Not Guilty. Is the media at fault?

Dana - posted on 07/05/2011 ( 22 moms have responded )

11,264

35

495

By now most of us have heard that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her child. However she was found guilty of 4 various accounts of falsification or lying to police/ officials. So...



Do you feel the media is at fault or plays a part in her getting away with murder? She was not famous until the media got a hold of her. Then you've got Nancy Grace all over her for the past 3 yrs and let's be honest, Nancy Grace can be one annoying woman.



Do you think the constant media barrage make people "vote" for the "underdog"?



We do know that they were never able to legally tie her to the murder but, regardless of that, how do you feel about the media in this case and others. Do they sway the public (potential jurors) for good or bad?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

ME - posted on 07/06/2011

2,978

18

193

I don't know all the facts in this case, but I heard over and over from legal analysts that ALL of the evidence in this case was circumstantial...I heard Nancy Grace shouting and carrying on and demanding revenge (I hope she can't sleep at night, such a f-ing bitch)...Anyway, imo, when a case involves the death penalty, a jury is under a lot of pressure. We are guilty of crimes when the jury is certain beyond a reasonable doubt...I don't think that, without any damning evidence, they could be that certain in this case. I think that it's a good think that our government cannot convict people of crimes without evidence, and I would hope that most people would think that was a good thing too, even if an occasional case ends up being decided wrongly...Now...don't get me wrong; I don't like casey anthony; I think she's probably guilty...but I don't blame the jury for not wanting to send a (however slightly possibly innocent) woman to her death...I wouldn't want that responsibility...

Sara - posted on 07/05/2011

9,313

50

586

I was on a jury once for a case where a woman was accusing her boyfriend of assult for pulling her hair while they were having sex in the parking lot of a local store. I'm not kidding. Anyway, as big of a piece of shit this guy was, we didn't convict him because the case presented by the prosecution did not support what he was being accused of. That's how a jury works. It's not always cut and dry, or even justice served, but I do believe people get a fair trial in this system.

JuLeah - posted on 07/05/2011

3,133

38

694

Our court system, and I work in it, is not even based on 'fact' or 'truth' or 'what really happened'

Ever

The outcome of a trial is based on public opinion, charm of respective expert witnesses, charisma of the attorneys, cute or likeable factor of the person accused, bank account of the person accused ... many many factors are considered ..... 'Truth' is just not one of them

Jenn - posted on 07/05/2011

675

1

47

The prosecution went full throttle with murder 1 and death penalty...that requires the jury believe without a reasonable doubt that she murdered her child. Prosecution couldn't prove that and the defense took advantage by throwing every crazy scenario they could muster up on the wall to see if anything stuck. Apparently it worked. Now, I was shocked she was not found guilty of neglect...hello, she didnt report her child missing for 31 days! Bizarre case through and through. Media definitely had some effect on juror prejudice but obviously prosecution didn't do their job well. People have been convicted for less circumstantial evidence and doubt. Fault lays with the government and probably jury selection.

Sara - posted on 07/05/2011

9,313

50

586

Actually, as much as I disagree with the verdict, I think a case could be made that this is proof that our justice system works. I mean, this woman had been convicted in the court public opinion for years, and to be put on trial and judged by a jury of her peers and be found not guilty speaks to me that they did weigh what evidence they were presented with and came to that conclusion. Don't get me wrong, i'm shocked as hell, but you can't say this woman wasn't given a fair trial.

I'll be really interested to see what any jurors have to say if they are interviewed about how they reached this conclusion...

22 Comments

View replies by

April - posted on 07/06/2011

3,420

16

263

I think the media did affect the verdict to some extent and I think the defense used it to their advantage. Jose was always whining that the prosecution was trying to make people hate Casey. He was aware of the public's view and even made a poster driving home the point that the jury must push aside whatever feelings they have about her and only judge whether there was proof beyond reasonable doubt. Also, I think he even complained about character assassination or something along those lines. Basically, he knew that most people think Casey is a piece of $#@7 and didn't want that to affect the jury. Without the media, we wouldn't have known Casey or come to have such strong opinions about her.

Sara - posted on 07/06/2011

9,313

50

586

You know what I really think has more influence on jurors than the media? The idea that cases should be cut and dry like they see on TV on CSI or NCIS or something. That there is always going to be DNA evidence to support that someone is absolutely guilty. It doesn't always work that way, but in cases like this I think they don't see the evidence they expect to see.

Bernie - posted on 07/06/2011

135

17

7

I think a lot of systems are flawed. We had a case a few years ago about David Bain (google him), his whole family were wiped out in a shooting one morning on David's paper round. At his first trial he was found guilty (early in the '90's) then recently he had a re trial where he was found not guilty. Its a interesting trial to read about. His father was in a insestual relationship with his daughter and she was to come clean about it that weekend but the whole family exluding David was wiped out.
I have read this case with interest and have seen it on Oprah and Dr Phil. I thought she was guilty because of what I had seen in the media

JuLeah - posted on 07/05/2011

3,133

38

694

@ Sara ... true enough. I work with this population, so that is where my head goes

Rosie - posted on 07/05/2011

8,657

30

321

I served on a federal drug case once as a juror. I felt things were explained very well about how we do the being reasonable doubt part.

I will agree that the system is flawed, but at the same time we need those flaws to be there to protect eveyones rights. I don't think media had much to do with the outcome of this trial. If that were the case she'd be in jail for the rest of her life. They chose to follow the law as written and not convict her without direct evidence she killed her daughter. I'm convinced she did, but not according to the reasonable doubt that is needed for a federal case.

Dana - posted on 07/05/2011

11,264

35

495

JuLeah Willson - posted 39 minutes ago



"@ Sara .... very very common for victums of domestic violence to later take back what they told the police, later not want him charged. They even bail him out of jail.



Actually, when a woman takes it back like this, it is a good indication that the violence is a pattren of behavior and this case you are looking at is just what he was charged with, not all he did "









But, pulling her hair during sex in a store parking lot? lol She could have very well been pissed at him for messing up her hair. What the hell do we know...? We can't just jump to the conclusion that he's a abusive man and she's acting like a typical domestic abuse victim.

[deleted account]

I agree, JuLeah. Our justice systems are broken. I've seen it many times with my own eyes. There's nothing fair about it. I have to agree with JuLeah's account of what trial is really about.

That being said, I'm not familiar with this case so I can't say if the media played a part in that? It would seem odd that she was found not guilty if you're suggesting that the media had already convicted her.

JuLeah - posted on 07/05/2011

3,133

38

694

@ Sara .... very very common for victums of domestic violence to later take back what they told the police, later not want him charged. They even bail him out of jail.

Actually, when a woman takes it back like this, it is a good indication that the violence is a pattren of behavior and this case you are looking at is just what he was charged with, not all he did

Teresa - posted on 07/05/2011

522

34

35

I don't believe the media influenced the jurors. The prosecution didn't make it's case. I, for one, am glad that light was shined on this case. I do not think she was innocent BUT the evidence was not there to convict her and I am glad the jurors followed the letter of the law rather than their hearts. If she had been convicted, anyone suspected of a crime could be convicted.

Sara - posted on 07/05/2011

9,313

50

586

Well, she testified and didn't even want him charged, she said she "loved him" and didn't want him to go to jail. Apparently, she filed charges and later wanted to drop them but couldn't. She seemed happy with the verdict, actually.

JuLeah - posted on 07/05/2011

3,133

38

694

But Sara ... how did the woman in your case get a fair trial? He got a trial that worked in his favor, but you think he did it ... so how is that fair?

JuLeah - posted on 07/05/2011

3,133

38

694

Jenn … what do you know, actually know, about ballistics, or blood spatter patterns, or finger print identification, or DNA analyses?



Most of us know very little, and if we were experts, we would be cut from the jury at selection.



Attorneys don’t want experts making up their jury.

They want the jury to believe the expert they put on the stand.



Now, the job of the expert witness is to make understandable complex science for a jury of non science folks.



So, this expert witness will take the forensics ‘facts’ and break them down into understandable bits.



The expert witness has to not only be skilled and respected in her profession, but able to ‘relate to the jury’



Prosecutors have experts they use in trials just based on their ability to come off as believable, trustworthy, and understandable.



If the defense has any money, they will call their own expert witnesses who will take the same set of facts but present them with a different spin.



Who on the jury knows enough to say which expert witness is correct?



So, it comes down to … who is more believable.

And this is what a trial is ….



I was in court once listening to the mental health history of one of the players ... she had been diganosed by a doctor qualified to diganose ... but the judge had not ever heard of that label, called it 'hogwash' and tossed it out ... I've seen stuff like that happen many times ....



Yes, many within the system make effort to do what they think is right ... but the system is very broken

Jenn - posted on 07/05/2011

675

1

47

I don't think it is such a blanket statement that the truth never has anything to do with trial outcome. That would imply all jurors are complete idiots and shallow beyond reason. Definitely jury selection is a game between prosecution and defense but truth and facts can and do win court trials. There will always be those who have alterior motives and agendas but there are still those who seek truth and justice. I know many who fight for facts, truth and justice who prevail.

Jenn - posted on 07/05/2011

675

1

47

I don't think it is such a blanket statement that the truth never has anything to do with trial outcome. That would imply all jurors are complete idiots and shallow beyond reason. Definitely jury selection is a game between prosecution and defense but truth and facts can and do win court trials. There will always be those who have alterior motives and agendas but there are still those who seek truth and justice. I know many who fight for facts, truth and justice who prevail.

Tara - posted on 07/05/2011

2,567

14

114

Yes I do think the media can sway the public and in some cases the jurors themselves.
In can work in the reverse as well.
If a man is accused of sexually abusing a child 20 or so years ago and this man is just a schmo, maybe a relative of the child but no one in particular, just a guy, the case is low profile, no media involvement, no child's rights activists etc.
If however that man was this child's priest, teacher, camp counseller or other member of society, there would be more pressure put on the crown attorneys and the courts to come to conduct a more thorough and extensive trial, thereby increasing the chances of a guilty verdict.

However in this case there were no ties found to directly link her to the murder of her child. I disagree with the verdict, from what I have read it is hard not to believe that she indeed murdered her child. But I am not privy to all the facts and evidence.

Jackie - posted on 07/05/2011

1,415

44

72

I don't think the media had anything to do with the verdict. I have not spoken to or even heard of ONE person that thought she was innocent. Everyone I know id completely floored by the not guilty verdict. I AM COMPLETELY DUMBFOUNDED and cannot wrap my head around it.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms