This Verdict Proves My Theory

[Thinker Belle]

I don't care if this is controversial or not, but my long held theory is that it is nearly impossible for an attractive, young female to be found guilty of a heinous crime, let alone sentenced to death for it. They receive the benefit of the doubt far more often than not. There are people who still think Darlie Routier is innocent despite the evidence to the contrary. They just cannot imagine the pretty little thing sitting on death row. And now it's happened with Casey Anthony, it appears. The jury just couldn't imagine a pretty little girl, with tears in her big brown eyes, committing such a heinous crime, let alone subsequently being killed for the crime. It's a brutal double standard. If you are a pretty, young female, you can get away with most anything. And even if you are convicted, you will get a much lighter sentence than someone else would. :sick:

Sadly, I think you are exactly right and you are definitely not the first person I have heard say something like this. Karla Homolka also comes to mind

 

[Tulessa]

Does ANYONE think it is remotely possible that this jury "threw" the verdict because it would make for a more profitable, sellable story?

It has certainly crossed my mind that if the jury would have found guilty of Murder One...or even Manslaughter, there really wouldn't me much marketable in their story....we would all EXPECT that verdict, so why buy the book, etc?

But now that they have SHOCKED the world, I would imagine their "story" would be MUCH more marketable.....let the bidding wars begin....

Bingo! Hubby & I both have said this...

 

[grandmaj]

:floorlaugh: wrong thread folks sorry.

 

[legalmania]

I don't care if this is controversial or not, but my long held theory is that it is nearly impossible for an attractive, young female to be found guilty of a heinous crime, let alone sentenced to death for it. They receive the benefit of the doubt far more often than not. There are people who still think Darlie Routier is innocent despite the evidence to the contrary. They just cannot imagine the pretty little thing sitting on death row. And now it's happened with Casey Anthony, it appears. The jury just couldn't imagine a pretty little girl, with tears in her big brown eyes, committing such a heinous crime, let alone subsequently being killed for the crime. It's a brutal double standard. If you are a pretty, young female, you can get away with most anything. And even if you are convicted, you will get a much lighter sentence than someone else would. :sick:

That is not entirely true if you look through the link below there are quite a few attractive women that have been sentenced to life, and others sentenced to quite a bit of time, I've seen it both ways attractive as well as not so attractive women and men sentenced to life in prison, or sentenced to quite a stretch in jail and prison. I just checked the site and it was down they say it should be back up soon.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInm...LL&subjecttype=ALL&facility=ALL&workskill=ALL

 

[Caligram]

I think that some jury members are too easily influenced by the courtroom behavior and appearance of the defendant. She was young, white, and not too bad looking if you overlooked some things. The overall image that was presented by FCA to the jury was extremely different when the jury was not present. Too bad they didn't get to see real close-ups of her when she was poking her eye or squeezing her nose to appear teary-eyed. I am surprised they didn't catch her examining the tissue for mascara, the single tissue held for all those hours. They didn't seem curious about how she would lower her head and cover part of her face to mimic shedding tears. Seems that they only looked at (1) her long hair and what it looked like that day, (2) the sweater tops which she kept tugging at to tighten for the males in the room, or (3) Perhaps the female jurors felt sorry that she had to wear those sweaters with such long sleeves.
I am older than CM, yet he was allowed to touch her arm, her back like a fatherly figure perhaps that is what it was supposed to convey...I thought he was a lecherous old man who should have been told to keep his paws to himself. There was lots of stroking and comforting of FCA, which I thought wasn't right. Didn't the rules state that there were to be no facial displays or gestures. The DT made threats of grounds for mistrials, they blatantly broke rules, and in the end, FCA got away with murder.
I do sincerely believe that if this defendant had been a young poor black female or a big burly-looking male there would have been no interest in respresenting and defending them. The jury would not have taken any time at all to determine guilt.
This I believe but I am white, and old, and prejudice still exists throughout this country of mine.
IMO

 

[krkrjx]

Does ANYONE think it is remotely possible that this jury "threw" the verdict because it would make for a more profitable, sellable story?

