How the defense team used social media to their advantage
- Thread starter stmarysmead
- Start date
- Status
Kimberlyd125
Softball is for everyone. Fast pitch is for athlet
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 16,167
- Reaction score
- 47
Kimberlyd125
Softball is for everyone. Fast pitch is for athlet
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 16,167
- Reaction score
- 47
MAL954
I thought.. therefore I was
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
I have wondered about this. Nancy Grace gave a lot of attention to this case, and I thought it was good during the 3 years...but after the verdict, now I have serious doubts about how "good" the attention actually was.. Escpecially if it meant picking a jury of people who are so far removed from what is going on - just because they were the last 12 people out of hundreds in a county 2 hours away that hadn't heard of the case enough to be obvious about it. IMHO, justice was NOT done, and I can't help but realize that it probably is because of the media circus that was created.
And I'm not sure what good we did here, either.
Maybe we should just focus on solving mysteries and not get involved in dialogue-ing during the trial. Just a thought, i really don't know, but i feel concern about the topic.
And I'm not sure what good we did here, either.
Maybe we should just focus on solving mysteries and not get involved in dialogue-ing during the trial. Just a thought, i really don't know, but i feel concern about the topic.If we're so influential then all of the petitions we're signing at change.org and standing up for justice should make the DT and CA shudder. She might be going back to Orlando for lots of court cases, including maybe wrongful death and a few other things. I do find delight in her suffering. Sorry but I honestly can't stomach her, her family or any of the DT. :maddening:
I have wondered about this. Nancy Grace gave a lot of attention to this case, and I thought it was good during the 3 years...but after the verdict, now I have serious doubts about how "good" the attention actually was.. Escpecially if it meant picking a jury of people who are so far removed from what is going on - just because they were the last 12 people out of hundreds in a county 2 hours away that hadn't heard of the case enough to be obvious about it. IMHO, justice was NOT done, and I can't help but realize that it probably is because of the media circus that was created.
And I'm not sure what good we did here, either.
I also find myself wondering now it Nancy giving this case a lot of attention was good. Nancy did focus a lot of the shows with information pulled from the Sunshine Law doc dumps which showed a lot of people about Casey's background. I think the bad thing Nancy did was involve LP on a lot of the shows.
cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,304
Some of the cases the media has gone the most overboard on in the past few decades, OJ, Robert Blake and now Casey, all come back with "not guilty." And Phil Spector took 2 or 3 trials, didn't it, to finally reach a guilty verdict? Maybe wishing for high media attention for particular cases isn't always best...
Perhaps this is the first high profile case followed through facebook and twitter, but it's hardly the first high profile case followed through the internet by lawyers involved in the case.
I followed the O.J. Simpson criminal trial through Compuserve's O.J. Simpson forum (run by CNN) as well as the Lawsig forum on Compuserve. Both had message boards as part of their forums. It was rumored back then that both the defense and prosecution followed the case via those two forums. This was before media companies like CNN had their own website.
Of course every media outlet now has a facebook wall and twitter page, so I imagine that it would be a lot easier for someone to follow the public sentiment if they so chose to.
I don't have any doubt that websleuths was on the radar of the prosecution and defense, and why shouldn't it be? Websleuths, IMO, has been one of the best places to visit regarding the Casey Anthony murder case.
One thread that I remember commenting on here was Casey's appearance in court and how she would dress and what she would or should wear. I recall saying that she should never wear the orange blouse that she wore in a pre-trial hearing because it looked like the color of an orange prison jumpsuit. She never did wear that orange blouse during jury selection or the criminal trial. I would guess that her jury consultants picked up on that and tailored her look to be very prim and proper and almost schoolmarmish with the tightly pulled back bun and no makeup look.
I followed the O.J. Simpson criminal trial through Compuserve's O.J. Simpson forum (run by CNN) as well as the Lawsig forum on Compuserve. Both had message boards as part of their forums. It was rumored back then that both the defense and prosecution followed the case via those two forums. This was before media companies like CNN had their own website.
Of course every media outlet now has a facebook wall and twitter page, so I imagine that it would be a lot easier for someone to follow the public sentiment if they so chose to.
I don't have any doubt that websleuths was on the radar of the prosecution and defense, and why shouldn't it be? Websleuths, IMO, has been one of the best places to visit regarding the Casey Anthony murder case.
One thread that I remember commenting on here was Casey's appearance in court and how she would dress and what she would or should wear. I recall saying that she should never wear the orange blouse that she wore in a pre-trial hearing because it looked like the color of an orange prison jumpsuit. She never did wear that orange blouse during jury selection or the criminal trial. I would guess that her jury consultants picked up on that and tailored her look to be very prim and proper and almost schoolmarmish with the tightly pulled back bun and no makeup look.
katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 67,877
- Reaction score
- 238,865
Otto,
I agree with your final paragraph. How can we stop 'helping' the defense teams in upcoming trials? Now that we KNOW they are picking our brains for their guilty client's benefits. We laid out George as the perfect Defense strategy. What can we do differently for Drew Peterson's trial? I am sure that Amy Singer lady will be back here, with her paid vultures once again.
