Figure this is going to be posted eventually anyways:
Casey Anthony Trial official verdict was live on the news at 2:15 Eastern time today. Here are the results: Count 1: First degree murder- Not Guilty ||Count 2: Aggravated Child Abuse-Not Guilty ||Count 3: Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child-Not Guilty ||Count 4/5/6/7: Providing false information to law enforcement officer: Guilty
Also, this is important:
My attitude towards this case has always been one of “who cares?” I haven’t paid the least bit of attention, for the same reason that I didn’t care about Laci Peterson or Elizabeth Smart. Kidnappings, murders, etc. happen all the time. This is not national news, except to the extent that Nancy Grace and her ilk need an excuse to feign righteous indignation for the sake of ratings. Their opinions are, of course, echoed by the vast majority of Americans who assume, a priori, that anyone on trial is guilty.
My attitude towards this case has always been one of “who cares?” I haven’t paid the least bit of attention, for the same reason that I didn’t care about Laci Peterson or Elizabeth Smart. Kidnappings, murders, etc. happen all the time. This is not national news, except to the extent that Nancy Grace and her ilk need an excuse to feign righteous indignation for the sake of ratings. Their opinions are, of course, echoed by the vast majority of Americans who assume, a priori, that anyone on trial is guilty.
I think the difference was the cute pictures of the dead girl. They were able to tug at the heartstrings and keep people interested.
Figure this is going to be posted eventually anyways:
I will testify that I would not have created this topic.
I think the difference was the cute pictures of the dead girl. They were able to tug at the heartstrings and keep people interested.
But that’s hardly unique to this particular case. I think any decent judge would make these things closed to the public, bar media from the courtroom, and sequester the jury, the moment it becomes apparent that the case is going to be tried by CNN. Maybe Anthony is as guilty as everyone seems to think, but the problem is the public’s automatic assumption of guilt, with judge/jury/executioner Nancy Grace leading the charge. That woman is a disgrace to journalism.
But that’s hardly unique to this particular case.
It had good plot elements too. Plus it took quite a while for the story to unfold. I just think the cuteness was the clincher.
Nancy Grace leading the charge. That woman is a disgrace to journalism.
She’s crying all the way to the bank. I don’t think she created her market niche, she just services and milks it very well. At least Jerry Springer doesn’t act holier than thou.
I will testify that I would not have created this topic.
ok… ??
Sylvia Browne didn’t create her niche either, but that doesn’t make her any less despicable. Nancy Grace ranks right up there with Olbermann and Beck for my personal most-despised media figures.
At least Jerry Springer doesn’t act holier than thou.
Oops, I just realized this last part was a bit ambiguous. It’s meant to indicate that I think more highly of Jerry Springer than of Nancy Grace. The Wrath may have read it as a retort to his calling her a disgrace.
No, I didn’t read it that way. I agreed with your post…I was just reiterating my distaste of Grace.
It’s always despicable how Americans that rant about the freedom, the constitution, justice don’t give a damn about it in the practice against an individual they don’t like because of the picture the media’s given them. This country’s got a bad case of blood lust.
I agree Nancy Grace seems to have a blood lust (haven’t seen her report on this case, because I cannot stand her guilty-as-charged “reporting”. However, I don’t see the public reaction as implying the public had an “automatic assumption of guilt” or that the general reaction indicates “blood lust” or a disrespect for justice. I haven’t followed the case closely enough to have a personal opinion on the outcome, but the colleagues I speak to think justice was not served. Every adult understands that juries sometimes make bad decisions, and sometimes make very bad decisions. So, evaluating a jury’s decision as being very bad does not imply that these folk thought she was guilty regardless of evidence. In a month, the case will likely be forgotten. In a few years, Casey Anthony might do a movie, or get a talk show, or pose for Playboy… and people will simply shake their heads and tune in.
Most people who watched this had their mind made up beforehand: she definitely killed her kid or had something to do with it. They didn’t really know much about the evidence but were willing to go on the authority of the State prosecution and lunatics like Nancy Grace. Now housewives are calling for vigilante justice.
Yeah..my facebook was blowing up like crazy with how our justice system is an utter failure, how a murderer got away, and so on. I even had a few on there that were suggesting that someone should “pop” (i.e.) shoot her while she is walking down the street…but those were random adds so I quickly defriended those nuts.
