Casey Anthony

Normally I try not to follow stories like this as they are happening (though I will watch documentaries like on Discovery which are far more objective several years after the fact) but with the very extensive media coverage it's hard not to.

While it's very sad and and unfortunate a little girl died and was probably murdered by her mother the jury has spoken, unlike the OJ trial there was no hard physical evidence in this case. I'm not so riled up because Casey was not some rich celebrity or executive who are always above the law. The jury obviously found reasonable doubt.
Several things irk me about this case. Casey was convicted in the court of public opinion, based on sensational media coverage, long before she went to trial.
Secondly, if the child had been named LaShanda and had lived in the projects in the Bronx it's doubtful her death would have garnered little more than a two paragraph article on the third page of the New York times. Face it, this type of thing happens a lot, so why are millions (literally) of people now calling out for Casey's head.
Where's the outrage at the children killed by bombs in Iraq?
This woman's life is basically over, everywhere she goes people will recognize her and she will be shunned, and unlike OJ she does not have the money to carry on with her life.

I think everybody loses her, except the media conglomerates who have probably made billions hyping this up.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
While it's very sad and and unfortunate a little girl died and was probably murdered by her mother the jury has spoken ... The jury obviously found reasonable doubt.

I think everybody loses her, except the media conglomerates who have probably made billions hyping this up.

Originally posted by Mindship
And as O. W. Holmes Jr. might've said, Casey was found Not Guilty in a court of law, not a court of justice.

One thing I found when I was on a jury for a relatively high-profile attempted murder case (not so much nationally, but on local and state levels there was just as much outcry over it because of injuries caused to those involved), is that people did not know as much as they thought they did about the case. Once it was over, I got to discuss it with friends and acquaintances, and it was clear that they had made some wild assumptions about the people involved, and also about the guilt of those on trial. It was also clear which way the media coverage had slanted...though I of course wasn't aware of it until after the case was over.

In ours, we found them guilty. There was no wiggle room for reasonable doubt. But it had to be constructed methodically over a period of days, and including dozens of accounts, pieces of evidence, testimonies, arguments, DNA, laws, etc. etc. Hell, one of the two on trial was only guilty in my eyes because of how the specific state law on the matter was worded (it dealt with complicity). If only a small number of those things had not been present, the outcome could have (and likely would have) been much different, which a much different backlash from the public.

We have among the highest conviction rates in the world in the US among nations that use a peer jury system. I'm not saying this girl is innocent necessarily, I didn't follow the case too well. But I'm suspicious of such "obvious" guilt when those asked to scrutinize it most closely didn't find it.

I think people are being ridiculous. They couldn't prove she did it before a jury, so I think people should lay off the criticism. She's gone to a higher authority than public opinion.

I'm not even certain why so many people care so much about the outcome of this case. Individuals who followed the case through news reports and other means should not be so surprised. The people who irritated me the most were the ones who said they were "shocked" or "speechless" about the rulings.

People built up expectation of her being guilty because that's how the media attempted to portray the case. Most of the individuals sitting at home, watching the case being covered on television probably had little to no knowledge about the case itself and saying that she "should have been guilty" is absurd.

Originally posted by Digi
One thing I found when I was on a jury for a relatively high-profile attempted murder case (not so much nationally, but on local and state levels there was just as much outcry over it because of injuries caused to those involved), is that people did not know as much as they thought they did about the case. Once it was over, I got to discuss it with friends and acquaintances, and it was clear that they had made some wild assumptions about the people involved, and also about the guilt of those on trial. It was also clear which way the media coverage had slanted...though I of course wasn't aware of it until after the case was over.

In ours, we found them guilty. There was no wiggle room for reasonable doubt. But it had to be constructed methodically over a period of days, and including dozens of accounts, pieces of evidence, testimonies, arguments, DNA, laws, etc. etc. Hell, one of the two on trial was only guilty in my eyes because of how the specific state law on the matter was worded (it dealt with complicity). If only a small number of those things had not been present, the outcome could have (and likely would have) been much different, which a much different backlash from the public.

We have among the highest conviction rates in the world in the US among nations that use a peer jury system. I'm not saying this girl is innocent necessarily, I didn't follow the case too well. But I'm suspicious of such "obvious" guilt when those asked to scrutinize it most closely didn't find it.

I didn't follow this case too well either, but my wife did, and she agrees with the verdict. I do too--from a technical standpoint; but I feel this case was off on the wrong foot from the start, by trying to paint Casey as more of a monster than she really is. I think the prosecution overreached while the media plucked away at everyone's heartstrings.

I hear she's getting her own reality show.

From what evidence I read (wiki), the only thing she was guilty of was being a shitty mom.

Murderer is not one of those.

I still don't see what the big deal was. I think a few national reporters just went ape shit when they heard about it and this is why it turned into something beyond a SINGLE evening news story only in the local town/area.

They made a mistake by going for the death penalty. The evidence wasn't strong enough to take her life over it, even though I've not heard anything that makes me think she didn't kill her child.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I still don't see what the big deal was. I think a few national reporters just went ape shit when they heard about it and this is why it turned into something beyond a SINGLE evening news story only in the local town/area.

Nancy Grace has beat this story to death for 3 years now. I hope she enjoys her bonus check.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Nancy Grace has beat this story to death for 3 years now. I hope she enjoys her bonus check.

She is.

Also, if you watch her when she talks about it...she seems almost sexually aroused.

so, is it a good thing or not that this is the first I've heard of this case?

half of me feels like I'm glad I missed some nonsense media storm, the other half feels like I'm living in a cave...

It always scares me how certain people get about these cases despite their almost complete lack of knowledge about the facts. I've heard that cases like this end up requiring extra protection for the defendant to keep away people who want to "fix" the justice system.

Heard that on the news, did ya? Well I heard that talking to the neighbors. Inimalist, we're all better off in caves.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. It is very sad that she was found not guity and I have no idea what the stupid jury was thinking inorder for them to say that she was not guity. I mean a little girl is still dead and it is like saying that the girl dead herself who is the murder if not the mother?

Everyone in the world hates her. Im sure she didnt purposely kill the child. Shes probably scared for her life. Sure she'll get money out of it, but at a cost.

Just a dumb ass broad that overdosed her child on chloroform and tried covering it up.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
who is the murder if not the mother?

Why does there have to be a murderer at all?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, is it a good thing or not that this is the first I've heard of this case?

half of me feels like I'm glad I missed some nonsense media storm, the other half feels like I'm living in a cave...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, if you watch her when she talks about it...she seems almost sexually aroused.

Originally posted by Mindship
Btw, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in 1995...just in case.

you mean the guy from Naked Gun?

The Oreo, yeah.