Boasting everything from alleged molestation, a mistress, a suicide attempt, a chlorophyll/chloroform Google mix-up, a concocted character “Zanny the Nanny” right through to fake employment at Universal Studios and at the very heart one very dead toddler, the Casey Anthony trial had it all.

A gender appropriate response to questioning. Photo:The Daily Telegraph

On July 5, the jury, after deliberating for a mere handful of hours, found Casey Anthony not guilty.

Not quite the same as saying she’s innocent. Nevertheless, the jury’s verdict came from the leftest of left field. And it was on that not guilty pronouncement that the story got really interesting.

Outside that Florida courtroom, in the sweltering, stifling Orlando summer heat, those who couldn’t secure courtroom seats waited on tenterhooks. And on that startling verdict, they erupted. There were screams. There were tears. One person even fainted.

This was not the outcome those folks were waiting for.

Outside the courtroom stood, by and large, women. Women, mothers, who without a shadow of doubt, were convinced that the young mom had killed her daughter.

On July 17, a little after midnight, Casey was released and the same women were there to greet her. Shouting. Pumping fists. Shaking placards. Each voraciously demanding justice. Cue some elaborate stunts involving duct-taped mouths.

That the coroner could not ascertain the cause of Caylee’s death meant little. That the prosecution could not persuade the jury meant nothing.

These women of course, were completely convinced. And this is where my interest lies.

Curiously, those women outside the courtroom believed that they each had some insight, some evidence, that the prosecution, the jurors, the judge, evidently just weren’t privy to.

Intellectually we know that women can kill. That they can abuse children. That they can rape and maim and assault. We all know this.

And yet constantly, retaught to us through every cultural influence available, is that women are the fairer sex, the gentler sex. So when a woman is implicated in a horrendous crime, words like “evil” get bandied around. Because it’s not just a crime that’s occurred, more so, it’s a perversion of all that is good. And right. And gender appropriate. And worse still, when it’s a mother and that’s the stuff of nightmares.

After a month of toddler Caylee not being sighted by family members, her grandmother Cindy, rang 911 to report her missing; to allege that her daughter Casey’s car smelled like death.

Casey never reported Caylee missing. During Caylee’s disappearance, Casey was photographed “partying”. During the investigation, Casey told a host of lies leading to one very expensive goose chase. This strange behaviour convinced a host of Americans that of course Casey killed her daughter.

As a society, we have some very fixed expectations of appropriate responses to tragedy. When British tourist Peter Falconio went missing in 2001, his girlfriend – Joanne Lees – wasn’t hysterical. She wasn’t crying, she wasn’t pleading. She didn’t look suitably mortified. And so, based on the absence of an acceptable reaction, something was perceived as very wrong.

Flashback to the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain. Lindy didn’t beat her breast, didn’t yell, didn’t collapse in a hysterical mess. She appeared cold, she appeared unemotional, she appeared detached. And she was presumed guilty accordingly.

Considered as every bit as bad as blood on her hands, is a woman not acting in the narrow ways society determines as appropriate. There are, apparently, correct, sanctioned ways grief should be exhibited; just ask our PM post-floods. There are phone calls that need to be made and facial expressions that need to be donned. And tears too, are mandatory.

While on one hand it’s simply curious that some people claim to instinctively know how another person should react, more broadly, the ramifications of such expectations ripple widely.

Complicity gets readily presumed – even in the complete absence of evidence – based on nothing more than emotional responses considered odd. Women who don’t act appropriately, who don’t leave cheating husbands or abusing boyfriends get quickly judged. Girls who don’t report rapes or sexual harassment or assaults promptly are considered suspicious. As profiteers. As venomous.

There’s a very insidious, sexist undercurrent to our expectations of women’s appropriate reactions. These expectations, harboured by both men and women, see us stereotype and try and readily convict women without a shred of evidence.

Fortunately the legal system generally asks for just a little more than that.

63 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:56am | 22/07/11

      Oh, give me a break. Men are automtically perceived as guilty, even when proven innocent - especially in sex-related crimes. Yet all you can whinge about is the emotional responses of women.

      As I pointed out yesterday, over 90% of prisoners in jail are men. Numerous studies indicate that men are treated more harshly than women at every stage of the judicial process - more likely to face trial, more likely to be convicted, if convicted, more likely to receive heavier sentences for the same crimes.

      Yet it’s a bigger deal if women cry or not? Puh-leeze. The total narcissism and self-absorption of the feminist movement is revolting.

    • Ava Harris says:

      07:25am | 22/07/11

      My, you appear to have an awful lot of time on your hands, Erick, to pounce on anything that appears to - God forbid - advance women’s rights.

    • Tron says:

      08:01am | 22/07/11

      When you lie about the whereabouts of your child and your child ends up dead, after seeing what happened to that girl in Mt Druitt it would be safe to say the person lying about the whereabouts of the child has something to hide, and mountain of evidence and this b*tch walks free?? If it was a bloke he would be in jail getting his ass kicked and raped by now but because its an attractive young woman she can do no wrong..

    • KH says:

      08:08am | 22/07/11

      Maybe because 90% of crimes that have jail time are done by men?  Maybe because the overwhelming evidence is that most sex crimes have men as perpetrators - regardless of victim gender?  And the article wasn’t talking about the judicial process, but the general population as represented by the group of people outside the court who had already strung up, drawn and quartered Anthony before any court decision.  Do you even read these articles before you jump in with your poisonous comments?

    • Kevin says:

      08:14am | 22/07/11

      @Erick
      “over 90% of prisoners in jail are men”.
      So what?  About 25% of prisoners in Australia are indigenous.  By your logic, Aborigines must be treated harshly by the judicial process.
      “Men are automatically perceived as guilty”.
      Never heard of Lindy Chamberlain?
      “Numerous studies”
      You can find studies to support any proposition.  Especially if you trawl the “ain’t it awful how men are treated” websites that you appear to find so authoritative.

    • John Smythe says:

      08:41am | 22/07/11

      Not sure Ava, but articles like this make me appreciate Erick’s consistency.

      Victims are only victims if they are female I guess….

      I read this bit :
      Intellectually we know that women can kill. That they can abuse children. That they can rape and maim and assault. We all know this.

      ...and thought, there’s a token paragraph to Erick smile

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:41am | 22/07/11

      @Erick

      You left out “more likely to commit crimes” but hey don’t let the facts get in the way.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      09:06am | 22/07/11

      Then write your own article and stop hijacking everyone else’s.

    • Tom says:

      09:10am | 22/07/11

      @Ava Harris, I thought the child was a woman too? Obviously not, eh?

      BTW: the child’s name was Caylee and I am sure she would be happy to know that her rights to justice have been overlooked for what you perceive to be some disgusting “greater good”.

    • Tom says:

      09:19am | 22/07/11

      @Ava, I doubt that you were celebrating so hard when OJ Simpson got off. Or did you bang on about black “victimhood” then?

      Thanks for making Erick appear so justified about feminazis.

    • The righteous one says:

      09:19am | 22/07/11

      Erick is the Lord Monckton of feminine rights.  “The total narcissism and self-absorption of the feminist movement is revolting.”
      The pot calling the kettle black I think.

    • The righteous one says:

      09:19am | 22/07/11

      Erick is the Lord Monckton of feminine rights.  “The total narcissism and self-absorption of the feminist movement is revolting.”
      The pot calling the kettle black I think.

    • Erick says:

      09:39am | 22/07/11

      Yes, men are more likely to commit crimes. Men are also more likely to save others’ lives at the risk of their own, more likely to create great inventions, make great discoveries, create great art, and build great businesses.

      That goes with the territory - men are overrepresented at both ends of society, the top and the bottom.

      Feminists demand equality at the top end of society, but ignorer the suffering of men at the bottom. So the crocodile tears of a child-murdering mother are more important than the thousands of men whose lives are ruined by false accusations, and it’s okay to presume these men guilty even after their innocence is proven.

      Feminism is misandry and self-absoroption writ large in society.

    • Markus says:

      09:40am | 22/07/11

      “And the article wasn’t talking about the judicial process, but the general population as represented by the group of people outside the court who had already strung up, drawn and quartered Anthony before any court decision”
      Perhaps, but the question remains as to exactly which part of this phenomena is some societal conspiracy focussed solely against women.

    • Tom says:

      09:47am | 22/07/11

      @HappyCynic and @KH, my understanding is there are plenty of studies to show otherwise and that incarceration rates for gender neutral crimes (eg shoplifting) are higher for men.

      I will give you a hint. If you substitute “aborigine” for “male” in all your arguments would you feel equally as comfortable? Or would you be expecting to be attacked by the sanctimonious outraged set?

    • Sarah says:

      10:50am | 22/07/11

      Oh for crying out loud, did anyone actually read the article? She was stating how it is UNFAIR that women are automatically assumed the fairer sex and how stereotyping a gender can be harmful. The article was about when people don’t conform to societies expectations of how to greive. The fact that it focussed on women was topical, not a dig at men.

    • Cat says:

      10:51am | 22/07/11

      oh give US a break Erick - when are you going to realise you are the mirror image of every feminazi you rail against? Both claim to be working towards equality and yet both are completely devisive and unable to take any gender related subject or fact in context without crying “SEXISM!”

    • Fiona says:

      10:52am | 22/07/11

      You’re so predictable. Why don’t you study this at uni. I’m sure there’s a PhD in that (I’m actually serious), that way some actual good may come of all your whinging. Just please make sure you put cause and effect somewhere in your hypothesis please.

    • Fiona says:

      11:01am | 22/07/11

      Well said Sarah, btw erick that article you provided a link to had no references, so on it’s own merits, it appears to be an opinion piece.

    • Bev says:

      11:20am | 22/07/11

      Fiona says:10:52am | 22/07/11
      Why don’t you study this at uni. I’m sure there’s a PhD in that (I’m actually serious), that way some actual good may come of all your whinging. Just please make sure you put cause and effect somewhere in your hypothesis please.
      There are no mens studies at uni.  Only a “mens studies” set up under the gender studies wing.  It is seriously useless as it looks at men through the prism of feminism with the resultant mish mash of feminist propoganda against men.
      There is in the US serious attempts to set up mens studies to look at males in their own light.  It is being strenuously opposed by feminists but dispite this now looks like getting off the ground within the next few years.

    • Tom says:

      11:23am | 22/07/11

      @Sarah “Oh for crying out loud, … “
      @Cat “oh give US a break Erick …”
      @Fiona “You’re so predictable. …”
      Arguments please ladies . Feigned exasperation and meaningless ad hominem attacks don’t help. They belong to the last century.

      PS: or is it lady sockpuppets, one minute apart, same exasperated start, same hubris.)

    • Bev says:

      11:39am | 22/07/11

      KH says:08:08am | 22/07/11

      Maybe because the overwhelming evidence is that most sex crimes have men as perpetrators

      True however our societies fixation on sex crimes is turning up things which have been out of sight and mind.  More women are being found to be rapists and sex offenders against children something society did not believe possible.  While it will always be that there are more male sex offenders it is being found that women do too, we just assumed they didn’t in particular molest children and trusted them absolutely with children thereby giving them more opportunities. Its seems not all that trust is deserved.

    • Cat says:

      11:49am | 22/07/11

      Tom - I’ve pointed out specific examples of where Erick has confused reference to gender as automatic sexism in an article in comments to Erick, as have others. The most recent example I can think of is in relation to predominantly female dominated industries being mentioned as a factor in relation to fair pay issues. Funnily enough he doesn’t seem to respond to those comments… You are quite welcome to search for the many and varied comments I’ve left on numerous articles, I’m not nearly as prolific a commenter as Erick but there should be enough replies there to indicate an individual presence rather than a sock puppet. Indeed I believe you’d find a few cases where I’ve happily agreed with an oppinion he’s expressed, but that doesn’t mean I can’t observe the easily noted patern of responses that indicate a lack of objectivity on his part whenever gender is mentioned.

    • iMitchy says:

      12:41pm | 22/07/11

      This article wasn’t about men and the judicial system.
      It wasn’t about men and women and the judicial system.
      It wasn’t about men at all.
      It was only about women.
      No feministic or mysoginistic views, rather common views of society in general and the media.
      Erick was the first to mention anything about men.

      It’s becoming abundantly clear that you don’t comment on the theme of the articles Erick, instead you arrive with an agenda and search for any vague reference to gender and attack it as if it opposes your mandate - even when it doesn’t.

      I used to have respect for the passion of your conviction even if I disagreed with some of your comments. But today the last shred is gone.

      Just another hijacked thread.
      I suspect you would not get so much attention if you weren’t always the first to comment on every article. For God’s sake man, have a sleep-in.

    • Tom says:

      12:46pm | 22/07/11

      Cat, I will trust you on your good intentions elsewhere.

      On Erick, you referred to “the easily noted pattern of responses that indicate a lack of objectivity on his part whenever gender is mentioned.” 

      I say in Erick’s defence that his pattern seems to me to derive “the easily noted pattern of ...” assertions or bias in the original articles. I am obviously not alone in thinking this although I don’t claim to be unbiased.

    • Markus says:

      01:10pm | 22/07/11

      “She was stating how it is UNFAIR that women are automatically assumed the fairer sex and how stereotyping a gender can be harmful”

      I agree Sarah, it IS unfair that women are automatically given the benefit of the doubt in situations where men are immediately assumed guilty.

      Oh wait, you meant that it is unfair to women?
      Excuse me for a moment while I /facepalm

    • Sarah says:

      02:08pm | 22/07/11

      No Markus, I meant what I said. It is unfair on everyone that women and in particular mothers are presumed to be innocent even before any facts have been laid out on the table. When circumstances reversed, a male would more than likely be presumed guilty.

      I hope your face is stinging.

    • Bernard says:

      02:18pm | 22/07/11

      I think she made one interesting point about expected reactions. If people don’t behave the way we expect them too, we perceive something as wrong (eg they’re guilty).

      Think of how cold and expressionless men go when faced with adversity. Men are likely to put on the stone face and be totally unresponsive in a court room whether guilty or not. Many people seeing this might think ‘Well, he’s accused of killing his boy and he’s not angry at the judge or breaking down sobbing at the loss of his child, so he must be guilty.’

      Conversely, a few crocodile tears at the right time (as crying is acceptable behaviour by women) could sway a jury to a woman’s innocence, regardless of objective evidence.

      Maybe victims and defendants should not be present in the courtoom and instead have their statements read out by a monotone computer voice to balance out this.

    • Cat says:

      02:24pm | 22/07/11

      my observation on a pattern isn’t a criticism of every comment. Erick has some very valid points at times, but I think the worthwhile points Erick can and does make are obscured by the tenancy to froth at the mouth and chase shadows. Feminist has become a dirty word because a one-eyed focus can lead to a complete lack of objectivity and balance. The problem with looking for equality is that it can’t be found when you only look from one perspective, what you find instead is endless self-imposed red herrings divirting from the real problems and their sollutions.

    • Markus says:

      03:10pm | 22/07/11

      Seems that we agree then, Sarah. Unfortunately, our view is the exact opposite to that raised by Lauren in the article:
      ‘These expectations, harboured by both men and women, see us stereotype and try and readily convict women without a shred of evidence.’

      “I hope your face is stinging.”
      Not particularly, most of my face is calloused from the sheer frequency of facepalms induced daily.

    • Sarah says:

      03:43pm | 22/07/11

      I’m sorry Markus, you’ve either taken that quotation and used it out of context purely to suit your purpose. Or you didn’t understand that the article is saying we shouldn’t be so quick to judge anyone without evidence purely on the basis of gender or their reactions to grief.

    • Markus says:

      04:17pm | 22/07/11

      Come now, Sarah. One only has to count the number of times ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are used in the article to see that the writer only has one gender in mind during her crusade to change public perception.
      Hint: it isnt’ men.

    • Sarah says:

      04:46pm | 22/07/11

      Perhaps we read different articles Markus, but that’s not what I got from it. If you’re already predisposed to assuming this article is just going to be women whinging about how unfairly they’re treated than of course that’s what you’re going to see.

      I however saw it as an interesting perspective on societies expectations of gender roles and responses when it comes to crime.

    • Fiona says:

      10:14pm | 22/07/11

      Yes Tom, erick is predictable because he always comments on how I’ll favored men are by society at large, no matter the subject. If you read the rest, I suggested doing something other than complaining about it, you know, be the change you want and all that.
      Bev, hopefully if men’s studies in uni get off the ground in one country others will follow suit. It would only be fair to have both sides represented in gender studies.

    • Sceptic says:

      06:50am | 22/07/11

      ‘Cue some elaborate stunts involving duct-taped mouths’  ooooo…tape over mouths, how VERY elaborate.

    • Criminologist says:

      07:12am | 22/07/11

      ‘Curiously, those women outside the courtroom believed that they each had some insight, some evidence, that the prosecution, the jurors, the judge, evidently just weren’t privy to.’

      You will recall that it was the Australian Media who

      ‘When British tourist Peter Falconio went missing in 2001, his girlfriend – Joanne Lees – wasn’t hysterical. She wasn’t crying, she wasn’t pleading. She didn’t look suitably mortified. And so, based on the absence of an acceptable reaction, something was perceived as very wrong.’

      It wasn’t the general public.  It was a reaction from the Australian Media because Lees refused to bow down to their demand for interview.  This vilifying of a genuine victim was abhorrent and left an indelible stain on this country’s journalistic institution.  It will never return to an instutition of authority, intellect and one assumed to be in a genuine search for the truth.

      There is an apparent strong body of evidence against Lindy Chamberlin.  It may have been fortunate for her that forensic standards and criminal investigation wasn’t as strong back then as it is today.  It may have been a very different story.

      ‘There’s a very insidious, sexist undercurrent to our expectations of women’s appropriate reactions. These expectations, harboured by both men and women, see us stereotype and try and readily convict women without a shred of evidence.’

      This is primarily (if not solely) led, maintained and fuelled by the Australian Media.  If anyone is responsible for the slanting of evidence, the stereotyping and judgement of any individual - it is the Australian Media.

      ‘These expectations, harboured by both men and women, see us stereotype and try and readily convict women without a shred of evidence.’

      None of these cases would have made it to the judicial system if there wasn’t a shred of evidence.  All along the way are checks and balances to ensure an individual’s rights and freedoms are being observed and maintained.  Oversight of this process is closely monitored and assessed by the Court process and it’s officers.

      To quote these cases (Anthony and Chamberlin) in an argument that includes the suggestion of women being accused of the worst of crimes ‘without a shred of evidence’ is highly irresponsible.

      More importantly, it’s a despicable desecration of the victims and their lives.

    • Jem says:

      09:23am | 22/07/11

      “There is an apparent strong body of evidence against Lindy Chamberlin.  It may have been fortunate for her that forensic standards and criminal investigation wasn’t as strong back then as it is today.  It may have been a very different story.”

      Umm…Lindy Chamberlain was convicted on the foresenic evidence at the time.  It was later that the details of the ‘feotal blood spray’ being a manufacturing chemical (if I recall correctly) came to light.  And her conviction being quashed was based on subsequent evidence coming to light. 

      You can hardly say Lindy got off scot free due to the technology of the time.  She was jailed for 3 years or more prior to her conviction being reviewed. 

      The premise of this article is that there was bias against LIndy Chamberlain due to her lack of emotional display in public.  I consider that to be true.  Regardless whether you think she committed the crime or not, the public perception of her character was influenced by her lack of “appropriate” behaviour. 

      I agree the media treatment of Joanne Lees was appalling.  The media should be utterly ashamed of the way they deal with cases like these.

    • Kassandra says:

      11:52am | 22/07/11

      I think something is being missed in this analysis. The “bias” against an accused because of their public display of emotion, or lack of one, is a secondary event.

      When a child goes missing or is found dead the first point of inquiry as to what happened is the adult in whose care the child was supposed to be. When that adult offers an unlikely explanation, or a dodgy explanation, or a downright lie and then compounds this by not “looking the part” of an innocent person - THEN the media’s and the public’s BS meter goes off the scale. I doubt that many people even now believe the dingo was guilty, certainly not of burying a folded garment anyway. I’m commenting on the psychology here btw, not whether the persons involved in these cases are guilty or otherwise, which I don’t know of course. Also I don’t think this phenomenon is confined to women accused contrary to this article and many of the comments. I think it happens just as often to men, but the media is more likely to report cases involving child victims who are in turn more likely to be killed by their mothers.

    • Mark G says:

      03:13pm | 22/07/11

      Excellent post crim. It puts a realistic spin on things. It should be note that she was found not guilty of murder. The verdict wasn’t ‘not guilty’ of being a bad mother. There is no doubt in my mind based of the court evidence that she had something to do with it or at least some element of fault but that doesn’t mean that she murdered her child. She was found guilty on other charges that related more specifically to what the police could prove she did. Any legal system should be structured this was to protect the innocent from unfair convictions.

    • Dingoh says:

      09:06am | 22/07/11

      You have to remember that in a court people are either guilty or not guilty of the alleged crime.  Just because they are found not guilty, doesn’t mean that, given all the facts that an objective person would not conclude that they did do the thing that is alleged, but in the eyes of the law they are ‘not guilty’.  Often important informtion about the matter is not presented to the jury because of the rules of evidence, designed to ensure utmost “fairness” to the accused person.

