Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Judge Belvin Perry On Nancy Grace Tuesday 8PM EST

Those of you who burned at the Casey Anthony jury verdict wondering if the judge was foolish enough to buy into the lies will get to hear Belvin Perry say how shocked he was when he was handed the verdict, and how Casey Anthony went into an instant manipulative change as soon as the jurors entered the room.

He answers questions airing on Tuesday, 8PM EST on The Nancy Grace Show.

46 comments:

brosnanfan said...

I caught a little of his interview on Today on Monday morning.

He said at one point he was in one room and CA was in the next room, and they wanted CA to take a deal, and she began cursing and screaming and just pitching a fit. He also mentioned the manipulative behavior evident in the courtroom, how she could turn her emotions on and off like a switch. Hmm...

He also said that when the verdict came in, he had to read it twice and he still didn't quite believe it. I can say that I didn't quite believe it either, when I heard the verdict. Interesting interview.

Gambler said...

The part about Casey acting different when the Jury was in the courtroom and when they were out was one of the things that really stood out to me while watching the trial. I noticed Jodi Arias doing the same thing. As soon as she sat down after the Jury left she would change her demeanor. I hope and Pray that this Jury are not fooled as well.

Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled by da judge. He had at his command the right to overthrow the verdict of the jury. Perry is a load of crap. Did he file any of those charges against Baez he threatened to file with the Fl Bar Assn?

Worse than that; did he file any charges against Cindy & George Anthony for their many lies and perjuries that he sat and listented too day after day? Nope. Not nary a one. Perry himself is largely responsible for the downfall of justice in this country by allowing perjury to thrive in our courtroom. Slicker than an onion, now he whines while continuing to pervert justice.

Don't think for one minute that Perry didn't have his own part in the many blatantly illegal activities that he allowed day after day in his courtroom, now he wants to play mr. goodguy. Mr. goodguy sure could throw his weight around however, when it came to having bystanders arrested and prosecuted just because he could, leaving them with a criminal record forever etched on their future.

da judge will take his place in hell right along with the rest of the unethical legal profession, whoever they may be, who hide their misdeeds in the dark and lie to the masses, but do not seek justice for the innocent or punishment of the guilty.

C5H11ONO said...

Anon 6:56
I totally agree!

REK said...

I don't have many criticism of the judge. sure he could have done things differently but i keep my blame focused on Casey. I imagine she is still blaming caylee for ruining her life since she has to live under the radar now.

Anonymous said...

C5H. Thank you for having the nerve to agree. ANYBODY who sat and watched this fat fool in operation day after day, ought to be able to see the part he played (yes, "played") in ramming misjustice down our throat, beginning earlier on when he could have AND SHOULD HAVE declared a mistrial time and time again. But oh no, he had charted his course and damned well intended to see it through to the end.

He is as responsible as anyone else, and more so, for the tragedy of Casey escaping justice, AND for leaving sweet Caylee with no justice at all. Oh yeah, he'll pay.

Nic said...

Anonymous said: Don't be fooled by da judge. He had at his command the right to overthrow the verdict of the jury. Perry is a load of crap.

This is my thought too, Anon. He had the power. I was so hopeful duirng jury selection. I thought he would would be a great advocate for Caylee. He turned out to be the exact opposite.

Vita said...

Judge Belvin Perry - interviewed

http://country-yall.com/casey-anthony-judge-admits-shock-at-not-guilty-verdict-video

Anonymous said...

I'm sure he was shocked - but he also allowed this travesty to go down in his courtroom and presided over it. I have no sympathy or time for him. As a judge, he sounded ignorant in his inability to even speak English correctly. An ignorant-talking man is an ignorant-thinking man. There was a lot more wrong in that courtroom than the jury.

shmi said...

Anon at 6:56

You get another totally agree from me.

Where are the charges against Baez, Cindy and George?

He presided over a joke!

I remember hearing that a juror was questioned about the verdict, "did you think Casey was innocent?"
"No, we know she did it, the state didn't prove it".

Quotes here are just me showing the conversation. I do not have actual quotes.

TrishapatK said...

HEY !!!! The interview that Peter is telling us about has NOT taken place yet. The one that the commenters here are talking about was done by Savannah Guthrie on "TODAY" (I'm not sure if that is The Today Show)

Judge Perry could NOT have overturned the verdict. Judges cannot overturn a not guilty verdict.

Beyond that though, must we criticize the entire legal profession? They're NOT all unethical, they're not all out to make a big buck, they're not all sleazy and selfish. I was married to an attorney and he is one of the kindest and smartest people I know. He is brilliant and chose to study law because it is a way to help solve people's legal problems. He is NOT rich ( not by a long shot), nor are some of his friends. I know two other lawyers who are also not rich and are amazingly wonderful people, I know one who might be considered rich but that can't be held against him. He is also a kind, moral and ethical man who has his priorities straight.

The results from the Casey Anthony trial are very bothersome. It is interesting to see how deeply ingrained we are with the desire for justice. I suppose that we are all trying to figure out what the heck happened to make it go so wrong.

It is hard not to speculate and try to figure out how it could have happened. I watched or listened to the entire trial and read just about everything. I thought the prosecution did an outstanding job and that Judge Perry handled the courtroom very well. The defense team was outrageous and did not present a logical case in any way. The only thing I can come up with that may have worked in their favor is that the jury could have been so confused by his convoluted, non-sensical, all-over-the-board presentation that they couldn't wrap their brains around any of it. In the end, I think the jury is responsible for the fiasco of the courtroom results. I also think that the fact is that Casey is responsible for the crime. Who cares what the jury says, if she did it - she did it. God will hold all of us responsible for what we are responsible for.

Anyway, the interview Peter is telling us about is going to happen TONIGHT. If you actually read what he wrote : He answers questions airing on Tuesday, 8PM EST on The Nancy Grace Show.

Anonymous said...

Annon: 6:56

I agree with you!

Now he just wants to rep the fame attached to the case.

He's as guilty as Anthony.

HE SHOULD BE ASHAMED~~~~

Anonymous said...

Yep! This fat judge is an accomplice to murder IMO.

He's on the side of child murderers.

I'd be checking his basement, the creep!

Anonymous said...

The jury made a "pack" to find her not guilty as they knew they would infamous for ever.

They will get interviews/t.v. shows and the rest.

They did it to cash in like every other swine who does this Sh&%^.

Billie, OJ, Knox, Mccains and now we can add jurys to the list of murderers.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't give five minutes to listening to disGrace interview da judge.

You missed your ride TrashapakK, no pun intended; but perry should have never been appointed/elected judge in the first place. Look back at his history if you dare. The man is and WAS a low class pig, a liar, a swine pure and simple.

He had a pre-marital affair of many years duration right under the noses of court house officials, leeched out many goodies for his ladys' courthouse employment benefit, their travel and week-end shack ups together; all this while buttering his bread off the backs of others, doing little pesky favors for them under the table while maintaining his social status as a happily married man and playing the (costly!)political ball game to land his cushy forever job as judge.

THIS deceitful play-daddy is capable of passing judgement in our courts while passing on those favors to his courthouse buddies who helped him pull off his playhouse schemes? This low-life sorely lacking in honesty, integrity and character? Wowzer! He patted their back so hard in gratitude they helped him park his fat broad butt on the bench. Now he owes them. Paybeck continues, on and on and on and on.

I appreciaste your opinions, but apparently you didn't learn much while hanging around the courthouse.

REK said...

Anonymous 11:55 I was very upset about the verdict as well however, if this "pact" existed then wouldn't the media have lots of interviews with all the jurors? i haven't heard of much except for a couple clips from one juror a lady who said she had changed her mind to not guilty or something.

everyone wants someone to blame when we see injustice but to think the jurors were in on a conspiracy to vote not guilty and get all these media interviews and book deals..well i'd need to see some proof after the fact..its been awhile and i don't see any proof of that

Anonymous said...

Nobody said the jurors were in on a conspiricy!

The jurors were culled, screened and hand picked by the attys for both sides; AFTER reviewing the answers on their completed questionnaires. Their little brief interview of the jurors was only the NEXT step in setting their wheels in motion.

The attys knew EXACTLY which jurors they wanted and those they didn't want, who wanted to be there and who didn't, and who would wind up quickly; who could overwhelm other jurors and who couldn't, who was weak-minded and who wasn't. Right THERE is when the wheels started grinding.

Hobnob said...

Did any of the jury do tv interviews or write books after the case?

I can't recall off hand any of the jurors coming out and doing interviews and stuff to say why they did what they did.

I assume they saw the reaction of te public and decided to lay low, the money they thought they would get, the publicity, the interviews etc they saw bringing in possibly millions evaporated the moment they said not guilty.

Instead of being held up as heroes, the voice of Caylee, the seekers of justice for the voiceless, they are now pilloried and held up as ridicule. The Pinellas 12 is not a title of worth, it is instead a scathing insult as to intelligence.
their jury will always and forever be held up as an example of how not to b a smart jury.
Instead of pride at a job well done, they instead slink and hide, ashamed of a job badly done, where fame and money was more important than truth and justice.

REK said...

anonymous 11:55 claims they are in a "pack" or "pact" i am assuming.

a pact to manipulate for their own agenda is a conspiracy in my eyes.

i do not know if they have a pact or why everyone thinks that must be the only answer. i know it's hard to fathom why they did what they did. the answer that i think is most likely and reasonable is that they are a bunch of people with no backbone, they all kind of "go with the crowd", they felt sorry for casey..or the idea of ruining her life if they chose guilty and she 8wasn't* guilty as the prosecutor's made it seem. they must have given out personality tests at the jury selection the way it seems to me

Lemon said...

TrishapatK-
Pay no mind to snarkapotamus Anone. She can't help but call names, denigrate peeps, while working out her personal pet peeves for all to see.
Trolls be trolls.

Dee said...

It's easy to criticize after the fact. I remember while watching the trial thinking what a good job the Prosecution was doing with the evidence they had. I remember thinking what a buffoon Baez was. I remember being impressed with Judge Perry and his running of the courtroom. When the verdict came in I was floored. No, Perry did not have the authority or the right to reverse the verdict. Once it came in as not guilty it was a done deal.
Please let's place the blame squarely where it belongs. With Casey who murdered her precious daughter. With Cindy who lied over and over again and showed us her "image" and Casey were more important to her than Caylee. With George, who was another buffoon and a totally unsympathetic figure on the stand when he could have been an advocate for his granddaughter. With Lee, who like Cindy, if Casey lied he'd swear to it. And with the jury who didn't understand the concept of reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence. The jury who thought everything needed to be wrapped up like an episode of CSI and handed to them with on a silver platter so they didn't have to think or use logic.
They are who are to blame for the outcome of the trial.

Jeffers said...

I don't know why Perry would've been surprised at the verdict. The entire legal community wasn't.

Anonymous said...

Maybe he coldn't underturn the verdict, BUT he sat by and witnessed more crap occur in his courtroom than I've ever known a judge to do before.

Had he taken a very firm stand in the beginning, the outcome COULD have been different.

It was a circus. And it began with the judge.

Texas Anon

Anonymous said...

The jury selection was a joke! Perry allowed some jurors to sit when they acknowledged they did not believe in capital punishment. Perry was more interested in hurrying this trial to accomodate some vacation plans of some jurors than actually presiding over the trial. He let Baez get away with murder in that courtroom...and he let Casey get away with murder in the trunk of her car.

Local anon in the Hailey Dunn case said...

Ditto Dee

Hobnob said...

bonus points to Lemons for snarkapotamus

Mouse74 said...

It sure is hard to read comments that use the word "fat" as a criticism. Clearly, you are not paying attention to the right things.

Judge Belvin did an impeccable job in my opinion. He couldn't over throw the verdict either...where in the hell did you get that from Anon at 656? If that were the case, what in the hell would be the point of the jury?

TrishaPatK and Lemon....Great posts!

ecossie possie said...

J Perry wouldnt watch or listen to the bufoon if i was paid.

He is the worst juggeeven worse than eto.
Eto was inept.

Perry thought the trial was about him.

He let J Baez tell fairy stories in opening without a shred to back it up.
He allowed Baex first an onlt questions to the first 5 wittness be.


....Where you present when Caylee drowned in the backyard pool June 16th

The Prosecution had to object an then a 20 min sidebar to make him quit it.

Then he allowed Cindy to perjure herself on the stand over an over she lied.
Proveable impeachable lies or testomany under oath.

Perry knew she was lieing we all knew cindy was lieing.

An yet a youg man half scratches his nose surripticouslt giveing Jeff Ashton the finger.

No one saw it Perry never saw it jury never saw it
Only one whom saw it was a court bailiff.

Informs the bench Trial halted an a trembleing young man put in front of Perry.
Did you give J Ashton the Bird?
Yes the dolt said .
If he had said he was just scratchin his nose???

i m o thats end of story.
But he tells the truth.
An grandstandin Perry sends him straight to Jail.