I agree with your final paragraph. How can we stop 'helping' the defense teams in upcoming trials? Now that we KNOW they are picking our brains for their guilty client's benefits. We laid out George as the perfect Defense strategy. What can we do differently for Drew Peterson's trial? I am sure that Amy Singer lady will be back here, with her paid vultures once again.
I think they hit rock bottom when they relied on social media opinions to make strategic legal arguments ... no offense to social media ... but either they have a case or they don't. Why are lawyers looking to social media to decide their next legal move in the courtroom and what can social media do to neuter those efforts. Should social media say that they are not upset with Ms Anthony and couldn't care less what she has to say ... so go ahead and let her roam the streets looking for the next party, write fiction and chat with the obsessed talking heads?
I think this is a really important topic to discuss, and I think something should be done before this website grabs onto the next case and runs with it.
How can we stop helping the defence team in upcoming trials deserves a thread of it's own, but more than that, it might need some website management. Management would curb the public presence of the social media, but by implementing a permission to some threads the "picking our brains" could be stopped, or at least curtailed. Another way to keep things in check would be from an IP address management position. When a few computers check in from the same IP address, and a trial is ongoing, and the IP address corresponds to the place where the trial is happening ... we know that they are the lawyers and other courtroom observers. Those connections could be blocked at such a level that they cannot access social media. It seems draconian, but sometimes drastic measures are needed to confront drastic situations.
Something should be done because the last three tirals I've followed resulted in unexpected verdicts, and all three watched social media to win ... just this summer.
froginTtown
Active Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 41
I can only pray that this be a lesson to the Judicial System, to change what can or cannot be allowed into opening statements.. This case was BEYOND what should have been allowed into opening statements...
THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW..!!!!
This is our JUSTICE system for God's sake... not who can outlandishly lie ..... C'mon..!!
THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW..!!!!
This is our JUSTICE system for God's sake... not who can outlandishly lie ..... C'mon..!!
Nosee_Parker
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 141
- Reaction score
- 9
Seriously, where have you been for the past 2 -3 years? Social media (SM) has sucked the life out of us. It almost dictates everything we do, how we think, how we behave. You can resist as much as you like, SM has become ingrained in our lives and is steering behaviours and reactions. I'm not surprised the DT looked at SM for direction. It's not rocket science to gauge general reactions and feelings via any platform. We're all whoring ourselves on the Internet ... why is this case any different.
We fed this machine, everyone needs to take some responsibility if the DT truly looked at SM for direction.
As soon as the opening statements were spoken, there were whispers about whether Baez, Mason and the legal team were perpetrating a fraud upon the court. It was well known at the beginning of the trial that there was no evidence to support the allegations against George, but everyone gave the defense team the benefit of the doubt - assuming that the client would take the stand to verify the opening statements. That didn't happen, so there is still nothing to verify the statements. They would, at the very least, be considered perpetrating a fraud upon the jury, Judge and gallery ... even though the prosecution knew from the beginning that the opening statements were a fraud. Opening statements have to relate to the case and evidence that will be presented during trial. Baez made up the opening statements based on pointing the finger at an alternate suspect that his social media expert claimed would be a good target.
I don't believe that Baez presented the case that his client brought to him (that would be the Zanny at the apt. story). I do believe that legal strategies influenced the story that Baez sold to the jury. Baez, as a lawyer, is hired to present his client's story to the court, but it appears that he concocted a story for the sake of arguing that a baby killer walk free. It appears that he violated every duty of an officer of the court to play the game of WIN ... and he won ... so it's time for the bar association in Florida to correct this situation.
Social media, like Websleuths, has been mentioned in recent trials during testimony and trial strategists have discussed how defense lawyers adjust their legal strategies during trial based on social media ... not sure how Ms Anthony could afford a trial strategist on the State's dime.
I admit that I prefer to be a Luddite regarding technology, but it's not working. Twitter, facebook and forums all contribute ... cell phones and computers ... apps and software ... but ... right now the lawyers have all the advantage and it doesn't have to be so.
Social media can take more responsibility regarding who they finger. I don't recall George as being a particular "bad guy" on social media. In fact, I remember him as being a somewhat sympathethic character who did what his wife told him to do most of the time He's the only one that spoke the truth loud and clear about what he figured out after July 16.
It seems that without social media, cases where it was blatantly obvious that someone was guilty resulted in a guilty verdict. No so anymore.
sleutherontheside
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,874
- Reaction score
- -2
Article by Rich... Gabr... in July edition of The Jury Expert.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2011/07/american-justice-or-american-idol-two-trials-and-two-verdicts-in-the-casey-anthony-case/
Because of these challenges, I felt it was important to get a Florida trial consultant involved who knew the various venues in the state. I contacted Amy Singer of Trial Consultants, Inc. and she put together a team of consultants who, although not present in the courtroom during most of the jury selection, would monitor the broadcast voir dire. This innovation allowed all of us to listen and send follow-up questions and recommendations on cause and peremptory challenges to the team in court and at the end of the day.
And comments by Amy Sing*r.. http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/07/05/on-murder-and-social-media-casey-anthony%e2%80%99s-jury-consultant-speaks/
We sent out trial balloons, made little comments. I told them who I was, that I was a trial consultant for the defense. One comment I posted was, ‘I don’t think George (Casey Anthony’s father) is going to win “Father of the Year” anytime soon.’ What blew my mind was that after George’s mistress testified, pro-prosecution bloggers said ‘Poor George, he’s not on trial.’ So we knew not to harp on George, because the more you harp on him, the more [the real jurors who may be leaning toward prosecution] were going to defend him.
On the other hand, if someone told me, ‘I remember the search [for Caylee],’ that’s neutral. I also know that meant they probably saw George Anthony and his duct tape that the kid supposedly suffocated on. It was his duct tape
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2011/07/american-justice-or-american-idol-two-trials-and-two-verdicts-in-the-casey-anthony-case/
Because of these challenges, I felt it was important to get a Florida trial consultant involved who knew the various venues in the state. I contacted Amy Singer of Trial Consultants, Inc. and she put together a team of consultants who, although not present in the courtroom during most of the jury selection, would monitor the broadcast voir dire. This innovation allowed all of us to listen and send follow-up questions and recommendations on cause and peremptory challenges to the team in court and at the end of the day.
And comments by Amy Sing*r.. http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/07/05/on-murder-and-social-media-casey-anthony%e2%80%99s-jury-consultant-speaks/
We sent out trial balloons, made little comments. I told them who I was, that I was a trial consultant for the defense. One comment I posted was, ‘I don’t think George (Casey Anthony’s father) is going to win “Father of the Year” anytime soon.’ What blew my mind was that after George’s mistress testified, pro-prosecution bloggers said ‘Poor George, he’s not on trial.’ So we knew not to harp on George, because the more you harp on him, the more [the real jurors who may be leaning toward prosecution] were going to defend him.
On the other hand, if someone told me, ‘I remember the search [for Caylee],’ that’s neutral. I also know that meant they probably saw George Anthony and his duct tape that the kid supposedly suffocated on. It was his duct tape
sleutherontheside
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,874
- Reaction score
- -2
Perhaps this was posted and I missed it....
http://www.rr.com/local/topic/article/rr/4473267/46293586/Casey_Anthony_trial_consultant_reveals_social/full/
Jane Velez-Mitchell then asked the question voiced by many who believe that George Anthony is innocent and was unfairly portrayed by the defense as a pedophile. She questioned Singer by saying, OK. Let me ask you this, Amy. Do you have any qualms? Do you have any kind of feeling that, "Hey, I might have contributed to destroying George Anthony`s life? Maybe he isn`t a molester. Maybe he`s just a guy, a simple man caught in a very bad situation? And now that the defense targeted him, based on all these tweets, we`ve destroyed his life." Any thoughts on that?
To that, Amy Singer replied, No. All I did was pass on the intel . All I did was decide to use the Internet and use the social media and cherry-pick comments and pass that on to the defense. And it`s just nothing more than a trial consulting strategy. It`s the 21st century focus group, if you will.
http://www.rr.com/local/topic/article/rr/4473267/46293586/Casey_Anthony_trial_consultant_reveals_social/full/
Jane Velez-Mitchell then asked the question voiced by many who believe that George Anthony is innocent and was unfairly portrayed by the defense as a pedophile. She questioned Singer by saying, OK. Let me ask you this, Amy. Do you have any qualms? Do you have any kind of feeling that, "Hey, I might have contributed to destroying George Anthony`s life? Maybe he isn`t a molester. Maybe he`s just a guy, a simple man caught in a very bad situation? And now that the defense targeted him, based on all these tweets, we`ve destroyed his life." Any thoughts on that?
To that, Amy Singer replied, No. All I did was pass on the intel . All I did was decide to use the Internet and use the social media and cherry-pick comments and pass that on to the defense. And it`s just nothing more than a trial consulting strategy. It`s the 21st century focus group, if you will.
- Status