Casey Anthony juror signs book deal
Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, July 4, 2011
Tomorrow’s headlines today.
In a sure-to-be-a-hit-deal, a juror in the murder trial of Casey Anthony has signed a book deal with publishers for an undisclosed amount. Speculators have said the deal may be at least worth as much as $750,000, and under $1.25 Million.
The prosecutor will retire, pen his case memoir and then get his own made-for-tee vee pseudo-reality drama show on HLN alongside ex-lawyer Nancy Grace and Jane Velez Mitchell.
In my opinion, the state has not done an adequate job of prosecuting the defendant and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony murdered her 2-year old daughter Caylee.
It is does not mean that I do not suspect that Miss Anthony had a hand in the death of of her daughter, for I do. I do not believe that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Anthony committed the crime. Many of the crimes she is accused of involve a proof of child abuse, and the state has not once demonstrated, nor proven that she was a negligent mother.
It is the state’s responsibility to prove guilt.
Warm Southern Breeze 
michellefrommadison said
Looks like the jurors may have thought it was an accidental pool drowning.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Michelle! Thanks for sharing your thoughts! As the state conceded, the cause of death remains unknown. It would seem reasonable that the cause of death was indeed accidental, especially since it was not immediately made known. A sense of embarrassment, shame or sense of unjustifiable guilt for events over which one would have no control – would be a reasonable cause or rationale to prevent others from knowing the cause was accidental.
LikeLike
Sharron Blais said
Are you kidding me!!!! Did you watch this trial? That baby did NOT drown…..she was murdered!!!!
Because of people like you CA is being rewarded…. Millions of$$$$ for killing her child! Just because 12 Village Idiots said Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent!
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
HI Sharron! Thanks for your readership, and for your response!
LikeLike
Lechar Renee said
I have a question: Why is your opinion of any importance whatsoever? You tell me the state did not prove its case, but never say why. You simply make claims with no support at all.
This is MY OPINION: All cameras need to be kept out of courtrooms. We need better jury selection. I think that Americans should have to take tests to prove they know enough about American laws to make an informed decision before being qualified as a juror.
I do not think it should ever be legal for a juror to profit from sitting on a case. This creates serious problems! Imagine that you are accused–wrongly–of murder. You being tried by people who not only have scant knowledge of criminal law, but also know that they will probably get a big book deal if they find you guilty because everyone thinks you are innocent so this would be an interesting “narrative” (Gotta have the narrative!!!). Is it acceptable for them to find you guilty? And would you approve of people making money under these circumstances?
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Lechar! Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I’m not certain why you asked the initial question you did. That is genuinely curious. Yet, I also wrote that “Many of the crimes she is accused of involve [require] a [unquestionably demonstrated] proof of child abuse, and the state has not once demonstrated, nor proven that she was a negligent mother.” The state admitted that all their evidence is merely circumstantial. Such “evidence” is purely whimsical – as our judicial system acknowledges. That’s not my opinion. The state has conceded as much.
Your point about preventing profiting from one’s jury service is indeed a worthy topic of debate, to be certain.
As regarding juror education, the court system provides all the education jurors need, and the process of choosing suitable juries of one’s peers is the initial phase of a trial by jury, as I’m certain you well know. The “striking” of a jury – to a great extent – culminates the processes you mention in which qualified jurors are chosen to sit and hear a case.
There is one case about which you may also be aware, and it was United States of America v. Richard M. Scrushy in which the prosecutor for the northern district of Alabama, Alice Martin, brought the to-date only charges of violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act against a CEO. Since the case also involved publicly traded securities, it could have been brought to venue in New York – and as many astute observers – myself included – noted, to have done so would have likely brought a conviction, since pecuniary intricacies are better understood on and nearby Wall Street. Jurors in Birmingham, AL were quite evidently overwhelmed, and numerous times throughout their 21 days of deliberation requested significant assistance, and reported being deadlocked for such reasons – so much so that the judge was reported to have seriously considered dismissing the case by mistrial. Nevertheless, he instructed them several times to continue deliberations until they reached a verdict, and they eventually did… and found Scrushy not guilty. There were numerous other social events which figured prominently in his trial, not the least of which was his highly-publicized joining of a predominately black member church (aka “playing the ‘race card'”), where during the trial, he also became a prominent benefactor and donor.
