Please, for the love of G-d, please stop being an idiot.

Shes not alone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU

If you have an issue, put her on ignore. Then you never have to see her novels. Which are typically always interesting and while I might not agree with them 100% there's something I can find that makes me go "huh."

Uh...dumb bitch really needs to learn how to read if she's going to be up my ass and pretend that she has read my every post over the years.

I typically don't call people racist, classist, or sexist. I can't recall ever doing that because it is a rarity. I don't give a shit about people. I examine constructs and overarching dynamics that exist above and beyond what people are thinking and saying/doing. That's what I give a shit about. If katydumbass is going to give a shit about me, she needs to be smarter about it.

It was an intentional typo. Just call me Joey Tribbiani...;)

Your cashier's check is in the mail. Unless you do direct deposit.

<----agzg just wants my money :eek: just like knight_shadow and urrrrrybody else does....

You mean, about when it gets dark enough to turn on porch lights? Like, the time many automatic lights go on, and people flip them on because they're waiting for someone to get home?

That's not a memorial, that's slacktivism at its finest.

I don't really think one's death can be 'vindicated.' She was murdered. There's no vindication, not even in finding, convicting and possibly killing the murderer. Nothing 'helps' the victim here in any way unless one has a moral system that only results in heaven for those whose murderers are convicted.

And again we're back to, why do we care about THIS child, and not the other (statistically) three who were murdered on the same date?


Innocent people lie to the police all the time. Particularly if you're only referring to the crime being investigated at the time. They might be guilty of gods know what else, or be hiding something embarrassing that isn't a crime at all.

@DrPhil, I'm actually more interested in how it can be changed, or how it should be changed. I think that the 'why' we only see young, pretty, well off, dramatic/sideshowy missing white girls or *gasp* white girls who are murderers while in a foreign country or the like has been pretty well established to anyone who bothers to educate themselves. I'm not so sure on what can be DONE about it, though. Which cases need media attention to help solve them and which don't? And how do we as the viewing public make changes?

This would be funny if someone hadn't written $30,000 in fraudulent bill pay checks on my joint account last week.

I need money to pay my legal fees for that shitstorm.

The impact of these factors can't be measured so they can also have a buffering effect.

Being less than middle class, and depicted as a loose party woman at that, can make her appear more of a potential killer; or, it can make her even more of a victim when it intersects with her history of sexual abuse. Those can both weigh on people's thoughts as they are deciding whether she is guilty or fully accountable for WHATEVER happened to Caylee.

I thought about that after I typed it. :( Sorry.

Did I say that you call people racist/sexist/classist or did i say you go on a rampage when they phrase something racist/sexist/classist. Learn how to read.

Now that you feel internet-bad it's funny. :D

Alleged sexual abuse*

Yes, you did say that she would call people racist. Unless there's a way to condemn someone for being racist without calling them racist that I've yet to hear about. Is that something they teach you in willfully ignorant school?

Is this going to be your signature style? Rolling your eyes at other posters and their styles because you're above it?

/i'm only here because my name was typed in this thread

Yes.

While I agree that race/class issues play a part in all of this, there is a simpler explanation: there was a suspect, with a clear motive, on trial. It was not a perfect case, so there was a lot of suspense involved. She had a chance of being caught. Those three other children? Who knows if there was even a suspect. Or conversely, it was a cut-and-dry conviction with no drama. This was interesting to the public because there was a 50-50 chance of someone going to jail for this little girl's murder. Only 50-50, no more, no less. (OK not technically if you get into the statistical analysis, but the simplified version is that there were 2 possible outcomes- conviction or acquittal.)

Will any kind of investigation continue? While I personally believe Casey is veryyy guilty, I can see how there was not enough evidence to convict her. And while she cannot be tried again, will there be any investigation to absolutely rule out other suspects? If Casey is innocent (actually innocent, not just "not guilty") then someone who killed this child is walking free. How does the justice system handle that?

You set yourself up on Google Alerts, didn't you?

Again, you're too stupid to understand my posts and need to stop reading them.

This is funny.

No. I am not particularly interested in this case, so I will glance at this thread every once in a while. I was scrolling and saw an underscore, so that made me take notice lol

This is all alleged. DUH. Sooooo, you don't disagree with what I said in that post? Oh nooooooo, you're so confuuuuuuuuused.

That's not how it works. Go fuck yourself.
But we cared before there was a trial. And the same biases affect media coverage of investigations, and thus the quality and thoroughness of the investigations. The fact that 'drama' is how we decide what we care about is not particularly more promising. And we don't cover cases involving minorities the same way because it's not dramatic... why? Because of the bigotry of low/shitty expectations?

