      here is Dave blog. he addresses the same issue.

  6. Boston
    Jun 04, 2009 @ 00:23:36

    Finn-I never had my “id in the trans/protocal”before but I guess I did alright without it all these months. I am living proof that I did okay with my ego and superego running the show. I wonder now if walking around without my “id” I unknowingly said something that was inappropriate? Hhhhhmmmmm……. No worries my friend, I think we’re even now.

  7. Boston
    Jun 04, 2009 @ 10:03:08

    I thought the oka-lee…was funny. Yes, I read Dave’s post yesterday and commented on it in the late afternoon. He is a terrific writer and a kind and thoughtful person. I could consider myself one of his regular posters. I always try to read his Blog and comment when I have time to sit and discuss.

    It touches a sensitive nerve when writers talk about how others will say anything about the defendants family, friends as well as all the poor souls who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Saying cruel and unnecessary things about the new attorney, Ms Lyon is almost criminal in my mind (“eye r—-). I don’t want to say it here on your Blog Finn. I hope you can figure it out. Totally wrong in every way.

  8. Boston
    Jun 05, 2009 @ 16:10:28

    Oh I know you wouldn’t Finn.

  9. Boston
    Jun 06, 2009 @ 08:41:08

    I never read what he writes. I read the Orlando Sentinel and evidence docs and look at NG and JVM but basically I read the blogs to see how the case is progressing.

    I am not a “big” thinker about this case and have had my mind made up early on relative to guilt or innocence.

    Within the first 48 hours the police had a strong and convincing case against Casey Anthony for child neglect. Shortly after that they had a strong and convincing case for economic crimes.

    Assessment of the OCSD. Working in collaboration with all LE they made assessments about Casey Anthony that have never changed since July 17, 2008. In November, without the benefit of a body, they announced a trial date of January 5, 2009. They “placed” the DP on the table with limited immunity and of course Casey Anthony did not buy into it. How could she? Many defendants try not to shoot themselves in the foot too often.
    The only thing that has changed since Cindy Anthony called police on July 15 and reported her grandchild missing is the finding of the body on December 11, 2008.

    On December 09, 2008 Jose stood before the Orlando press and stated that, “Caylee Anthony is alive”.

    Since then the case has gone steadily downhill. Too bad for the defendant. She didn’t apparently take any of the advice her attorney should have and must have given her. I would never say he is responsible for what has gone on but am greatful for the fact that Ms Lyon is there and I am confident that she can get this case back on track. Presently it’s screaming down the tracks going in the wrong direction.

    • Finn Perkins
      Jun 06, 2009 @ 08:48:16

      that’s why I think the media needed to reduce coverage. like playing poker. show your cards via body language and you’ll lose. as in this case. the cards have been rehashed so many times. btw I liked the mayflower rest. the 9.99 early bird special full lobster sooo good. I don’t know if they still have this but it got me through fat jacks was my favorite.

  10. Boston
    Jun 06, 2009 @ 16:59:17

    I sure do like the Discovery/Sunshine Laws though. We have had several high profile cases the last couple of years and nothing but good reporting from both the Globe and the Herald.

    Going to the Rockefeller closing statements on Monday morning. This case is all about what lawyer wins. Not the defendant or what he did or which one of the shrinks to believe. Truly a good case. Defendant is looking at approximately 14 years for kidnapping. It could be less but he has lesser includeds so the sentence gets extended.

%d bloggers like this: