Casey Anthony found not guilty on murder charges
By Kelly BourdetJuly 6th, 2011, 10:39 amComments (27)
Here at Hooksexup, we've avoided the sensationalism of the Casey Anthony made-for-television courtroom circus. But it seems like something needs to be said at the conclusion of the media spectacle that the legal case became. Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her two-year-old child Caylee; she was acquitted by a jury of her peers — not by Nancy Grace, People magazine, or popular opinion.
The case, much like the O.J. Simpson trial of the '90s, reveals our fascination with the macabre and with courtroom proceedings. It also reveals how much more engaged our culture gets when some or all of the players in a murder/kidnapping are stereotypically attractive. Also, the cases that become national obsessions, like the Simpson and Anthony trials, are often ones where a mountain of evidence seems to assure conviction, but which ultimately deny the devotees the satisfaction of a guilty verdict.
Maybe it is easier to focus in on one terrible situation and give it twenty-four-hour television coverage; especially if, as in this case, the missing child was cute. This is what happens when our television dramas are filled with gruesome murders and disturbing sexual abuse. We've created such a high threshold for shock — we need murder, molestation, drugs, sex, and sociopaths to feel entertained — that the media reacts with glee when a real-life case comes along that's as scintillating as an episode of Law and Order: SVU.
Commentarium (27 Comments)
How about the hundreds of other cases involving non-white females that garner no media attention?
Yeah, that was kind of the point of the article...
Can you provide a list of even 100 such cases?
https://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PubCaseSearchServlet
406 Black kids alone during my search.
You mad bro?
406 black kids whose mother didn't report them missing for a month while she was out partying?
And, no, not angry at all. Why do you ask?
I totally forgot that this case has greater importance and circumstance over others. Let me tell the guardians of those 406 kids that their case just isn't interesting enough.
Ok, but you should probably also explain that they're totally different.
It's all panem et circenses - although the panem may not last if this is the crap that consumes peoples' interest at the same time there's a monumental struggle over taxation and entitlement spending going on.
Not guilty verdict does not mean, did not murder toddler. I've sat on a murder jury case. Proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt is a bitch. Having clueless jurors is even more of one.
don't you mean cute and white...no one cares about 'ethnic' babies unless celebrities are adopting them.
I do.
One difference between this case and Simpson's: The OJ case attracted media attention around the world, whereas as an outsider, I have never heard of Casey Anthony before.
And you're better off for it!
Me neither, before today, when the news was talking about it like it was O.J. Simpson part deux.
Another giant difference: Casey Anthony is not, as far as I can tell, a celebrity outside of her celebrity-murderer status. She's also not, as far as I can tell, wealthy or powerful. So it's even more ridiculous that her case has reached such peaks. I'd compare it more to Scott Peterson (not sure if I'm getting the name right) that killed his wife a while back.
Not a celebrity yet. She is being approached with million dollar book and movie deals.
It is relieving that she was found not guilty and that she beat the sexist circus that surrounded her case. I was so disgusted by the blatant sexism displayed during the trial of this innocent woman. The verdict helps us as a society to step in the right direction of equal rights and helps us end misogyny. We are slowly moving away from a male dominated society and this is clear evidence of it.
"Innocent?" Possibly but the trial did not determine that.
Misogyny after a mother fails to report her daughter missing for a month? No, I'm pretty sure that's justifiable outrage.
Her decision when to report something is a personal decision and is not criminal as shown by the jury. Women have a right to make decisions on their own now and no matter how men try to twist this, she is innocent. Ugh.
No, you do not have the right to decide when to report a missing infant missing. I find this to be a reasonable convention when it applies to a child which has been born - i.e. an individual human with rights. The trial did not determine innocence - *no trial ever does.* Trial either determines "guilty" or "not guilty." This trial determined that the jury was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty based on the case presented. She was also found guilty of several counts of lying to the police - i.e. the court did NOT find her /not guilty/ when it came to how and when she chose to report her child missing.
But I can KIND OF see what you're saying. The media presentation was VERY sexist because of the social narrative surrounding women-mothers, young/single mothers, conventionally attractive women, and "MILFs", and that had a very high potential to affect the trial. As a matter of fact, the jury may have been swayed by her conventionally attractive looks as a young woman - in which case finding her not guilty was an equally sexist conclusion.
I agree completely. Most likely the mother simply decided to have an abortion. The child was two but that's a personal decision for the mother to make. She shouldn't be penalized because she couldn't make up her mind until she did.
The most ridiculous part of the media coverage is that 99% of the outraged concern seems to come from mothers desperate to prove that they would NEVER kill their children. Is that really something we're insecure about now? People thinking we might kill our children? I think most people realize that it is pretty unusual to kill your kids, it's not something you have to go on TV denouncing.
Interesting perspective - I didn't notice motherly outrage and certainly not of the "I wouldn't murder my children" variety. What were you watching?
I think it was the Today Show? I dunno, it was just on. But it was ridiculous how many mothers (just regular mothers, not famous or related in any way) they had on -- at least four, I think there were more -- to say, basically, "Killing your kids is bad, I would never do that." Which, duh. That's like going on TV to say "I really hate Nazis" or "slavery is wrong."
That could be it - I don't watch the Today Show. Doesn't surprise me though. When I watched it in college, it seemed to be pointed at the lowest common denominator.
However scary it is to think that somebody got away with murder, it is just as scary to see the emergence of blood-thirsty TV talking heads assuming that every defendant in a publicized trial is guilty so they can either - 1.) boast endlessly of how right they were all along if the defendant is actually found guilty, or 2.) feign mock outrage and horror over the injustice committed if they aren't. I fear that Nancy Grace, a woman who salivates over every new dead-child story, is just the first in a long line of demagogues who now want to weaken the power of the jury system in favor of mob rules, in the same manner that right-wing shills have tried to weaken every other institution in America. No protection from Wall Street vipers, no protection from the effects of deregulation, no protection by the judicial system. Does anybody think that Anthony, or the jurors themselves, are going to be safe from those who are so easily manipulated by Grace and her imitators?
Very true, but it goes back a lot farther than Nancy Grace. Evelyn Nesbit comes to mind.
I supospe that sounds and smells just about right.
Now you say something