Two days before his birthday
The mans a disgrace.
He should have set aside the verdict an locked the jurours up
For willfull stuppidity.

Dee said...

Ecossie...that's not the way our justice system works. We may be livid about the verdict but there's nothing Judge Perry could have done. It was up to the prosecutors to bring charges against Cindy for perjury, not the judge. It was up to the prosecution to show the drowning theory was hogwash, which I feel they did. The judge is there to be a referee of sorts. The things people are mad at him about are things he had no control over under our system.

Jessica Makin said...

So much for that interview

~ABC said...

I have often wondered why Judge Perry didn't set aside the jury's verdict. I don't know all the procedures involved, but if I'm understanding correctly it can be done!

Now an SA question. I'm looking at my comment above and wondering how I could have worded it without including the word BUT. I cannot see it. Someone help me? HA! :D

Anonymous said...

Not a word about Perry on Nancy Grace and no explanation

elsie said...

Not to vilify Judge Perry Completely.....but he did make some grave errors which directly affected the outcome of the trial. After he Rushed jury selection, he then ALLOWED $indy and GeorgieMarie to sit in the courtroom and listen to testimony before being questioned as witnesses themselves.
BTW, I think there is a major difference in "overturning" a verdict and "setting Aside" a verdict - the latter may be within the ability of the judge.

Anonymous said...

Dee, while I admire most of your comments, you are totally wrong about numerous actions Judge Perry could have taken and didn't. Maybe you need to do a little research? Me thinks you do.

Anonymous said...

clap clap clap calp Possie! Right on. Your post @ 7:09 p.m., tips hat to you.

Mary said...

Some of this slander of Judge Perry I couldn't even tolerate to finish reading- looks like middle schoolers passing notes in class.
Apparently most followed the Anthony trial without even knowning the basics of Florida law so before some continue to jump on the Perry-bashing mobile, you may wish to touch up on when a verdict can be thrown out by a judge & who was responsible for the Anthony's not having charges filed against them. Numerous complaints were filed against Baez with the Florida bar. Was it Perry? I have no clue but if it concerns some enough two years later, why not write a letter, addressed to him & his business address, and ask him? I doubt anyone does but if you address him as has been done on this blog post, don't expect a reply, from him or anyone else that's spoken to in the same manor.
Finally, Judge Perry's affair is the business of no one except him, his wife and God. How long does a person have to have their mistakes thrown in their faces by people who don't even know him? I hope those gossipping here about his affair have never made a mistake. If so, maybe you'll be as lucky as he is & have your mistake gossipped about on a national blog. Disgusting & shameless.
There but for the grace of God go I.

Dee said...

Anonymous said...
Dee, while I admire most of your comments, you are totally wrong about numerous actions Judge Perry could have taken and didn't. Maybe you need to do a little research? Me thinks you do.
**********************************
Researched...Perry could not overturn the verdict. None of the below scenarios apply in this case.
JNOV is not applicable in a criminal trial with a jury verdict of not guilty. It violates the right against double jeopardy.

Asked on a legal forum, specifically regarding the CA case, and answered by an attorney.

Regarding the Florida v Anthony case, my friend and I were curious as to under what circumstances, if any, a judge may overturn a jury's verdict. If the judge has a bias during the case, and the jury finds Anthony innocent, can he issue a guilty verdict any way?


Krishan Thakker Esq., Attorney-at-Law; Litigation Associate... (more)
Yes and no.

There are different types of motions that can be brought by the defendant or losing party in a civil trial which can serve to set aside/vacate a jury's verdict.

Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV) - the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury verdict. This permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions. However, in answer to your comments/question, due to the guaranteed right against double jeopardy in United States criminal cases, a judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of guilty following a jury acquittal. Nonetheless, if the judge grants a motion to set aside the verdict after the jury convicts, this may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution, as the verdict was different previously. A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict e.g. if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case, and the jury still finds in their favour, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment; alternatively, the judge may believe that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict, or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. A JNOV is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict (i.e. when motion for directed verdict brought successfully).

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) / Motion for Directed Verdict - this is made either during trial or after both sides have presented their case-in-chief/evidence. It is granted if reasonable people could not disagree about the result, viewing the evidence in light most favourable to the non-moving party i.e. if there is no evidence to support a reasonable conclusion for the non-moving party, judgment is entered by the court; if however there is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable conclusion in favor of the non-moving party, but there is equally strong evidence to support the opposite conclusion, the party with the burden of persuasion fails.

