What's new

Casey Anthony thread: for those who didn't get to participate in the original thread

$nancygrace.jpg
pencil.png
 
I came across a conference on C-SPAN with a panel of federal judges. To paraphrase, if we think TV cameras in the courtroom are serving an educational purpose, we had better think again. This #!@* is even cheaper to produce than reality TV and more profitable. I guess only public revulsion can fix this but I'm not holding my breath. I hope we can learn from Britain's troubles with the unholy alliance of media and politicians. Press competition used to limit some of this but is dwindling quickly. The courts and the airways belong to us, we need to take them back.
 
I'm not watching any more, and was never able to watch extensively, but I did pass by while channel surfing and they're still going ballistic over this. There's a countdown until Casey's release from jail and Justice for Caylee flashing on the screen and footage of protesters. I remember them discussing juror training in the future, and someone suggested that the material was over their heads so they didn't dig into it, they didn't ask to see any exhibits, and just blew it off and went home. Sheesh!
 
It's very sad to me folks in this country care more about a trial then they do about the situation this country is in right now.
This. I am also saddened by all the "The system worked" crowd. Yes, it did, if you believe in the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. A three year old child died and the person responsible walked away scot free. I've heard all the arguments about botched prosecution, etc., but when we as a society do not see this as a failure of the system, we are on our way down.
 
This. I am also saddened by all the "The system worked" crowd. Yes, it did, if you believe in the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. A three year old child died and the person responsible walked away scot free. I've heard all the arguments about botched prosecution, etc., but when we as a society do not see this as a failure of the system, we are on our way down.

I agree. Let's just lynch her & call it done.
 
The fact of the matter is the prosecution failed to prove casey killed her child. The defense introduced enough reasonable doubt to the jurors.
 
Just going by the wikipedia page, there was no direct evidence to prove her guilt (of murder), and the circumstantial evidence was weak and only pointed to possible explanations, not likely ones.
The quotes from the jurors says it all. E.g. "I just swear to God ... I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do ... But it wasn't there." They were biased against her by their personal feelings - and maybe by the "common sense" that the prosecution urged them to use - but couldn't in good conscience find her guilty. They did their job well.

If you want another case of someone who was "obviously guilty" being found innocent, read up about Colin Stagg who was accused of murdering Rachel Nickell. The police went to bizarre lengths to trick him into confessing, and he was constantly being named by the media as the suspect in the case. The true killer was convicted years later.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Let's just lynch her & call it done.
Let more and more of these type cases go by and you might see people taking the law into their own hands. I agree that the prosecutors botched the case. The jury admitted it, too, and legally they voted the way they were supposed to. True justice was not done in this case, no matter who screwed up.
 
This. I am also saddened by all the "The system worked" crowd. Yes, it did, if you believe in the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. A three year old child died and the person responsible walked away scot free. I've heard all the arguments about botched prosecution, etc., but when we as a society do not see this as a failure of the system, we are on our way down.

It may be a failure of the system, but I'd rather follow the system than have this happen every time we get a verdict that we don't believe in. The photos below are after the Rodney King verdict in 1992:

$riotfire.jpg

$king.jpg

$Denny.jpg
 
It may be a failure of the system, but I'd rather follow the system than have this happen every time we get a verdict that we don't believe in. The photos below are after the Rodney King verdict in 1992:

View attachment 181787

View attachment 181785

View attachment 181786
Which is exactly why we should be more demanding of our legal system. Instead of celebrating that the system "worked", we should be holding those we have put in power to serve justice accountable. The system is becoming too much of a system for lawyers and judges to make money and a name for themselves rather than what it was originally intended to do.
 

luvmysuper

My elbows leak
Staff member
Which is exactly why we should be more demanding of our legal system. Instead of celebrating that the system "worked", we should be holding those we have put in power to serve justice accountable. The system is becoming too much of a system for lawyers and judges to make money and a name for themselves rather than what it was originally intended to do.

Hold them accountable how?

By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.

That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.

As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.

No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.

Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?

My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.

If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.

Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.

It's a noble, and worthy philosophy, and it's good enough for me.
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
I had spent considerable time writing a thoughtful post about this, then hit Reply, then bloop! Thread Closed. This is my first major criticism of this forum. Delete the offending posts, not the thread.

