Regarding the Anthony verdict in Florida: As I was not on the jury, I have no right, and an incomplete data set and will not second guess the verdict. To those who are inclined to sit in judgment, please remember that media reports are at best incomplete, and at worst, sensationalized or biased. I recommend that you watch the classic movie “The Twelve Angry Men”.
Here is a link to “the Twelve Angry Men”: http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html
There are many other entries if you search “The Twelve Angry Men”.
As John Adams is alleged to have so famously said, “Facts are stubbon things” during his representation of Captain Preston, after a number of Bostonians were shot in the so-called “Boston Massacre”. Captain Preston was found innocent of murder. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a VERY high standard.
that press coverage presents the same story as the facts that prosecutors and defense attorneys present to a jury.
Especially so when Nancy Grace is the person providing the coverage… she has made millions by helping the public forget that “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” is a key check on the power of government to take away a person’s freedom. People on this blog have complained that we need better civics education, but I’ll contend Nancy Grace’s nightly screeds actively undermine the civics education her viewers have had.
Such as when there’s no body to be found at all, or purely circumstantial evidence. “Beyond reasonable doubt” becomes a higher standard than usual, becomes in fact “beyond any possibility of doubt” when the defendant is rich, famous, or has attracted a particularly skilled group of lawyers. Personally I think the jury acquitted her because she was an attractive young white woman, and we are culturally conditioned to view that type as a victim rather than a perpetrator. Nancy Grace worked to disabuse us all of that prejudice, to mp avail in this case. Was the jury instructed to disregard the specious accusations cast at the other family members during the trial, I wonder?
may have had less information, not more than the general public. I think Casey did it. The circumstances overwhelming point to her guilt. The facts creating those circumstances were known to the jury and the public.
Unlike the public, the jury wasn’t able to deliberate on the facts until the defense lawyers presented their bizarre, baseless accusations that Casey was molested by her father and brother. I assume they were screened for their lack of previous knowledge about the case during voire dire.
I’m a true crime television junkie, but I’m generally skeptical of the way shows portray things. Details are omitted, others are emphasized, and every victim is idealized. Fact turned into fiction is always distorted. Regardless of the distortions, however, the facts were clear and not in dispute.
. . .on the night of the verdict, as she recalled her most painful memory. It was the night many years ago when she was prosecuting a case and she walked by an expensive restaurant where the defense lawyers were eating.
Nancy couldn’t afford to eat there.
She is a woman who will do or say literally anything for money.
It’s not on being right, or fair. It’s about getting viewers, and complicated ideas hurt vierwers’ heads. Better to tantrum. I wouldn’t be surprised to see her defending the pondscum over at News of the World if there was money to be had.