Casey Anthony’s Attorneys Blame Media For Unfavorable Murder Trial Coverage

Casey Anthony's Attorneys Blame Media For Unfavorable Murder Trial Coverage

Casey Anthony was on trial over the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee. Yesterday, the verdicts in the case were read and it was found that she was not guilty on the counts of first degree murder, manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty on four counts of lying to police, which carries a sentence of a year in prison each. She has already served three years behind bars and her sentencing is set for Thursday, July 7, 2011. It’s been said that Casey could get out then, with time served.

Now, her lawyers are saying that the intense media coverage surrounding the trial was to blame for the nation being in such shock that she was acquitted.

Her attorney, Jose Baez, said, “We always felt that this case was built on nothing. I have to salute this jury and I hope to one day have the opportunity to speak to them…to thank them for being courageous.”

One of her other attorneys, Cheney Mason, said that the verdict shocked people because of the slanted media coverage, which was unfavorable to his client. He said, “The news media…they hung her here daily for two and a half years. She did not kill her daughter.”

Jose revealed, “This was a horrible tragedy, an accident that snowballed out of control. And it doesn’t get any clearer than that. The jury saw that and they’re the ones that heard all of the evidence, not the propaganda and the speculation and the Frankenstein-like lynch mob that ensued throughout the last three years…This is a tragedy and nothing less.”

Stay tuned as her sentencing is upon us, we’ll have the latest news!

2 Responses

  1. James272 July 6, 2011 / 5:19 PM

    What people fail to realize in the anthony case is that in most murder cases there is no direct witness who sees the murder take place. In addition many times a body is not found or it is found too decomposed to collect evidence. Most of the time homicides are committed by family members. When homicide detectives look at a family member as a possible suspect they look for behavior inconsistent with someone experiencing grief. Do I have to remind people of the Scott Peterson case or the Drew Peterson case. There were no witnesses in those cases and the behavior of the suspects is what first pointed detectives to Scott and Drew Peterson. Reasonable doubt is not doubt. If jurors in everyday normal cases used the same standard used by the Casey Anthony jury there would be very few convictions in America.The theory that the grandparents participated in a cover up after the child drowned in a pool does not constitute a reasonable alternative explanation for Caylee Anthony’s death. There was nothing in the grandparent’s behavior that makes the above mentioned theory plausible. The judge should of better explained reasonable doubt vs general doubt when he gave jury instructions. The fact that the jury only spent 10 hours deliberating indicates to me that they did not understand the difference between doubt in general and reasonable doubt. There is always doubt in every case. However creating a theory out of thin air and putting it forward does not make the theory reasonable. Many murder cases are based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that the jury did not convict her on second degree murder or even manslaugter or even negligence indicates to me that they think it was reasonable to believe that the grandparents were involved in the child’s death even though there was no evidence to support that. They even thought it was reasonable to believe that Casey was molested by her father even though there was absolutely no evidence to support that. The jury found all of these unsubstantiated things reasonable while at the same time totally disregarding the most reasonable explanation for the murder namely that Casey killed her daughter. The jury could of concluded that Casey killed the daughter ┬áby accident by trying to drug her using chloroform or that she did it through negligence. But they disregarded any very reasonable conclusion that Casey somehow did harm to her daughter that resulted in her death. Casey was the last person seen with her daughter. The car she used smelled like decomposition. The internet searches for neck breaking and chloroform.Casey’s actions to cover up and throw police off. The fact that Casey did not report her child missing for 31 days. Casey’s celebratory behavior after the death or disappearance of her daughter.These things all point to the conclusion that Casey did harm to her child that rseulted in the child’s death. They also ignored the fact that the grandparents largely cared for the child while Casey spent her evenings partying. The jury seemed to do mental gymnastics to find the unreasonable reasonable and the resonable unreasonable.
    If every jury used the same standards of doubt used by the Casey Anthony jury we would have many criminals running the streets. I also fear that Casey Anthony’s trial may serve as a template for sociopaths attempting to commit murder. It seems to me that any person could get away with murder as long as they hide the body long enough for it to decompose.Of course it helps to be a woman and it helps to make a bogus claim of sexual molestation that does not have to be proved.

    • Ronald July 8, 2011 / 3:22 AM

      Good thing most juries don’t think like this [super smarter than all jury members guy] or the jails would be even more full of innocent people!!!
      James272, no evidence no conviction that is if you are a normal person with brains! Casey probably was the cause of her daughters death by doing something she did whether it was on purpose or not or not doing something she should have done and didn’t do, but that was not murder one!

Comments are closed.