I pledge allegiance to the flag ……one nation under God, indivisible,

 …..with liberty and justice for all”

What the Anthony’s are not interested in hearing, reading and viewing the report
regurgitated, misinterpreted, and taken out of context.  I agree. 
I also feel that the report could actually be a positive change
for the Anthony’s. [anguish translated]

The more the information that the media can get to, the more
they will regurgitated, misinterpreted, and taken out of context,
therefore offer more content for Casey Anthony’s future motion
for either a miss-trial, or best, nullify the jury.

Contrary to popular beleif that I am some way affiliated with
the Anthony’s, this should offer proof that I am not.

I say let the press have the autopsy report.  Let them take it,
and sleep with it. Let them wake up with it in the morning,
with their favorite Starbucks flavor.  Let them read, and re-read
the report, until they are either blue in the face, or diverted
to covering a real news story, like a tropical storm, or heavy
spring flooding.

I actually welcome this release, because I have been
on this soap box so long, that fighting the release of”active
investigative documents, and documents that are part of an
active litigation or criminal proceedings”, isn’t working.
 “if you can’t beat them, join them.

Justice News flash!…The Anthony’s know the content
in the Autopsy report…

Then when the day come when a motion for verdict to be set
aside, or a mis-trial, and better yet, not guilty beyond reasonable
doubt”… I will be the first to comment with an “I told you so”…

on any and every “Justice for Caylee” bog I can find…

Official versions (changes in bold italics)

1892
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands:
one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

1892 to 1923
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands:
one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

1923 to 1924
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic
for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

1924 to 1954
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.”

1954 to Present
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

“…privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.” -by Leslie Regan Shade, …and I agree.

I realized recently that I am not surprise by the content on the local TV station’s websites. I can go and click on any one of them and view photos of car crashes, the very site that a persons life had been taken, and more times than not, video footage of the latest reason why the interstate highway 4, is blocked.  The very photos that offer clues to the FDLE, are right there for not only my eyes to see, but also available to viewers from all over the world.  

My issue with this practice is that, the families of these victims, not only have the initial shock of hearing about their loved ones death or injuries, but they now have a constant reminder of this tragedy. 

I know that the technology of instant video gratification has surpassed the hallmarks of the First Amendment, and circumvents the Fifth Amendment on a daily basis. 

I am offering my opinion on this because recently I was informed that my one of my parents had been in an accident in which, a driver of a truck made a right turn on red, and fail to yield to the pedestrian, who at that time was in the crossing the street.  My parent did not see the truck until it had been contact, and their body had remained pinned under the truck, the truck moved them several feet before coming to a stop.

I for one, even if this were not my parent, would not want photos of this on my local TV stations webs site, not would I want the images posted on the news, with anyone of or delightful news anchors.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to see these images of this accident, nor would I want to be filmed’ while hearing news of this tragic accident.

I think the idea of filming anything usually is to make record of something, whether it is for profit or for documentation of service rendered by the OFD /first responders, or for court record.  Usually it is the later. 

Therefore, in the name of justice, many have said, they want to see the video of Casey in the jail’s medical waiting room.  Is this because as a society, whose been cabled fed a variety of reality format television shows, that the folks say “hey, it reality, lets she her in pain, let’s see her incriminated herself…let see it, lets see it…”

When will the insanity of the insane notion that one-person tragedy is another person’s favored pastime.  I have ask, did the corrections officers take Ms. Anthony out of her cell, bring her down to the medial facility’s waiting area, to film her reactions the day Mr. Padilla offered his findings from the search at lake near Jay Blanchard park.

….You know, the search paid by Mr. Padilla.

….You know the one resulted in misinformation from Mr. Padilla     and that the FDLE had to field questionable findings latter to be found as animal bones and products unrelated to the Anthony’s or to their home.

The answer is no. the corrections department and its officers allowed Ms. Anthony to remain in her Cell.  It has been of record, the OCCO stated Ms. Anthony heard the news on her radio.  Also noted is that the Video in question is incomplete, as Ms. Anthony was in the medical waiting room for more than 30 minutes, and the video

is shorter, based on the video time counter.

May I remind you of these two cases –

Estes v. Texas in 1965- Estes v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction of a defendant whose trial was televised to the public. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was deprived of his due process rights.  In addition, the court declared that by televising the trial, the jury was made, inherently prejudicial. 

Sheppard v. Maxwell in 1966- The Supreme Court in an 8 to 1 decision declared that Sheppard had been deprived of a fair trial because the judge failed to minimize “the prejudicial impact of massive publicity.”

The most recent case of deprived in deference by the court and the media is the issue of a person’s right to privacy vs. the public’s right to know.  In the Orlando Sentinel filed a Freedom of Information Act request, to obtain copies of racecar driver Dale Earnhardt’s autopsy photos.

I remember when the Orlando Sentinel requested his autopsy photos, stating that they wanted to have an expert see these photos, who would offer their expert opinion on head trauma and it’s relation to on going safety issues in the field of auto racing.  The newspaper added that they did not intend to publish the photographs.

Mr. Earnhardt’s widow, Teresa Earnhardt, was, perhaps understandably, outraged. She had also feared that access to these photos would lead, inevitably to the internet.  One website, whose owner is Michael Uribe, had in previous instances, published photographs of other drivers whom have had similar accidents, in which death had resulted.

“It repulses me, as an advocate and as a person, what those creeps are doing,” Rumberger said of the posting of the images of the drivers who accidents resulted in death at Daytona, only three days apart during Speedweeks 1994.  “You know exactly where they were going with the Earnhardt photographs.”

 

Nevertheless, by the time, the suit settled, Mr. Uribe had been enjoining in the suit along with the media in its request.  He was excluded in the meeting that was part of the mediated settlement, in which the Orlando Sentinel, and its representatives were given permission to view the photographs along with Dr. Barry Myers, PhD, a specialist in head and neck injury, and holds a position as associate professor at Duke University,

 

In summary, this issue-

I will post Leslie Shade’s opinion;

“Leslie Regan Shade argues that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy.  Privacy depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate.  Violations of privacy depend on context.  The human right to privacy has precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.[2]”

References:

Shade, L. R. (2008). Reconsidering the right to privacy in Canada. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 80-91.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved October 7, 2006 from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

saying one’s prayer before i lay to sleep, may not help in the state of florida….

Ok, so I went to sleep, it’s sometime I am told we human must do to maintain a healthy life.  So when I read that Bill Sheaffer – WFTV legal analyst, although he used the “IF” word, the sentence still had the big “C” word, “convicted”….as he spoke to Kathi Belich, about the jury feeling sorry for Ms. Anthony during sentencing.

So did I miss the trial; I know I forgot to set my alarm.  Then I realized, yep, the trial commenced the day the story broke about Caylee.  I did the V8 motion and said, “Finn, get with the program, in the century of viral videos and instant messaging a breaking up via a text message, it is only proper that  Trial by Media, is reasonable, right”?, NOT. So let me disclose not for not only the readers of this blog, but also the named reporters, that I do not claim to be with-out sin, or that I have never stood in courtroom 6D, but I do claim to be an American citizen, and that even though I feel asleep during a few American history classes, my ears perked up when, I heard the monotone voice, reciting the preamble to the U S Constitution…

The happiest day of my parent life was when my brother and I finally arrived from Korea via San Francisco, to what was then MCO Jetport. They thought nothing could top it, but then came the day my brother and I reciting the pledge of allegiance, with all the other newly naturalized persons, who all cam here by their own accord, or like me, through the love of my parents, their hope, and their church. That was 1971, I do not recall any significant changes to the following amendments1st, 5th & 14th, that would allow anything less, would make living in the untied states dishonorable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: