Casey Anthony found Not Guilty

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The CSI Effect is a tendency by juries to hold out on conviction because they believe, thanks to the show CSI, that there always exists irrefutable evidence for any crime, and that a lack of extensive DNA evidence constitutes reasonable doubt.

 

[timtofly]

The CSI Effect is a tendency by juries to hold out on conviction because they believe, thanks to the show CSI, that there always exists irrefutable evidence for any crime, and that a lack of extensive DNA evidence constitutes reasonable doubt.

So factual media based on fiction and fictitous media based on fact have shaped the western world very well.

 

[Berzerker]

The kid was duct taped and the defense tried to get the jury to believe the kid drowned and Mom and Granddad buried the kid? What was the duct tape for? I hear the kid was buried near the grandfolks home, if thats true thats pretty damning too.

So now Florida is writing a new law that punishes parents who dont report a missing kid within 24 hours? Is that right? Wonderful, like a murderer is gonna care about that... I hope that doesn't apply to 18 year olds off at college, there's millions of "missing" kids right there

 

[Rashiminos]

Kidnap kid, place parents in 25-hour trap. Watch the news and smirk.

 

[JollyRoger]

The kid was duct taped and the defense tried to get the jury to believe the kid drowned and Mom and Granddad buried the kid? What was the duct tape for? I hear the kid was buried near the grandfolks home, if thats true thats pretty damning too.

So who killed the kid? One of the grandparents or the mother? It wasn't up to the defense to prove an accidental death, but is was up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony committed the crimes she was charged of.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont know what happened, I figure Mommy got drunk and the kid got herself killed and by the time Mommy sobered up she panicked - the state might go after her for neglect or some charge. I dont think the state showed her to be physically abusive but maybe in her drunken state she accidentally contributed to the kid's death. I'm not inclined to think she murdered the kid but the duct tape needs to be explained, and she aint talking.

 

[Junius]

So who killed the kid? One of the grandparents or the mother? It wasn't up to the defense to prove an accidental death, but is was up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony committed the crimes she was charged of.

Well if you buy the suicide note or testimony of George Anthony it is hard to believe he was involved in burying the body. The narrative i heard also says that Cindy Anthony who called 911 and confronted Casey about Caylee. Hard to believe either of them were involved. Certainly not on the defense to provide an explanation though the prosecution's theory seems by far the most plausible.

 

[JollyRoger]

Most plausible doesn't cut it, especially when Grandpa and Grandma got on the stand and made the jury skeptical of their ability to tell the truth.

 

[Junius]

Most plausible doesn't cut it, especially when Grandpa and Grandma got on the stand and made the jury skeptical of their ability to tell the truth.

Doesn't pass the legal test to convict. Just speaking as someone who half-followed the case, i have a hard time believing they were really involved with her death.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm sure Casey Anthony likely did it, it's just the prosecutors did not present proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was foolish to try it as a death penalty case as it caused several tactical errors that left the door open for acquittal on all the serious counts.

 

[Junius]

I'm sure Casey Anthony likely did it, it's just the prosecutors did not present proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was foolish to try it as a death penalty case as it caused several tactical errors that left the door open for acquittal on all the serious counts.

That all seems very true.

 

[Disgustipated]

The CSI Effect is a tendency by juries to hold out on conviction because they believe, thanks to the show CSI, that there always exists irrefutable evidence for any crime, and that a lack of extensive DNA evidence constitutes reasonable doubt.

Many of us have never seen a single complete episode of CSI. I can't believe it is that statistically significant. I have never seen the show myself.

 

[Evie]

CSI effect to me sounds like a way for certain media people and their supporters to account for the fact that the aforesaid media people and their supporters overplayed the value of circumstantial evidence to present what was actually a very difficult case to prove as an obvious and clear ironclad case.

Least that's the way it sounds to me.

 

[nonconformist]

CSI effect to me sounds like a way for certain media people and their supporters to account for the fact that the aforesaid media people and their supporters overplayed the value of circumstantial evidence to present what was actually a very difficult case to prove as an obvious and clear ironclad case.

Least that's the way it sounds to me.

Wehn I trained in Forensics, we were made very aware of the so-called "CSI" effect, and the prejudice it has in an arbitrarial legal system.

While many people here have a vague grasp of what it is, it's not quite accurate;
it describes both the unrealistic expectations of juries and lay people on forensic evidence (especially within a system where they think a Forensic Scientist will state in court "X person did Y", which Forensic Scientists are explicitly forbidden from doing), and they don't understand that practically all forensic evidence is circumstancial.

Even worse, it gives juries trhe stupid idea that *they* have a foudnation in Forensics,a nd are therefore qualified to interpet evidence in the jury room (a standard which, by some tremendous oversight, is upheld as legitimate in our systems.

Essentially, it means someone with >3 years of specialsied training is considered on the same level as some moron who saw a few episondes of some TV show, and says "well, presence of GSR on someone is pretty compelling evidence they're guilty".

It does our heads in, because it's essentially the same as someone thinkign they're a lawyer cos they watched Law and Order a couple time.

 

[Evie]

Ah, yes, the wonderful "All opinions are equal therefore I know better than the experts" take on life.

I still have a general feeling that a lot of people are pointing at CSI effect *in this specific case* because they need something to blame because highly circumstantial evidence was overplayed in a lot of media as a clear cut ironclad affair, when circumstantial evidence by its very nature cannot build an ironclad case and is highly vulnerable to alternate interpretations when it comes time to put together "evidence beyond reasonable doubt".

But I'm certainly not going to question someone who has every reason to know better than I do when you tell me it exists.

 

[nonconformist]

Ah, yes, the wonderful "All opinions are equal therefore I know better than the experts" take on life.

I still have a general feeling that a lot of people are pointing at CSI effect *in this specific case* because they need something to blame because highly circumstantial evidence was overplayed in a lot of media as a clear cut ironclad affair, when circumstantial evidence by its very nature cannot build an ironclad case and is highly vulnerable to alternate interpretations when it comes time to put together "evidence beyond reasonable doubt".

But I'm certainly not going to question someone who has every reason to know better than I do when you tell me it exists.

Oh, absolutely, I agree with you 100%, there's no way a convition in this case could be justified.

However, I take issue withyour disparagement of circumstancial evidence; (beleive me when I say this with all respect I can muster) but you say circumstancial evidence "cannot build an ironclad case", which is a common misconception by those outside the field; most evidence that is forensic is circumstancial; practically every piece of fingerprint of DNA evidence ever presented ahs been 100% circumstancial (not even bearing in mind DNA is less powerful evidence than fingerprinting!)

 

[Evie]

It can build a very solid case, for sure. But ironclad? Certainly not as ironclad as people tend to think of it as, and probably not ironclad in the sense of unassailable either.

Circumstantial evidence, by its very nature, must be interpreted to mean *something* legally. That makes it subject to alternate interpretations, and, therefore, not as ironclad as it seems to people (who just assume the obvious interpretation), and not unassailable either (though sometime very difficult to assail).

I'm not trying to portray circumstantial evidence as weak and useless. It is far from either.

 

[Holycannoli]

Oh, absolutely, I agree with you 100%, there's no way a convition in this case could be justified.

However, I take issue withyour disparagement of circumstancial evidence; (beleive me when I say this with all respect I can muster) but you say circumstancial evidence "cannot build an ironclad case", which is a common misconception by those outside the field; most evidence that is forensic is circumstancial; practically every piece of fingerprint of DNA evidence ever presented ahs been 100% circumstancial (not even bearing in mind DNA is less powerful evidence than fingerprinting!)

My problem is that there's quite a few innocent people who were nonetheless convicted. There's the occasional case of DNA evidence which wasn't available at the time exonerating one of them after years behind bars for a crime they didn't commit.

I would much rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person get convicted.

I like that circumstantial evidence is not enough for a jury these days. In my mind, without that hard proof it could very well be an innocent person the prosecution is trying to get convicted.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The kid was duct taped and the defense tried to get the jury to believe the kid drowned and Mom and Granddad buried the kid?

A piece of duct tape was found attached to the skull, not the skin which had apparently decomposed by the time the remains were found.

http://www.wesh.com/news/28282902/detail.html#ixzz1RknEITuN

A high profile medical examiner for Casey Anthony's defense suggested the duct tape on Caylee Anthony's skull was put there after her remains were discovered and were staged by unnamed investigators.

I don't know about the "staged by unnamed investigators" part, but I really don't see how her mom affixed it to her skull unless she removed the skin first. Why would she do that?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The story is back in the local news again. This time it's due to two dueling talk radio shock jocks embroiled in a heated profanity-laced fight over a Caylee Anthony youtube tribute video:

Caylee Anthony song unleashes tirade on radio airwaves

It started mostly as a way for Tampa radio jock Cledus T. Judd to vent on how little attention was focused on deceased 2-year-old Caylee Anthony after her mother's acquittal on murder charges.

But Judd has seen interest in the ballad he wrote, She's Going Places (Caylee's Song), become supercharged by passions over the Casey Anthony trial. It's spawned more than 700,000 hits on various YouTube videos, attention from R&B singer Brian McKnight and a profanity-laced fight Thursday between local radio guys Orlando Davis and Bubba the Love Sponge Clem.

"I never dreamed in a lifetime that it would cause this entire community of people who do what I do to start this gang war in a 5-mile radius," said Judd (real name: Barry Poole), a co-host on the morning show at WQYK-FM (99.5) who could barely contain his anger over Clem's attacks.

The local controversy erupted as gossip website TMZ reported Casey Anthony may be seeking up to $1.5 million for her first media interview.

Judd, for his part, hopes to raise one dollar more to keep the memory of Caylee Anthony's tragic death alive.

"This was done as a labor of love," Judd said of the tune, fashioned from a song he originally co-wrote with Rascal Flatts singer Gary Levox for the hit country band, which was never used. Levox contributed a few lines to the rewrite, which was sung as a ballad by studio vocalist Shane Hines.

"Bubba made the comment, 'How can you love (Caylee); you didn't even know her?' " Judd added. "But this song is just my way of standing in front of the courthouse steps and saying 'Don't forget about this girl.' "

But Clem, who has criticized the song on his show for WHPT-FM (the Bone 102.5), also took aim at the charity behind the website Thursday, insisting the National Association to Protect Children spends too much money on salaries.

Citing figures from the group's 2009 tax returns, Clem's producer Brent Hatley noted it spent about $319,000 on salaries and benefits on revenue of $489,031. But that category also includes "program service expenses" which could involve lobbying and advocacy. (The charity posted a note on its website saying it does not redistribute money, but lobbies for laws and law enforcement resources).

The conflict exploded over the airwaves Thursday, as Davis confronted Clem over a call that aired on both morning shows.

"You do everything for attention … you're a hack," Davis told Clem, unleashing a string of insults accusing the rival host of unfairly criticizing Judd.

"First of all, you're a liar," Clem retorted. "Play the song on your air and let your listeners decide how … cheesy it is."

Link to video.

it is getting more and more difficult to tell some of the locals from a South Park episode.