Does anyone else here not like this (particular) media response to the Casey Anthony verdict?

[Kryzantine]

Now, in another thread, I defended the verdict by saying that the prosecution screwed up, they didn't show enough evidence, and the jury decided that they couldn't even convict her on Murder 1 because there was no tangible evidence that she killed anybody. I don't like how a lot of people are calling for her head. OK, a lot of people are upset, but this isn't OJ here. She's a working class mother who got her head put into a moralistic society's vise.

That's not the point. The point is that I see articles like this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/07/06/2011-07-06_casey_anthony_verdict_a_clue_that_number_of_convictions_in_murder_cases_across_u.html

What the flying fuck, Daily News? I expected this kind of crappy article from the less serious Post. Just look at this quote to begin the article,

The case of Casey Anthony has shed new light on a fact cops don't like to advertise - more and more Americans are getting away with murder.

What I want to know is when the hell the media decided she was guilty after the trial which concluded she was innocent of murder. Where has the respect for our legal system gone? This trial should have proven to be a classic example of why we have this system in the first place - to protect the rights of people like Anthony who are accused on shoddy evidence. It would have been more criminal to give her the chair. Yet the media goes on acting like she's a guilty person who got away with it, and it's more disgusting than the jury acquitting her.

I don't know if we need to adopt measures to protect the rights of people like Anthony. I think the speech that the Daily News uses should be considered slander, especially after she was found to be innocent at a completely fair trial. But at the same time, this would interfere with the right to publish freely.

The media has such a large role in our lives today, and frankly, I think it's overstepping its boundaries quite a bit. Between this and the SkyNews issue of phone hacking (involving Brits in this conversation), is the media as a whole encroaching on the rights of the individuals they are reporting on?

 

[Nieroshai]

I personally have been led to believe Casey is a scapegoat for dear ol' Grandpa, there's more against him than was ever shown against her.

 

[Tasachan]

I actually read an article [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-accused-20110628,0,4711694,full.story] the other day about this man that was accused of attacking his ex wife.
He had physical proof that he could not have been anywhere near her house at the time, video evidence that he did not carry his bag full of misc items she claimed he used on her, and there was absolutely no physical evidence tying him (or anyone) to the crime "scene". The woman had beaten herself up, and called the police and blamed him, because she didn't want him to have custody of their son.
It took him years to finally prove he was innocent, because the wife was insisting the attack happened. But yet she still has custody of the son, is not being charged with slander, and he still has a mark on his record (and can be googled) as someone charged with assault/rape or whatever.
Sometimes, the justice system is messed up. But sometimes the media just won't accept that someone is innocent, and that pisses me off too. (I'm still on the fence of the Anthony case)

 

[thelonewolf266]

I'm sorry but while there isn't any hard evidence she did it the defence story is that they made an innocent accident look like murder by taping her mouth then dumping her in the woods why would anyone do that?

Also in the period of time when her daughter was "missing" bearing in mid she knew she was dead even if she hadn't its still fucked up Casey got a Tattoo saying Beautiful life and she was partying for the entire time.

So based on that I think she's guilty as fuck that said the justice system is very fucked up it doesn't work not only do innocent people get put in jail, guilty ones get away with it.Nor does it act as a deterrent the number of re-offenders is ridiculous.

 

[Epona]

I actually read an article [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-accused-20110628,0,4711694,full.story] the other day about this man that was accused of attacking his ex wife.
He had physical proof that he could not have been anywhere near her house at the time, video evidence that he did not carry his bag full of misc items she claimed he used on her, and there was absolutely no physical evidence tying him (or anyone) to the crime "scene". The woman had beaten herself up, and called the police and blamed him, because she didn't want him to have custody of their son.
It took him years to finally prove he was innocent, because the wife was insisting the attack happened. But yet she still has custody of the son, is not being charged with slander, and he still has a mark on his record (and can be googled) as someone charged with assault/rape or whatever.
Sometimes, the justice system is messed up. But sometimes the media just won't accept that someone is innocent, and that pisses me off too. (I'm still on the fence of the Anthony case)

Ah well see the key word is bolded below:

the other day about this man that was accused of attacking his ex wife.

