1209 users online (234 members and 975 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875

    Thumbs up Possible Mitigation Argument: Media's Effect on Case

    I wanted to explore mitigation arguments. As they were jumbled all together JBean said I should break them up into specific mitigating factors to discuss.

    Here is a very informative article discussing the effect of the media in DP mitigation. Page 5 covers this specifically.
    http://www.scientificjournals.org/jo...icles/1440.pdf

    I now ask myself.......is this why JB opposed the gag order??

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,493
    That was one of his big 1st mistakes. If gag were in place, we would not know a smidgen and would just sit in silence until trial. JB has never executed a DP case.

    ETA: He had his own agenda, news was out, he got his face, voice, and computer out there, just as many others are trying to tag on. He got face time. What he really gets is no new clients. I don't know what kind of lawyer he is, but he does not know much about DP cases, or even simple murder cases. The new team has to do damage control, and that has been attempted many times.

    Media effect on case just equals the new and tried and true venue. (As JB slaps side of head and says "DOH!")
    Last edited by 21merc7; 12-25-2009 at 10:53 PM.

    Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    Just a few excerpts to support this theory...

    Although Americans are now given unprecedented access to news and breaking stories, it is difficult to say if the reporting is unbiased and
    unembellished. Because of its strict competition in the economic market, news companies must be able to successfully sell their stories.



    By using the previous study offered by Berrington and Honkatukia (2002) as a guide, the way in which the American media chose to portray the cases of Andrea Yates and Aileen Wuornos while referencing the results of their
    sentences as a strong mode of comparison will be studied. Research evidence shows that that there is anobservable connection between the perceptions that the general public holds with that of what legal decision-makers
    believe. This tie can be further developed to even support the claim that the formal processing of offenders is a reflection of public perceptions of crimes and criminals (Phillips et al., 1976:1).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    565
    IMHO- Say what you will about the media, it doesn't change the facts-

    The media was not therre when KC alledgedly murdered her child.
    The media was not there when KC dumped her child in the woods, to decompose all alone.
    The media was not there when KC dumped her car, and lied about it having dead squirrels under it.
    The media was not there when KC was hiding out where very few people knew where she was.
    The media was not there when KC went from group to group of her (friends) that one group didn't always know about the other group/s.
    The media was not there when KC made up the lie about having a nanny(which she couldn't even afford a nanny if she wanted one)
    The media was not there when KC was stealing money and cashing other people's checks.
    Get the picture- etc.etc.etc.

    So is it fair to blame the media because the truth came out and the media did what it's paid to do by reporting it?
    Is it fair to blame the media because this family keeps changing their stories?
    Is it fair to blame the media when the family refuses to answer legit questions, and not just what the family wants to talk about?
    Is it fair to blame the media just because the family is seeking and willingly accepting money from some media and not talking to those who refuse to pay them money?

    There only certain people who cane be blamed for the media's deep involvement in this case- KC- for creating the situation - The parents- for becoming addicted to the attention- good or bad- but ever ready to blame everyone except the culprit. The defense team - for craving and creating a media circus because they would not go along with the prosecutors with a gag order -since day one.

    Again- the media is not perfect- but- they did not kill anyone- they did not cover up a crime- no cover for the murderer- no falsely accuse the innocent- nor accept money -
    The media only did what the media does in any news story- report whatever is going on-
    So why should this case be any different than any other? We are not talking about celebraties, even if some think they are-but- even celebraties don't always get a break no matter how much money they actually do have.

    The public and the media don't give two cents about KC nor her family-
    It's only about Caylee- and how not only a mother who is accused of killing her little child and be so callous about it- but the family not only supporting the accused murderer, but appearing to assist in covering it up and lying and twisting the story over and over to aid the murderer.
    This is the real story- the dysfunction of an alledged murderer and her family. It is beyond belief and anything acceptable in the human society.
    The media is only reporting the going ons, they are not making it up.
    The day KC committed her first crime, and the day CA called 911, it was no longer a private family matter- it was no longer in theirs to control- it became public information, and a problem for society as well. Therefore, they invited the media and the public into their home, the media and the public did not come knocking at their door asking to become invovled.
    This country is based on freedom of the press, and freedom of speech- and NOT just what one person or a family thinks it should be- so give the media a break on this one-
    Enough innocent people have already been blamed-

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    Quote Originally Posted by RevCrim View Post
    IMHO- Say what you will about the media, it doesn't change the facts-

    The media was not therre when KC alledgedly murdered her child.
    The media was not there when KC dumped her child in the woods, to decompose all alone.
    The media was not there when KC dumped her car, and lied about it having dead squirrels under it.
    The media was not there when KC was hiding out where very few people knew where she was.
    The media was not there when KC went from group to group of her (friends) that one group didn't always know about the other group/s.
    The media was not there when KC made up the lie about having a nanny(which she couldn't even afford a nanny if she wanted one)
    The media was not there when KC was stealing money and cashing other people's checks.
    Get the picture- etc.etc.etc.

    So is it fair to blame the media because the truth came out and the media did what it's paid to do by reporting it?
    Is it fair to blame the media because this family keeps changing their stories?
    Is it fair to blame the media when the family refuses to answer legit questions, and not just what the family wants to talk about?
    Is it fair to blame the media just because the family is seeking and willingly accepting money from some media and not talking to those who refuse to pay them money?

    There only certain people who cane be blamed for the media's deep involvement in this case- KC- for creating the situation - The parents- for becoming addicted to the attention- good or bad- but ever ready to blame everyone except the culprit. The defense team - for craving and creating a media circus because they would not go along with the prosecutors with a gag order -since day one.

    Again- the media is not perfect- but- they did not kill anyone- they did not cover up a crime- no cover for the murderer- no falsely accuse the innocent- nor accept money -
    The media only did what the media does in any news story- report whatever is going on-
    So why should this case be any different than any other? We are not talking about celebraties, even if some think they are-but- even celebraties don't always get a break no matter how much money they actually do have.

    The public and the media don't give two cents about KC nor her family-
    It's only about Caylee- and how not only a mother who is accused of killing her little child and be so callous about it- but the family not only supporting the accused murderer, but appearing to assist in covering it up and lying and twisting the story over and over to aid the murderer.
    This is the real story- the dysfunction of an alledged murderer and her family. It is beyond belief and anything acceptable in the human society.
    The media is only reporting the going ons, they are not making it up.
    The day KC committed her first crime, and the day CA called 911, it was no longer a private family matter- it was no longer in theirs to control- it became public information, and a problem for society as well. Therefore, they invited the media and the public into their home, the media and the public did not come knocking at their door asking to become invovled.
    This country is based on freedom of the press, and freedom of speech- and NOT just what one person or a family thinks it should be- so give the media a break on this one-Enough innocent people have already been blamed-

    I agree with what you stated above. My intent with this topic is to demonstrate that media impact has been used in DP mitigation and may be used in KC's case. I believe that AL could use media impact to show the jury that their client has already been judged and perhaps more harshly because of the coverage. I am not blaming media.......it does not change the crime......it does impact trial.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,859
    Not seeing how the media could be a factor when it comes to punishment. It's not an excuse for what she did. It came along after the fact and broadcasted the events as they knew them to be.
    Just my opinion.....
    Finally found a reason for the Ignore feature!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by sleutherontheside View Post
    I agree with what you stated above. My intent with this topic is to demonstrate that media impact has been used in DP mitigation and may be used in KC's case. I believe that AL could use media impact to show the jury that their client has already been judged and perhaps more harshly because of the coverage. I am not blaming media.......it does not change the crime......it does impact trial.
    I understand where your going with it. However, if AL is able to pull that off, then the SA isn't doing their redirecting job very well. That would only work, if the SA isn't expecting that sort of attack.

    At this point, I think they are clued in to expect something like that. Well enough that they would be able to point out that the media is just reporting the events and that isn't 'punishment.' And that even if it was considered punishment, FL law doesn't list it as a possible punishment. Their only 2 choices would be LWOP or DP.. media harrasment isn't listed.
    Just my opinion.....
    Finally found a reason for the Ignore feature!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the Woods In Georgia
    Posts
    5,481
    I don't see how Baez nor Lyons can go on National TV a couple of times a month with their media blitzes and then dare to use the media as a mitigating factor.
    Chances are, if they would just shut up, half the people in the nation who knows nothing of this case would continue to know nothing if they would just zip it..
    JMHO
    Justice For Caylee Marie

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    Quote Originally Posted by mydailyopinions View Post
    I don't see how Baez nor Lyons can go on National TV a couple of times a month with their media blitzes and then dare to use the media as a mitigating factor.
    Chances are, if they would just shut up, half the people in the nation who knows nothing of this case would continue to know nothing if they would just zip it..
    JMHO
    BBM ITA
    She could always argue that she was trying to combat the negative press. But the big bad media already tried the case and her client should be spared the DP. I don't know that she will present it....but others have. In this case I think it's all going to be offered.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,978
    I will agree they will certainly use the media coverage as a mitigating factor but I say - the media will have had nothing whatever to do with the verdict. my sense told me the day I heard "...31 days before florida toddler was reported missing" and the day I heard the recording of the "waste...huge waste" phone call that KC murdered her daughter. not a single lick I have heard since then has served to change my mind.

    so they can mitigate til they are blue in the effing face and blame the media that we ever heard the name of Casey Anthony - but the real reason we ever heard the name is due the the actions CASEY ANTHONY chose to take on the 16th of June, 2008.
    Last edited by JBean; 12-26-2009 at 04:21 PM. Reason: removed reference to another poster


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    215
    IMO the only effect the media attention to this case will be a successful change in venue for the murder trial.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Foothills of Northern Colorado
    Posts
    2,369
    I don't think the defense can say one word about the media as they and the Anthony's have been the ones going to the media to spew their nonsense. This is exactly why I don't think they should be allowed a change of venue, either. If any one of them knew how to say the words "no comment" as the state and LE have done, we wouldn't have this media circus. I hope if and when the defense brings up anything about the so-called "negative" media attention, Strickland laughs in their faces.
    100 years from now, it won't matter what kind of car you drove or how big your house was. What will matter is that you were important in the eyes of a child.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    I will agree they will certainly use the media coverage as a mitigating factor but I say - the media will have had nothing whatever to do with the verdict. my sense told me the day I heard "...31 days before florida toddler was reported missing" and the day I heard the recording of the "waste...huge waste" phone call that KC murdered her daughter. not a single lick I have heard since then has served to change my mind.

    so they can mitigate til they are blue in the effing face and blame the media that we ever heard the name of Casey Anthony - but the real reason we ever heard the name is due the the actions CASEY ANTHONY chose to take on the 16th of June, 2008.
    Okay, I am long-winded- this is precisely the short version of what I was trying to say. Thanks !!!!

    You can't change the truth!
    Last edited by JBean; 12-26-2009 at 04:20 PM. Reason: removed reference to poster in quoted post

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by mydailyopinions View Post
    I don't see how Baez nor Lyons can go on National TV a couple of times a month with their media blitzes and then dare to use the media as a mitigating factor.
    Chances are, if they would just shut up, half the people in the nation who knows nothing of this case would continue to know nothing if they would just zip it..
    JMHO
    :Jumpie: Well said, ITA. I fully expect the defense to use this as a mitigating factor, including citing the play "Tot Mom." I hope the SA has a list of every single media appearance the A's, JB, LKB et al have made so they can throw it back in their faces.
    One thing we do know this is this. If we have gotten to this stage, those same jurors have already decided that the face that Caylee Anthony saw in those final moments of her life was her mother`s face. - Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Ashton, December 11, 2009

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    arkansas
    Posts
    407
    Hmmm - media's effect on case as a possible mitigation argument...

    NOPE - DON'T THINK SO - not that the defense won't try and it wouldn't be the first inappropriate argument they tried to make - but without getting into all the absurd moves of the defense in this case - let's just remember what a mitigating factor is in regards to the law - it is information or evidence regarding the defendant or circumstances of the crime that might result in a lighter sentence or even a reduced charge

    Mitigating factors regarding the defendant or circumstances of the crime have nothing to do with the media reports after the crime. Mitigating factors are things like a history of mental illness or a crime committed in the heat of passion or such a horribly abusive upbringing that might give a jury a reason to convict of a lesser crime or give a lighter sentence. They can even be things like remorse and attempts to atone or backgrounds of good deeds or character or anything that might make the defendant look like they deserve mercy and compassion.

    While the defense may be able to use the argument of inability to get a fair trial due to media coverage as an argument for appeal, it is not a mitigating factor that should be considered by the jury regarding whether or not to convict and of what charge to convict and of what sentence to pass. The media coverage had nothing to do with what happened to little Caylee as the media wasn't even aware of it until 31 days later so there is nothing they have or can say or do that is a mitigating factor.

    KC's actions since Caylee's death on the other hand could be considered as aggrevating factors such as the hideous way she disposed of Caylee's body or the calloused way she told her friends that Caylee was fine and with the nanny while she went out on with her life including the parties, the clubs, the thefts, & the lies.

    Mitigating and aggrevating factors may not be direct opposites but they are close to being that. A mitigating factor is something the jury considers when decidiing whether to convict of lesser charges or pass minimum sentences while an aggreavting factor is something considered when deciding to convict of the most serious charges or to pass the maximum sentences. Both must be considered and I'm sure in this trial both will be presented and the jury is likely to come in somewhere between the minimums and maximums as opposed to either extreme.

    But the media coverage SHOULD NOT be a part of their consideration as it is neither a mitigating nor aggrevating factor regarding either the defendant or the crime.

    (And that's all I got to say about that.)
    I know that you think you understand what you thought you heard me say, but, I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard me say is not really what I meant to convey.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mitigation: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    By sleutherontheside in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 384
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 06:37 AM
  2. The Media and Hailey's Case
    By Tricia in forum Hailey Dunn
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 09:28 AM
  3. Lyons' talk of 'Mitigation'
    By Blaise in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 06:23 PM
  4. Hurricane/effect on case
    By pregodego2 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-17-2008, 02:34 PM

Tags for this Thread