With the controversy surrounding the trial of Casey Anthony, I thought I would make this topic.

 

Many of you have probably heard several cases of youth disappearances and murders in the media, especially in the last 10 years or so. Including the cases of Caylee Anthony, Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, Jennifer Ross, JonBenet Ramsey, Madeline McCann, and Natalie Holloway among others.

 

For the purposes of this topic, I will basically say that youth = 25 and younger.

 

So what are your thoughts? Do you feel strongly about any of these cases? Could you care less? Basically, this is a topic for discussion about these sort of cases. Whether you wish to discuss specifics of a certain case, or the media coverage of any (or all) of them.

 

In the case of Casey Anthony, I do feel that she is guilty. Her daughter was missing for a month, and not only did she not report it to the authorities, but she was out partying during the time period. Many people I know are discussing this particular case at the moment, and are unsatisfied with the outcome of her trial.

 

Though in fairness, I do sometimes wonder... Why do certain cases receive wide amounts of coverage, while others are virtually unheard about? Usually the one common link seems to be that the victim is female. I cannot recall many cases of missing/murdered young males that stay in the spotlight for nearly as long.

 

 

 

I've included a few links from several cases below, for convenience. Not all of them are up to date, though.

 

Caylee Anthony:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-07-17/news/missing17_1_caylee-marie-anthony-cindy-anthony-casey-anthony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#cite_note-6

http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/os-casey-anthony-verdict-20110704,0,5119994.story

 

Chandra Levy:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-25/justice/dc.levy.murder.trial_1_ingmar-guandique-chandra-levy-condit?_s=PM:CRIME

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy

 

Elizabeth Smart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/04/48hours/main539226.shtml

 

Jennifer Ross:

http://savannahnow.com/stories/122605/3517859.shtml

http://savannahnow.com/news/2009-11-10/murder-conviction-upheld-jennifer-ross-slaying

 

JonBenet Ramsey:

http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_13112748

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

 

Madeline McCann:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6627605.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

 

Natalee Holloway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4125492.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalee_Holloway

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312488,00.html

Young white girls are the juiciest news stories. Preferably wealthy, but not too much. Toss in a young man known for being a hooligan, boom you've covered a massive market in America.

 

I don't really have an opinion on abducting young white women, though. Bad.

No offense to OP, but: You're not on the jury, you're in no way related on the case, so your opinion technically is just biased from what you've seen in the news (same for all of us). You can't reasonably come to a conclusion solely on those facts.

No offense to OP, but: You're not on the jury, you're in no way related on the case, so your opinion technically is just biased from what you've seen in the news (same for all of us). You can't reasonably come to a conclusion solely on those facts.

 

Unless there is something they're hiding from us, we've been presented with the same evidence. We are just as likely to be biased because of our news sources as the jurors are to be biased because Casey is a white female. There's no way around bias when it comes to stuff like this, so I don't see why officials are an exception.

Only white females huh? Instead of focusing all of our energy and resources covering the court cases of these events why don't we all work on preventing these incidents from happening and finding the person before they're harmed?

I don't care to the point of becoming irritated at the sensationalism of the media. Worse stuff happens all the time to other children, and why some stories are more headlined than others beats me.

What killed this case was not the juries "incompetence," but rather the prosecution failing the accept a lower sentence for the material that they had at hand. The prosecution thought that they could get a murder conviction by portraying to the jury that Casey was a "bad mother" who "partied" during the 31 days that Caylee was missing - Something that every parent in the USA would see as "She's a terrible person! Kill Her!" When Baez was referencing to the "Salem Witch Hunt," he was referring directly to the prosecutors claims to spread hatred. Instead, the evidence was missing. Who killed Caylee? When did Caylee Die? How did Caylee Die? Why were no DNA prints at the scene related to Casey?

 

As the alternate juror said today, "Trials are much different in the kitchen than in the courtroom." All the jury members have to forget about her "bad behavior" and "lies" and look at the cold, hard evidence, which just wasn't there to prove that she 100% killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at all by this decision. Too many holes and too many questions.

What killed this case was not the juries "incompetence," but rather the prosecution failing the accept a lower sentence for the material that they had at hand.

 

Good point.

 

As the alternate juror said today, "Trials are much different in the kitchen than in the courtroom." All the jury members have to forget about her "bad behavior" and "lies" and look at the cold, hard evidence, which just wasn't there to prove that she 100% killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at all by this decision. Too many holes and too many questions.

 

I will just post what I said in the last thread:

 

Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt".

 

That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can.

As the alternate juror said today, "Trials are much different in the kitchen than in the courtroom." All the jury members have to forget about her "bad behavior" and "lies" and look at the cold, hard evidence, which just wasn't there to prove that she 100% killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at all by this decision. Too many holes and too many questions.

 

I will just post what I said in the last thread:

 

Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt".

 

That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can.

 

I would have to agree with you, although one uncertain thing can create a doubt which changes the scene from "yes, she's guilty" to "well, I think she's still guilty but that fact is confusing." As J. Chaney Mason referenced last week (LINK) the state needs to prove that all things match up - and that's why it's hard to get a conviction with 100% approval. I would believe that that hole plus your belief would be the main reason as to the length/results of most lengthy trials of this nature.

 

On a side note, I'm surprised by the amount of hatred towards the defense and little to no recognition that the prosecution lost this case.

No offense to OP, but: You're not on the jury, you're in no way related on the case, so your opinion technically is just biased from what you've seen in the news (same for all of us). You can't reasonably come to a conclusion solely on those facts.

 

Unless there is something they're hiding from us, we've been presented with the same evidence. We are just as likely to be biased because of our news sources as the jurors are to be biased because Casey is a white female. There's no way around bias when it comes to stuff like this, so I don't see why officials are an exception.

 

I meant that he was only presented with the facts of her being a bad mother, she's a terrible person, etc, and came to the conclusion that she must also be a murderer. Sorry if I phrased that awkwardly.

We, as people not in the jury, can't have opinions? Hell, jury or not, we can still hold opinions.

 

 

And yeah, (as Adrenal posted in the other thread) OJ is completely innocent if you want to follow that sort of thinking.

Personally I do feel for a lot of these cases, but then you get ones like Madeline and it just escalates WAY too much. Personally I reckon she's got to be dead by now anyway.

 

Bad things happen to children all the time, yes it's bad the media focus on just one or two but it's the media - what do you expect?

 

Also another high profile case here in the UK would be Baby P. As terrible as his ordeal was, the effects have blown way out of proportion and because of the media's persistent pursuing of this case there's been huge pressure on Social Services to reform.

 

As for Calyee... I do agree her mother was guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

 

 

 

Excuse the language, but really, [bleep] the media. Full of fail, except NPR.

I find it kind of upsetting that popular opinion is so sure that Casey Anthony is a murderer. No one seems to accept the fact that they weren't in the court room, and probably don't have 10% of the evidence that was presented there.

 

If we're going to jump to conclusions and make a verdict based on sensationalist news stories, why bother having a trial at all?

I don't know about the OP's story but:

Also another high profile case here in the UK would be Baby P. As terrible as his ordeal was, the effects have blown way out of proportion and because of the media's persistent pursuing of this case there's been huge pressure on Social Services to reform.

There's been huge pressure on Social Services anyway without the media circus that surrounds these cases. Simply put, there isn't enough money, there aren't enough social workers (because it's a crap job on low pay with very little perks dealing with people who don't tend to appreciate your business), and because of reforms made during the Thatcher government, they receive very little support from the NHS.

 

But yeah... it troubles me that the media has so much influence on public attitude and thus government policy, and by extension of that the day-to-day work of people who are paid to protect our children from abuse and neglect, and that the media in this country is dominated by one person living in the US whose subsidiary company is currently being alleged of phone hacking on the victims of terrorism. As character references go, it doesn't exactly scream out 'Let's save the children'.

