Guilt or innocence aside, what I find interesting is that the cops can lie with impunity throughout their investigation.
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
Casey Anthony not guilty
- Thread starter ouch
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure you just stated in writing what a lot of folks are thinking at this time.
OldSaw
The wife's investment
I did not get wrapped up in following this story, but a full jury made this decision. The little I let myself be exposed to showed that she clearly has issues.
The postman always rings twice. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
The postman always rings twice. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
....And TV. She could make a killing on the next season of Dexter.
Edit: beware of puns.
Last edited:
To reenforce what I said in an earlier post, I just heard a talking head on HLN say (sic) "Casey Anthony is guilty of killing her child." That is not proper journalism. That is biased reporting.
Last edited:
Don't worry, the "Nevada Equilibrium Effect" will set in soon. She'll publish her "If I did it" memoir, then burn through all that money. Then, she'll be convicted in a civil trail after her own family sues here on a number of charges, but she'll declare bankruptcy and they'll never see a dime. She'll be out of the spotlight for a while, then she'll be apprehended in Vegas for attempting to steal back items related to her trial from a guy who trades in criminal memorabilia. I bet she'll end up doing time in Nevada for that. Just watch--that's how it always plays out.
I agree. A reporter's opinion has no place in the news.
They may report on other peoples' opinions, not their own.
On a more serious note, as much as I hate TV talking heads, I don't really think this is a problem. As I understand it, the presumption of innocence is about the courts. So long as she gets a fair trial, people in the media are free to say whatever they want. Any time you turn on the TV, you ought to know that 99% of what you're getting is opinion/BS. The real problem with TV news--and the way that they latched onto this trial is part of it--is that it is just an endless repetition of poorly thought out, poorly produced images with commentary that appeals to the lowest common denominator. At best, it's just a vehicle for selling advertising. At worst, it's a barrage of garbage that fills up time that could be better spent doing something--anything--else and turns active thinkers into passive consumers. That's what I think this trial really exposes. To me, the fact of her innocence or guilt and the conduct of the trial are just incidental. That we have been bombarded with so much information about it--and allowed ourselves to be caught up in it-- is the real crime.
OldSaw
The wife's investment
One thing that I have always admired about you JP, is that you are never afraid to call a spade a spade and even go against popular opinion.
All a lynch mob needs to succeed is for a guy like you to stay home and say nothing.
This judgement shows both the beauty and the tragedy of the US judicial system...
Wife is an attorney and she called it 2 weeks ago. I hate to say she compared it OJ but its kind of true. Her legal mumbo jumbo with her peers makes no sense to me but it is clear that anyone today can get away with murder. They cant convict her twice of the same crime and she isn't going to start an investigation to the murder of her daughter since it was her in the first place? Casey wins- daughter loses- state of FLA loses millions of tax dollars for a senseless act of greed. What goes around comes around (OJ). She will get what is coming to her.
It's been 7 hours and I'm still disturbed by this verdict. I have a 2 1/2 year old little girl and my heart breaks just seeing the pictures of that little girl.
It's been a sad story from the very beginning. I don't follow these types of unfortunate events on TV. I don't watch CSI, legal dramas or police dramas either. The sad reality of life is that there will always be victims of one sort or another and all too often they seem to be children. This woman probably killed her little girl. BUT, even on the remote chance that she didn't, she was still her daughter's protector. In that, she is certainly guilty of epic failure. We live in the "United States of Entertainment", as Bernard Goldberg stated this evening. That's why we will have to endure the aftermath of this trial as well as the trial itself. I think it's a sad commentary on our culture. Also, I finish with this: I think this young women loves herself and her freedom to live an alternate life more than she loved her little girl and being her mother. It's a reflection of our growing culture of narcissism in my estimation.
Thanks for that. Shortly after I posted my previous message, I saw someone on CNN express pretty much what I said. And she did mention that she was hesitant to do so because she is also part of the press.
I was under the assumption that we were supposed to act like adults in this place. This statement was in poor taste and I consider it an attack. The fact that you are a moderator makes it even more disturbing as it appears you have a clear bias towards statements you don't agree with. For the sake of the community, I hope that all future posts by you are thought about. Considering that you were not in the courtroom, the only things you know are things that are public knowledge and media BS. If you think that those are reliable sources, more power to you. Others are entitled to their opinion without ridicule. Way to be a model B&Ber.
+1. My gut says she was guilty, but neither I nor anyone else outside that courtroom is any way more qualified than the jury, since we were not in that courtroom, were not in the deliberation room, and therefore could not have possibly experienced the presentation of both sides of the case in the same way the jury did. As much as we may hate the mother's personality, and her actions after the event occurred, in the end the prosecution did not appear to have enough physical evidence or testimony from witnesses to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder had even committed, let alone how the little girl died. This is no different that the hundreds of other tragic unsolved murders that occur each year here in America.
To me it seems to be an acerbic example of exactly what we were talking about.
If this poor woman is innocent as found by a jury of her peers, and has been smeared by Nancy Grace (who is a pinhead if ever I saw one) then how could her working as a baby sitter be considered an attack?
If it is an attack for someone to consider the offer of her as a potential baby sitter, then perhaps the whole "innocent as found by a jury of her peers" doesn't quite ring as true as some would have us believe.
It's just personal opinion, but nothing personal meant by it (or this post either for that matter).
Antique Hoosier
“Aircooled”
Reasonable doubt is a very powerful concept.
Juries don't determine innocence. They decide whether guilty as charged or not guilty as charged.
I have no idea if this lady was guilty because I don't think there was a trial, there was just a trial on TV. Which is basically a circus with people acting and playing for the camera.
I have no idea if this lady was guilty because I don't think there was a trial, there was just a trial on TV. Which is basically a circus with people acting and playing for the camera.
I need to be clearer, what could have been a trial ended up as a media circus, which is pretty much what always happens when the red light goes on.
We need to go back to public trials meaning that the public can attend if they can find a seat in the courtroom.
We need to go back to public trials meaning that the public can attend if they can find a seat in the courtroom.
- Status