    • Nick says:

      09:19am | 22/07/11

      Kellie Lane must be feeling very badly done by in her experience of Australian justice. No body, no cause of death, but a jury found her guilty of murder because she told a few lies about her life. Two very similar cases, one here, one in the USA and two very different results. truly, the law is an ass!

    • Fiona says:

      11:06am | 22/07/11

      True, but caylee’s body was found. So the trial would have proceeded differently.

    • Steve says:

      09:33am | 22/07/11

      Most people become affected by a woman crying, even supposedly tough guys, and automatically feel some sympathy.

      I’ve often seen so-called cap[tains of industy become quite pathetic in response to women crying.  Its like they can’t quite get past the male protector ideal. The disconnect between their self -image and reality is always worthy of a laugh later on.

    • Tom says:

      10:12am | 22/07/11

      Steve, so true, but on your last sentence I don’t think Caylee (the daughter) would find it terribly much “worthy of a laugh”.

    • Watcher says:

      10:44am | 22/07/11

      Found Innocent or not I would not want her minding my grandchildren

    • Anna C says:

      10:46am | 22/07/11

      I still think that Casey Anthony murdered her child regardless of what the jurors thought. The fact that she was not found guilty by a court of law means nothing. There is a big different between ‘the law’ and ‘justice.’ Her own family are convinced of her guilt and have cut off all communication with her because ot it. 

      Unfortunately for little Caylee she will not get her justice. RIP.

    • JoeJiudice says:

      12:42pm | 22/07/11

      This article is two things:

      a) thought provoking
      b) a big troll post directly to Erick

    • Markus says:

      01:31pm | 22/07/11

      I doubt any of the Punch writers even fully understand the concept of trolling.

      What none of them lack, however, is the innate ability to take any single event, and write an article explaining how it is representative of the systematic oppression of/discrimination against women.

      People believe a mother killed her child? Society hates women
      A government funded industry in a pay dispute? Society hates women.
      5 soldiers die in a firefight after an ambush? Society hates women.

    • Erick says:

      01:53pm | 22/07/11

      @JoeJididece -

      a) It provoked me to think of the author’s sexism, so you’re right.

      b) I hate to disappoint people. Interestingly, my comment on the article has received more responses than the article itself.

      @Markus - Well said, as usual.

    • mike j says:

      02:19pm | 22/07/11

      Woman gets raped while dressed like a prostitute. Society hates women.

      Society gives woman post-natal depression and makes her murder her child. Society hates women.

      Men aren’t attracted to fat chicks. Society hates women.

      People are paid for the quality and quantity of the work they do, not their gender. Society hates women.

      Men suggest women should take personal responsibility for their actions. Society hates women.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      03:04pm | 22/07/11

      Just for the sake of completeness, you left out:

      Man loses all property,possessions, and his children in dodgy divorce settlement involving accusations of violence or sex.  Society hates women.

      You can have female-only clubs but not male-only club. Society hates women.

      Qualified and competent man loses job/promotion bid to less qualified and competent woman due to tokenist quota.  Society hates women.

      We have an abundance of “feminists” but we don’t even have a WORD for the male equivalent.  Society hates women.

      I reckon feminists made their point and achieved their purpose decades ago - there doesn’t seem to be anything much left to aim for really.

      The women even have their own special Prime Minister now, who is easily the most attractive, intelligent, popular and successful Female PM we have EVER had in Australian history.

      What’s left to do, spent-force?  Oh yeah, that’s it - continue complaining about how bad things are for women.  Yep.  We get that.  Every day.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      12:48pm | 22/07/11

      Some people consider the emotional responses of women to be relevant, a jury however is responsible for assessing the facts as they pertain the the law as explained by the Judge. Media forms usually concentrate on the emotion of the situation and not the law and the evidence, it makes for better sales of their product. The reason juries get to see the accused and the accuser is to assess whether they think they are genuinely telling what they believe to be the truth or are consciously lying.

      One Juror has said concerning this specific case that they believe Casey Anthony is guilty but the prosecution failed to make a case “beyond reasonable doubt”. It sounds like the Jury did the job they were asked to do in an appropriate manner. If anyone dropped the ball it was the Prosecution.

