veronica_rich | Anthony verdict

I live in Florida, but I haven't heard much about to case either. My brother's friend from Orlando claimed that the local news channels there were obsessed with the trial and reporting on it around the clock.

That being said, nearly every reaction I've seen/heard so far has been in anger over the verdict. Frankly I think it's bogus as well. From the few details I've heard of the case it seemed to me like she killed her daughter.

I'd kind of like to know what happened, but since that wasn't the point of the trial, I wonder if we'll ever know ...

I am torn. It occupied and obsessed so many of the American networks. Inside Edition had a nightly update, as did some other shows I could hear in the background.
It seems probable that she killed her daughter, but there was not enough evidence to prove it. Moreover, I wonder whether, if they *had* proved it she would not have had basis for a mistrial given the obsessive coverage with various talking heads hammering home "Guilty guilty guilty" even as they admitted there was not sufficient evidence.

I should add that I am probably greatly influenced by this article:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/innocent-until-proven-guilty/36958
and recent news reports that one state has apparently had to get rid of the death penalty because they executed 13 innocent people in the past few decades.

I am also probably influenced by recent news items in Canada of the reversal of a convinction of a mother previously convicted of killing her child. The reversal was due to the fact that the coroner in the case was so incompetent that it is suspected that hundreds of cases were compromised.

Except for here on LJ, I don't know anyone personally who gives Casey the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure a lot of it is anger over a child's death, which is always a nasty business however it happens. It's hard to believe nobody will be held accountable for this, some people think, so why not suspect the person closest to the kid?

It's hard to believe nobody will be held accountable for this, some people think, so why not suspect the person closest to the kid
The desire for a scapegoat/villain has been a powerful force for injustice, as much as the anger over murder can be a force *for* justice. As a Canadian, I have been raised on stories like Steven Truscott, Guy Paul Morin and others who were convicted only because of the desire to find someone accountable for the death of a child. (The innocence of Truscott, Morin and some others has been proved by DNA and other evidence and they have all received financial compensation for wrongful conviction, so this is stricly based on fact, not feeling).

Feeling does enter into it, of course. When I watched the coverage, the tone of the tv reporting turned me off entirely. All the reportere needed was pitchforks and torches. On the other hand, looking at Casey Anthony, hearing about her behaviour and reading the ridiculous and desperate excuses that her defense came up with, was a powerful inducement to believe in her guilt.

I don't believe in Casey's innocence, but I can't say they proved her guilt in the way they needed to. (OJ Simpson all over again).

I think the prosecution blew it big time. They should have gone for involuntary manslaughter and made the case that she only meant to keep her little girl quiet and asleep while she went out and partied. Instead, they pushed for Murder 1 and she got off because it didn't survive the premeditation test. They wanted to make an example of her. It's just sad.

This is basically what I just heard an analyst say on television. They used the term "overcharged".

"Overcharged" is what they do to you when you go to a movie. "Mischarged" I think would be a better term for it. In any case, they didn't connect the dots clearly enough for the jury. I don't know that they had the evidence to do so.

Well, "mis-charged" would mean making the wrong charges. The lawyer interviewed used "over-charged" and sort of explained he meant that the charges laid were the most serious charges that could be brought, e.g. Murder 1, instead of manslaughter, concealing a dead body, etc.
Hey, it's not *my* term. It is apparently not unique to this lawyer:
To file a criminal complaint for more serious crimes than the known facts support, most often to intimidate the accused into accepting a plea bargain.
That definition is from one of several online legal dictionaries (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/over-charge) where I found it. It was actually apparently first used to refer to this case by CA's defense years ago, according to the quick google I just did

I don't think even OJ was tried on capital murder, was he? Wasn't it termed a "crime of passion" when it was tried? I don't remember.

On a related by definite tangent - I don't know if she did it, or how, or what, or whatever. I will say this: Giving birth or fathering children does not canonize a person. There have been instances I've seen in my lifetime of a parent who "accidentally" ran over their child behind the vehicle, or "accidentally" left them in the car to roast or freeze while they went in somewhere, or a number of other actions the media and police called accidental - that I've questioned. Not everybody wants children, and not everybody once they have children, wants to put up with them for 20-some years. I mean, think about it: Not only do you get rid of the annoying little pest with one of these "accidents," you get all kinds of sympathy and back-pats for being the grieving parent.

(Lest you think I'm just cynical, there was actually a case in the city where I used to live, where a well-known business owner left his baby locked in his vehicle for a good stretch of time one hot day, and the baby died. It was termed an accident, and the general consensus was "aww, poor Daddy, he just didn't know." What the fuck didn't he know? That it was hot? That locking any living thing in a small space with lots of closed windows in the SUN might dehydrate it? How goddamn dumb was he? Yeah, right.

Just to play devil's advocate about the locked in car thing:
Today one of the local radio personalities detailed on air how she and a bunch of people broke into somebody's car to rescue their puppy. The couple that owned the puppy had left the window open a crack but the inside of the vehicle was still hot enough to bake cookies. They were astonished that this wasn't enough. So, do people hate their puppies? Or do they just have lower IQs?
(I should mention that I recall hearing a story about some guy who left his kid in the car and was arrested pretty soon after. You see, he left the kid in the car outside the police station, when he went in to do something. Dumb!)

However, this doesn't mean I don't think that parents don't "accidentally" kill children. My friend Mari told me about some local case where a child in an East Indian family died with a broken back because he uncle "accidentally" fell on her.

Thank effin' GOD for it! I was fully expecting the jury to be as braindead and ignorant of the law as most of the population but they apparently had some sense.

The prosecution never proved their case and attempted to rely on innuendo and the media. If this case proved anything, it's that the system CAN work.

It's what the prosecution gets for trying to make names for themselves and neglecting to establish what all their evidence meant. Blech!

I think we've seen this before, in the last "trial of the century," didn't we?

As I said, I didn't watch the trial and I don't even know the particulars of the media coverage leading up to it. But if you mean, they examined the evidence on its merits rather than being swayed by emotion, it seems they did!

As a Trial of the Century it seemed okay for cheap entertainment value. We should get a better one before the century's up (still 89 years to go!) Hopefully Ms. Anthony will get some money from the inevitable book that will come out in the next year or so to compensate for the entire country believing that she's a murderer who got away with it. I have no opinion on guilt/innocence since the only things I've heard about it are by those who profit off her being guilty-as-hell, other that to consider that she seems to be at least guilty of being pretty stupid with her actions back in '08. Murder? Eh, I'm not on the jury, and they already had their say.

My sister is convinced she's guilty and was upset not only that she "got off" but that now she's free to go have other kids and potentially kill them. My response: "Well, I guess if another one turns up dead, she might be convicted of that one, eh?"

I say that it entertained me to watch the verdict being read and the subsequent coverage as I spent FOUR FREAKING HOURS at the TMO dealing with our move today. Some of the younger airmen waiting threw empty soda cans at the TV. Pete and I debated how long until she 'goes missing'. Bodies vanish near completely in our tropical climate.

What is it with you reporters that won't take no for an answer? What part of 'the jury doesn't want to talk to the press' did they not get? They badgered the court rep at the press conference for half an hour, and multiple helicopters followed their van. WTF? The media is full of nosy ass douchebsgs.

I'm sorry the totalitarian conservative state isn't getting here fast enough for you. Maybe David Duke'll take care of the free press when he gets in office. ;-)

They have a right to privacy. The media is out of line.

They may be entitled to it, as non-elected figures, but they're in the public so it's reasonable to expect they'll be subject to interview requests for a while. Reporters have the right to ask them questions, and they have the right to refuse to answer - that's the implied social contract in living in a society that recognizes an unrestricted press. The mistake some reporters make is in not thinking of better ways to ask their questions, or a better format (i.e., trying to contact a juror later on, singly, rather than bombarding them publicly). Being a douchebag isn't necessarily hand-in-hand with the profession; hell, look at obituary writers who manage to get families to talk with them about their deceased relatives.

I had not followed the case. As a casual observer, I'd expected a guilty verdict. When that didn't happen, I looked at the analysis of why. A lot of circumstantial evidence, one "truth" against another, and an inconclusive autopsy report.

What really disturbed me was a video I watched that happened before the verdict. It was an analysis of the closing arguments and the "strategies" the prosecustion should have used. It was basically, "find three major points and get those across succinctly, and go for the emotion. A child died, and someone must be blamed. Someone must pay." That was the gist of it.

And while I don't doubt that this sort of thing takes place in trials everywhere, to hear it spelled out like it was nothing more than a football game made me sick. Forget facts, go for the emotion. That's how you WIN.

I was a paralegal for over five years for a defense attorney, and he represented the gamut of accusations over those years in front of me (all except rape; he wouldn't take those). So this surprises me not at all. Although, the general consensus is, if you have strong evidence, you don't have to go for emotion (case in point - a defense attorney will NEVER put their client on the stand in a criminal trial unless they're pretty sure they're going to lose otherwise; any lawyer you see do this as a matter of course or in the face of weak evidence isn't very competent. The only reason to put the accused on the stand is to sway the jury with emotion in the face of strong evidence of guilt).

Possibly the prosecution thought it had plenty of strong evidence? Or, perhaps more likely, they figured the media coverage had done their "emotional" job for them with weak evidence?

Court is theater - pure and simple. It doesn't matter if you're trying to get out of a traffic ticket or a murder rap. Some judges and juries don't respond to bullshitting, but some do.

Anthony verdict

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject