Casey Anthony: Bill Sheaffer says case was ‘American soap opera’ HAL

What did analyzing the Casey Anthony case mean to local lawyers who logged hundreds of hours on the air? I’m asking the legal analysts what stood out, how the public reacted and how the case affected their lives.

First up: Bill Sheaffer, the oft-seen and oft-quoted legal analyst for WFTV-Channel 9.

Q. Why did you want to do the analysis?

A. “It all was really serendipitous. I had always been available for all the media to answer questions, and years ago, I’d done a special for Channel 9. When the Casey Anthony case broke, [reporter] Kathi Belich and [news director] Bob Jordan figured they needed someone to comment for them. They approached me and asked me to work exclusively with them. At the time, I had no idea it would turn into what it did. That’s how it began. It started snowballing the day the body was found. When the coverage in the social media started, I started doing essays in the form of blogs.”

Q. What did the Anthony case turn into?

A. “It turned into a couple things. One, it turned into an American soap opera, which garnered international attention. I think, in the end, it was the first major trial of an individual who became a celebrity through the coverage. It was the first case, I believe, in which how people get news and the social media came together. I don’t think it would have gotten the legs it did if she hadn’t claimed the baby had been kidnapped and was still missing. Obviously, her parents went to the national media. The defense courted the national media until the media turned on them.”

Q. How did the media turn on them?

A. “As it progressed, I think the media became more cynical and disbelieving. Those in the media felt she was guilty of what she was charged with and that would be the outcome. When I say turned, they went from being sympathetic and believing she was the victim to believing she had something to do with the disappearance and death of her child. Aspects of the media turned on them. Defense attorney Jose Baez courted some media to the exclusion of others. When someone does such a thing, they’re going to look at you harder. WFTV was not favored. He was courting Channel 13, Channel 35, ABC. We were not one of his favorites.”

Q. What did you get from the experience?

A. “It was a very rich experience for me. I look back at the body of work and think when I signed off after the trial, I felt I’d lifted the veil off the criminal defense and prosecution and explained what viewers were seeing when it came to sidebars, effective cross examinations, what evidence was coming in. I felt good about my participation. I was pointed in my criticism, but on balance. I think I did an effective job of legal analysis. Others might disagree. At Baez’s closing, I gave him a B plus, and that made 100,000 bloggers go crazy.”

Q. What was the most memorable moment for you?

A. “Certainly Cindy Anthony’s testimony when she broke down. I thought both openings and closings were memorable also. I will tell you I got up at 5 in the morning so I could do what I needed to do, get to the set by 8 and broadcast till 6 o’clock. I’d do stuff for national, Nancy Grace. I never got tired of it. I looked forward to it every day. It was the most interesting trial I’ve ever seen. I told my fellow legal analysts who complained about the hours and the notoriety, ‘This is a moment in time you’d better savor. This will never be duplicated in our life time.’ I enjoyed every moment, and the trial was fascinating on so many levels. It was a trial of twists and turns. We saw the best and worst of our legal system. I didn’t realize it, but a week after the trial I couldn’t get out of bed. I had been running on adrenaline. I told [anchor] Greg Warmoth before the case went to the jury, I didn’t want it to end.”

Q. Anything you would have done differently as an analyst?

A. “I searched my soul about that. There’s not anything differently I would have done with Cox Media, with my analysis on TV or the radio. I think I learned a little late that other things I was doing — “Nancy Grace,” “Nightline,” “[Issues With] Jane Velez-Mitchell” — were legal entertainment shows. I don’t know that I made a clear distinction in the minds of anyone who watched me do both. I didn’t appreciate I was doing an entertainment show. I may have been more measured in what I had to say if I’d realized that distinction early on. I would still have participated.”

Q. What do you think the analysis did for the law?

A. “Our analysis made it easier for those who felt it was not a just verdict to understand how the criminal justice system works. To be a little more accepting, ‘OK, the veil has been lifted, this is how the system works.’ It may not be the verdict many people wanted, but it proved the system worked. It proved to the harshest critic that what we were doing was not irresponsible to the justice system and a defendant’s right to due process. As critical as some of us might have been, they found her not guilty. It undercut the criticism that what we were doing wasn’t adding anything to the public’s understanding. I think the viewers walked away knowing more about how the system works.”

Q. Did you have a memorable reaction from the public?

A. “The most memorable obviously was, on balance, the sense that justice had not been served. And they were seeking blame. Looking for someone to hold accountable, to blame. My fellow legal analysts, what we did from the minute the jury came back, was not to criticize, but to analyze and underscore this is the system of justice.”

Q. Were people coming up to you?

A. “One night after I had done the Nancy Grace show, I asked her if she’d go see the fans. She didn’t follow me. People started applauding. It was picture after picture, autograph after autograph. My wife didn’t believe me. Two nights later, I did it again. This time, my wife was next to me. Someone said to her, ‘Are you Mr. Sheaffer’s assistant?’ ‘Oh, yes,’ she said. If I was going into the public, someone would stop me and tell me what a good job I was doing. I had my 15 minutes of celebrity in spades. I never had anyone say to me, ‘You suck.’ There were a couple of bloggers who said, ‘Sheaffer, you suck.’ In person, everybody was kind.”

Q. Was the exposure good for your firm?

A. “No. That didn’t surprise me, because when I had cases of some magnitude I’d be in the press a lot. It really takes a long time, constant exposure and a body of work for people to come [to you] because of your name recognition. And understand, I’m doing legal analysis. I’m not associated with the prosecution or defense. I’m there as a senior statesman, if you will, giving insight.

“It has not proved to be a source of business. I’ve talked to others who have said the same thing. Maybe if I were younger and wanted to capitalize, it might make a difference. I felt in one sense it would undervalue my credibility if I used that to further my financial interests in my practice. I sought not to capitalize on it, and still do. I was under contract and still am. I was a paid employee before the trial. We renegotiated during the trial, and it was quite generous. We went back to the old contract after the trial.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/10/casey-anthony-bill-sheaffer-says-case-was-american-soap-opera.html