I think that the mass media obsession with murders, kidnappings and rapes is a bit morbid and as such I don't approve.

 

True, all these events are tragic, but the media cynically select a handful and make big money by consistently putting a missing girl on their frontpage. They drum up sympathy for certain people but neglect a vast majority of victims because they cannot see any profit in the story.

 

And it's not like these stories do the public any good either. Anyone with one iota of common sense knows of the dangers of abduction, abuse etc. These sensationalist stories only serve to turn many people - mainly middle class people - from cautious into paranoid.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if the tabloids did it in isolation, because everyone knows to expect that sort of [cabbage] from The Sun, The Mirror etc. But the fact that it's spilled over into quality press and TV news is very worrying. Sensationalist reporting and drumming up of 'empathy' for these victims, underscored by incredibly cynical capitalism, seems to have become a fact of life.

What killed this case was not the juries "incompetence," but rather the prosecution failing the accept a lower sentence for the material that they had at hand.

 

Good point.

 

As the alternate juror said today, "Trials are much different in the kitchen than in the courtroom." All the jury members have to forget about her "bad behavior" and "lies" and look at the cold, hard evidence, which just wasn't there to prove that she 100% killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at all by this decision. Too many holes and too many questions.

 

I will just post what I said in the last thread:

 

Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt".

 

That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can.

If humans are inherently flawed, then the systems of government, laws, and courts humans create must also be inherently flawed.

 

To prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to provide direct evidence or enough circumstantial evidence that all other possible outcomes become so outlandish that the story told by the prosecution is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Direct evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect stab the victim with a knife. Circumstantial evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect walk into a house, heard screams, and saw the witness walk out with a bloody knife. Circumstantial evidence assumes the guilt and is therefore circular logic, rendering it useless on its own. Paired with direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be used to strengthen and even solidify the case. In the case of Casey Anthony, there was far too much circumstantial evidence to even come near convicting her of 1st degree murder.

 

Is this system foolproof? Is there 100% certainty in every case? Is there 100% certainty in any case? No, but the subjectivity lies in that jurors are not exposed to outside media nor do they have contact with persons outside of the courtoom and for good reason. They are the physical representation of the lady in robes; blindfolded and holding the scale. If one side is compelling enough to outweigh the other, then the applicable verdict must be given.

We, as people not in the jury, can't have opinions? Hell, jury or not, we can still hold opinions.

 

 

And yeah, (as Adrenal posted in the other thread) OJ is completely innocent if you want to follow that sort of thinking.

 

Yes I'd agree, from the evidence we've all seen, she should be guilty of negligence (was she even tried for this?) and lying to the police. But there was no proof presented by the media that she killed her daughter. Yes, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but if your opinion's based off of ethics and not evidence, it's hard to take you seriously.

As far as news organizations go, NPR at least presents the other side of the story and tries to keep their reporters and interviewers out of it.

And while NPR is definitely left wing biased, it is FAR less biased than some other sources (cough cough cough Faux Noos cough cough cough)

Fox News... as a European, I find it very hard when I watch Fox News to believe that anyone actually takes it seriously. It's like one long joke and continuous stream of very obvious lies, in order to demonise such awful concepts as progress whilst adovcating war and militarism with its silly terrorism hysteria.

 

It makes me sad to think of people actually believing it.

Fox News... as a European, I find it very hard when I watch Fox News to believe that anyone actually takes it seriously. It's like one long joke and continuous stream of very obvious lies, in order to demonise such awful concepts as progress whilst adovcating war and militarism with its silly terrorism hysteria.

 

It makes me sad to think of people actually believing it.

 

 

That's America for ya <_<

while the irresponsible parents are act in a horrible manner in regards to the spawn of their own flesh and blood, I find myself giving them no significant distaste, pity or hatred. While yes, they have a true disregard for human life, there are plenty of worse people out there. And if one child gone missing for a month disturbs you deeply, you need to step back and look at the big picture. The Earth has 7 Billion people and growing. People die every second of the day, of all ages. Every three seconds in Africa alone due to AIDS complications. That's one demograph of people with one specified reason. EVERY 3 SECONDS. Having one particular child having more media coverage doesn't make me care any more about it. People die all the time. Why am I supposed to care more about this one child that was neglected of care, over any of the millions of children suffering at any given moment of my life, awake or asleep?

 

I don't is my point. Just one more tragic death in a book of trillions. Oh well.

while the irresponsible parents are act in a horrible manner in regards to the spawn of their own flesh and blood, I find myself giving them no significant distaste, pity or hatred. While yes, they have a true disregard for human life, there are plenty of worse people out there. And if one child gone missing for a month disturbs you deeply, you need to step back and look at the big picture. The Earth has 7 Billion people and growing. People die every second of the day, of all ages. Every three seconds in Africa alone due to AIDS complications. That's one demograph of people with one specified reason. EVERY 3 SECONDS. Having one particular child having more media coverage doesn't make me care any more about it. People die all the time. Why am I supposed to care more about this one child that was neglected of care, over any of the millions of children suffering at any given moment of my life, awake or asleep?

 

I don't is my point. Just one more tragic death in a book of trillions. Oh well.

 

You are exactly right.

 

I'm not sure of who said it (not agreed upon by anyone) but

 

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

 

And the damn media doesn't help either.

What killed this case was not the juries "incompetence," but rather the prosecution failing the accept a lower sentence for the material that they had at hand.

 

Good point.

 

As the alternate juror said today, "Trials are much different in the kitchen than in the courtroom." All the jury members have to forget about her "bad behavior" and "lies" and look at the cold, hard evidence, which just wasn't there to prove that she 100% killed her daughter. I'm not surprised at all by this decision. Too many holes and too many questions.

 

I will just post what I said in the last thread:

 

Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt".

 

That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can.

If humans are inherently flawed, then the systems of government, laws, and courts humans create must also be inherently flawed.

 

Of course, but it's just foolish to go "Well it will never be perfect, so let's not even attempt to alleviate any mistakes." Remember Miranda Rights? A man confesses he is guilty of murder, but cannot be convicted simply due to the fact that he was arrested without being read his rights since it was a new thing at the time. There are too many loopholes screwing innocent people over and letting murderers walk free, as well as the media basically dictating what society needs to focus on.

 

To prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to provide direct evidence or enough circumstantial evidence that all other possible outcomes become so outlandish that the story told by the prosecution is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Direct evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect stab the victim with a knife. Circumstantial evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect walk into a house, heard screams, and saw the witness walk out with a bloody knife. Circumstantial evidence assumes the guilt and is therefore circular logic, rendering it useless on its own. Paired with direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be used to strengthen and even solidify the case. In the case of Casey Anthony, there was far too much circumstantial evidence to even come near convicting her of 1st degree murder.

 

Is this system foolproof? Is there 100% certainty in every case? Is there 100% certainty in any case? No, but the subjectivity lies in that jurors are not exposed to outside media nor do they have contact with persons outside of the courtoom and for good reason. They are the physical representation of the lady in robes; blindfolded and holding the scale. If one side is compelling enough to outweigh the other, then the applicable verdict must be given.

 

What does "outlandish" mean? What does "reasonable doubt" mean? No matter what the evidence points to, people will still have the ability to say "Well maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it!" The definition of terms like "realistic", "reasonable", and even "possible" really do differ from person to person, so I don't see the "Unbiased Lady Justice" thing to be such a great analogy of the jurors. They are just as likely to be flawed and biased as any other human being who forms opinions about the case. There just isn't any way around our inherent mortal flaws, whether you're an official or a couch potato.

 

That's what I think of our current system: I agree that it will never be perfect, but it sure as hell needs more work.