I was going to say that I thought the Headline News Network (HLN) coverage was the worst part of it because it was like a pep rally, with overt bias toward opinions they thought were popular. It was an unprofessional free for all, with the one interrupting and yelling the loudest getting his/her say in.

At what point did the media quit reporting and started telling us what to think?

I had spent considerable time writing a thoughtful post about this, and then bloop ...

Hold them accountable how?

By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.

That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.

As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.

No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.

Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?

My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.

If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.

Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.

It's a noble, and worthy philosophy, and it's good enough for me.

... Phil posts. +12, Phil, one for each man on the jury. :wink2:

Bias, sensationalism and propaganda in the media has been, historically, the rule rather than the exception. Thoghtfull, independent and well-reasoned reporting striving to minimise personal bias occasionally has it's moment in the sun, but the lowest common denominators take care of that soon enough. :sad:
 

garyg

B&B membership has its percs
Hold them accountable how?

By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.

That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.

As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.

No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.

Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?

My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.

If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.

Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.

It's a noble, and worthy philosophy, and it's good enough for me.

Plus a couple more, well said, too bad that our country has degenerated to the Grace level, but thanks that it is allowed to do so.
 
Then you may want to avoid reading the latest in the Roger Clemens case. Your head may explode.
My head already exploded on the Roger Clemens case. First, WTH, with all the problems this country is facing, is Congress doing worrying about MLB? Second, does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? Arguably the biggest group of liars in the nation are going to prosecute someone else for lying to them, especially when many of them have been caught in lies during their tenures with no repercussions whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Hold them accountable how?

By them losing their jobs, or at the minimum splitting this team up and not letting them have any cases of any importance. Like many other public servants, if they performed like they do when they are being paid by taxpayers in the private sector, they would quickly be out of work. Many of us who have owned businesses or supervised employees in the private sector wouldn't tolerate incompetence like what has been shown by the prosecutors in this case.

By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.

That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.

I'm not concerned about getting the outcome I wanted in this case. Like I said earlier, personally, I put more importance on the fact that a child died with no repercussions while many are yukking it up and celebrating that the system "worked". Again, I am not concerned with what outcome I want as much as I am seeing a competent and well planned defense or prosecution, especially in cases where a death is involved. I also believe that cases of falsification of evidence should be handled swiftly and decisively. The Duke LaCrosse Rape trial, being one such example.

As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.

No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.

Show me where I advocated vigilantism. This keeps being thrown at me like I have wanted her lynched and that is not the case. What I did say is that if enough botched and grossly mismanaged trials are held in the future, people may start taking the law into their own hands if they feel like the system is failing them. I would much rather see investigators, lawyers, judges, etc. step up their game to keep this from happening.

Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?

The system itself may not be broken, but the people working the system aren't always living up to the job they took on. I'm not sure that some states require cameras in the courtroom, but if they do, that should be looked at in future trials. The OJ Simpson trial is one that really comes to mind. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers all of a sudden appear to be more concerned with their 15 minutes than the execution of justice. They were not hired to be TV stars, but some of them surely act that way.
How would I have gotten a conviction? I surely wouldn't have went after her for 1st degree murder, for one. There were also numerous mistakes committed by the investigators as well. Lots of botched opportunities were missed in this case.

My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.

If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.

Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.

I am no fan of kangaroo courts myself. That said, there are two sides of the coin in the justice system, but only one side seems to be celebrated anymore. There have been numerous cases where criminals have been set free due to clerical errors or some glitch in the system that didn't really impede the suspect's right to a fair trial. Cases like that are victories for the defense lawyers and criminals only. I'm sure that victims of criminals released in that manner may not be quite as prone to celebration of the system "working".
..
 
Last edited:

luvmysuper

My elbows leak
Staff member
Well, I can appreciate that you feel strongly about the issue.
The truth of the matter is, that the system does indeed work. Not perfectly, but any attempt by we few here to make a better system is armchair histrionics.
It didn't work here to the satisfaction of some, and not much can be done about that now.
Vote for the people who you think will do a good job, and vote for people who you think will appoint people who will do a good job.
I'll wager you that there are a lot more cases like this that people are NOT up in arms about, and I'll wager they happen every day in every state of the union.
We know about this one due to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the likes of Nancy Grace, even after it's over, as if she didn't get her ounce of blood.
 
Top Bottom