After yesterday’s revelation of a psychotic letter sent to Honorable Judge Perry, I had to take pause and ponder what motivated me to participate on blogsites and forums regarding murder of precious little 2 year-old Caylee Marie Anthony?

Here were my reasons; One, because I’m always horrified by murder of innocent children and the mental make-up of a person/s who committed the crime.
Two, in this case with the Sunshine Laws of Florida, gobs of inside information is available for the sleuthing which happened to be one of my favorite past times.
Three, I sincerely enjoy discussion with people from all over the world who shared my interest in this case. Whether they are in agreement with me or not, most are good people with big hearts. No matter how they voiced their opinion, I knew it came from their heart and love for children. Right there, I was sure that we were ALL on the same page but now I’m not so sure.

There was also my misconception that I could express myself under the sweet guise of anonymity. For instance, I wouldn’t post a comment at under my real name. It would be of some concern considering IMO anyone who hates dogs wouldn’t think twice about hunting me down and harming me or my animals. I apologize for this analogy but it’s an honest statement speaking for myself.
Within a month of blogging at a once-well-known blogsite, I soon found out that some blog owners do not adhere to basic ethical Rule of Blog, your email will not be shown. Anonymity is an important factor for most when discussing this highly publicized and opinionated case. On this pretext, we feel able to speak freely without repercussion from unstable and possibly violent individuals who disagree. It amazes me that some people “just don’t get it”.

Initially, I felt pride for participating on blogs and forums which are protected by the First Amendment, one of our most basic constitutional rights, “freedom of speech” but I never imagined that defamation of character would become an issue as it is today.

Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person. The right to freedom of expression which is restricted when our expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) causes harm to the reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us, for example, by harming our ability to earn a living. (economic harm)
As an example, if someone does quick internet search of a person’s name and it led them to this document—E-Stahl

Could this play a part in Elizabeth Stahl’s ability to earn a living since the letter to Chief Judge Perry is the presiding judge of high-profile murder trial of Casey Anthony. The potential employer could deem Ms Elizabeth Stahl as an unstable, man-hating individual and decide this person isn’t the right choice for his/her company. The potential employer would certainly have second thoughts at best before hiring this person.
This is no “Jose Baez is a clown” sort of statement. Whether we like it or not, win or lose, Jose Baez will go on and earn a living, a very nice living at that. Can we say the same for Elizabeth Stahl?

Elizabeth Stahl, a fellow blogger, did not intend for her name to be part of the Casey Anthony murder trial. As innocent as anyone else, she posted under the pseudo name Wordslinger. Wordslinger’s thoughts and opinions were once anonymous but because someone nefariously sleuthed her name, address, phone number and place of employment and then posted it on the WWW, she is now Elizabeth Stahl. Elizabeth Stahl is not this person who wrote to Judge Perry. She is a very intelligent woman and not another psychotic attention-seeker as this letter portrays.

Someone has a big problem and it’s not Elizabeth Stahl.
Good Luck Wordslinger!! I believe “Time Wounds All Heels”