Fair Trial - Impact of Media and Sunshine Laws on Trial Proceedings

[ThoughtElf]

The state of Florida asked the judge to impose a gag order to assure a fair trail.

Casey's DEFENSE objected.

When you get what you ask for, sometimes you have to take the bad along with the good.

Don't want to go OT here, but I think that move was very deliberate on JB's part as evidenced today by news of the Oprah appearance. They don't want a fair trial.

 

[TexasLil]

I don' think a juror has to be completely neutral in their thoughts. They need to be willing to listen to what is presented in court and ONLY conisder that information when they deliberate. Any potential juror will probably have heard about this case to some degree. The key point both prosecution and defense will dwell on is whether they have made up their minds already. Knowing something about the case is not necessarily going to prevent them from serving on the jury.

Having said that, I am sure any member of WS would be bounced off the potential panel list in a heartbeat - no matter which way we feel about this case, we all know WAY too much to be considered

I found this list of potential questions that the prosecution and/or defense might raise regarding media exposure to include or rule out potential jurors. They CAN have knowlege of the case but have to be able to ignore anything other than evidence presented. I think this voir dire might include a question such as.. "Are you a member of any justice related blogging sites such as WS?"... IMO..

(Exposure to Media)

Q: How much TV do you watch? What are your favorite shows?

Q: Do you like to read? What type of reading do you like?

Q: Do you subscribe to any magazines? Which ones?

Q: Before coming to court today, have you heard anything about this case?

Q: (If a juror as been exposed to publicity negative to the defendant, prosecutors may ask a question similar to the following.) Now you understand that the law says that a juror cannot consider anything other than the evidence that comes out here in court from the witness stand. You cannot consider what you might have read or heard about the case. When you are sworn as a juror, you have to take an oath that you will consider only the law and evidence in arriving at your verdict. I need to know if you can accept and abide by (follow) such an oath?

(CSI Effect) (1 - prosecutor's view ), (2- New Republic), (3 - article), (4 - article), (5 - 38pp. research)

Q: Does anyone watch the crime scene investigation shows like CSI, Forensic Files, or Cold Case?

Q: How often do you watch?

Q: What's you favorite show?

Q: Most of these shows claim to be able to solve crimes using scientific evidence. How do you feels about how accurately these shows depict what happens in the real world of police work?

Q: What do you think about whether or not there is forensic evidence at every crime scene?

Q: Do you think there are some cases where there is simply no forensic evidence?

Q: Do you think it's possible to prove a criminal case without presenting any scientific evidence?

 

[flyonsweetangel]

Dont you remember at the peterson trial there was a picture taken of one of the jurors talking to his brother or one of his relatives? Anyone remember this?

 

[BeanE]

Don't want to go OT here, but I think that move was very deliberate on JB's part as evidenced today by news of the Oprah appearance. They don't want a fair trial.

Stop reading my mind!

:blowkiss:

 

[TexasLil]

Dont you remember at the peterson trial there was a picture taken of one of the jurors talking to his brother or one of his relatives? Anyone remember this?

There was one kicked off the jury... I believe juror number 5 after admitting he discussed the case with the media.

 

[okiedokietoo]

IMO The Depositions, released evidence and if we had recordings from the A House of KC when she was out on bond saying "I did it" - none of that is going to impact whether KC gets a fair trial. She has numerous Attorneys and Experts due to the media coverage of this case and she will represented better than "jo schmo" in Littletown usa.

I know I have harped about this a few times. My mother worked at the courthouse and in DA's office for years and I have witnessed the workings of the law from both sides. Two people charges with the same crime, same background and same race - one has well known paid or pro bono attorney, one has public defender - the one with the well know paid/pro bono attorney is the one that gets off or a better lesser charge deal the majority of the time. This does not mean that the Public Defenders aren't good attorneys but they do not have the same financial resources available to pay for well known experts i.e. Dr. Lee, Kobe

The released Depos and released evidence and CA's rants have put KC's face and case on the news everyday.

 

[flyonsweetangel]

Remember the murder trial in Michigan regarding "The Burning Bed" ..... there was so much public opinion on that one ..... but apparently they had no problem picking a jury ... I have been on jury duty several times and I have to agree, you listen to what is presented and make a judgement based on that information when it comes right down to it...the only thing I dislike about being a jurer is "THE FIGHTS between JURORS" ........ugh!

 

[TexasLil]

Don't want to go OT here, but I think that move was very deliberate on JB's part as evidenced today by news of the Oprah appearance. They don't want a fair trial.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[gardenhart]

You all need to keep in mind that during selection, jurors will be asked if they've seen any news reports, etc. about the trial but also whether what they've seen will influence their verdict and whether they can put aside anything they've seen and consider only what they see and hear in court. The US Supreme Court has ruled it's those last two questions that are crucial. If they say they can put it aside and won't be influenced, they won't be removed from the jury pool.

And don't forget, the attorneys on both sides will be making the selections. They can choose or not choose any juror for any reason. If they think the juror might have lied about not being influenced or they don't fit the demographic they're looking for or they just don't like how they look.

I've covered a lot of trials that had extensive news coverage before the trial and I've never seen any indication that the jurors were anything other than extremely conscientious and ignored anything they read. I've also seen many, many potential jurors who, despite months of intense coverage, hadn't seen or read anything because they pay no attention to the news.

Just as an example, how many people call NG every night to ask the same mundane question that's been asked by the last 100 callers? And these are people who care enough about it to be watching and to call, but they still know nothing about the case.

 

[Salem]

Bumping this thread for discussion of how the Media and the Florida Sunshine laws may have impacted the trial proceedings.

Salem

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

All morning I've been thinking about the concept of a fair trial, and wondering if the As lies and attempts to mislead in their depositions will indeed impact KC's right to a fair trial, which by definition is not where jury members believe the defendant is not guilty, but where jury members are neutral - they believe that the defendant is neither guilty nor not guilty, and are willing and able to listen to the evidence presented at trial and then come to a conclusion based only on that evidence.

- What is the definition of a fair trial?

- How much influence on the 'not guilty' or 'innocent' side is out there (from the defense attorneys, Anthony depositions etc, media)?

- What are the consequences if a jury member votes Not Guilty, and/or is found to have been convinced prior to trial that KC is not guilty or innocent based on misinformation that came publicly from the Anthonys?

- how could it be proven that a juror was already convinced of innocence by public statements made by the Anthony's before the trial. You'd have to prove they lied during voir dire?

In this case, it seems the biggest impact the media had, would be the COV issues, that ended up bringing a jury in from Pinellas County. The DT used the hype from the media as well as the internet, in arguing their motion for a COV.

The Sunshine Law, in this case, complimented the media frenzy. Each doc dump resulted in new headlines about this case. With so many details about the case available, public interest was intense. In most states, these types of details do not become available until after a verdict has been rendered.

HHBP brought in a jury that legally filled the bill, and would curtail any potential legal issues that may rise, in regards to a defendents right to a fair trial.

MOO

 

[21merc7]

Media, Sunshine Law, and the characters' use of media made this case what it was. If it were not for those 3 things, this case would have been just another murder case. Trial over in about a week give or take.

Was it a fair trial? Yes, but flaws can be found, such as too long a trial, too many experts, etc.. Lessons can be learned.

Was the hype worth it to the defendant? Yes and no. Yes in that the hype may have been part of the jury's decision, no in that the hype allowed the world to know that the defendant killed her daughter and will therefore have a much more difficult few years of it. Not that the defendant would not have had a difficult few years if it was not so publicized, she would have anyway, in Orange County at least. Had this case not been so "talked about" and defendant still been found not guilty, no one would know the better.

There are many things that this case brought light to, but they are not things that do not already exist in any publicized trial, local or national publicity.

One thing is certain in my mind, Florida could work on amending the Sunshine stuff so that not every shred of a trial of any sort is given to the public. That is the weirdest loophole ever, and I think it should be closed.

 

[bonniez451]

Fairly new as to some of the ins and outs to our legal system and part of the reason I became even more involved with this one is because of the Sunshine Laws and was able to come to my own conclusion and not the medias but , I admit I did not have trust in the jury to begin with they had family visits and other things that put them out to hear from the media and never mind what their family told them the way they talked after just doesn't hit me with a ring of truth I do believe that maybe if they had been better educated in what makes a jury a nd not letting a defense getting away with really wild stories that's way out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Several posters have called this case a perfect storm. That is a very good description, as many different things have fallen into place in creating the Trial of the Century.

Since the turn of the century, there have been an alarming number of missing children, abused children, and sadly murdered children. Yet, this one story has arguably received more media attention than all others combined. Why?

The catalyst 911 call, started this Perfect Storm. The media immediately jumped on board. They had a beautiful missing 2 year old, whose mother did not report her missing for 31 days. This was a great story, and covering it would certainly be a nice boost in sales.
The toddler's grandmother was frantic and outspoken. She wanted her granddaughter, and she wanted her immediately. MSM saw more dollar signs.

Next you add the controversial smell of death in the trunk of the Pontiac, and combine it with a white trash bag that had a pizza box and maggots in it. The outspoken grandmother switching gears from it smells like there was a dead body in the trunk, to it was rotting pizza. And MSM just smiled and said cha ching.

It was quickly discovered that the toddlers mother was a liar. She said her child had been kidnapped by Zanny the Nanny, aka ZFG. LE wasted little time in discovering the lies, and then arresting the mother. MSM knew that had a blockbuster story now, and this story became nationwide news very quickly.

CA and GA were hounded by the media, looking for soundbytes. Then a toothpick chewing, bounty hunting cowboy rode into town and bailed the toddlers mother out of jail. Hollywood writers could not write this script, it would be too far fetched, but MSM smiled and said cha ching.

The search for Caylee increased daily, and the controversy increased as well. KC had retained an unknown lawyer, with very little experience named JB. MSM loved this guy, he didn't know what he was doing, and didn't know how to deal with the press. MSM cheered CHA CHING

The search for Caylee, continued, as did the search for the imaginanny. The grandparents personalities were perfect for the perfect storm, and the media loved them. LP and his personality was also perfect. Oddly the grandparents got themselves a lawyer. Mystery and intrigue, and MSM is laughing all the way to the bank.

To add to the perfect storm, the child was missing in the state of Florida, where there happened to be a law that allowed the media and the general public access to legal documents surrounding this case. The Sunshine Law allowed the media to blitz the headlines and soundbytes with Breaking News almost daily about the case. Juicy details the media could dole out at thier own discretion to tantalize and tease the now transfixed followers of the case that was already promising to be the Trial of the Century, as it had garnered more attention than the OJ case.

A different type of storm, Tropical Storm Faye, brought the search for Caylee to a standstill, but there were Caylee sitings all around the country. TES came in to aid with the search, and had no success. The authorities indicted KC for murder in mid October. The story continues to grow, and MSM has found themselves a cash cow.

In December, RK discovered the remains of little Caylee. LE came in to recover those remains, and much more controversy ensued. RK, yet another interesting character, had called 911 in August, and the deputy that investigated that call ended up being terminated for dereliction of duty. RK's statements to police changed with each statement. Duct tape was found in the vicinity of Caylee's skull, and it appeared she had been triple bagged. A syringe with chloroform made spectacular headlines. This story continued to grow to now historical proportions. MSM was on a real gravy train, that showed no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

In this day of instant coffee, instant oatmeal and instant messaging, we also have instant news. To complete the Perfect Storm, the social media comes into play. Blogs, websites, and posters all had been caught up in the frenzy of this Trial of the Century. It has even been said that the DT in this case used the social network to shape their case.
To give one an idea of the notoriety of Casey Anthony, one need only type her name into the google search bar, to come up with 52,100,000 results. By contrast typing in OJ Simpson gets 7,100,000, Jon Benet Ramsey gets 655,000, Drew Peterson gets 420,000, Jeffrey Dahmer gets 1,410,000, Ted Bundy gets 2,370,000, and Charles Manson gets 6,610,000 results. So, as you can see, on the internet at least, Casey Anthony is the current leader by far in the halls of Infamy.

The Trial of the Century may be over, but with the controversial verdict, acquitting the now most hated woman in America, a year of probation, civil suits on the horizon, a potentially hefty order to pay costs of the investigation, the failure to gain justice for Caylee, and the promise of books and interviews from various characters in this story, would lead me to believe, this story is not going to be old news anytime soon. MSM has made Caylee Marie their golden child, and they will continue to go for the gold, as long as the general public keeps buying what they serve.

Lost in this Perfect Storm are the stories of the thousands of missing, abused, and murdered children, that are no less important to those involved, than Caylee Marie was to those involved with her story. My heart went out to Caylee Marie 3 years ago, my heart goes out to all those whose children are among the missing today.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Several posters have called this case a perfect storm. That is a very good description, as many different things have fallen into place in creating the Trial of the Century.

Since the turn of the century, there have been an alarming number of missing children, abused children, and sadly murdered children. Yet, this one story has arguably received more media attention than all others combined. Why?

The catalyst 911 call, started this Perfect Storm. The media immediately jumped on board. They had a beautiful missing 2 year old, whose mother did not report her missing for 31 days. This was a great story, and covering it would certainly be a nice boost in sales.
The toddler's grandmother was frantic and outspoken. She wanted her granddaughter, and she wanted her immediately. MSM saw more dollar signs.

Next you add the controversial smell of death in the trunk of the Pontiac, and combine it with a white trash bag that had a pizza box and maggots in it. The outspoken grandmother switching gears from it smells like there was a dead body in the trunk, to it was rotting pizza. And MSM just smiled and said cha ching.

It was quickly discovered that the toddlers mother was a liar. She said her child had been kidnapped by Zanny the Nanny, aka ZFG. LE wasted little time in discovering the lies, and then arresting the mother. MSM knew that had a blockbuster story now, and this story became nationwide news very quickly.

CA and GA were hounded by the media, looking for soundbytes. Then a toothpick chewing, bounty hunting cowboy rode into town and bailed the toddlers mother out of jail. Hollywood writers could not write this script, it would be too far fetched, but MSM smiled and said cha ching.

The search for Caylee increased daily, and the controversy increased as well. KC had retained an unknown lawyer, with very little experience named JB. MSM loved this guy, he didn't know what he was doing, and didn't know how to deal with the press. MSM cheered CHA CHING

The search for Caylee, continued, as did the search for the imaginanny. The grandparents personalities were perfect for the perfect storm, and the media loved them. LP and his personality was also perfect. Oddly the grandparents got themselves a lawyer. Mystery and intrigue, and MSM is laughing all the way to the bank.

To add to the perfect storm, the child was missing in the state of Florida, where there happened to be a law that allowed the media and the general public access to legal documents surrounding this case. The Sunshine Law allowed the media to blitz the headlines and soundbytes with Breaking News almost daily about the case. Juicy details the media could dole out at thier own discretion to tantalize and tease the now transfixed followers of the case that was already promising to be the Trial of the Century, as it had garnered more attention than the OJ case.

A different type of storm, Tropical Storm Faye, brought the search for Caylee to a standstill, but there were Caylee sitings all around the country. TES came in to aid with the search, and had no success. The authorities indicted KC for murder in mid October. The story continues to grow, and MSM has found themselves a cash cow.

In December, RK discovered the remains of little Caylee. LE came in to recover those remains, and much more controversy ensued. RK, yet another interesting character, had called 911 in August, and the deputy that investigated that call ended up being terminated for dereliction of duty. RK's statements to police changed with each statement. Duct tape was found in the vicinity of Caylee's skull, and it appeared she had been triple bagged. A syringe with chloroform made spectacular headlines. This story continued to grow to now historical proportions. MSM was on a real gravy train, that showed no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

In this day of instant coffee, instant oatmeal and instant messaging, we also have instant news. To complete the Perfect Storm, the social media comes into play. Blogs, websites, and posters all had been caught up in the frenzy of this Trial of the Century. It has even been said that the DT in this case used the social network to shape their case.
To give one an idea of the notoriety of Casey Anthony, one need only type her name into the google search bar, to come up with 52,100,000 results. By contrast typing in OJ Simpson gets 7,100,000, Jon Benet Ramsey gets 655,000, Drew Peterson gets 420,000, Jeffrey Dahmer gets 1,410,000, Ted Bundy gets 2,370,000, and Charles Manson gets 6,610,000 results. So, as you can see, on the internet at least, Casey Anthony is the current leader by far in the halls of Infamy.

The Trial of the Century may be over, but with the controversial verdict, acquitting the now most hated woman in America, a year of probation, civil suits on the horizon, a potentially hefty order to pay costs of the investigation, the failure to gain justice for Caylee, and the promise of books and interviews from various characters in this story, would lead me to believe, this story is not going to be old news anytime soon. MSM has made Caylee Marie their golden child, and they will continue to go for the gold, as long as the general public keeps buying what they serve.

Lost in this Perfect Storm are the stories of the thousands of missing, abused, and murdered children, that are no less important to those involved, than Caylee Marie was to those involved with her story. My heart went out to Caylee Marie 3 years ago, my heart goes out to all those whose children are among the missing today.

There's no doubt that this was a huge case, but I think this post is exaggerating a lot. Before this case went to trial, its national coverage was mostly HLN. When the trial started, and especially after the verdict came in, it's media coverage increased substantially.

Ted Bundy, OJ Simpson, John Wayne Gacy, JonBenet Ramsey, and Charles Manson are all more infamous than this case, no matter what Internet results say. Those cases have been extremely well known for decade(s), and that doesn't get erased by a current hot case. Heck, JFK brings up 51 million results, so does that mean this case is bigger than him?

I think this case is on the level of Natalee Holloway/Elizabeth Smart/Laci Peterson in terms of media coverage/attention. It's happening right now so people's perceptions are messed up.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

There's no doubt that this was a huge case, but I think this post is exaggerating a lot. Before this case went to trial, its national coverage was mostly HLN. When the trial started, and especially after the verdict came in, it's media coverage increased substantially.

Ted Bundy, OJ Simpson, John Wayne Gacy, JonBenet Ramsey, and Charles Manson are all more infamous than this case, no matter what Internet results say. Those cases have been extremely well known for decade(s), and that doesn't get erased by a current hot case. Heck, JFK brings up 51 million results, so does that mean this case is bigger than him?

I think this case is on the level of Natalee Holloway/Elizabeth Smart/Laci Peterson in terms of media coverage/attention. It's happening right now so people's perceptions are messed up.

The numbers I quoted are not exaggerated, in that, I typed the name in and the amount of results are what I posted, and as I said, on the internet at least.
The internet is still growing, and there was no internet when JFK was around. Adolf Hitler only garners 25,000,000 so, no, I am not saying KC is twice as bad as Hitler because she has 52 million results to his 25 million.

The cases mentioned, Bundy, Simpson, Ramsey, Mason, and Gacy have been talked about for years. This one will be too.

This is the information age. The internet has generated more news about KC than those other cases combined. Most, if not all the major news sources such as newspapers, magazines, as well as tv stations, also have websites. The difference is the internet is worldwide, and with modern technology, anyone in the world can read the news in the Orlando Sentinal. When OJ was on trial, that was not possible.

KC's infamy is a product of the times. Obviously, her heinous act for which she was acquitted is not comparable to the acts of serial killers, or Hitler, or a multitude of other bombers and terrorists.

In media coverage, this case could be along the lines of Holloway/Smart/Peterson, although personally, I think this case has had more media coverage than those, however, my point was that the social media, which includes the internet/fb/twitter has given this case far more coverage than previous cases. Not just because Caylee Marie is special, but because the internet is faster, facebook is bigger, and twitter is new. We did not have these available when OJ was tried, or his results probably would be around 200 million.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The fact that Casey brings up the same amount of results as JFK, an assassinated U.S. president, shows how irrelevant they are. JFK's case might not have happened during the Internet age, but it's a huge mystery that's still talked about frequently, subject of books/TV shows, brought up in the news, etc. Even without his conspiracy, JFK is still part of history. To even hint that Casey is up there with JFK either as a historical figure, the amount of media coverage, or due to her case/trial, etc is just outrageous. Really...2x as many results as Hitler? So Casey is 2x as infamous as Hitler? She's gotten 2x as much attention? She's known by 2x as many people? Come on....

I also have to strongly disagree that this case has gotten more media coverage than Simpson, Ramsey, Manson, Bundy, and Gacy combined have in their 40+ years. Just the fact that those cases have hundreds of books (altogether) written about them blows that claim out of the water. A case whose verdict came in two months ago doesn't erase the notoriety of cases that have been discussed for decades. Did this case get more tweets than any other case? Sure. But more newspaper articles, TV news mentions, TV specials, magazine articles than any other case? Definitely not.

OJ's verdict was watched by 100 million people; Casey's verdict was watched by 12 million. OJ's trial lasted for 10 months and was broadcasted everyday on three channels. Casey's trial lasted for six weeks and was broadcasted on one channel. People still reference OJ and his trial in 2011, like "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit", etc. This trial is nowhere near as big as OJ.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The numbers I quoted are not exaggerated, in that, I typed the name in and the amount of results are what I posted, and as I said, on the internet at least.
The internet is still growing, and there was no internet when JFK was around. Adolf Hitler only garners 25,000,000 so, no, I am not saying KC is twice as bad as Hitler because she has 52 million results to his 25 million.

The cases mentioned, Bundy, Simpson, Ramsey, Mason, and Gacy have been talked about for years. This one will be too.

This is the information age. The internet has generated more news about KC than those other cases combined. Most, if not all the major news sources such as newspapers, magazines, as well as tv stations, also have websites. The difference is the internet is worldwide, and with modern technology, anyone in the world can read the news in the Orlando Sentinal. When OJ was on trial, that was not possible.

KC's infamy is a product of the times. Obviously, her heinous act for which she was acquitted is not comparable to the acts of serial killers, or Hitler, or a multitude of other bombers and terrorists.

In media coverage, this case could be along the lines of Holloway/Smart/Peterson, although personally, I think this case has had more media coverage than those, however, my point was that the social media, which includes the internet/fb/twitter has given this case far more coverage than previous cases. Not just because Caylee Marie is special, but because the internet is faster, facebook is bigger, and twitter is new. We did not have these available when OJ was tried, or his results probably would be around 200 million.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

Yes, the numbers you quote look good. But do you think that this media coverage affected this case in a significant way? And if so how? Was it the internet, or specific TV shows? Personally, I remember following the OJ Simpson case in 1994/95. I only utilized TV,radio,newspapers,and magazines. No internet then. I think I got a pretty good amount of the evidence that way. As much as you would get under the sunshine law in Florida today? Hell no. But enough to make an informed opinion? Yes, I believe so. 10 years after the OJ case, I used the internet to study it more. I found my original feelings about that case were correct. So far, I've seen high profile cases with a lot of media attention, going for acquittals vs guilty by their jury's. OJ, MJ, KC. Maybe all the attention isn't so bad for the bad guys? MOO.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

The fact that Casey brings up the same amount of results as JFK, an assassinated U.S. president, shows how irrelevant they are. JFK's case might not have happened during the Internet age, but it's a huge mystery that's still talked about frequently, subject of books/TV shows, brought up in the news, etc. Even without his conspiracy, JFK is still part of history. To even hint that Casey is up there with JFK either as a historical figure, the amount of media coverage, or due to her case/trial, etc is just outrageous. Really...2x as many results as Hitler? So Casey is 2x as infamous as Hitler? She's gotten 2x as much attention? She's known by 2x as many people? Come on....

I also have to strongly disagree that this case has gotten more media coverage than Simpson, Ramsey, Manson, Bundy, and Gacy combined have in their 40+ years. Just the fact that those cases have hundreds of books (altogether) written about them blows that claim out of the water. A case whose verdict came in two months ago doesn't erase the notoriety of cases that have been discussed for decades. Did this case get more tweets than any other case? Sure. But more newspaper articles, TV news mentions, TV specials, magazine articles than any other case? Definitely not.

OJ's verdict was watched by 100 million people; Casey's verdict was watched by 12 million. OJ's trial lasted for 10 months and was broadcasted everyday on three channels. Casey's trial lasted for six weeks and was broadcasted on one channel. People still reference OJ and his trial in 2011, like "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit", etc. This trial is nowhere near as big as OJ.

It seems we are talking about two different things here.

I do not believe that the KC trial has had more mainstream media coverage than even the OJ trial by itself, especially if you add all the coverage of that case since the trial of OJ. Jon Benet Ramsey had huge media coverage for years, and even currently stories still pop up. The serial killers, Bundy, Dahmer, and Gacy, were all big stories, and movies and books were made about them. It would be inaccurate to say that KC's story has garnered more attention than all the above combined in the mainstream media. As far as KC compared to JFK, I agree with you that comparing the two would be outrageous.

My focus is on the social media. My point is, with the onset of the information age, and the power of the internet, the social media (not mainstream media) has made KC's story way more popular than it would have been via MSM alone. The 52 million results show that people are extremely interested in this case, on the internet. When you compare the internet results for the above mentioned names, and combine those results, they do not total more than KC alone. That was my comparison. In todays world, and what people are talking about today, on the internet, KC's story is popular.

In addition, in the other cases, there was not a Sunshine Law that allowed 3 years of news stories about actual evidence. We were given an opportunity to evaluate evidence that might be used in trial. The internet, and sites like this one, generated interest in this case, with a twist, we saw the ME's report, the jailhouse tapes, the depositions, the CSI reports, and the other cases mentioned did not have this available. These facts, compliments of the Sunshine Law, I am sure have a direct relation to the 52 million results when you type in Casey Anthony on the google bar.

The biggest reason I am interested in the effect the social media has had on this case, is that the DT claims it used the social media in developing courtroom strategies. To me this is fascinating, and could have impact on future trials, laws, and even courtroom procedures.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Yes, the numbers you quote look good. But do you think that this media coverage affected this case in a significant way? And if so how? Was it the internet, or specific TV shows? Personally, I remember following the OJ Simpson case in 1994/95. I only utilized TV,radio,newspapers,and magazines. No internet then. I think I got a pretty good amount of the evidence that way. As much as you would get under the sunshine law in Florida today? Hell no. But enough to make an informed opinion? Yes, I believe so. 10 years after the OJ case, I used the internet to study it more. I found my original feelings about that case were correct. So far, I've seen high profile cases with a lot of media attention, going for acquittals vs guilty by their jury's. OJ, MJ, KC. Maybe all the attention isn't so bad for the bad guys? MOO.

The claims of the DT that they used the internet to learn GA was disliked, to me, affected this trial. They went after GA because of the dislike and distrust about GA on the internet.

Shows like NG, and JVM may have stirred the internet pot. I don't think that JB's appearance on JVM or GR had any impact on the trial, other than these shows and interviews sparked internet chat about the trial.

I think the Sunshine Law, giving us GA's and CA's depositions, as well as the jailhouse tapes, amongst other things, sparked a wildfire of comments on the internet. So, in this regard, yes, I do think the Sunshine Law combined with MSM fed the internet chat channels with much more information to discuss than any of the previous trials.

I'm not certain what effect, if any, that MSM has on the outcome of a trial. The social media, seems to have given the defense a new tool, although the prosecution could just as easily have used this information to help their case.
The problem with todays media coverage, which I feel has turned much more to a tabloid type format, than a reporting type format that was used by Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. They used to report news without putting a personal spin or opinion on it. Now the banners at the bottom of the screen on news shows are basically trying to tell us what we should think about what the newscasters are saying. Back in the day, shows like 20/20 and 60 minutes were hard hitting investigative reports. Those same shows today, well, personally, I don't think they are any where near the same quality they were in the beginning.

Is all this attention good for the bad guys? That is a very good question.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.