It has certainly crossed my mind that if the jury would have found guilty of Murder One...or even Manslaughter, there really wouldn't me much marketable in their story....we would all EXPECT that verdict, so why buy the book, etc?

But now that they have SHOCKED the world, I would imagine their "story" would be MUCH more marketable.....let the bidding wars begin....

I suspected this to be the case when the verdict was read; now I not only suspect it, I am convinced without a doubt of it. The recent info that the jurors prefer none of them speak out is what convinced me. I think the stronger personalities on the jury will not leak this info but the weaker ones might eventually break so, IMO, if these jurors' do have a self-imposed gag order it is in hopes of keeping the weaker ones away from media and allowing the stronger ones to field the questions, when the time comes.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Yep. I, personally, wouldn't consider Casey a beauty. But she is above average in attractiveness. She also makes the effort, even in clothes not to her standards (i.e. the knots at the back of her shirts and sweaters in court), to present herself as well groomed. It all makes a difference, as attested to by this interesting article from Newsweek Magazine:

"Remember the story about the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate? It goes to show our beauty bias is nothing novel. At the time, radio listeners thought Nixon had won, but those watching Kennedy’s tanned, chiseled face on TV, next to a worn-down, 5 o’clock-shadowed Nixon, were sure it was the junior senator. There are various explanations for some of this. Plato wrote of the “golden proportions,” which dubbed the width of an ideal face an exact two thirds its length, a nose no longer than the distance between the eyes. Biologically speaking, humans are attracted to symmetrical faces and curvy women for a reason: it’s those shapes that are believed to produce the healthiest offspring. As the thinking goes, symmetrical faces are then deemed beautiful; beauty is linked to confidence; and it’s a combination of looks and confidence that we often equate with smarts. Perhaps there’s some evidence to that: if handsome kids get more attention from teachers, then, sure, maybe they do better in school and, ultimately, at work. But the more likely scenario is what scientists dub the “halo effect”—that, like a pack of untrained puppies, we are mesmerized by beauty, blindly ascribing intelligent traits to go along with it."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/19/the-beauty-advantage.html

 

[Caligram]

And, from what I understand, this also plays into the genetic part of us that ensures "survival of the species" by unconsciously selecting those who best conform to the strongest, most fit specimen one can attract. Nature at itrs finest. Perhaps the accused should be forced to wear bags over their heads and sack clothing to not unduly influence the jury. There are so many disadvantages for a haggy snaggle-tooothed prisoner sitting in that defendant box, least of which should be looks.
It is what it is.....unfair, dammit!!!
IMHO

 

[charok]

I found her extremely unattractive during the trial-- she was dressed shabbily, unkempt and wrinkly, she had a dour scowling face most of the time, and when she cried her nose ran so much it caused me to gag. If anything, they must have seen "potential" beauty, because she sure wasn't pulling that image down in front of them. mo

i agree, but im sure jury saw pics( although it was just like what two, three max of her living the "bella vita" @ the club ie, the devil in a blue dress pictures..im pretty sure they seen pics of casey and caylee. ( wheres shes smiling, looking (ahem) pretty..)...so hence i agree, if youre even somewhat attractive, young and white you CAN get away w/ murder...

 

[scorekeeper]

I wonder how the jury feels now that they have had a chance to possibly see all her actions, faces and such while the jury was out of the room....I think all prisoners should have to wear their "jail" clothes to court and all juries need to be professional.

 

[krkrjx]

i agree, but im sure jury saw pics( although it was just like what two, three max of her living the "bella vita" @ the club ie, the devil in a blue dress pictures..im pretty sure they seen pics of casey and caylee. ( wheres shes smiling, looking (ahem) pretty..)...so hence i agree, if youre even somewhat attractive, young and white you CAN get away w/ murder...

Of course, physical beauty can detract and can sway a person's thinking. I am not sure why it would have happened in this case, though. It didn't work for Darlie Routier. It didn't work for Debra Mielke (sp?) and even though the photos of Amanda Lewis at the time of her arrest are anything but attractive, in court she was cleaned up and looked pretty by most standards. The evidence in these cases was far less convincing than in the Anthony case, IMO.

Sorry if it offends, but I think Casey's jury saw this case as their ship coming in, and that is why they voted the way they did. Don't forget that half the jurors wanted to convict on at least one of the felony charges--the others convinced them to change their minds and I don't think they were convinced to change from GUILTY to NOT GUILTY based on Casey's looks.

 

[PeteJ]

I wonder how the jury feels now that they have had a chance to possibly see all her actions, faces and such while the jury was out of the room....I think all prisoners should have to wear their "jail" clothes to court and all juries need to be professional.

Thanks for this post. I agree. As far as what the jury thinks now, I really don't think they care. just my opinion.

 

[PeteJ]

Had this been 'Shaneequa Anthony', she would have been convicted and sent to death row and it wouldn't have taken long to arrive at such a verdict and sentence.

Unfortunately, this is true and its a sad situation for those of us who want justice for all. The DT pulled out all the stops, the inmates seat lowered below that of her DT, those loooong sweater sleeves pulled down over her hands, poking at her eyes, those little pats and hugs from her DT.....MOO

 

[PeteJ]

I disagree-for an example I will use Amanda Lewis. She was sentenced to life+30 and is at Lowell in Florida. She is young, white and pretty. Granted, there were instances that came up at her trial that showed she wasn't the greatest mother but that doesn't make her a murderer. No one said Casey was a bad mother. No one. I think that made a difference.

Amanda's 7 year old daughter drowned in her backyard pool on August 8, 2007. She did the right thing and called 911 but her daughter could not be saved. She was charged with her murder, went to trial and found guilty of 1st degree murder and aggravated child abuse. She was sentenced on March 17, 2008 to life+30 yrs. a few months before we had ever heard of Caylee. Her son (who was 5 at the time of Adrianna's death) testified against her and had several different stories to tell about what happened that day. I do not think Amanda is guilty. There is not much information out there on the case. 20/20 did a show on it and so did Aphrodite Jones. After the 20/20 show I did not have an opinion as to whether she was guilty (not enough information) or not but after Aphrodite's I did.

Also...have you forgotten about Diane Downs? I think Casey is as crazy as she is-Casey could be Diane's daughter! Watch some of Diane's old and recent videos (parole hearings)-she rattles on and on about nothing and has crazy, imaginary theories, just like the Zanny kidnapped Caylee story! Totally wacked, both of them! I think Casey is a very scary person and I am so glad I don't know her or live anywhere near her! I do agree with you about Casey getting into trouble again someday.

Agree with most of your post but iirc didn't most of the town where Amanda Lewis lived think she was of a lower class or a redneck type? People did not approve of her lifestyle? Their opinion is not mine BTW. That case was a travesty. So much for a jury of ones peers. Casey was considered from a middleclass family by many. So, she was bestowed with positive character traits she did not possess...good mother etc MOO

 

[com n sense]

The chick is a SOCIOPATH. They say that we are all here for a purpose, well, the purpose of a sociopath is to cause complete devastation in the lives of others. You know how that tornado ripped through Joplin destroying everything in sight leaving only twigs (that were once trees) standing in its aftermath? That is exactly what sociopaths do to people. Casey has no concept of the pain that she has caused her family and she definitely will never "get it" as to why strangers in this nation care so much about Caylee.

ITA with this. She even ripped apart peoples lives while she was behind bars.
She's a pro at it.

 

[Trapshooter]

I suspected this to be the case when the verdict was read; now I not only suspect it, I am convinced without a doubt of it. The recent info that the jurors prefer none of them speak out is what convinced me. I think the stronger personalities on the jury will not leak this info but the weaker ones might eventually break so, IMO, if these jurors' do have a self-imposed gag order it is in hopes of keeping the weaker ones away from media and allowing the stronger ones to field the questions, when the time comes.

krkjx I must've missed the recent info about the jurors preferring that NONE of them speak out! Was this recently? Can you point me to a link please? :seeya: Thanks!

 

[krkrjx]

krkjx I must've missed the recent info about the jurors preferring that NONE of them speak out! Was this recently? Can you point me to a link please? :seeya: Thanks!

I'm working on finding the link. It is posted in one of the threads here but I do not recall which one. I will post it here if I find it.

ETA: Found it! I am not sure how long the link will be good for, but here it is:

------
Originally Posted by suzihawk
I posted the following in another thread but it should go here as well...


One thing that stood out to me in the article about HHJP not releasing the names until October...

"Eckstadt said fellow jurors have said they don't want each other talking to the media."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5310429.story

I can't help but wonder why they would feel the need to make this decision or agreement as a group. Why the need to discuss it at all, actually? Why not leave that up to each individual? Then, of course, there were those that apparently broke ranks and talked anyway. Makes me feel very suspicious.
------------

 

[hornswoggled]

The alternate juror last night said he believed casey was a "very" good mother. He said he did not understand the trunk evidence and did not believe she was ever in the trunk. He said He did NOT like George's attitude toward Jose Baez and that made him suspect George. He also said that he felt bad for casey. They were told not to base thier verdict on emotion so feeling bad for Casey and having a weird feeling about George is not reasonable doubt.

This to me is like a nightmare I feel like they made a horrible mistake. I feel like they related to Jose because of his lack of proefessionalism like they understood his language and the state was too complicated so they just chucked all the evidence. As if they wanted the underdog to win.

I cannot for the life of me understand how listening to casey's call home from prison and her interview at Universal could ever make someone form the opinion that she was a "very" good mother.

I have tried to find their reasonable doubt and I just don't see it, they refused the hair with the death band evidence fromt he trunk, the car smell, the coffin flies and wax, the adipose, the duct tape over Caylee's mouth holding her jaw in place, the location of the body dump and the length of time, her lies that implicated her guilt, they ignored the fact that George did not have access to Caylee or the car, that George was at work that afternoon while Casey was in the neighborhood for 4 hours, they ignored the shovel, they ignored the internet searches, the chloroform connection from the computer to the car. They literally ignored every piece of evidence and withitn 11 hours decided she was innocent of EVERYTHING.

This is shocking because there is no way she was innocent of everything having to do with Caylee and only guilty of lying to police - those two are connected. MO

I am in agreement with you. Except for the 11 hours. I think it was more like 2, possibly 3 hours deliberation. I believe they knew they were leaving the next day, and came dressed for it. Which means they did not really deliberate on that day. As for the evidence, the ONLY thing they "reviewed" was that little heart sticker during the trial that for some reason seemed important enough to them to ignore Judge Perry's admonition not to talk about the case, and decided that they wanted to see it RIGHT THEN. WTH???? Was that the deciding factor?? Please tell me it wasn't!! Even Cheney Mason was concerned that they spoke among themselves about the sticker before they were supposed to discuss anything about the case. I find that very troubling. Were these people really that ignorant? Or is there some underlying reason that I cannot fathom? Looking at all the evidence piled up on the table and floor, not to mention all the hours of testimony from scientists, and they wanted to see the sticker???? I cannot make sense of any of this. It is quite the mystery.

 

[gxm]

I'm not sure if this opinion will get me in trouble with the mods but I've never thought of KC as "pretty." She is an average looking, young white woman. And IMO it's the young white woman part that played in her favor. She is also petite. And, as a petite woman, I have the life experience that people tend to think of you as child-like. (I severely sprained my ankle about a month ago and you wouldn't believe how many people have told me that my ankle brace is "cute"!) So KC's size may have played a part as well.

 

[affinity]

I remember the many arguments here over the past three years about whether or not Casey Anthony is pretty. She is most certainly pretty...that is why this case went the way it did from the start. She doesn't look or act like a killer. I was one who wanted to believe that she killed Caylee "accidentally". After watching the entire trial, I changed my mind and understood that she did it on purpose.

Casey's looks and femininity kept her from the gallows. If she'd been old, fat, male, ugly and any color but white...she'd have been sentenced in 2009-2010. For one thing, she would have had a public defender (one who wouldn't have made a career out of defending her).

All of it reminds me of some guy saying to me a long time ago: "Neurosurgeons and genetically blessed women in their 20's have it made, they make the lion's share of money in this country".