I still come down to what do WE as the viewers do about it? Stop watching Nancy Grace and the like might be something, but what else?
If they don't have any other suspects, or at least strong suspects, then no, they probably won't do anything unless they think they can convict her for something else (or someone else for accessory or something). The justice system did its job, the prosecutors apparently didn't, but the system did.

As it pertains to the case, they were accusations of sexual abuse.

As it pertains to her overall condition and circumstances, completely different.

Oh, guys. Thanks for making my morning go faster. I will now turn the foyer light on at exactly noon in honor of DrPhil's entertainment.

Yeah, actually it is. Thats why Baez was ordered to not mention it in closing.

???

I think I need to say this before it gets crazier.

She is NOT my sockpuppet. I have no qualms trolling a thread with my actual handle.

This thread wasn't supposed to be entertaining. :( It isn't my fault.

Drolefille, as for what can be done, there are already people working tirelessly. That includes those of us who are doing things. This won't stop the media from only covering the cases that the public wants to see. However, without people who work tirelessly locally, nationally, and internationally, shows like Nancy Grace's (I acknowledge the positive things she has done) that cover the missing and killed who aren't covered in other media outlets, would not exist. All is not lost, there is enough compassion to go around.

http://www.stephencjensen.com/wp-con...d-noises-a.jpg

Wow that escalated fast.


And Drollefille, I agree- drama isn't a better way to decide our investment in a case, it's just another factor is why we were so riveted.

Alleged being only used in the court system, unless someone's on trial for the abuse it's not considered 'alleged.' It seemed that it was Casey's abuse, not her allegedly abusing her child, that was referring to, yes? (See what I did there?)

I was listening to an interesting NPR segment on rape victims in the justice system and one of the prosecutors made that pretty clear and I'm rather fond of the definition.

/minor swerve...

This thread = multiple sources for a new signature quote. I do think I have selected a winner...

and, with all the karma talk being spouted off everywhere I turn, I offer this from last night's reading and meditation:

‎"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, suffering follows him, as the wheel follows the hoof of the beast that draws the wagon." The Dhammapada verse 1 chapter 1 "Karma"

There isn't anything else you can do. The moment the media became a money making ratings gathering entity, you are subject to the bottom dollar. Unfortunately these cases fall into legislating the heart. You can do things like this and bring up the fact that we all have biases that affect us, but it will take time and a wait and see approach because just as much as it took time to get us here, it will take time to get us out of it. So the media will continue to feed the masses what they want.

So that's the legal definition and not a particular prosecutor's definition?

As the trial is concerned, you're right that the point wasn't to prove she was really sexually abused. But, that doesn't make the abuse not an accusation.

More that 'alleged' is only a legal term. A victim, any victim, is treated like a victim and not an 'alleged' victim. An investigation will obviously look at a victim's story and whether or not there is dishonesty, but we as society rarely say that someone suffered alleged armed robbery and only cast doubt on (generally women's but men's too) sexual abuse/assault claims.

But outside of the media using it to cover their asses for lawsuits, there's not really a reason to use it other than to cast doubt. (The suspect would be the alleged abuser/rapist/etc. though, that's where it matters.)
So, how do we as the masses change that?
I don't think all is lost, this is more of a practical 'what can be done' as well as a 'what other news sources are out there' to change up the message that goes out. And what would the ideal message that went out be?

We are now part of the Internet/media storm over this case. I apologize for being that which I despise.

/swerve

I was astonished to see on World News Tonight a couple of nights ago scenes of people fighting to get seats in the courtroom. Then, in the paper today, this:

It's all going into my great unwritten treatise on fame as the new opiate of the masses.

The View is on now. Oh snap. This is going to be a hot one.

*raises fists to the heavens*

I should've worked from home today.

She needs to purify herself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka. Or, maybe she just needs to get laid.

You're missing some interesting stuff here.

Whoopi Goldberg is talking about the difficulty of being on a jury. Casey Anthony's parents are supposedly getting death threats. People are asking that they be charged with perjury. They showed a clip of the parents leaving immediately after the verdict.

They are actually have a good, tamed, debate. Prosecutor Jeff Ashton is their next guest.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/j...ony-ar-242100/

Barbara Walters asked Ashton if people feel so strongly about this case because Casey Anthony's pretty, Elizabeth added because she's white.

The attorney said "no," he thinks it's because this happened so close in time to Trenton Duckett. I disagree. Most people have either never heard of Duckett or aren't that familiar with Duckett. (http://helpfindtrenton.com/)

Then they discussed why people are so angered by this acquittal.

(He called Barbara Walters "sir" and they laughed, saying he's been dealing with this case and male judges for 3 years.)