There was too much to multi-quote here, so I will just say AMEN to everyone I agree with.

:)

I don't believe the prosecution fucked things up at all. I think they did a great job but obviously the jury (much like in the OJ case) didn't see it that way.

As for getting emotionally invested, I don't see why it should bother you so much. Some people get emotionally invested in soap operas, movies, TV shows, books etc. What's the difference between those & these? Those are make-believe, this is real. I show real emotions (sadness, grief, happiness, anger etc) when I see a great movie or read a great book. This is no different. I may not live in Florida (hell, I live on the other side of the country in California) but that doesn't stop me from feeling for her & the entire situation surrounding her death.

There's a difference between "feeling for someone" (I'd like to think that none of us are heartless enough not to) or even having "real emotions" and having a physical and strong emotional reaction (feeling sick? crying? as if this happened to you personally? and then posting about it on facebook?).

This is just my opinion, of course, but folks like that seem to have drank a little too much of the Nancy Grace kool-aid. What about the other thousands of kids who go missing every year? If everyone felt as strongly about those kids as they do about this one kid, they'd never get out of bed. Why this case above all others?

It bothers me because there are millions of kids in the world who need help, but everyone's crying over one little girl. How many are involved in Boys and Girls clubs? How many donate to children's charities? Certainly not enough. But everyone can be a slacktivist on facebook.

Also: The jury did not make or break this case. They never make or break a case. The prosecution did. I'd say the defense put forth an awesome case, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they did not meet that burden. If that's not the prosecution messing it up, what is it?

Amen.

The way this is implemented varies wildly from state to state (and even judge to judge) - often, though, "not sure" isn't strong enough, you have to actually be unable or unwilling to assign the penalty (if for no other reason than to prevent 'rehabilitation' by the judge or opposing counsel).

I cry at the end of sad movies, even though they are entirely fake, and sometimes post about it on fb. Does that insult you or something? I don't know kids that are on tv for a st judes commercial, but that jerks my tears too. Since when are you the judge of what people get to be upset about?

I can't stand Nancy Grace either, and I am still waiting for her to apologize to the three young men that were on the Duke Lacrosse team. Still heartbroken by what happened to this little girl, and believe there was a miscarriage of justice.

To both posts:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...s/yeahthat.gif

Who are you to judge a jury that listened to the facts as they were presented and did their jobs by carrying out the law? They followed their instructions. Saying this is a "miscarriage of justice" implies that they didn't.

Instead of being such a passive aggressive bitch all over the boards how about you use some logic and reason in your arguments? And yes, I am going to pass judgement and call you a drama queen, because that's exactly how you're acting.

Oh my, I am SO INSULTED!

Did anyone else watch Nancy Grace's head spin around over the verdict tonight? She terrifies me.

Lol! That's why I watch other channels. I have noticed that the more agitated she becomes, the thicker her accent gets.

Having been on a jury, for a crime much less serious than murder, it is perfectly possible to believe that someone is guilty and yet acquit them because there is still reasonable doubt. I didn't follow this case that closely but from what I could tell the defense did a good job of throwing enough possibilities out there to create doubt, and the prosecution failed to drill it down in their rebuttal/closing arguments/etc. The fact that the DNA in the air test (whatever that's called) is relatively new may be another issue the jury had, and there is some issue with juries

Also, btw, the way to make juries full of people who can't get out of jury duty is to berate/insult/threaten people who actually serve on juries. Oh wait, they didn't come to the same conclusion you did sitting on your ass at home in front of the TV so THEY must be the morons.

Tearing up thinking about the sadness of a child dying is one thing. Most of that is emotionally manipulative anyway. But if you're feeling physically ill or sobbing, stop making it about you. This victim is one of many every freaking day and the only reason anyone here cares about her over anyone else is because mom's a modern day sideshow. Statistically 44 other people were murdered the same day she was. Who were they? Why don't you know?


/end rant
/agzg and Sen are my peeps.

Those other kids aren't cute enough and (insert characteristics that appeal to the mainstream) enough.

Ditto what KSUViolet said about what "not guilty" means.

Oh definitely on the state to state thing, and even in a state depending on who is running the case itself, who is on trial, where the alleged crime took place and the venue of the trial. San Quentin was only a ferry ride or a bridge crossing away so it was a bit more in our thoughts due to executions and protests in San Francisco than it would be for people in Modoc County. My understanding (lawyer adjacent) was also people who were against it or weren't sure could cause jury issues with a potential for a mistrial and excluding those jurors (by the lawyers or the judge) cuts down on that problem with capital cases.

