Casey Anthony Acquitted and Graceless

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Casey Anthony Acquitted and Graceless

It's all over the news everywhere, so there is no real gain in posting links. The jury found Casey Anthony innocent of everything except lying to the authorities.

I read this decision with a big sigh of relief. Since when does the media get to replace the American court system? Over the last three years, I have been watching in increased uneasiness as the media was lathering up a lynch mob using Anthony's dead daughter as its banner and cause.

Well now the media has egg all over its face.

One more nail in the coffin of mainstream media's credibility before the good part in all of us--the part that seeks objectivity, that seeks correct identification before evaluation.

I'm not saying whether Casey Anthony was guilty or not of actually killing her daughter. Frankly, she lied so much it's hard to say. What I am saying is that the USA government is not fit to presume she is guilty just because and stick a needle in her arm to kill her for it. Total objectivity during a trial is needed for that. And even minimal objectivity was lacking in the media.

One of the worst offenders was Nancy Grace. There are many others like her, but I will focus on her since she was one of the primary ringleaders.

This woman has been on a crusade to stir up a lynch mob ever since the beginning. Just like she was in trying to paint Michael Jackson as a pedophile. She doesn't like weird people. Casey Anthony didn't act like a typical mother when her child went missing. Michael Jackson didn't act like a typical adult. So in Grace's mind, this automatically made the first a murderer and the second a pedophile.

The bottom line with Ms. Grace is that she not only does not understand people who do not act according to her socially conservative prescripts, she wants them in jail or dead. And she was quite successful in getting others to go along with her.

I never thought I would find any internal resonance with Ayn Rand's notes on the child-killer, Hickman, and her admiration for him. But I am now able to see clearly what she did. She saw people getting lathered up into a lynch mob--not because Hickman was guilty or innocent, but because he was different than they were on a deep level and he flaunted it.

Nancy Grace vs. Michael Jackson and Nancy Grace vs. Casey Anthony are perfect examples of that same process. So I can say I have seen it, too.

This hits on a personal level. I am not a typical person--at least I don't think I am. I'm weird in some ways that normal people find uncomfortable. I'm not indifferent to the disappearance of anyone close to me and I don't sleep with children in my bed while I pretend I'm Peter Pan, but I do have some sides regarding several social issues (family, career, law, etc.) that have made me a target for nasty condemnation over the years from "normal people." I no longer try to flaunt this because I have seen where that usually leads and I have gotten sick and tired of the headaches busybodies cause.

I don't think I will ever have any serious run-in with the law in my future, but in our society, who knows? So should that happen, may the powers that be--and the USA court system--save me from falling into Grace.

Michael

[Selene]

Well said Michael:

I did not follow the trial, but there were:

1) no witnesses;

2) no DNA;

3) no cause of death; and

4) no chain of evidence from the child's body to the mother.

I did read the transcript of the summations to the jury and the defense summation was superior and it included what we in rhetoric call the "peg" for the jury to hang its hat/coat on.

The peg was "fantasy forensics!"

This is another case of a DA's office overcharging an accused in the expectation of a plea deal.

I was surprised that they were not even able to get the neglect to stick, but again, I did not follow the trial.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I did read the transcript of the summations to the jury and the defense summation was superior and it included what we in rhetoric call the "peg" for the jury to hang its hat/coat on.

The peg was "fantasy forensics!"

This is another case of a DA's office overcharging an accused in the expectation of a plea deal.

I was surprised that they were not even able to get the neglect to stick, but again, I did not follow the trial.

Adam

Ah, "If the grove don't fit you must acquit."

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Well said Michael:

I did not follow the trial, but there were:

1) no witnesses;

2) no DNA;

3) no cause of death; and

4) no chain of evidence from the child's body to the mother.

In short: no case. How did the Grand Jury ever indict the woman in the first place?

From the little I heard about the case it was an elaborate argumentum ad miscordiam.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Well said Michael:

I did not follow the trial, but there were:

1) no witnesses;

2) no DNA;

3) no cause of death; and

4) no chain of evidence from the child's body to the mother.

In short: no case. How did the Grand Jury ever indict the woman in the first place?

From the little I heard about the case it was an elaborate argumentum ad miscordiam.

Ba'al Chatzaf

this is an uninformed comment I know, but to an outsider the Grand Jury thing seems very cumbersome. Does it speed justice or retard it?

[Brant Gaede]

Well said Michael:

I did not follow the trial, but there were:

1) no witnesses;

2) no DNA;

3) no cause of death; and

4) no chain of evidence from the child's body to the mother.

In short: no case. How did the Grand Jury ever indict the woman in the first place?

From the little I heard about the case it was an elaborate argumentum ad miscordiam.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Murderer or not, her behavior was horrible.

--Brant

[sjw]

Why is the media throwing this case in our faces every day?

Shayne

[Selene]

In short: no case. How did the Grand Jury ever indict the woman in the first place?

Ba'al Chatzaf

She looked like a ham sandwich.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why is the media throwing this case in our faces every day?

Shayne,

This is where your blind spot is.

They do it because people resonate with it, as proved by their ratings. (They're also trying to leverage this to impose their influence on society, but that's another can of worms.)

The fact is, you don't resonate on that level.

Rand once said something about Hickman not having an organ of perception that could allow him to resonate with the outrage he was causing--or something to that effect. I know I don't have this "organ" with an emotion like envy. (In other words, I see others express it and act on it, but I can't find anything inside myself that resonates with it emotionally. I've tried, but I can't feel it.)

Is this a form of autism or something else? Hell if I know. I only know that because I have noticed this over the years, I don't condemn--not even the lynch mob--until I am quite sure of my identification. At least I try not to. And I make a point of correcting myself when I catch myself jumping the gun.

I think there's more to the "individual" thing than sits on the surface. Maybe something to do with the distribution of mirror neurons or something like that.

In some aspects, when compared to what the masses do, I'm one of the weird ones.

You are, too.

I am not trying to be offensive, or even flip, here, either. (Although it is kind of funny to say it that way.)

From what I observe, it's true.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

When the jury came back with a verdict so quickly, I felt confident that Casey would be found not guilty. There is no way any jury is going to convict an attractive young woman of first degree murder that quickly based on circumstantial evidence.

For some reason, I felt relieved when the 'not guilty' verdicts were read. I can't defend it, but that's how I felt. I was holding back tears.

If it had been a 25 year old man on trial, I am sure I could not have cared less.

The Casey Anthony case may well demonstrate that gender bias in our society cuts both ways.

[Selene]

If it had been a 25 year old man on trial, I am sure I could not have cared less.

The Casey Anthony case may well demonstrate that gender bias in our society cuts both ways.

How so?

[BaalChatzaf]

Murderer or not, her behavior was horrible.

--Brant

She was tried for capital murder, not lack of grace

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

You've run out of syrup of ipecac? You find you urgently need an emetic?

Zap to about 12 minutes in on the first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulO8rl7z5xQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aouje-qAlcY

I think we can all agree that the case wasn't as strong as the OJ case. I do strongly suspect she was responsible for the child's death. If we were in Salem in Cotton Mather's time, she'd have swung for sure.

[syrakusos]

On my PC, the homepage is set to CNN; on the Mac, it is Reuters. So, this case has been hard to miss. But I did not follow it. And I did not for several reasons.

I grew up in Cleveland. For me, the Sam Sheppard Case is iconic. In 1954, I was five. It was obviously a media circus, even to a child, and certainly to my family. I remember seeing the TV news when Dorothy Kilgallen arrived at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. I knew her from "What's My Line?" an evening quiz show in which celebrity panelists interview a guest. (Editor Bennett Cerf was also on the panel.) Kilgallen was a gossip writer whose beat was Broadway. Yet her arrival to cover the trial was treated as a news event in its own right.

Dr. Sheppard was tried in the Press, literally. Louis B. Seltzer, editor of the Cleveland Press, ran an editorial and news campaign calling for Sheppard's conviction.

The homicide occurred in Bay Village, a small town at least 12 miles from the Cleveland corporation limits, with two other towns - Lakewood and Rocky River - between them. Yet, it was the Cleveland Police not the Bay Village Police or the county sheriff who investigated. That was only one of many problems. Again, I grew with this until Sheppard's retrial and release in 1966.

So, I did not watch the OJ Simpson trials or the Menendez trials, and I did not follow Casey Anthony.

Most recently, I am on a discussion group for criminologists and some of them wanted to discuss the Anthony trial. I posted reasons against doing that, not the least of which is that all reports are by nature second hand, unless you are empaneled as a juror.

That said, journalism is called The Fourth Estate because it is seen as an extra-constitutional branch of government. Realize what that means, though. In our time, from the 20th century, with its totalitarian ideologies, we see The Government as a single entity. In an earlier time, separation of powers, and checks and balances, were better understood and engaged. The judiciaries (district, circuit, probate, appeals) were elected, but also appointed; the legislative houses were chosen by different processes; the branches have different tenures of office, on different calendars. The press is an independent institution to watch over the others. Of course abuses occur. How could they not? Thus, the press can be subject to libel suits, even if what they print is true.

The question remains: would you want to live under a system in which the press is barred from the courtroom? It has been done here. Judges have that power. What, then, is your safeguard, if you can be tried in secret, in front of a hand-picked audience, from which any supporters or independent viewers are forbidden?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the other side, if Ms. Anthony still has an appetite for partying, she will soon be able to drink her fill and have plenty left over.

I think this young woman is set to make so much money not even she will be able to spend it all for many years to come.

Since the media folks could not crucify her, they will now make her wealthy.

Go figure...

Michael

[Selene]

It can happen to anyone...

The Wrong Man is a 1956 film by Alfred Hitchcock which stars Henry Fonda and Vera Miles.^[1][2] The film is based on a true story of an innocent man charged for a crime he did not commit. The story was based on the book The True Story of Christopher Emmanuel Balestrero by Maxwell Anderson and the article "A Case of Identity" (Life magazine, June 29, 1953) by Herbert Brean.

It was one of the few Hitchcock films based on a true story, and unusually for Hitchcock, the facts of the story were not changed much.

The Wrong Man has had a significant influence on many directors^{[citation needed]}. The Wrong Man provoked the longest piece of criticism written by Jean-Luc Godard and was an influence on Taxi Driver.^[3]

[algernonsidney]

The two most popular things on television are:

1. reality television

2. lawyer/cop shows like Law and Order

This was a combination of both. So was OJ.So was Natalee Holloway, even though it never went to trial.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Chris Baker

[sjw]

‎"It is better to risk letting a guilty man go free, than to condemn an innocent one." -- Voltaire

[Selene]

‎"It is better to risk letting a guilty man go free, than to condemn an innocent one." -- Voltaire

I'll drink to that!

[BaalChatzaf]

Since the media folks could not crucify her, they will now make her wealthy.

Go figure...

Michael

She is a source of revenue to the paperazzi. What is there to figure?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[algernonsidney]

Perhaps this does make journalists look a bunch of idiots.

Still, nobody did as good a job as a little six-year-old boy from Colorado back in 2009. Falcon Heene will forever be my personal hero for this reason alone. We need more "balloon boys."

[Brant Gaede]

When the jury came back with a verdict so quickly, I felt confident that Casey would be found not guilty. There is no way any jury is going to convict an attractive young woman of first degree murder that quickly based on circumstantial evidence.

For some reason, I felt relieved when the 'not guilty' verdicts were read. I can't defend it, but that's how I felt. I was holding back tears.

If it had been a 25 year old man on trial, I am sure I could not have cared less.

The Casey Anthony case may well demonstrate that gender bias in our society cuts both ways.

Dennis, I have a hard time agreeing with any of this conjecture because that's all it is except how it's about you.

--Brant

[Xray]

When the jury came back with a verdict so quickly, I felt confident that Casey would be found not guilty. There is no way any jury is going to convict an attractive young woman of first degree murder that quickly based on circumstantial evidence.

For some reason, I felt relieved when the 'not guilty' verdicts were read. I can't defend it, but that's how I felt. I was holding back tears.

If it had been a 25 year old man on trial, I am sure I could not have cared less.

The Casey Anthony case may well demonstrate that gender bias in our society cuts both ways.

I have studied several criminal cases in detail (not this one though, which I've followed only marginally), and while I can understand (from a psychological standpoint) emotional reactions to verdicts (be they 'guilty' or 'not guilty') - nowhere does the statement "Emotions are no tools of cognition" apply more than in studying criminal cases.

It is the evidence alone which tells the truth about what happened.

It looks like the prosecution, given that the medical examiner was not able to determine how the child died, could not meet the burden of proving that this was a first-degree murder, and that the mother committed it.

Independent of the non-guilty verdict, the heap of outrageous lies Casey told the police raise a huge red flag though regarding her possible involvement in her daughter's disappearance. People always lie for a reason. Every liar wants to gain from presenting something as fact which he/she knows does not conform to reality, and it is to examine what that gain looks like.

Interesting that Casey's own lawyer Jose Baez tried to convince the jurors that the mother was in fact involved in a cover-up:

http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-acquitted-killing-young-daughter-191600480.html

Baez [Casey's laywer] conceded that his client had told elaborate lies and invented imaginary friends and even a fake father for Caylee, but he said that doesn't mean she killed her daughter.

"They throw enough against the wall and see what sticks," Baez said of prosecutors during closing arugments. "That is what they're doing ... right down to the cause of death."

He tried to convince jurors that the toddler accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool and that when Anthony panicked, her father, a former police officer, decided to make the death look like a murder by putting duct tape on the girl's mouth and dumping the body in woods about a quarter-mile away.

Now if a defense lawyer sees no alternative but to concede that his client was involved in a cover-up, i. e. that Casey Anthony knew what happended to her daughter and covered it up, one can infer that the prosecution must also have presented some quite incriminating forensic evidence implicating Casey in the disappearance of her daughter.

Her father firmly denied both the cover-up and abuse claims. The prosecution called those claims "absurd," saying that no one makes an accident look like a murder.

The statement "no one makes an accident look like a murder" is false. Of course people can cover up an accident as murder committed by "a stranger" if their goal is to direct LE's attention away from e. g. their own involvement in the accident, or from their guilt because the accident happened due to negligence on their part.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

This is a talk show host who is certain that she killed her daughter

He lists here the facts that are not in dispute.

[Xray]

This is a talk show host who is certain that she killed her daughter

He lists here the facts that are not in dispute.

Thanks for the link, Selene.

http://michaelgraham.com/archives/you-be-the-jury/

The trunk of Casey’s car had held a dead body at some point, according to forensic analysis. It also had a strand of hair taken (according to forensic analysis) from Caylee’s head after (again according to analysis) after she was dead. There was also evidence of the presence of chloroform.

The chloroform evidence does not fit Casey's story that the child had drowned in the pool.

Couple that with the internet search for chloroform and it rases a huge red flag:

http://michaelgraham.com/archives/you-be-the-jury/

Casey’s computer was repeatedly used to surf websites giving instructions on how to make chloroform.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Xray