Chit - Chat for CruisersOpen Forum for non-cruise posts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric that could be considered offensive. We reserve the right to edit or delete for any reason.
After the daily Casy segment on tv fades, and if someone does pay to interview her,and the money runs out, relality will set in.
She burned her family bridges
Her friends have, and, will continue to shun her
She cannot get a job
Her lawyers will not give her shelter
Where does a pariah live,and how does she earn a living? She does not have a bright future,and she will pay a price, and be sad, only when life effects her.
__________________
Trip, with her book & tea!
Chat Hostess & Board Moderator
Luanne, who knows where she may go but one thing, she can't leave the state for one year after she gets out next Sun becasue of her felony charges. That was a smart move on the prosecution with that plea she made for the forgery charges.
__________________
Nancy L
Star Princess 2005, Sun Princess 2005
Caribbean Princess 2006, MSC Lirica 2006 , NCL Pearl 2007, Majesty of the Seas 2008, Carnival Destiny 2008, MSC Lirica 2009, Carnival Valor 2009,Carnival Legend 2010, Carnival Liberty 2010,Carnival Fantsay 2011,Carnival Valor Feb 2012, MSC Poesia Dec 2012, MSC Poesia April 2013
There are two stories going around. One is that she met the probation while in prison, because it was for the thief charges. The other story is that she can get permission from the courts to leave the state.
Luanne, the plea deal was for the one year to start after getting out of jail/prison so she could not meet the terms of the probation while in jail. And yes she could petition the court to leave but the possibility of the court allowing her is not that great.
__________________
Nancy L
Star Princess 2005, Sun Princess 2005
Caribbean Princess 2006, MSC Lirica 2006 , NCL Pearl 2007, Majesty of the Seas 2008, Carnival Destiny 2008, MSC Lirica 2009, Carnival Valor 2009,Carnival Legend 2010, Carnival Liberty 2010,Carnival Fantsay 2011,Carnival Valor Feb 2012, MSC Poesia Dec 2012, MSC Poesia April 2013
Luanne, who knows where she may go but one thing, she can't leave the state for one year after she gets out next Sun becasue of her felony charges. That was a smart move on the prosecution with that plea she made for the forgery charges.
In view of the reality of multiple death threats in the wake of the verdict, the courts undoubtedly will waive any such terms of previous plea bargains for reasons of her personal safety. In fact, the local authorities probably will support such a request because it will make matters a whole lot easier for them.
I wonder if the odds are better because of the hatred for her in the state of Florida?
No, but the odds are a whole lot better because there are death threats. If the State of Florida enforces such a provision, Florida's law enforcement will have an absolute responsibility to ensure her personal safety. That probably would mean 24x7 police details at her home and 24x7 plainclothes details available to follow her whenever she goes out.
And since the probation does not include under house arrest, they have no legal basis to stop her from going out whenever she sees fit.
The better security would be to give her a new identity and a new 'do to change her appearance.
Luanne, the plea deal was for the one year to start after getting out of jail/prison so she could not meet the terms of the probation while in jail.
That would depend upon the exact wording of the original sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
And yes she could petition the court to leave but the possibility of the court allowing her is not that great.
Although courts are -- and rightfully should be -- very reluctant to alter sentences, they do so routinely when circumstances develop in which enforcement of the original sentence puts the defendant's life or health in imminent danger. Clearly such is the case here.
I also think that she will get in trouble again, and will one day be back in jail.
If she resumes her wanton ways, that is a near certainty.
OTOH, it's also possible that the whole spectre of three years in the slammer awaiting trial on a capital charge, coupled with knowledge that there are some vigilantes who are making death threats against her, may have driven home the reality that she needs to maintain a low profile and to stay out of legal trouble for her own safety.
No, but the odds are a whole lot better because there are death threats. If the State of Florida enforces such a provision, Florida's law enforcement will have an absolute responsibility to ensure her personal safety. That probably would mean 24x7 police details at her home and 24x7 plainclothes details available to follow her whenever she goes out.