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - brought within days after judgment. It is granted if it can be proven that the jury reached a decision that reasonable people would not have reached. In order to reserve the right to bring this motion, a JMOL (above)must have been filed before the decision was rendered.

Motion for New Trial - must be filed within 10 days of entering the judgment. It can be granted if: (i) there was a prejudicial error at trial; (ii) there was new evidence that could not have been discovered in time for the trial; (iii) prejudicial misconduct of a party or juror; (iv) the judgment was against the weight of the evidence.

Dee said...

continued...


**With regard to Baez claim Caylee had drowned...If it can be shown he maliciously and willfully made the claim of her drowning, knowing it was false, he could be censured or disbarred. The problem is showing/proving he knew it was a false claim. He can claim it was what his client told him and he had no reason to doubt her story. It's a he said/she said situation.

"A party involved in a legal proceeding who has perjurious intent puts his attorney in a Catch 22 of sorts. On one hand, the attorney must represent her client and make all good-faith efforts to respect his wishes. On the other, an attorney who knowingly allows false testimony to be given in a court of law faces punishment from censure to disbarment.

Florida's Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys state that no attorney can knowingly present evidence or testimony that she knows to be false, regardless of the client's wishes. If the client has offered perjurious testimony, or plans to offer such, the attorney has three options to remedy the situation.

Attorneys in this situation can first confidentially try to persuade the client, with the reminder of criminal repercussions, to avoid or recant any false testimony. If that fails, the attorney can withdraw from the case, realizing that she cannot in good faith serve both her client and the law. In such cases that withdrawal is not possible or feasible, the attorney is bound by duty and ethics rules to then disclose the falsehood to the court."

Read more: Perjury Laws In Florida | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6754503_perjury-laws-florida.html#ixzz2SiSdeQ6W

Other testimony that was undoubtedly (in my mind) perjurous could have been brought forth for charges by prosecutors. They chose not to. The reasoning was it is rarely prosecuted in FL and the result of the prosecution would be in doubt.

~ABC said...

Hi Dee

Thanks for the info :-)

So if I'm understanding correctly, a Judge can overturn or set aside a conviction, but cannot do so if someone is found not guilty. Biggest reason being double jeopardy. BUT a mistrial can be declared with a not guilty verdict.

I think there were enough ridiculous faux pas' in the CA trial that something could have been found to declare it a mistrial. Either way, Judge Perry had his reasons for letting it go. I just have to wonder if the reason was strictly personal.

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as a mistrial with a not guilty verdict.

If the trial is declared a mistrail, a person can be tried again.

Once CA was declared not guilty, Judge Perry didn't have an ounce of control.

Texas Anon

Dee said...

ABC - yvw. I hate the verdict but I really don't know what else could have been done, legally, that is. I believe the jury did not get the concept of reasonable doubt. IMO they thought it meant beyond any and all doubt.

~ABC said...

Texas anon...
Once CA was declared not guilty, Judge Perry didn't have an ounce of control.
May 8, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Hi Texas Anon

All the more reason why he should have intervened sooner. There were many incidents in the trial that could and should have been addressed IMO. If any definition of mistrial includes "circus atmosphere" this trial surely qualified. I believe that Judge Perry wanted to be done with it. I may be wrong.

~ABC said...

Hi Dee

Agreed on the jury not understanding. I think the biggest problem was the prosecution went too far. People could not accept the theory they presented, even if it is true. It's very difficult for most people to even imagine a mother suffocating her child with duct tape. So, if they'd backed down a bit on the charges I think they could have gotten a conviction.

Anonymous said...

ABC--

If most people couldn't accept the fact of a mom suffocating her child with duct tape, then what did the coroner's photos of Caylee's skull, beathing orafices swathed in duct tape, say to the jury and reasonable people?

The jury was populated by people who did not want to take the time to review the facts and ask questions of things they did not understand. They wanted to get out of there.

~ABC said...

Hi Anon @ 3:13

The contrast was too extreme. Many people can't accept things sometimes even when it is staring them in the face. They don't want to accept the reality of such a horrendous thing. It's just too painful and rocks their reality to a degree that they reject it.

Do you disagree that lesser charges would have resulted in a conviction?

Anonymous said...

perry is just as much at fault as the rest of them
he was supposed to be in charge of the proceedings
he let caylee down