Personally, I felt that was great a moment for our nation. Rationality and reason prevailed over sentimental arguments. A decision was reached based on fact and not emotion. Whether she did it or not is besides the point. Did she do things to make one think that she may have done it, yes. But there was no real evidence that she committed the actual murder. The evidence offered was that she acted in a way to make one suspect that she may be guilty, an argument appealing to emotion. Furthermore, despite the media and dramatics, rationality and reason won out. The fact that this verdict was rendered in spite of the irrational hype is monumental. Again, I am not saying she did not commit the murder, only that our judicial system worked, much to my amazement.
Watching T.V. this evening and seeing commentators on all networks appealing to emotion and crying foul was appalling. Even if a guilty woman went free, I would rather see a guilty individual go free than an innocent individual incarcerated.
In short, I embrace this as a sign of hope that rationality can prevail.
I agree Nancy Grace seems to have a blood lust (haven’t seen her report on this case, because I cannot stand her guilty-as-charged “reporting”. However, I don’t see the public reaction as implying the public had an “automatic assumption of guilt” or that the general reaction indicates “blood lust” or a disrespect for justice. I haven’t followed the case closely enough to have a personal opinion on the outcome, but the colleagues I speak to think justice was not served. Every adult understands that juries sometimes make bad decisions, and sometimes make very bad decisions. So, evaluating a jury’s decision as being very bad does not imply that these folk thought she was guilty regardless of evidence. In a month, the case will likely be forgotten. In a few years, Casey Anthony might do a movie, or get a talk show, or pose for Playboy… and people will simply shake their heads and tune in.
She may very well be guilty, but my point is that people seem to have thought she was throughout this whole ordeal…before a reasonable juror would have concluded so, and before the trial even began. This happens every time a court case draws national attention. Take the Duke rape case. Everyone, led by the media, was calling for their heads until it became undeniable that the girl was lying. If my fiancee were murdered tomorrow and I was charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, is there any doubt as to who the majority of people watching Nancy Grace would think was guilty? Even before they became the slightest bit familiar with the evidence?
One other thing people tend to forget: in a properly working justice system, the guilty often walk free. “Probably guilty” is thankfully not the standard for conviction. Even if Anthony was probably guilty, the jury apparently did not believe it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt.”
If my fiancee were murdered tomorrow and I was charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, is there any doubt as to who the majority of people watching Nancy Grace would think was guilty? Even before they became the slightest bit familiar with the evidence?
Nancy Grace’s audience: yes. I don’t think that audience is representative of the average juror qua juror.
One other thing people tend to forget: in a properly working justice system, the guilty often walk free.
People realize that there is often not enough evidence to convict the guilty. When the reaction is strong, it is usually because the public is convinced that there is clearly enough evidence to convict, and the person is still found not-guilty. The Rodney King riots are a good example. If there is enough evidence, people might still walk free because one of the many human beings in the process (lawyers, jury, judge) may screw up. In a properly working justice system, this should definitely not be “often”; and, each such case should be a motivation to examine if the process requires a change.
“Probably guilty” is thankfully not the standard for conviction. Even if Anthony was probably guilty, the jury apparently did not believe it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt.”
The jury obviously thought that there was reasonable doubt, and without much knowledge of the case, I would defer to them in much the same way as I would defer to a referee in a game if I was not watching. However, it is also true that juries sometimes consider “unreasonable” doubt, and I think our judicial system needs to fashion a razor to limit this.
You’ve run out of syrup of ipecac? You find you urgently need an emetic?
Zap to about 12 minutes in on the first one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulO8rl7z5xQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aouje-qAlcY
Like Jennifer, my Facebook page erupted as well. In my case, it was the first significant mention of any of this. I guess I dont troll the CNN/MSNBC/Fox News circuit enough, but I generally consider that a good thing.
Is there any where that I can see an objective listing of all the critical points of evidence? Wikipedia looks pretty solid on it, but I dont trust it looking at it so soon after the verdict. Thanks!
What I think happened is this; we know that she was searching “chloroform” quite a bit on google. We know that she likes to party. I think that she was giving Caylee small amounts of chloroform so she would zonk out, then she would go out and party with her friends- then one time she went over the line and killed her with an OD of chloroform. Her dad being a cop, it’s possible she told him in a fright, and using his police skills disposed of the body.