    • Patsy says:

      12:50pm | 22/07/11

      I watched the trial closely on Foxtel and Casey Anthony got away with murder because she is a woman and also a mother. If the prosecution didn’t go for the death penalty I think she would have been found guilty. Her parents didn’t want the death penalty for their daughter, her mother even lied and said she made the google search for chloroform but, was later proved to be at work at the time. They as implied that Caysee was involved. I also watched the comments after the verdict. One female juror thought it could have been an accident. So why the duct tape and dumping of Caylee’s body in a swamp? Why didn’t Caysee report her child missing for one month? Why did she accuse her father of sexual abuse towards her? Very strange family. Zanny the nanny? Zanny is slang for a tranquiliser. Caylee was only charged for lying to the police four times and released.

    • iansand says:

      03:11pm | 22/07/11

      You didn’t watch the trial.  You watched media coverage of the trial.  They are two very different things.  Anyone who thinks media coverage of a trial is, in any way, fair, balanced or comprehensive is naive.

    • Lee says:

      02:41pm | 22/07/11

      “That the prosecution could not persuade the jury meant nothing.”

      Read the comments from the jury. None of them thought Casey Anthony was innocent. Most of them considered her guilty. To all of us, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Yet the jury considered that the prosecution was unable to provide evidence of the fact beyond doubt.

      Simple fact is that Casey Anthony, like OJ Simpson, was acquitted of murder because the prosecution failed to provide the jury with enough evidence to prove the charge beyond doubt. It has nothing to do with Casey being a mother or a woman.

      The real question relates to this: why is it that some legal commentators in America think this ‘not guilty’ outcome might have been avoided had the prosecution not pushed for the death penalty. Had the charge been lower, where Anthony was not sentenced to death, then perhaps the jury may have been able to find her guilty. Why is it that consequence may play a role in jury decisions?

      The case also highlights the need for a ‘not proven’ outcome.

    • Romli065 says:

      03:41pm | 22/07/11

      From what I read of this case, it looks like she’s guilty of killing her daughter, whatever the circumstances were.  The fact that she got off with a “not guilty” court verdict is not justice, just an outcome that the law, with all its flaws,  allows.  This woman’s behaviour during the time that her daughter was missing was outrageous.  Any mother who really loved and cared about her child who was missing surely would not be out partying?!  Granted, human behaviour can be complicated and varied, but some things are pretty much black or white.  If your child is missing, you don’t party, you do anything you can to find them!

    • Up The Abbottohs !! says:

      03:49pm | 22/07/11

      Casey Anthony is innocent ! The mass media got it wrong!
      Doug Anthony and The National Country Party inspired Doug Anthony All Stars!
      Gough Whitlam inspired the Whitlams!
      Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard inspire nobody and nothing!

    • LisaH. says:

      05:33pm | 22/07/11

      I’m actually surprised that far more women don’t murder or injure their children.
      Cue the outrage.

      We raise women to think ‘they can do anything’, they dominate in education…and then we lock them away in a suburban house with an unpredictable little person who, having been a party to the distressing and commonly damaging process of childbirth, leaves Mum without peace, privacy or any shred of freedom whatsoever.

      There’s a reason why some cultures keep women hidden away with the children in tents…children can make incredibly demanding and lousy company.

      The pressures and social expectations on women are immense, and often thankless. Motherhood is a prime route to poverty and isolation for women.

      Having said that, i adore my kids!  smile But I have a strong family support in my husband, and some days are definitely better than others.

      Honestly, I’m surprised we don’t have more Mums before courts of law.

    • Motherhood's not easy says:

      07:46pm | 22/07/11

      @LisaH.  This is very honest.  I help my daughter all I can, knowing what you say is true -  it IS more difficult today.

    • Alicia says:

      10:35pm | 22/07/11

      I didn’t follow this case much at all but regardless of what she did/didn’t do, the reaction from the public disgusts me. I’m equally as disgusting when it happens in other trials (men and women). I don’t know why but it irks me, especially when the outraged people have nothing to do with any of the people involved in the case.

      I appreciate that people are angry that justice wasn’t served, but there is no need to behave like that.

    • deeceefan says:

      08:52am | 22/10/11

      Alright alright, if you’re gonna spew facts, show me your sources. Also, why can’t anyone debate in a level headed manner? all you have going here is an argument that will never be won since emotions are thrown into it. Please act like adults and use reasoning before you write hate novels. Not saying this is how everyone here has acted, but most of you guys…c’mon

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter