And the Casey Anthony comment of the day;
An Orlando TV station declares that the trial “captivated the nation.” Which is, I suppose, a way of saying that TV ran wall-to-wall coverage for the benefit of idiots who were “captivated,” which no sane person could have been. Some postgraduate student of communication theory will undoubtedly write his Ph.D. dissertation on what the Casey Anthony saga tells us about the process by which network TV producers decide which crimes to turn into media circuses.
Via Drudge - Anthony Defense Team Slams Media
What gets turned into a media circus? Good looking people. If mom's a total hot babe, or, as in this case, the kid left behind a critical mass of cute pictures, then it's circus time. No more complicated than that.
CNN has a problem with this not guilty but what about OJ??????????
I think it's darker than that. There's something ghoulish and necrophillic in the prospect of a semi-hot young woman being executed by the state.
Imagine the media orgasm had she been convicted. And imagine the endless fetish had she actually been sentenced to death.
Finally Dr Drew can go back to talking about sex and drugs. :-)
He was looking pretty pained for the last month, pretending to care about something he obviously thought was a waste of time.
My theory on the larger fascination: lots of women wish they could kill their kids, at least sometimes. Faux outrage about this "baby killer" lets them indulge the fantasy while pretending to care about a total stranger's dead kid.
Good news: fat middle aged women highly unlikely to riot, burn down their own houses and pull random drivers out of trucks over this verdict. So there's that, anyway.
I'm good (but not happy) with the verdict knowing that God will provide the proper justice in the end.
I'm glad the whole fiasco is over with little to be meted out for the crime of lying to a police officer: will hope the whole thing will fade into obscurity, but do not think it will.
Nancy Grace can villify a girl for 3 years - and that girl can still be acquited. It may not be justice, but it's better than trial by Nancy Grace. That's a good thing.
"a way of saying that TV ran wall-to-wall coverage for the benefit of idiots who were “captivated,” which no sane person could have been. "
Amen to that sentiment. I've been getting pretty annoyed at Fox News' wallpapering of the story, including a couple dedicated segments during what is normally Hannity's hour, this past Monday and Friday.
I typically PVR O'Reilly and/or Hannity while I'm bathing or feeding the kids, to watch afterwards And every time a Casey Anthony segment crops up, I just fast forward through the damn thing. My heart weeps for the death of an innocent, but the coverage of the affair has been most unseemly.
On another note; Casey Anthony should sue Fox, CNN and the rest of the alphabet channels for royalties.
O'Reilly posed the question at the beginning 'Can a little girl obtain justice in today's America' - not a direct quote, but close.
I guess not. Many of the commenets I have read today say something to the effect "...yeah we know she did it but the prosecution screwed up the case...". I think the lawyers and the courts have made the job of the police and the prosecution so tough that justice is all but unattainable.
How much circumstantial evidence is required to convict someone. In this case, the stench in the trunk, perhaps the duct-tape with the heart, or maybe the partying/actions of the Mom, etc. shopuld have been sufficient.
Yeah, there were no photos but how long before justice starts to be delivered outside of court?
Sad! Truly Sad.
"I think the lawyers and the courts have made the job of the police and the prosecution so tough that justice is all but unattainable."
Nonsense. It was a circumstantial case and there just wasn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt. It's interesting how people forget the jury listened to evidence for weeks, day in and day out, while they got their info from TV.
And here's something even more significant: the prosecution made it a death penalty case, which always makes it harder to get a conviction.
In a nut shell this case was bungled from the begining. The Investigator in charge was fired. Which is a small miricle in itself.
Her looks didn't hurt her either, nor the anti-child mentality with the usual lack of any respect for life.
Maude Barlow wants Women to have the right to kill their own children till 5. What does that tell you?
Oh lord, is Nancy Grace still on TV? How can anyone watch her? If she were out to get Charles Manson I think I'd be rooting for him.
Black Mamba nails. I can't stand to listen to that woman.
I had better things to do whenever a segment about this "news" came on.
Despite all the hoopla, what's the alternative besides trial by jury?
Trial by media?
Automatic conviction upon being charged?
Despite all the hoopla, what's the alternative besides trial by jury?
Trial by media?
Automatic conviction upon being charged?
I can not believe that Nancy Dis-grace still has a show let alone revered and taken seriously after the way she nightly vilified, tried and convicted the Duke Lacross team. How did the fact that they were innocent and it was proven that the woman that cried rape lied, the Prosecuter went to jail escape her audience??
Automatic conviction upon being charged?
Posted by: Observer
Sounds like the CHRC's.
The judge did a poor job, for not excluding some of the defense's conspiracy theories. Death penalty cases are hard enough, with evidence and witnesses, but circumstantial evidence is a tough sell.
The one positive thing, she probably won't kill another child. Can't say the same for Karla Homolka.
Grey Lady - I honestly didn't know that, about the Duke Lacross team and Nancy Grace. That she went after them will of course make her a "progressive" of some sort in many people's eyes primarily because of the race angle on that case. I'd always sort of assumed she was a hang 'em and fry 'em rightist type. Not being a "progressive", I don't strain everything through an ideological filter. I just always thought she was a vulgar, vicious, semi-unhinged bully and I could never stand her.
And then I stopped watching TV...
Sounds like not only did the prosecution bungle the case but that the case was really circumstantial ie weak. This was likely the best outcome.
Nancy Grace is one of the worst people on TV. That's saying something.
Her looks didn't hurt her either, nor the anti-child mentality with the usual lack of any respect for life. -Revnant Dream
WHAT THE HELL?!?!
Nancy Grace's rise in infamy parallels CNNs steep decline in its overall ratings. Tabloid TV anyone?
Yes she's worse than nails on a blackboard
Black Mamba,
I'm with you on the TV angle/ Somehow I managed to live all the way to last week without knowing much about this case/I hang my head in shame, :O)
From The McCain who Doesn't Suck, quoting the Orlando Sentinal: "The verdict means 25-year-old Anthony was found not guilty of all charges except for four counts of providing false information to law enforcement officer."
I have not!!! been folowing this case, or in any way registering its existance, but wasn't it demonstrated that this woman had typed things like: "Chlorophorm" and "How to break a neck" and "how to get away with murdering my little daughter" a tonne of times into her search engine? She either murdered the girl or she didn't: What is this nonesense about "false information"? It wouldn't be the first time a guilty-as-hell (hey, maybe she ain't; I'm making a more abstract argument here) person was let off; c'est la vie. If she did it, the hell with her, I don't really are. Some things are their own punishment.
Here's what matters: The Law is now officially too complicated for even the most learned criminal lawyer to begin to understand. You weren't convicted? Okay, but you looked at us funny. This is infinitely more dangerous to everybody except the immediate victim than some psychopathic mom (if she is one) could ever be.
whit seven - Not bad circumstantial evidence if I might. Should I be charged I hope that the evidence against me did not include searches (multiple) for do-it-yourself cloroform - Found in my cars trunk, hair from the deceased in that same trunk, duct tape found on the deceased from my garage and a host of minor little inconsistencies and character links.
I would be scared $h--less if that was the basis of the prosecutions case against me.
And you sould be too if that was the evidence against you and I was on your jury.
It is so easy for a defence team to pose any ridiculous theory, to fabricate any accident, and accuse any compliant family member of untold injustices. They must prove nothing!
The prosecution must prove everything. Beyond any doubt. And failing that, the perpetrator can walk free.
I'm thinking that all Ms. Anthony has to do is buy golfclubs and commence the search for the 'Real Killer'!
Pity!
Not to be obtuse, but I never heard of Casey Anthony until I read this post. And this has been going on for a couple of years?!
Every day, I'm beginning to think "Idiocracy" understated its case.
Lots of naivete here, starting with O'Reilly's stupid "Can a little girl obtain justice in today's America". The law is not justice and never has been. The purpose of law is to maintain the state and to enforce prescribe punishments for prescribed offenses after being found guilty through a prescribed process. Justice is at best coincidental with any legal system.
In our legal system, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it botched it. It had no evidence beyond circumstantial. Our central principle of law is "Innocent until proven guilty."
And for those of you who think circumstantial evidence should be sufficient for a conviction. Fools. Do you really want to make it EASIER for the state to drag you out of your home accused and convicted of a crime you didn't commit? We spent the better part of 1,000 years getting rid of totalitarian star chambers, Torquemada's Inquisition, secret police, gulags and Maleus Maleficarum. Next thing you know, some will be wanting permanent suspension of habeas corpus. As a famous movie lawyer once said, "Don't tell me what you know, tell me what you can prove."
At the end of the day, the prosecution couldn't prove anything.
The verdict was a surprise to me, but if all you've got is circumstantial evidence it's hard to prove. The state probably screwed up in making it a death penalty case; they probably would have gotten a conviction if they hadn't proceeded by that route.
I had way more exposure to this case than I wanted to as my wife's a lawyer and insisted I watch with her initially. I have to admit I thought that the evidence was fairly strong and initially the defense appeared to be hopeless.
What I find most surprising is the publicity this case got. We learn that the accused is a serial liar and either she's a very good liar or her parents are total idiots. There's obviously some psychopathology there but I'll never understand why this was the main thing on daytime TV for months in the US. I can understand why someone who's a lawyer would find this case interesting but I have to admit I nodded off a fair bit to my wife's displeasure.
Now we just have to wait for the next huge non-story to be found by the MSM. Meanwhile, on SDA the real news comes out every day.
I hadn't heard about this case until I signed on to Twitter recently. I have four news orgs that I follow directly, and they've been swamping me with updates.
However, I was watching a news item on this today for the first time, and the thing that struck me...knowing nothing else about this...was that the jury deliberated for only two days. In itself that's a fair indictment of the prosecution's case. I don't have enough information to form an opinion of guilt, but for it to have been two days makes me wonder if they just drew it out for the hell of it.
That said, I don't think they'd have had the unanimity required for the needle, even if they agreed she'd done it.
The prosecution must prove everything. Beyond any doubt.
The prosecution must prove beyond a "reasonable" doubt. Not beyond any doubt or shadow of doubt. I think therein may lie the problem.
The meaning of the word reasonable, and what is considered reasonable, has changed significantly in the last couple of decades. Think about it. It's now considered reasonable for people to bring their kids to a "parade" where people are naked and engaging in sexual acts in public that will inevitably result in those kids associating that behavior with the word "pride" reinforced by the powerful influence/affect of family bonding time. Ok, perhaps not the best example of the transformation of the meaning of reasonable, but I trust you get the gist of what I am attempting to convey.
My theory on the larger fascination: lots of women wish they could kill their kids, at least sometimes
I disagree, mostly with the word most in your comment. A figure of speech is often just that.
A Mom may want her child to do listen or be quiet and the child refuses, but that does not mean she wants to kill her children literally or even fantasize about killing them. More than likely what Mom will fantasize about is locking herself in the bathroom for 10 minutes of peace where she may very well fantasize about being on a beautiful beach with a tall cold umbrella drink, a good book, and a manservant waving giant palms.
As Revnant Dream indicated, there are the Maude Barlows of the world; the extremely narcissistic that do not value human life at all, except of course their own.
Infanticide will continue to increase as society solidifies in its entitlement mentality. Such a mentality, I theorize, leads to the development of psychopathology both individually and collectively.
Some very ugly comments here. I find it hard to believe this is a conservative website. Sure, the law isn't always justice, but that doesn't mean the public has to be happy about it. See Simpson, O.J.
I haven't followed this trial, but from what I can glean of it the mother is a full-blown psychopath. When her child was missing she was out partying in nightclubs and having sex with her current boyfriend. When asked about the whereabouts of the child she spun lie after lie to her family and police, claiming among other things that a nanny had kidnapped her -- a nanny later proven to be non-existent. Then the kid turned up dead in a swamp, and mom still showed absolutely no sign of grief. Instead she went on a shopping spree.
People have been convicted on MUCH less than that -- see Peterson, Scott. But you're all okay with her walking.
If she'd gone and aborted a fetus, now, you guys would be all over that.
Ellie,
If being a bad patholigical liar and a whore is grounds for the death penalty then Ottawa and Washington would be empty and death row full.
As a lawyer, I'm surprised by comments that one shouldn't convict just on circumstantial evidence. In fact, in many many cases, circumstantial evidence is all you have - a murderer would have to be pretty stupid to leave behind direct evidence.
Scott Peterson was convicted based only on circumstantial evidence - and he is now sitting on death row. In fact, there are a number of similarities between Peterson and Casey Anthony: they both had motive (he didn't want to become a father; she hadn't wanted to become a mother; both wanted a carefree party lifestyle); they both did incriminating searches on the web (he researched currents in the bay where he went "fishing"; she researched chloroform and neck-breaking); both acted in ways that showed they knew the victims were already dead when everyone else thought they were missing; and both showed total and complete indifference to the "missing" and went on their merry ways.
He was convicted, she was acquitted.
I'd heard about this case, but as soon as I realized that this wasn't the Casey who had led the Sunshine Band, I lost interest.
Barbara, To say the practice of law is inconsistant is an understatement. Junk Science does not belong in a Court of Law..Period
This was a case that the State of Florida flubbed from day one, actually when the Meter reader first found the body in August..He called 911 and they blew him off 3 times and then a police officer showed up & gave him hell for bothering them.. (That officer was fired but you didn't hear that in the MSM or in Court) He then reported it again in December and the body was recovered
The Prosecutor tried to deceive the Jury by not calling the Meter Reader & ignoring the flub. It was the defense that brought him before the court & the story came out...
It is more than likely that if the Body were recovered in August that DNA & a cause of death would have been determined
The State of Florida needs to explain why they brought a 1 degree (death penalty) case knowing that they were responsible for the LACK of forensic evidense..Junk Science doesn't work & a liar, even a funny laughing one, is not a valid substitute..
The Jury was Honest & she may have been convicted of manslaughter if the prosecution had been Honest...
JMHO
It is difficult to imderstand this case UNLESS you have sat on a jury.
Trial by press seems to be invariably a case of injustice....that is the "journalist" is doing the judging not the reader.
Usually the "jouralist" has not thoroughly reviewed the evidence nor had instruction from the bench. The jury does.
Sanp judgements are a feature of a battlefeild/firefight....and should never be a feature of a trial by rule of law.
I didn't sit on the jury and therefore have no opinion...nada.
Nuff said.
Circumstantial evidence is the most damning evidence! Most cases have only circumstancial evidence! Usually there is no eyewitness, no video tape, no one is usually caught red handed. It's usually all circumstancial evidence. In this case the evidence was damning. The problem is the jury were a bunch of idiots.
For james:
You know not of what you speak. The prosecution saw an opportunity to make names for themselves, and the judge wanted to tag along. The VAST MAJORITY of the prosecution's evidence was perjury, right out of the ol' "testilying" handbook. Both the prosecution AND THE JUDGE should be at least censured for corruption and violation of their oath of office. But the entire "Legal" system is so corrupt there is NO chance of that happening.
The stench is overwhelming.