 

[Bags159]

Now, in another thread, I defended the verdict by saying that the prosecution screwed up, they didn't show enough evidence, and the jury decided that they couldn't even convict her on Murder 1 because there was no tangible evidence that she killed anybody. I don't like how a lot of people are calling for her head. OK, a lot of people are upset, but this isn't OJ here. She's a working class mother who got her head put into a moralistic society's vise.

That's not the point. The point is that I see articles like this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/07/06/2011-07-06_casey_anthony_verdict_a_clue_that_number_of_convictions_in_murder_cases_across_u.html

What the flying fuck, Daily News? I expected this kind of crappy article from the less serious Post. Just look at this quote to begin the article,

The case of Casey Anthony has shed new light on a fact cops don't like to advertise - more and more Americans are getting away with murder.

What I want to know is when the hell the media decided she was guilty after the trial which concluded she was innocent of murder. Where has the respect for our legal system gone? This trial should have proven to be a classic example of why we have this system in the first place - to protect the rights of people like Anthony who are accused on shoddy evidence. It would have been more criminal to give her the chair. Yet the media goes on acting like she's a guilty person who got away with it, and it's more disgusting than the jury acquitting her.

I don't know if we need to adopt measures to protect the rights of people like Anthony. I think the speech that the Daily News uses should be considered slander, especially after she was found to be innocent at a completely fair trial. But at the same time, this would interfere with the right to publish freely.

The media has such a large role in our lives today, and frankly, I think it's overstepping its boundaries quite a bit. Between this and the SkyNews issue of phone hacking (involving Brits in this conversation), is the media as a whole encroaching on the rights of the individuals they are reporting on?

Such is the way of trial by media; guilty until innocence lends better ratings. Gotta love the comments on Facebook about this case. People who were not there, did not know Casey, and probably were not very well informed about the case in general are decrying the verdict. If she did not get convicted of murder then there was not sufficient evidence.

That being said the entire case is still fishy but there was not enough evidence to lock her up and that is that.

 

[Tasachan]

I actually read an article [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-accused-20110628,0,4711694,full.story] the other day about this man that was accused of attacking his ex wife.
He had physical proof that he could not have been anywhere near her house at the time, video evidence that he did not carry his bag full of misc items she claimed he used on her, and there was absolutely no physical evidence tying him (or anyone) to the crime "scene". The woman had beaten herself up, and called the police and blamed him, because she didn't want him to have custody of their son.
It took him years to finally prove he was innocent, because the wife was insisting the attack happened. But yet she still has custody of the son, is not being charged with slander, and he still has a mark on his record (and can be googled) as someone charged with assault/rape or whatever.
Sometimes, the justice system is messed up. But sometimes the media just won't accept that someone is innocent, and that pisses me off too. (I'm still on the fence of the Anthony case)

Ah well see the key word is bolded below:

the other day about this man that was accused of attacking his ex wife.

That's pretty much it.
But I did get the ending wrong, very recently the father has been awarded custody. But it took years and lots of court appearances for it to happen.

But I'm pretty sure that if Casey's guardian was her father, and all of this happened, he would have been found guilty. Like. How do you even explain partying/travelling/lying about your child's whereabouts for over a month, unless you knew she was dead? C'mon.

 

[TiefBlau]

Now, in another thread, I defended the verdict by saying that the prosecution screwed up, they didn't show enough evidence, and the jury decided that they couldn't even convict her on Murder 1 because there was no tangible evidence that she killed anybody. I don't like how a lot of people are calling for her head. OK, a lot of people are upset, but this isn't OJ here. She's a working class mother who got her head put into a moralistic society's vise.

Oh awesome, I thought I was the only one who thought this way.

Everyone's blaming the jury and the legal system when it's clearly not their fault. The prosecution and the investigators failed to eliminate reasonable doubt, so this is the fate they have incurred.

 

[Craorach]

The media and many of its consumers believe it has the right to try people for crimes they have not been accused, tried or convicted off in a court of law.

Greater restraints need to be placed upon the reporting of criminal acts and trials. Nobody should be found innocent, or not guilty, by a court of law and still face trouble in the future because of the media coverage. Media sources should only be permitted to publish undeniable FACT and be required to remain neutral and passive about the entire case.

"The monstrous John Smith was today taken into custody for the murder of his wife and child today with a chainsaw and staple gun. This heinous crime took place on (X Date) when John (is accused) of walking into his family home and brutally set about his family for no reason what so ever. Neighbours claim that he always seemed abit dodgy and on edge, and his mother in law claims to have "never liked that boy!".... NONONO, BAD.

"Today a suspect was arrested in the murders of Joan and Freddie Smith who were found dead in their suburban home on X Date" .. Six months later ...."Today John Smith was convicted and jailed for the First Degree murder of his wife and child" Good.

The general public needs and deserves no more information.

 

[Dags90]

I'm sorry but while there isn't any hard evidence she did it the defence story is that they made an innocent accident look like murder by taping her mouth then dumping her in the woods why would anyone do that?

One theory set forth (perhaps by the defense) was that it was used to hold the decaying skull together. From a basic practical standpoint it makes sense, don't want the lower jaw to fall off in your trunk. It's pretty terrible to think of someone doing that, but it's a reasonable explanation from the standpoint of 'trying to hide evidence of an accidental death'.

Anyway, OT: I thought most homicides are plead out to lesser charges anyway. How many murderers plead to manslaughter instead?

I think the French media system of concealing the names of defendants until after the trial is the way to go. We do it to protect minors, adults should be offered the same protections if they want them. Didn't Nancy Grace drive one woman to suicide?

 

[Cazza]

That was the Chewbacca Defence at work in that case. Add as much shit to the case that shouldn't be there. confuse everyone = reasonable doubt.

Chewbacca Defence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

I think South Parks fictional legal strategy isn't fictional anymore.

 

[twistedmic]

Now, in another thread, I defended the verdict by saying that the prosecution screwed up, they didn't show enough evidence, and the jury decided that they couldn't even convict her on Murder 1 because there was no tangible evidence that she killed anybody. I don't like how a lot of people are calling for her head. OK, a lot of people are upset, but this isn't OJ here. She's a working class mother who got her head put into a moralistic society's vise.

And she's a liar, a thief and a felon. She was charged with thirteen felonies with stolen and fraudulent checks. Also, the state ME (medical examiner) concluded that Casey Anthony died due to homicide. The two year old little girl was murdered, no doubt about it.

I don't know if we need to adopt measures to protect the rights of people like Anthony. I think the speech that the Daily News uses should be considered slander, especially after she was found to be innocent at a completely fair trial. But at the same time, this would interfere with the right to publish freely.

Do you think that she should be charged with slander and defamation of character as well? She lied and claimed both her father and her brother sexually molested her, and that was declared false during the course of the trial.

As for the verdict itself, I've heard that the jury didn't review any of the evidence before making their ruling, that they took very few notes. It doesn't seem like they made a very well-informed decision.

 

[evilneko]

That article should definitely be in the Op/Ed section rather than the News section as it appears to be.

 

[Craorach]

I've heard that the jury didn't review any of the evidence before making their ruling, that they took very few notes. It doesn't seem like they made a very well-informed decision.

I've heard the sky is pink.

I've heard the world is flat.

I've heard that twistedmic is a witch, burn them!

 

[Echopunk]

I was initially upset with the verdict, but it was never about what actually happened, only what could be proven. Given the information they were provided, the jury probably made the correct choice, despite what Nancy Grace has to say about it. Actually, I'd been making a point to avoid all coverage of the trial, because just seems so ghoulish to have the entire nation prying into a little girl's tragic death.

A friend of mine couldn't help herself and had to bring me up to date about it, telling me how in one of the post trial interviews (or something), Casey Anthony talked about hoping to get pregnant or adopting a child. Yeah, sugar, you did a great job the first time, lets go for a sequel? No thanks.

