This week the team of Mannie Barling and Simon Barrett revisited the Casey Anthony story. At issue was not the criminal case but the â€˜cottage industryâ€™ of civil cases that have sprung up subsequent to her criminal trial.
While at face value they all appear to have moralistic merit, that does not imply that there is legal merit. On occasions the law may seem an ass, but the underlying foundations have for the most part served us very well.
Mannie Barling has been a trial lawyer for over 30 years and knows his way around the legal system better than most. I had a hunch that Mannie might have a few controversial observations about the civil suits, and ne did not disappoint me.
I have no legal training, and so for the most part tend to try to apply common sense, this alas is not always consistent with the legal process.
The Texas Equusearch suit against Case Anthony seemed to me to be the one with the greatest chance of success. It did not look like a gold digging adventure along the lines of the other suits. Mannie disagrees, the Equusearch suit is fraught with issues.
On the other hand, I did not see much validity in the Zanny lawsuit. Mannie disagrees, it passes the smell test, but what possible gain other than bragging rights the woman may amass is very questionable.
The law suit that is most interesting and potentially volatile if it ever actually enter a court room is Richard Grund vs National Enquirer. However the key here is the word â€˜IFâ€™.
It was an interesting program, if you missed the live broadcast you can listen to the entire recorded version here.