ORLANDO, Fla. — The judge who presided over the trial of Casey Anthony said on Monday he believed there was enough evidence to convict the Florida mother who was acquitted of murdering her 2-year-old daughter.
Judge Belvin Perry told NBC's “Today” show that he thought there was sufficient evidence for a first-degree murder, even though much of the evidence was circumstantial.
Anthony was acquitted nearly two years ago of killing her daughter, Caylee. She was convicted of making false statements to police and got credit for time served.
When he read the jury's verdict, Perry said he felt “surprise, shock, disbelief” and read it twice.
“I just wanted to be sure I was reading what I was reading,” Perry said.
Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, refused to comment.
A spokeswoman for the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which oversees Florida judges, didn't return a phone call.
The judge said he saw two sides to Anthony. The one she showed to jurors was a wrongfully accused mother grieving for her child. The other was a woman who wasn't afraid to shout and swear at her attorneys, as she did when they talked to her about a possible plea deal for aggravated murder.
“There were always two sides to Casey,” Perry said. “The public persona that she wanted the jury to see and there was a side that she showed when the jury wasn't there.”
Perry also said he thought prosecutors were better attorneys than Baez, who the judge described as “personable.” All the defense had to do was create reasonable doubt, which they did, he said.
“He came across as someone you would like,” Perry said of Baez. “Like someone trying to sell a used car. Who are you going to buy from? The most likable salesman.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.