In Idaho it probably wouldn't matter how I felt as we aren't actively executing people. We have the death penalty and one person has been executed for about 35 years. Over all only 27 people have been executed since Idaho courts started in 1864, almost 150 years ago, the majority of those 27 were by hanging, if not all but the lethal injection in 1994. We only got rid of firing squad as a method of execution two years ago, but it is an option if injection wouldn't work. Idaho only has three crimes for capital punishment, but we have jury instructions for cannibalism, but have never had a case. Wild West indeed.

It is amazing that people get so invested in these cases. Those of you who are worked up, did you hear the state's attorney mention the fact that they had eleven other child murder cases currently awaiting trial just in that jurisdiction? Can any of you name one?

But for the media circus, this thing was pretty run-of-the-mill, absent the wonky scientific evidence. Just a typical (yes, that's sad commentary that such a thing could be typical) murder trial. Nothing to see here, move on.

As far as the jury goes, saying that you think someone is guilty and saying that the state proved all of the elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt are two entirely different things.

I agree.

On another note, I absolutely hated the coverage of this trial. I stopped watching HLN and other channels that showed extensive coverage. I watched just enough to get the gist of what the prosecution and the defense were saying. My dislike wasn't because what happened to Caylee was so horrible. I disliked it because I kept wondering "why Caylee Anthony? Why am I hearing about her?" I will say that there are shows, like annoying ass Nancy Grace, who do fight the good fight for lesser known victims who would be unknown and uncared for had it not been for such shows.

They cynical/truthful answer? Cable networks made lots and lots of money publicizing the death of a child and dramatizing it.

Add to the fact there is not such a thing as news happening 24 hours, you gotta pad the schedule.

I think that's truthful and not cynical. :)

Trials like this and the O.J. Simpson trial (since that was brought up in this thread) are good for television. They interest people and are like watching a movie. They have the effect of unifying those who agree with aspects of the case and dividing against those who disagree with aspects of the case. I will never forget how much this society was hilariously divided after the O.J. Simpson trial. It truly was hilarious and people who were otherwise "not racist" were saying a whole damn lot of racist things after that not guilty verdict. It went way beyond anger over accused domestic violence and accused murder. It showed what happens when people feel threatened/afraid and challenged by some outcome, specifically a not guilty verdict. And that impact would not have been felt so heavily if we weren't able to watch it on TV--"if it doesn't fit, you must acquit...." After the Simpson not guilty verdict, people were so mad and suddenly my friends and I were not only the representatives for Black folks at this PWI like we normally were (LOL), we were now the representatives for those who thought OJ was not guilty. Afterall, you apparently couldn't be Black and think he's guilty...or not give a shit beyond the celebration of the legal system acquitting a Black man for a change. Yeah, the media knew what it was doing when they covered that trial. It began with the media coverage of Simpson running from the law in that SUV. That's nothing but a good movie on live TV.

I am seeing a similar dynamic with this Caylee Anthony verdict. If you understand the jury's verdict, you clearly have no compassion and understanding for a CHILD victim. God forbid if you're a WOMAN who feels this way. Maybe you're even as loose and careless as Casey Anthony was depicted as being. Heaven forbid you can grasp the legality regardless of whether you agree with everything on a personal level.

/longass rant

I haven't read this whole thread, but the talking heads just said something interesting: The jury sees a much different trial than we do. All of the times that the jury is taken out of the courtroom yet we still see what happens just doesn't exist for them.

It would be interesting if any one of them sees the whole trial on dvr and change their mind.

Well, they shouldn't see that sort of stuff. And honestly, with the evidence the state did put on, if I'm a defense lawyer, I'm loving it. Experts on "behavior"? Smell evidence? DNA from the air? If we're going CSI-to-the-max, then it's safe to say that the state's case is very flimsy, and really, it was.

We have to use evidence to convict and sentence someone to death. We can't just do it because we feel it in our bones that she's guilty and she didn't act appropriately or whatever.

Best quote of the night so far

"I seriously haven't seen nancy grace this furious since her bungling henchmen let those dalmatians escape."

Color me clueless but what exactly would the television public see of the actual trial that the jury doesn't see because they have been called out of the courtroom?

I think the television and Internet public is really only accessing the extra information that the media is feeding us. The jurors don't have access to the media commentary and all of the side tales of Casey Anthony. The jury sees what is included in the actual trial. I thank God for that because I do not want a legal system that is based on negative media depictions of the accused. The legal system is already comprised of enough humanity.

Exactly. Because, really... if the media decided you killed someone and you didn't, and everything they put on TV made it look like maybe you did, you wouldn't want to end up in prison or put to death if you didn't do it.

I have a friend who was convicted for something really awful based on circumstantial evidence. She's in prison for 6 years, her two kids are being raised by their dad and she'll be forever ostracized. She's lost her career and her most of the things important to her in her life. She did make a mistake, but she didn't make the mistake she was convicted of and the mistake she made wasn't illegal. People jumped to a lot of conclusions and believed things that were said in court that were not true. She's one of the greatest people I know and it's beyond sad. Perhaps that experience makes me question things even more.

I think public outrage is normal and healthy in these types of situations. Hell, I'd be worried for our society if everyone was indifferent to the verdict. You lose some and you win some. I think she either intentionally killed her daughter or accidentally killed her and tried to cover it but the evidence really wasn't there. Sometimes juries convict anyway (Scott Peterson) and sometimes they don't (Casey Anthony).

I've also never understood why Nancy Grace picks certain case like this and the Duke lacross players and just beats them to hell and back. I know just within the last year alone in MI there was a man who killed his three very young sons in the woods and a story about a young mother who supposedly sold her 4yr old daughter to a convicted rapist for drug money. I don't recall those stories making it past the local papers.

Was she white?

And aside from that, such a scenario is sadly not uncommon. I've been doing volunteer work lately representing the children taken into the state's custody from abusive parents... nothing shocks me anymore.

Anyone remember a few years ago when I suggested I'd like Nancy Grace to be eaten by sharks? So much of this TV coverage could have been prevented if only. . .

My aunt just changed her Facebook profile picture to a picture of Caylee.

Oy.

Yes, they all were.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525333,00.html

I didn't follow this case at all except for what I saw on the cover of People Magazine at the store. :rolleyes: However, because of that I was surprised to hear she got off. After reading a bit, I'm less surprised.

I don't know how many of you have been on a jury, especially in a more complicated case. If you haven't, it is hard to fully understand what the jury goes through. I was jury foreman for a sexual assault case several years ago. It was both a sad and fascinating experience. It was not fun to listen to all the details of the case. But it was really fascinating to be a part of a jury in action and look at all the different ways the other jurors heard and understood the evidence that was presented. It wasn't exactly 12 Angry Men, but still an interesting process. We did find the man guilty.

After the trial was over I was waiting for my husband to pick me up. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney came out of the courthouse and struck up a conversation with me. We had a very interesting conversation about the case, why we had convicted, etc. It was interesting to hear their questions and see their reactions about the different aspects.

Re: getting emotionally involved in cases... It was one of the most emotionally draining and stressful things I've ever done. I think I cried most of the rest of the day and off and on for several days. A large part of it was reflecting on the fact that there but for the grace of God go I and how blessed I am to have the life I do.

That said, after that experience I will never allow myself to be seated on a jury in that kind of case again. If I ever reach the voir dire stage again, I'll flat out tell the attorneys that I've done my duty to my country once and won't be doing it again.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kkH4xekiN...20buchanan.jpg

The mainstream will consider Casey Anthony to be prettier than Jennifer Buchanan. A pretty white woman's struggles and accused crimes are more exciting than those of a woman, including another white woman, who doesn't have the looks and a fun story to tell.

Oh yeah, dumb site alert: http://www.infamoushotties.com/caseyanthony.html

If I recall correctly, years after the OJ case, many of the jurors said that after learning more information about the case that was kept from them while they were sequestered, they would have chosen to convict him.


One of my friends just posted on her status that as a tribute & remembrance of Caylee, we should all turn on our porch lights at 9pm.

All of this.

As I put it to an irate friend earlier: Casey Anthony probably was involved in her child's death. Probably isn't even close to good enough to convict.

That's a good thing - probably a great thing.

iLost. #wrongthread :o

I just want to see that little girl's death vindicated. I pray that there is an appeal and/or the investigation continues. There should be justice for this crime and I really don't care who the murderer is--I absolutely believe it was Casey based on what little I know but if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was someone else, I wouldn't say another word about it.

I got home after 9pm and my bulb is blown. Tell your friend I was there in spirit. :p

It doesn't work that way. The state can't appeal. A person can't be tried twice for the same crime once acquitted.

*sigh* I suspected that. :( But I thought I might be wrong since I saw that on Double Jeopardy. The vast majority of my law knowledge comes from movies so I really hoped that Ashley Judd told me something inaccurate.

I should not be able to conceivably believe why so many people poured their heart and soul into this terribly boring story.

...

But this is America where Justin Bieber and bad beliefs thrive.

Shut up, Malfoy.