And since the probation does not include under house arrest, they have no legal basis to stop her from going out whenever she sees fit.
The better security would be to give her a new identity and a new 'do to change her appearance.
Norm.
I understood we are NOT responsible to protect her. Once out of jail, she's on her own to figure things out. I imagine there will be someone watching over her a while, but it will be kept a secret so the public won't get enraged over "our" money being spent on this acquittal. She made her bed and holds the key to the answers, we all, including the judge know it. Why should we protect her?
Not only are you guarding her, but also her family, the lawyers, the judge, and the jury. The judge spoke in great detail, the need to protect the jury, if he decided to release the names to the media.
Thirty years ago I was a juror on possibly the first terrorist trial in NYC . We found the defendent guilty on nearly every count . Not only were the names of the jurors available but our home addresses as well.
Juror # 12 has taken her family and gone into hiding leaving Florida. A male juror, spoke to Gretta from Fox tv in shadow,and told how badly George came off at the trial...Opposite form what I thought.
George & Cindy wentr to a resort to get away form the hulabaloo, that didn' last long, once the paps found them. Cindy was shown on tv today, leaving a financial planners office, leading to speculation she will be landing a book deal,and a windfall, which many pundits think, will nor come Casey's way.
__________________
Trip, with her book & tea!
Chat Hostess & Board Moderator
I understood we are NOT responsible to protect her. Once out of jail, she's on her own to figure things out. I imagine there will be someone watching over her a while, but it will be kept a secret so the public won't get enraged over "our" money being spent on this acquittal. She made her bed and holds the key to the answers, we all, including the judge know it. Why should we protect her?
When Casey leaves the jail, the state bears the same responsibility to protect her that it bears to protect every free person wihtin its borders. This encompasses not only maintaining routine police presence and patrols, but also taking whatever additional measures may be necessary to deal with any specific threat that may be known or foreseeable. If somebody sends death threats to you by mail or leaves them on your telephone's answering system, for example, the police will investigate those threats and do whatever seems necessary to protect you until the threat has passed. Note that this is a matter of <i> basic human right </i> that has nothing whatsoever to do with one's standing as a citizen of the state or one's criminal history. As far as the police are concerned, Casey will be a free person, entitled to the same protection as anybody else, when she walks out of jail.
A couple years ago, I attended the annual shareholders' meeting of a major international corporation that has been successful in thwarting efforts by various unions to organize the company's workers. The company's chairman and CEO was constantly barraged by death threats from union operatives. At the entrance to the meeting, there were deputy sheriffs with metal detectors screening everybody (in the same manner as at airport security checkpoints). When I expressed my surprise to one of the company's Investor Relations agents, she explained the situation and went on to say that deputies were also guarding his hme and his family, and went on to describe the precautions that they took related to his vehicle (parked in a secured area guarded by deputies with surveillance cameras monitored by deputies, and one of the deputies would inspect the underside of his car, then start his car and drive it to the exit where he left the building, when he prepared to leave the office at the end of each workday). This may seem exceptional, but the threats made it necessary.
Getting back to the Casey Anthony case, the issues are two-fold.
>> 1. There are specific threats, even death threats, directed at the defendant, her parents, the jurors, the attorneys, and possibly others involved in the proceeding. The police have an obligation to provide heightened protection for those individuals until they have reasonable confidence that the specific threats have passed.
>> 2. Restrictions on the defendant, such as a prohibition on leaving the state as a condition of probation, may severely impair her ability to evade specific threats directed against her. If the courts refuse to mitigate such restrictions, the state bears an additional degree of repsonsibility because she cannot evade the danger.
My guess is that the police will support anything and everything that will get those involved out of harm's way, and that includes lifting any restriction on leaving the state to which Casey might otherwise bear.
Connect with Facebook
Linear Mode
