Casey Anthony...

Got away with it. Who does she think she is, OJ?

Que pasa?

Pass some OJ...

Upon some reflection. I think between this case and the Straus Con (kahn) case I think we all can learn a bit about "rush to judgement"...

The media it out of control destroying people's lives in the "court of media" where peoples lives are turned upside down from the judgement of our media. All prior to people having their day in court.

A child died, the media immediately tried and convicted her in the court of public opinion. Same thing with the head of the IMF.

The IMF case is a more telling case as they have let him out of his "confinement" without even a judgement from the courts...

Which makes my "oh he has money and can get off" when busted behaving in a morally reprehensible way. But still, is this the way we want our system set up, where media outlets decide the "facts" that get repeated over and over until everyone is convinced of someone's guilt, when they don't have a chance to set the record straight in court.

It is an interesting "media bias" issue, and indicative of our insatiable appetite for news... and our ability to rush to judgement.

Edited by FreeEnterprise - 05 July 2011 at 3:20pm

They tremble at my name...

I'm speechless

Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato

agentwhale007 wrote:

Good verdict. At least for the murder charges.

There was little-to-no tangible evidence connecting her to a purposeful death of the child. The prosecutor ran the whole trial on trying to connect Casey Anthony as an irresponsible parent to Casey Anthony as a murder. Which there simply wasn't the evidence to do. All they presented, for the most part, was circumstantial evidence, the equivalent of pointing to pictures of her drinking and partying and going "Yeah look how bad she looks! See! Doesn't this look like the kind of person who would kill their kid!"

That's thankfully, not how evidence works. Being an irresponsible person doesn't connect you to other crimes. Or at least not murder. Convictions work on evidence, not on gut feelings that she just seems guilty.

Now, the charges of child neglect (Or whatever it was called, I don't remember)? Probably could have been better considered.

But, in the end, it was a good verdict.

Right. The evidence fact is understandable, but I will always believe she did it. What kind of mother that wasn't involved with the death of her child make up a nanny that didn't exist? Why would she lie to police for so long. Why would they cover up an accidental death?

Haha screw Nancy Grace. She is a nuisance. Her head may explode on TV

Edited by jmac3 - 05 July 2011 at 3:21pm

Que pasa?

FreeEnterprise wrote:

It is an interesting "media bias" issue, and indicative of our insatiable appetite for news... and our ability to rush to judgement.

Certainly.

I recall the same uproar concerning the Ramsey murder in the 1990s, how everyone was just convinced that the parents murdered their daughter. The media followed along with that uproar, essentially all but attempting to convict the parents themselves.

In 2008, a more-technologically updated DNA test cleared both parents from the murder scene.

The media loves playing into human desire for bloodlust. Especially when it'll raise profits.

Rome is the mob.

I've been having a hard time caring about this whole thing.

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Benjichang wrote:

I've been having a hard time caring about this whole thing.

Jesus.

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Insufficient evidence = no capital punishment. Whale, FE and the rear nailed it.

I back FE (gasp) on his view of the media in this situation as well. It's unfortunate that society judges and sentences way before the jury does, especially in a time where we've begun as a whole to question the legitimacy of capital punishment with the room for error allowed in the justice system. I can tell you that if you or your loved ones were on the stand for your life, you'd want a fair trial that didn't come down to "her story doesn't match, therefore she's guilty".

Do I think she's guilty? Pretty sure of it. But that's my personal opinion, and it carries no legal weight. Nor should it. But FB has come alive with armchair legal teams (read: bored mothers) ready to bemoan the justice system when this girl was "obviously guilty". The whole thing smells of /facepalm.