Then again, she lives in Florida where DCF managed to lose Rilya Wilson, so I guess anything is possible.

 

[iNsAnEHAV0C]

What I want to know is when the hell the media decided she was guilty after the trial which concluded she was innocent of murder. Where has the respect for our legal system gone? This trial should have proven to be a classic example of why we have this system in the first place - to protect the rights of people like Anthony who are accused on shoddy evidence. It would have been more criminal to give her the chair. Yet the media goes on acting like she's a guilty person who got away with it, and it's more disgusting than the jury acquitting her.

I don't know if we need to adopt measures to protect the rights of people like Anthony. I think the speech that the Daily News uses should be considered slander, especially after she was found to be innocent at a completely fair trial. But at the same time, this would interfere with the right to publish freely.

The media has such a large role in our lives today, and frankly, I think it's overstepping its boundaries quite a bit. Between this and the SkyNews issue of phone hacking (involving Brits in this conversation), is the media as a whole encroaching on the rights of the individuals they are reporting on?

THANK YOU!!!
I've been trying to tell everyone this, but all they want to do is take her head. They refuse to believe that the evidence was very poor and just believe what the news media tells them to believe.

 

[Kyrian007]

What the flying fuck, Daily News? I expected this kind of crappy article from the less serious Post. Just look at this quote to begin the article,

The case of Casey Anthony has shed new light on a fact cops don't like to advertise - more and more Americans are getting away with murder.

What I want to know is when the hell the media decided she was guilty after the trial which concluded she was innocent of murder.

I love all the hate-on for the media these days. I love it when "people" like the op here read things into an article that simply aren't there just so he can go on a rant about the media. For everyone else, look at the article he upholds as "What the Fuck" and just read it. Don't draw conclusions based upon your own feelings of hatred toward the media but just simply read the words. Something interesting happens...

Never once is it stated IN ANY WAY that the verdict was wrong, not one single time.

The media can't help what some random idiot INFERS from what he reads. So here's the hated-on headline "Casey Anthony verdict a clue that number of convictions in murder cases across U.S. are dropping." Now is it the best headline? Not really. Not punchy enough and kind of ambiguous. But it likens 1 thing to another. Casey Anthony verdict and a decline of convictions in US murder cases. WAS THERE a murder conviction in the Casey Anthony case? No, so the comparison is apt. IS THERE a decline in murder convictions? The article presents some figures to back that up. Quoting from the article...

"Anthony's acquittal on Tuesday for the murder of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee stunned prosecutors and caused widespread outrage."

Is that untrue? No, it happened. Saying what actually happened isn't bias, its news coverage. Once again quoting from the article...

"It now means little Caylee is a member of the sad sorority of highly-publicized but still unsolved kid slayings that includes 6-year-old beauty pageant princess JonBenét Ramsey and Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who vanished while on a vacation in Portugal."

Was there an accusation in that? If you wanted to see one, maybe. You could INFER that if someone thought the Ramsey parents were guilty, the comparison might have an accusation to it. But if you are reading the WORDS WRITTEN, there is no accusation of anyone in that sentence. And there wasn't any anywhere else in the article. I just love it when someone runs a fairly worded informational news piece through their own perceptual filter, reads all sorts of things into it that simply aren't there, and then accuses the journalist (and usually the whole publication involved) of wrongdoing. Never once seeing that the conclusions they jumped to have NO BASIS in REALITY at all.

So thank you sir, for your anti-media biased rantings. In the future if it bothers you so much, you aren't being FORCED to watch. And to anyone who agreed without looking at the piece in question like I did, keep chugging that koolaid, your comet awaits.

 

[twistedmic]

I've heard that the jury didn't review any of the evidence before making their ruling, that they took very few notes. It doesn't seem like they made a very well-informed decision.

I've heard the sky is pink.

I've heard the world is flat.

I've heard that twistedmic is a witch, burn them!

I'll give you that one, I just have second hand information on the jurors reviewing evidence.
But that doesn't change the fact that Casey Anthony is now a convicted felon, a thief and a liar. Nor does it change the fact that her daughter was murdered.