LikeLike
bob said
no one should ever make money over a dead child to me that’s a crime period.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bob! I suppose people make money from all kinds of things, some perhaps more reprehensible, or merely questionable than others. Considering, undertakers make money off all dead people. Although, I’m certain I understand the gist of your sentiment – with which I also share your feelings – that it is a moral outrage that our society, or any society could feed upon the misfortune of others. And such a reason is a significant part of why I don’t watch CourtTV (or whatever it’s now called). As the headline of one story read, the Casey Anthony trial was wonderful for their ratings. Ratings, of course, translate into adverti$ing rate$, meaning increa$ed revenue for $hareholder$ and the network$ talking head$. Money, money, money…
What’s that phrase? One either does a thing for love, or money – not both. If one does a thing for love, it is considered an ideal, highly esteemed. If one does a thing for money… well, a colloquial term for such is “prostitute.”
As an interesting aside (I hope you so find it), the word “amateur” means “lover of,” and stems or originates from the word “amour” which translates as “love.” And as the origin and derivation of the word emerged (it’s etymology), it was meant to describe someone whom had the ultimate, or highest degree of passionate involvement in an activity, field or endeavor. Today, in sharp contrast, we use the word “professional” – a term defined as an activity, often an occupation one performs in exchange for money (to earn a livelihood) – to connote someone whom has a high degree of knowledge or expertise. According to one etymological source, “the notion of “sex for hire” is not inherent in the etymology” of the word “prostitute.” It’s rather striking, and quite telling, wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLike
Cathy cole said
Shame on you! I will never buy a book by any of those stupid and lazy jurors.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Cathy! Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I trust that your opening remark is properly interpreted to be addressed to the jurors. Thanks again for stopping by!
LikeLike
Laurin Peyton Crowder said
The reason for the outrageous verdict is quite simple. The Prosecution tried the case as if they had an intelligent, analytical, attentive, common sense jury. The Defense tried it as if they had an incompetent, lazy, hoodwinkable jury. The Defense was right.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Lauren! Thanks for writing! You may be interested in reading my comments to a later opinion.
LikeLike
Jess said
They didn’t prove their case? Really? Which one would have sealed the deal, video or dna?? What part of her child is dead and she not only didn’t report her missing for a month, but also drove around town with her corpse in her car for a few days didn’t you get “Southern Breeze”? Was the car someone else’s, was somebody else in possession of it? Oh, yeah, there wasn’t “proof” that her dead body was in Casey’s car other than little silly facts such as cadaver dog hits and seasoned law enforcement smelling decomposing flesh. Pesky, but not “proof”, right? Or that every object at the crime scene came directly from the Anthony home? Its a sad world when logic and common sense are jaded by television shows and making money off of the “trial of the century”. These jurors disgust me. Judge Perry took longer to decide whether or not Anthony would serve probation than these 12 idiots did to make their erroneous and incomprehensible decision. No one I know will stoop to read this garbage, and I hope that these jurors are never allowed to live this failure down.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Jess! Thanks for writing! Many, if not most of the issues about which you wrote were not allowed to be admitted during the trial. Hence, because they were inadmissible, they were, and remain, nonstarters for purposes of the prosecution. If the prosecution had genuinely been on their game, such would not have occurred. That Miss Casey was not convicted is not due exclusively to the defense’s acumen or strategy, but rather to the failure of the state. If the state does not obtain a prosecution, it is their own fault – not the success of the defense. I’m certain that we could both agree that the defense’s case was poorly presented. Given that, the only plausible – indeed, rational – explanation is prosecutorial failure.They are, after all, the ones who brought the case and all related charges. Among some of those counts there must be demonstration of child abuse. The state, knowing that, also failed to demonstrate that Miss Casey was willfully and demonstrably contributory in child abuse. That point alone could have “sealed the deal” if the state had proven Miss Casey was willfully negligent in that regard, to have been abusive to the child. But again, the state failed miserably in that regard.
Now, does any of this mean that I believe Miss Casey is innocent of any knowledge or involvement in the case?
No, it does not – for I believe she knows much more than was ever allowed out at trial, or was told investigators, or the three-ring circus known as media.
LikeLike
Edith said
Sorry, but I’m a little confused. You say a juror got a book deal, but don’t mention their name. In the next paragraph, you mention Jeff Ashton, then write about how much money will be made. So are you writing about a juror’s book, or Jeff Ashton’s book? Also, I am a follower of his fanpage, and the tv show is only a rumor as far as I know. It would have been mentioned a lot more often in his status updates if it were true. Please explain?
LikeLike
Edith said
Nevermind. I wrote my reply then noticed the date of your blog entry. My mistake.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Edith! Thanks for stopping by, and for your response! Your readership and interest is appreciated!
LikeLike
cheryl righettini said
all I have to say is duct tape duct tape duct tape…………accidental I dont think so
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Cheryl! Thanks for your readership and commentary!
LikeLike
Cheryl Jacovino said
“Thanks for stopping by” are you nuts????
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Yes, that’s correct. And so, thanks, Cheryl, for stopping by – and for your equally quizzical commentary!
LikeLike
Karen Scharps said
Warm Southern Breeze needs to quit trying so hard to prove they are intelligent. Read article from National Law review by noted former US assistant attorney and law professor who stated that there was no reasonable doubt and was amazed at speed jurors never went through over 600 items of evidence. Face it, the jurors were worthless as jurors and don’t deserve a voice. People will only read to find fault and laugh at their idiocy. Count me out-BOYCOTT.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Karen! Thanks for your readership, and for sharing your thoughts! Concerning the anonymous article in National Law Review which you cite, if you would be so kind as to cite the author, title of the article, url, and perhaps date published, I would be pleased to read it.
LikeLike
Lori Greer said
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable%3B_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National+Law+Journal&pt=NLJ.com-+Daily+Headlines&cn=20110803nlj&kw=Reasonable+doubts+in+the+Casey+Anthony+trial%3F&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
There are others too by reputable Law Review experts – all concluding the same. Marcia Clark, Bill O’Reilly, Diane Dimond – all wrote “Dumb, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” – or something along those lines….
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Lori! Thanks for sharing the link. I’ve read that article. It was thought provoking, wouldn’t you agree? Thanks for sharing it again, for others!
LikeLike
Karen Scharps said
The National Law Journal, July 26th, 2011. Written by Howard Univ. Law School Professor Adam Kirkland. He is also an assistant US attorney. I trust his opinion more than 12 people who never looked at over 600 pieces of evidence in their rush to make money or gain fame from this trial. How did that work out for them?
LikeLike
Heather said
Um miss SB don’t you think being a new author, you should do your own research on the article from the National Law Review? Oh that’s right you all have been in hiding for the last 3.3 months and missed that it was printed in almost every major news paper and Internet media across America. If you felt so comfortable with choosing innocent with all counts other than lying to law enforcement then the 22 of you should of held your heads high and proud that day walked out of the court room and exlained how you came to the conclusion of innocence. The polls have proven you all have failed poor Caylee and the law professors from Harvard to Yale will be using you 12 for years to come. I can understand why a pen name was chosen for this book that will surely flop, cause when your grandchildren read about your names in history books associated with one of the biggest murder cases in history and how you and your 11 leaches let her go, they will definately have a special place to remember you when you like Caylee know is dead and gone.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Heather! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
LikeLike
Heather said
Sorry about my few typos I meant the 12 of you. And “Like Caylee who now is dead and gone.”
I don’t have the luxury of having my own editor on my IPhone!
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi again, Heather! No problem on the typos.
LikeLike
Sharron Blais said
We don’t need or want to hear what 1 of the 12 Village Idiots has to say. This book like all others will be boycotted!!!
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Sharron! The book will be a hot seller – I’m certain – for the same reason the trial was as closely followed by so many. Again, perhaps more than anything, that speaks of human nature. I appreciate your readership, and your thoughts!
LikeLike
Heather said
Didn’t like what I had to say? Is that why you are choosing not to post my comments? I’m waiting…. I think 15 hours is enough time.
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Heather! Thanks for writing! Seriously… thank you. Rarely do I ever not publish reader’s remarks. Sometimes, life happens, you know. Be of good cheer!
LikeLike
frank said
hi rose,ms roper u cause havoc everywhere wth
LikeLike
Warm Southern Breeze said
Hi Frank! Thanks for your readership and commentary.
LikeLike