Judge Perry. Do not F with him. (Anthony trial antics)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
62909473.jpg


He will soon know where the penis goes.


and he obviously knew he was in the wrong.. he tried to "hide" what he was doing..
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/01/article-2010172-0CD0D58100000578-186_468x327.jpg
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
62909473.jpg


He will soon know where the penis goes.


and he obviously knew he was in the wrong.. he tried to "hide" what he was doing..
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/01/article-2010172-0CD0D58100000578-186_468x327.jpg

Why would he flip off the prosecuting attorney? The bitch is obviously guilty.

Also, why did he admit to doing it? He could have just said it was a coincidence that his middle finger was up when he was scratching his chin or something. It's not like they could have proven intent.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,338
136
Why would he flip off the prosecuting attorney? The bitch is obviously guilty.

Also, why did he admit to doing it? He could have just said it was a coincidence that his middle finger was up when he was scratching his chin or something. It's not like they could have proven intent.
He said he thought she wasn't getting a fair shake.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
6 months for that? Ridiculous.
oops... my bad.

The whole nice slow speaking thing was to essentially get the guy to admit that he was in the wrong and that he knew he was in the wrong.

I thought he did the right thing.
 
Last edited:

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
He said he thought she wasn't getting a fair shake.

What was he even doing there? He was a flunky working at TGI fridays with nothing to his name. Aren't there bigger things in his life to worry about than whether he thinks a murderer is getting a fair shake.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,338
136
What was he even doing there? He was a flunky working at TGI fridays with nothing to his name. Aren't there bigger things in his life to worry about than whether he thinks a murderer is getting a fair shake.
There's your answer.:)
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
He said he thought she wasn't getting a fair shake.

then blame the idiot defense attorney.
the guy is barely a lawyer... and he's taking a shotgun approach.

throw shit out there and see if it sticks.

if she gets off on appeal, it would be for "ineffective assistance of counsel"
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,338
136
6 days dumb ass.

The whole nice slow speaking was to essentially get the guy to admit that he was in the wrong and that he knew he was in the wrong.

I thought he did the right thing.
Yep. 6 months for telling the judge to tell the cop to smoke his pole.

Wonder why the Anthony guy asked to appeal?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Why would he flip off the prosecuting attorney? The bitch is obviously guilty.

Also, why did he admit to doing it? He could have just said it was a coincidence that his middle finger was up when he was scratching his chin or something. It's not like they could have proven intent.

People who sit and watch criminal trials in which they have no personal involvement are often (but not always) strange rangers. He may have a crush on her.

I think she is very likely guilty but I wouldn't say it's obvious. I would guess she is probably 80% likely to be convicted, however, partly because her attorney, Jose Baez, overpromised the jury in his opening statement that the father's suicide note would support the notion that Caylee died accidentally and that the father helped cover it up, when in fact it said no such thing.

Speaking as a longtime prosecutor and defense attorney, this is a cardinal sin. I have always believed Scott Peterson was convicted largely because his attorney promised the jury he would be able to prove who actually killed Laci Peterson, then completely failed to deliver any such evidence. (I believe Scott Peterson is very likely guilty but I have never felt the evidence was sufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)

The defense has no obligation to prove anything, and I think it's bad practice as a defense attorney to promise the jury evidence unless you're damned sure that a) your client's case will be meaningfully enhanced by making such a promise and b) you can actually produce the evidence you claim you will produce in a clear and persuasive way, without harming your client's case.

Baez really seems to be in over his head, and if she's convicted you can bet she will hire someone else to seek a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
 
Last edited:

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,338
136
then blame the idiot defense attorney.
the guy is barely a lawyer... and he's taking a shotgun approach.

throw shit out there and see if it sticks.

if she gets off on appeal, it would be for "ineffective assistance of counsel"
News this a.m. said the last thing the defense did was ask how the family disposed of dead pets. "Black plastic bag and a shovel." Maybe that's the idea.
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
News this a.m. said the last thing the defense did was ask how the family disposed of dead pets. "Black plastic bag and a shovel." Maybe that's the idea.

yea, but the mom said they used packing tape and buried the bodies.
completely opposite of the way the body was disposed of in the case, and in my opinion (i'm not a lawyer.. so this means nothing)... irrelevant, and only tries to inflame the jury.

i mean.. how many pets has this family "killed off" that burying pets are a ritual that is relevant?
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,338
136
yea, but the mom said they used packing tape and buried the bodies.
completely opposite of the way the body was disposed of in the case, and in my opinion (i'm not a lawyer.. so this means nothing)... irrelevant, and only tries to inflame the jury.

i mean.. how many pets has this family "killed off" that burying pets are a ritual that is relevant?
Exactly.
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,563
203
106
I thought it was awesome. Just watching the way he did it, he was trying to hide it like some asshole juvenile. No way to lie his way out of it.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I was in Orlando when this whole thing was happening and have no doubt at all that she is guilty.

Her story made no sense at all. I guess the question is how much of it did the jury hear, I assume all of it.

So here is what they know beyond the evidence.
1. girl goes missing
2. mom claims she was taken by babysitter
3. while missing mom parties it up
4. while missing mom tells no one and hides the fact that she is gone from grandma
5. a month after going missing grandma calls the cops and the whole thing falls apart

Anthony's behavior while her daughter was missing doesn't match at all how someone would behave if their daughter drowned or was kidnapped. We've seen these types of cases. People's entire lives come to a stop after their children go missing.

Every thing else is just icing on the cake.

If Anthony didn't kill her then who did? And I don't think the defense providing anything to suggest something else happened.

BTW I hope she gets the chair.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I thought it was awesome. Just watching the way he did it, he was trying to hide it like some asshole juvenile. No way to lie his way out of it.
Anyone with kids has done exactly what the judge did.

Son, did you throw the rock?
Yea.
Did you know it was wrong?
Yea.
Did I tell you know to throw rocks?
Yea.

And at the end the judge put him in time out like a good parent.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,338
136
John, I'm guessing accidental but she wasn't very broken up about it. Selfish, self centered, spoiled, me, mine and now brat.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Speaking as a longtime prosecutor and defense attorney, this is a cardinal sin. I have always believed Scott Peterson was convicted largely because his attorney promised the jury he would be able to prove who actually killed Laci Peterson, then completely failed to deliver any such evidence. (I believe Scott Peterson is very likely guilty but I have never felt the evidence was sufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)

.

lol i got flammed to hell during the trial here for saying that. I really feel that Scott perterson (while i do think he did it) did NOT get a fair trial and the evidence was not enough to find him guilty.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
1) Given the media publicity on this trial, it's a good thing the Judge has a backbone and a bit of an attitude.
2) That woman's face just screams "I'M FUCKING CRAZY!"
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
John, I'm guessing accidental but she wasn't very broken up about it. Selfish, self centered, spoiled, me, mine and now brat.
You want to think accident.

But the tape around the head kind of ruins it.

Plus if it was an accident why didn't she call the cops or 911?
If you daughter drowns in the pool you call 911, you don't think that you need to hide the body.

I also thought maybe she used the tape to stop her from crying. Which is possible. But if that was the case she should have plead to keep her out of the chair.

That might be the only thing that keeps her from the chair. Pleading it was an accident etc etc. Hard to tell.
 
Last edited: