For someone who doesn’t really want to follow it, all you really need to add is the allegations that the grandfather was hiding her after the supposed pool accident, and that he tried to sexually abuse the defendant. (I think there were claims that he was the actual father of the child). These were given by the defense, but the father denies all of it.
To put it another way, the defense is claiming the father made it look like a murder to cover up for it being an accident.
Did I get it right? My only exposure is here in the threads I occasionally browse. OJ, this isn’t.
I’ve had minimal interest in the goings-on, except for bits like the testimony of Arpad Vass, Decomposition Expert. Now there’s a subspecialty.
So, what’s the betting on how long the jury stays out? My unofficial wager with Mrs. J. was 40 hours, but of course we’re dealing with tons of crap thrown at these people, who probably feel they have to agonizingly deliberate for days, pray, get extra meals courtesy of the county etc.
There are plenty of other stories of how a parent or parents killed their kid, yet the vast majority of them are not spoon fed to the public, ending up at best as a segment on Nightline or the like. Why in the world this one has garnered so much attention is beyond me.
Yes, I do know the basic elements of the case as presented. I made a point of finding out when I started hearing that religiously following the coverage was begining to dominate a number of viewers lives. But I still don’t get it. It’s simply does not strike me as that compelling.
Yesterday I ‘guided’ the news channels to see what was on. CNN’s Headline News channel - The Casey Anthony Trial. FOX News had the exact same title, The Casey Anthony Trial. Others too. They were still covering other stories but the entire fookin’ segement was named for some selfish, tawdry little party bitch. Really? Excruciating details of that is what some call “News” these days? Enough already.
My over/under is 3 days (i.e., I think they’ll come back between late Wednesday and mid-day or so on Thursday.
The argument the defense used was damn near impossible to understand. Basically the theory of defense was that the child died in an accident, and that Casey’s father, George, knew about it, helped ‘make the accident look like a murder’ - and, one assumes, helped dispose of the body. Theory of defense was also that Casey lied about it because ‘she had been sexually abused’. Which is fine, I suppose - except that the defense then proceeded to trash all and sundry - the father, mother, brother, meter reader that found the body, detectives, all manner of law enforcement agencies, everyone by Santa Clause. Implicated them in…well, I’m not quite sure - because remember, the defense already said that the they admitted the child a) died in the care of the mother, and b) the dad helped cover it up.
Problem with that, of course: the dad was an ex police detective. Is he really going to be so callous and stupid as to just throw the body in the woods just a few blocks away? And would he really include some items belonging to Caylee, from the house, for good measure? If he was trying to cover this up and make it go away he did a piss-poor job of it…
The story garnared attention because in the 31 days between the last time anyone saw the child alive and the mother finally admitted that she didn’t know where the child was (her first story was that she had been ‘kidnapped’ by an imaginary babysitter), Casey was spending all her time with her boyfriend, going shopping, entering hot body contests at bars, and getting a ‘bella vita’ tattoo on her shoulder. Also, the mother had already spent the previous two years lying to her parents about having a job (instead, she was hopping from boyfriend to boyfriend and stealing money from friends and family).
The whole story has made me want to run home and hug my kid even more often than usual…
Probably because it broke with such a hook. Nobody has seen your kid for a month, you keep making implausible excuses for this, until your mother calls the cops to report that there had been a body in the trunk of your car, at which point you claim that some random person had your kid for a month but it didn’t occur to you to try to remedy it.
I haven’t been looking very closely myself (mostly because it’s so damned horrible) but I understand why this case attracts more attention than other reports of infanticides. There’s just so much there that beggars belief. When the defendant is a casual and habitual liar (who digs in her heels with her tales to the point that she actually took investigators to her “job” at Universal Studios and wandered around aimlessly for a while before admitting, “Okay, actually, I haven’t worked here for years…”) and the theory presented by her defense seems just about as credible…It’s a friggin’ bonanza for the press, because it’s not the dry details typical of any other crime like this, it’s a non-stop over-the-top freak show.
…and I can see how people can get sucked into it. Last week I made the mistake of clicking through and looking at a series of personal photos of mom and the little girl - and if that was all I had seen they might easily persuade me that there is no way she killed that kid, because to all appearances she displays all the normal maternal pride and joy you’d expect from a young mother of such a sweet little girl. It really does make you want to know just what the hell happened.
What would really power to the top in ratings is a game show in the style of Family Feud (my working title is Celebrity Sociopaths).
Just think, for the Kiddie-Killing Mom Team, we could have Diane Downs, Andrea Yates and Susan Smith (I’ve left off Casey Anthony in deference to the unsettled nature of her case). They could compete against the Serial Killers Team (the Green River dude, BTK and Arthur Shawcross for starters) in guessing the answers to criminal case trivia questions. To limit squeamishness, part of the prize money would go to a victims’ fund.
I’ll be honest - I’ve only heard of the Casey Anthony trial in the last two weeks, and really only in the last few days. I follow news and so forth, but haven’t seen anything much about it. Not at all like the Natalie Holloway case, which seemed to be everywhere.
You could read article pro and con. Would that make you qualified to determine the truth? Hell just show it on TV and let the audience vote. We don’t need a jury when TV watchers believe they know as much as the jury members.
The best part is the prosecution really didn’t do much to paint her as a slut. That seems to mainly be Jose Baez’s opinion.
I got sucked into this case because until a year ago I lived in central FL my whole life, and I have a few personal ties to the case (my girlfriend knew Casey, my sister taught Tony Lazarro), and I’ve never really watched a trial before, so it was interesting to see how the whole process works. I was a little too young for the OJ trial.
But if it wasn’t for the personal connections, I’m sure I’d be annoyed as hell about all the coverage.
The entire trial has been televised and documented, including the parts that the jury didn’t get to sit for. Of course I wouldn’t feel comfortable casting a vote unless I had been in the courtroom the whole time and had access to the evidence, but if you really want to know the ins and outs of the case it’s all there.
Generally, I’d agree with that. However in this case, the trial was viewable live via the internet. Not only did the eJuror see all the jury saw (save a few intentionally blurred pictures), they saw all the good stuff that the jury wasn’t allowed to see. It makes me wonder how many jurors have acquitted someone and later seen the excluded evidence and thereafter mumbled a soft “If I’d only known that?”
That’s essentially what you get with a jury trial. The jury is also “watching” the trial on television. What special information do you divine the jury has that somebody intimately involved in the trial doesn’t have? Do they give evidence and information to the jury that they hide from everyone else? I think anyone, not just 12 people labeled “juror,” who has examined all the evidence in the case is as informed as the jury and as capable of rendering an opinion, which truly is what any verdict in this case will be. I’ve yet to see anyone in this thread contend that their opinion that Casey Anthony is guilty should count as legal fact the court should consider, or that their opinion has any influence on the jury trial.
That’s what I mean; when they’re in court, they have the same perspective as anyone else watching the trial. I wasn’t contending they were actually watching television. They have a greater duty obviously, but I’m unaware that their position grants them any information not available to the public.
Good thing I didn’t place any money on my bet for how long the jury would be out. Maybe their bullshit detectors were far more efficient than I realized.
This just in. She was found innocent of everything but providing false information to a police office (several counts). Not guilty of murder or manslaughter. She will be a free person soon enough.