Wow, those are some pretty strong accusations the media is reporting as truth. I find it really hard to buy this based on an unknown source/leak. I also find it tough to believe that someone close enough to the investigation to have access to this kind of info would actually leak it. Even though I personally believe Casey is guilty, I think that it is irresponsible of the media to release such a report. Afterall, she still has a right to a fair and unbiased trial. This report essentially takes that right away when the media's "source" has already declared her guilty by "overwhelming" evidence. The media's role in this case has really bothered me personally because again they are all about ratings and sensationalism. This isn't about Caylee at all. IMO they have crossed the line with this one and I'd love to see someone challenge them legally to reveal that "source." Afterall, there ARE individuals who will seek to exploit the confidentiality with a journalist in order to disseminate untruths for whatever reason.
dtown, Take a deep breath and let me put my two cents in here. I'm retired from a 22-year career as a reporter. So, I just feel the need to respond to your many post concerning the media's handling of this news.
The reporter is not personally reporting about this case and the evidence. This is not the reporter's opinion. What you are reading is what the reporter has gathered from the sources. That's what reporting is all about - gather the news from the sources on your beat and put it out to the public.
No where in the article does it say this information comes from an "unnamed" source. It clearly states "Sources close to the case..." The persons who relayed this information do not have to be named. And, please note the story says sources. That's plural. More than one source.
There are many types of sources a reporter will use. Ones you can readily attach a name to and those you can't identify by name or they would no long be your source. But over time they have proven to be reliable and truthful sources. So, a reporter feels safe using the source they can not identify by name.
I personally used sources, some in the courts and cop shop beats, who willingly gave up information (or as you call it - leak) which when checked was true. They do it for many reasons - sometimes because the information is going to be released shortly anyway. Other times as part of a controlled plan to get certain facts out to the public eye and defense experts and attorneys. It happens all the time. What you need to understand, by "leaking" the information, that source or person, is working the case. They only release what they know can be reported without giving away the entire case's investigative results.
Casey is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. She will receive a fair trial. You call what is reported as irresponsible. However, it would be professionally irresponsible for the reporter to not include facts they have gathered from their sources.
You can bet the facts the reporter brings to the story are checked and backed up before they are aired or seen in print. Despite what you may think, the media is very aware of the consequences of reporting something that is false.
You do not believe the press has the right to report from its sources what has been said about the defendant's guilt; then that means you also believe the media should not be allowed to report what Casey's defense team and supporters have to say about her being innocent.
Regardless of what I've written here, you may still want to challenge what has been printed in this report. I encourage you to do that. Contact the news medium that released this story. Talk with both the reporter and editor. Perhaps what they point out will allow you to take a different view on how the news is reported and the safeguards that allow it to brought to the people.