Casey Anthony Trial

Women in particular are all fired up about this, and while I understand I think the right decision was made. There was just no evidence that directly tied her to the death of her daughter, it was all circumstantial at best. There's no doubt to me she had some sort of involvement, to what extent we'll probably never know.

I imagine there are many people are sitting in jail right now based on "circumstantial" evidence?

I think you had a couple of different elements that made this case unique. First of all, Caylee Anthony was reported missing 31 days after she was actually missing. So not only do you have a missing person's case, in this case a toddler, but now an apparent cover up as well.

Secondly, a major news network, HLN which is a spinoff of CNN, singlehanded embraced and publicized this case for nearly three years. Nancy Grace has been beating this Casey Anthony is guilty drum for a few years and wouldn't let it go. So once the trial started, the other media outlets had to join the ratings rat race, hence the obsession.

But allow me to play the race card for a second (I know I'm going to get some blow back and disagreement on this, but oh well). Had Caylee Anthony been Tyrone Jamaal Anthony or Miguel Felipe Anthony, this shit would have never been mentioned in the local media much less become a national obsession. While I'm not directly accusing the media of blatant racism, they do pick and choose which stories they deem important and worthy of coverage and airtime and more often than not, these missing person cases tend to favor caucasions.

I don't think you going to get much disagreement. Stories about young white middle class women disappearing, killing their kids or getting sexually abused by the family all get bigger play than if the story was about someone poor, male and/or of color.

As Schneed said, things like this happen all the time. Sad but true. In Baltimore alone, I can recall two or three cases of african american women being accused of killing their young child in the last year or so. In the media, that's one headline (maybe two) then moving on.

Women in particular are all fired up about this, and while I understand I think the right decision was made. There was just no evidence that directly tied her to the death of her daughter, it was all circumstantial at best. There's no doubt to me she had some sort of involvement, to what extent we'll probably never know.

In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.

I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.

I imagine there are many people are sitting in jail right now based on "circumstantial" evidence?

Of course, doesn't make it right, and juries certainly aren't perfect, but in this case I agree with the decision.

In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.

I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.

Well again, there wasn't any strong evidence that tied her directly to the crime, at least none that I've heard about.

People want to relate this to the OJ trial, but I think there was much stronger evidence against OJ than there was in this case.

I don't think you going to get much disagreement. Stories about young white middle class women disappearing, killing their kids or getting sexually abused by the family all get bigger play than if the story was about someone poor, male and/or of color.

As Schneed said, things like this happen all the time. Sad but true. In Baltimore alone, I can recall two or three cases of african american women being accused of killing their young child in the last year or so. In the media, that's one headline (maybe two) then moving on.

There are only so many stories that can be covered. Either you cover some, or you don't cover any. You can't cover them all. Middle class women in their mid 30s to mid 50s is a key demographic for local news and HLN. HLN's ratings have been through the roof with this trial. And it's a fortuitous coincidence that their rebranding in 2008 coincided with the first months of this story.

But as to the white vs. black question, I recall from my local news days participating in surveys focus groups to get a sense of what people like and didn't like and what they did and did not want to see in their local news coverage. One thing that had really stood out to me was the significantly high share of African Americans who did not want these stories covered when it came to their own race. Not in this way. The general response was "We know there are enough troubles in our community, you don't need to sensationalize it. If someone is missing or has been killed, tell the story only as far as it will help find the person or solve the case, or there's no need for us to watch your station." Still, some of our biggest stories during that period had to do with missing people (of multiple races)

Now I'm not saying that's why "white stories" are more extensively covered. I think it's simply a matter of the people these networks are primarily targeting tend to be riveted by these types of stories. I just thought it was interesting.

As for Ms. Anthony, if she's not guilty then who is she covering for? I mean from the start she was lying (with the whole fake nanny deal), so she must have known something?

I think you had a couple of different elements that made this case unique. First of all, Caylee Anthony was reported missing 31 days after she was actually missing. So not only do you have a missing person's case, in this case a toddler, but now an apparent cover up as well.

Secondly, a major news network, HLN which is a spinoff of CNN, singlehanded embraced and publicized this case for nearly three years. Nancy Grace has been beating this Casey Anthony is guilty drum for a few years and wouldn't let it go. So once the trial started, the other media outlets had to join the ratings rat race, hence the obsession.

But allow me to play the race card for a second (I know I'm going to get some blow back and disagreement on this, but oh well). Had Caylee Anthony been Tyrone Jamaal Anthony or Miguel Felipe Anthony, this shit would have never been mentioned in the local media much less become a national obsession. While I'm not directly accusing the media of blatant racism, they do pick and choose which stories they deem important and worthy of coverage and airtime and more often than not, these missing person cases tend to favor caucasions.

Yeah it is hard to ignore the fact that the only murder/kidnap/missing persons cases that get national attention like this are either truly noteworthy like a mom killing her five kids or cases involving young dead white girls (young being up through age 18). Every now and then a older white female gets attention but only if she was pregnant or pretty. 12th is 100% right.

In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.

I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.

The whole case was basically "that seems like she's guilty" or "that doesn't mae any sense." They didn't really have anything. They couldn't even really piece together a feasible timeline.

There are only so many stories that can be covered. Either you cover some, or you don't cover any. You can't cover them all. Middle class women in their mid 30s to mid 50s is a key demographic for local news and HLN. HLN's ratings have been through the roof with this trial. And it's a fortuitous coincidence that their rebranding in 2008 coincided with the first months of this story.

But as to the white vs. black question, I recall from my local news days participating in surveys focus groups to get a sense of what people like and didn't like and what they did and did not want to see in their local news coverage. One thing that had really stood out to me was the significantly high share of African Americans who did not want these stories covered when it came to their own race. Not in this way. The general response was "We know there are enough troubles in our community, you don't need to sensationalize it. If someone is missing or has been killed, tell the story only as far as it will help find the person or solve the case, or there's no need for us to watch your station." Still, some of our biggest stories during that period had to do with missing people (of multiple races)

Now I'm not saying that's why "white stories" are more extensively covered. I think it's simply a matter of the people these networks are primarily targeting tend to be riveted by these types of stories. I just thought it was interesting.

As for Ms. Anthony, if she's not guilty then who is she covering for? I mean from the start she was lying (with the whole fake nanny deal), so she must have known something?
That's an interesting perspective. No pun intended but the world and decisions are never black and white. I think what many perceive as racism in today's world is more about making business decisions.

That's an interesting perspective. No pun intended but the world and decisions are never black and white. I think what many perceive as racism in today's world is more about making business decisions.

Agree wholeheartedly. The media just appeals to the masses.

I just think the masses are morons.