|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2011 : 10:26:58
|
Caylee Anthony murder trial. It first came up on my radar today because the BBC did a story on it. The story they wrote is half about the case and half about the hype surrounding it. America seems to have a morbid fascination with these kind of events, they are like a reality TV show, a murder-mystery and a courtroom drama all rolled up into one.
After being shocked and appalled by the media circus, do any sceptics actually follow legal battles like this and weigh in? I don't know how much of the evidence and testimonies are made available to the public, but it would be interesting to see an analysis of the evidence and the application of critical thinking.
|
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2011 : 11:34:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
After being shocked and appalled by the media circus, do any sceptics actually follow legal battles like this and weigh in? I don't know how much of the evidence and testimonies are made available to the public, but it would be interesting to see an analysis of the evidence and the application of critical thinking.
|
This whole story is quite sensational to begin with. The media has been following it since last year when the child was finally noticed missing. It took months for her body to even be found because of the mis-direction and lies that the mother was giving. We've got all the ingredients for a movie here: An attractive young mother, an adorable little girl, and all kinds of lies and deceit.
It would be interesting to see a critical analysis of the evidence...It probably won't happen for many years...it will take someone writing a book about it for anything close to the truth to come out. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2011 : 11:50:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
An attractive young mother
|
??? I thought we were talking about the Casey Anthony trial.
Regardless of the jury's verdict, I know she was guilty because of her five-head. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2011 : 17:14:12 [Permalink]
|
Well I'm very surprised she was found innocent of all but misdemeanor. From the information I read it seems that AT WORST the child died due to her negligence and she proceeded to lie to the police in an attempt to cover it up. But I know the natural response is to want someone, anyone, to pay proportionally for the tragedy and if it is genuinely an accident we can be left feeling unsatisfied.
EDIT: How the hell could it be an accident when there was duct tape on her mouth?
I'm actually pissed off about this now.
|
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/05/2011 17:16:49 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2011 : 09:45:49 [Permalink]
|
I'm thinking or feeling very few people truly understand the real function of the (US) courts. Because of the courts purpose this decision completely conflicts with their their beliefs of justice and how the courts work. Simply put, the courts are not there to determine the truth or administer justice in general but to apply the LAW and administer punishment to violations of the law once it is decided a violation has occurred. The Jury did not base it's verdict on the information reported in the news media but what is presented to them only during trial. Only two attorneys determine what is presented and only with the permission of the Judge if the law permits it. The jury was supposed to take the presented 'facts' and determine if it shows her violating the specific laws she is being charged with violating. You seems to think she's guilty of way more than misdemeanors, me too. Our opinions are formed with information delivered through a media filter that the jury did not view the presented data through. For whatever she is guilty of, the prosecutor failed to have her held responsible for, either by the 'facts' he chose to present or not, how he did so and which violations of Law he had her tried for. This may not be over yet, for her. She was only found not guilty of specific charges. Who is to say there are not others that were not addressed at this trial.
Not directed to you specifically OFFC, I don't see how any theist should be to shocked and appalled. From what I understand those that believe in God believe that He is everywhere watching over all this and just like He intervened with a flood and in countless other times, when He wishes to can do so again. God may have intervened and has further plans. Shouldn't theist believe this is God's will seeing He has the final word and will make it all right in the end?
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
America seems to have a morbid fascination with these kind of events, they are like a reality TV show, a murder-mystery and a courtroom drama all rolled up into one.
|
Well reality TV shows are anything but reality.
I see this type of thinking all the time. The news or media does not speak for the Americans or any other audience in any way in general and should not be construed as being such.
Is it really true that "America seems to have a morbid fascination with these kind of events" or you impression.
I'm sure there are not as many as you seem to assume. The amount of time or coverage the media spends is not determined by public opinion and should not be used to justify the impression that it speaks for the audience's over all desire for more or their interests in the topic to any degree.
I remember how the coverage with OJ went on so much and for so long that the news started to run stories on how much there was and how sick the viewers were of it. While the same reporters kept reporting more about OJ. For anyone SICK of the OJ coverage, having the same reporters report stories about how many viewers were sick about it was the insult after the injury. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2011 : 10:26:27 [Permalink]
|
This may not be over yet, for her. She was only found not guilty of specific charges. Who is to say there are not others that were not addressed at this trial.
|
Well anyone can say, we know she was found innocent of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter charges. I guess they could try her for negligence. And maybe covering up the death is a conspiracy of some kind, although that may have been covered by the misdemeanor charges.
| Not directed to you specifically OFFC, I don't see how any theist should be to shocked and appalled. From what I understand those that believe in God believe that He is everywhere watching over all this and just like He intervened with a flood and in countless other times, when He wishes to will do so again. Don't theist believe this is God's will and He has the final word and will make it all right in the end? |
Well if you absolutely must turn everything into a religious debate, no, not all Christians believe God intervenes regularly in Earthly matters, and "making it all right in the end" is one thing, the fact she will be out of prison in a few years and back into society is a very immediate cause for concern for people who believe she is guilty, whether they are religious or not. I really find it odd that simple ideas like this require an explanation. Another example of a non-religious person completely lacking any kind of insight, and showing a complete inability to view the world from a different perspective. But that's not specifically directed at you of course.
I see this type of thinking all the time. The news or media does not speak for the Americans or any other audience in any way in general. Is it true that "America seems to have a morbid fascination with these kind of events"? I'm sure there are not as many as you seem to assume. The amount of time or coverage the media spends is not determined by public opinion and should not be used to justify the impression that it speaks for the audience's over all desire for more. |
Sorry but I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. The media caters to it's audience. It very much IS determined by public opinion. They have to get TV ratings and they need to sell newspapers. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2011 : 11:02:03 [Permalink]
|
The problem is that no evidence directly implicates her in the murder. The state couldn't make the case, they tried though, on the circumstantial evidence available.
I have a split mind on this trial. I think it sucks that she killed her child and is going to walk away free (and get paid, they kept her in prison for years and couldn't pin a felony on her, only a misdemeanor, so she will be compensated for that, she will win a civil lawsuit against the state for making her unemployable for life, and then there will be the book/movie/interview stuff).
Then there is the fact that the state had a shitty case. They couldn't convince a jury that she killed her child. If the state can't do that then there is doubt, and I am glad the jury was ruled by evidence rather than emotion. There is little doubt in anyone's mind here that she killed her child, and the media frenzy has been going on for a long time before the jury was chosen.
It is heartening to know that some people can still engage their rational minds in the face of overwhelming emotional manipulation. The expression and tone of every news person here talking about it on the evening news tells you in somber tones that she allegedly murdered her child.
So It sucks she got away with it, but it doesn't suck that the justice system worked how it is supposed to work.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2011 : 11:24:50 [Permalink]
|
This is what's in forefront for a jury during deliberation....
I didn't follow along much with this sensationalized case (along too, with the few hundred other murder cases in this country going on at the same time). I will be waiting for the book(s) to follow and see what went on in that courtroom. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2011 : 19:05:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Randy
This is what's in forefront for a jury during deliberation....
|
Amen. Sums it up. Keeps the state from imprisoning and executing at least some innocent people. If an occasional guilty one has to go free, well that sucks.
Many I know are appalled, which appalls me, which appalls them further. It's an appalling little circle.
I can't believe not reporting a child missing is not an offence. I thpught we lived in the nanny state. |
Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...) |
|
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2011 : 06:15:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I'm sure there are not as many as you seem to assume. The amount of time or coverage the media spends is not determined by public opinion and should not be used to justify the impression that it speaks for the audience's over all desire for more or their interests in the topic to any degree.
|
While I agree with most of that - especially in differentiating between Justice and law; I disagree on this point.
It speaks directly to the audience's desires. It drives advertising revenue which is what the news is about. If it wasn't we wouldn't have such a large section of most newscasts taken up by sports. |
Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...) |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2011 : 07:17:54 [Permalink]
|
It seems the prosecution may have overreached. They probably would have gotten her on felony child neglect leading to death. That's a serious charge with plenty of prison time. There was enough evidence for that but the prosecution opted for the death to be murder at Anthony's hands. Something they could only prove circumstantially, and they failed to do so.
Also, to OFFC, she was not found innocent. She was found not guilty which is a subtle but important difference. The verdict was based on the standard of evidence required for a guilty verdict, especially in a murder trial, which wasn't met. If you recall, when OJ received the same verdict, he was still pulled into civil court by the families of the deceased on a wrongful death suit. He lost. That jury, because the bar isn't set as high in a civil trial as it is in a criminal trial, found that OJ was responsible for the deaths of his wife and Ron Goldman. The jury, in finding for the plaintive essentially said that OJ did it.
Anthony can't be retried for murder of any kind in a felony murder case. Double jeopardy protects her from that. I'm not sure if they can go back and get her on the felony child neglect leading to death. I think it might be possible because there would be no attempt to tie her to an actual murder at her hands. But that's a grey area, and I'm not sure if it fly's as not being double jeopardy. Almost certainly, if the prosecution had gone for that one in the fist place, they'd have gotten her.
Anyhow, I agree with Dude. The jury considered what they were asked to consider because they could do no more than that.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2011 : 08:12:02 [Permalink]
|
I don't think they do that kil, the local news has had a bunch of lawyers on every day about this, they all say she gets to stay free. Might be relavent if she could potentially be charged with that, seems like the kind of thing they would mention.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2011 : 09:03:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I don't think they do that kil, the local news has had a bunch of lawyers on every day about this, they all say she gets to stay free. Might be relavent if she could potentially be charged with that, seems like the kind of thing they would mention.
|
You're probably right. I see it as a grey area, and certainly if she was brought up on those charges, the defense would pitch a bitch about double jeopardy. The key would be that it isn't a murder trial. But again, not being a lawyer, what the hell do I know? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2011 : 16:30:04 [Permalink]
|
There were a number of options for the jury to pick from, they could have convicted her on a number of lesser charges. Maybe there was something among those that makes a neglect charge be double jeopardy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2011 : 14:49:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Elmo the Clown
While I agree with most of that - especially in differentiating between Justice and law; I disagree on this point.
It speaks directly to the audience's desires. It drives advertising revenue which is what the news is about. If it wasn't we wouldn't have such a large section of most newscasts taken up by sports.
|
OK Elmo I should have been more specific. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm not saying that the media programmers don't watch ratings and adjust their overall programing, over time, to serve viewers likes. We know believe they do. I think anyone is being naive if they think that ratings are their ONLY consideration because I believe it is only one of the factors I could imagine they consider. Also I don't buy that if 10% or 3 million which would be a lot of viewers, of the total population is "morbidly obsessed", as it was put with this kind of case, that that in itself speaks for the American population as a whole or that anyone should think Americans are that way in whole or as a large group. Just because the cable news' talking heads clamp onto an issue for a few days, it does not show that the population is obsessed. It doesn't matter what their having a case of diarrhea over at any given time. The news media is constantly blowing God knows what way the hell out of proportion all the stinking time. This Caylee Anthony case is just another greasy zit on the media's ugly face and should not even be considered as indicating anything about America's people. That is just bullshit to do so and has no basis. Not even if the justification is believed correct because the media does polls and is supposedly ratings driven. I will always refuse to accept over generalizations of any group just because it happens to be momentarily illuminated by media exploitation for higher ratings or their political and corporate agenda's. I have no doubt that the best interests of the population as a whole are very low on the priority list of all media. That their political leanings and international corporate clients that shovel money in their face will always preempt the interest off me and you. We are treated as their slaves, not the served.
Putting this case aside for one second. A large audience for one episode of 'America's Got Talent' would be something like 12.5 million by a quick Google search and with a population of 3+ million that's something like 4 percent. I would not, as with this case, conclude that America is obsessed with 'AGT' or the Caylee case. I don't agree with you Elmo, OFFC or anyone else who takes any media craziness where they turn any issue viral as proof that Americans are obsessed about what ever it might be, based on that criteria. I just calling how a see it after others called it differently. That's what this forum is all about. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 07/11/2011 14:56:05 |
|
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2011 : 19:26:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Elmo the Clown
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I'm sure there are not as many as you seem to assume. The amount of time or coverage the media spends is not determined by public opinion and should not be used to justify the impression that it speaks for the audience's over all desire for more or their interests in the topic to any degree.
|
While I agree with most of that - especially in differentiating between Justice and law; I disagree on this point.
It speaks directly to the audience's desires. It drives advertising revenue which is what the news is about. If it wasn't we wouldn't have such a large section of most newscasts taken up by sports.
|
Strike-out added in quote.... Bad quoting on my part. wasn't trying to make assumptions on percentage of population obsessed, just pointing out that the media makes money by creating obsession, and that folks are willing to buy into it. We all like a good story.... I never agreed to the "morbidly obsessed" description.
The amount of time spent on an issue is at times directly related to what the consumer wants, other times directed by whatever "message" they want to get out. Sometimes they are just slinging to see what sticks. With Caylee, they hooked enough folks to get record ratings.
I do like your description of the media. I'd like to add "and the idiots it hooks". Here is a case where their was no direct evidence and people want blood. Meanwhile, people continue to be incarcerated on even flimsier evidence, and they could give a crap less.
|
Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How do people in the US feel about the…
