Casey Anthony Trial

[GammaPhi88]

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

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by GammaPhi88

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.

[Drolefille]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

And yes, it certainly helps my position that there are thousands of kids who go missing every year that we never hear about. Who's getting emotional about those kids?

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.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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).

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Jen

I believe the system worked here. The jury couldn't convict her based on the evidence at hand, within the rules laid out by the legal system. Personally, watching the trial made me believe she's a guilty murderer. But if I was on the jury and was bound by the laws and requirements of that, then personal feelings can't come into it and I would have had to reach a verdict based on the law.

I can't hate on the jurors for doing their jobs - I'm sure there's at least one of them who feels like they let a murderer walk. But that was the only thing they could do if there was not enough evidence to legally say "you're guilty."

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Jen

Why was the trial televised?

Is this common in the US? I get Headline News here, and the trial was on pretty much every day, and it was really surprising to me. Why this trial and not any other?

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

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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

[honeychile]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[BluPhire]

Best quote of the night so far

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

[DrPhil]

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.