Those who lived near New York City in 1989 will recall how Ed Koch and many others loudly condemned Yusef Salaam and the other young black men accused of assaulting the Central Park jogger. Well, those self-appointed judges and juries were wrong, as facts later revealed.
Comparing the two cases makes little sense unless you can establish an important relevance of that comparison. I know nothing of that case, therefore I can't comment on the facts of it. However, all that matters is the
facts of
each case taken individually. But if you want to simply pull cases that you think somehow prove your contention, I can as easily cite the O.J. Simpson case, with far different implications
Casey Anthony beat the murder rap because there was not enough evidence to convict her.
Incorrect. She beat the murder rap because a group of 12 men and women presumably
believed there wasn't enough evidence to convict her. That hardly establishes insufficient evidence as an objective fact. That was merely
their subjective opinion. Of course, we can't even know for sure that
they decided the case solely on the basis of the facts, can we? Would you actually suggest that merely
because they were selected for the jury makes their judgment more sound than anyone else's? Do they have some sort of special qualifications that you're aware of that would establish their judgment as better qualified, or more sound, than that of others? Or are you merely basing your conclusion on your
own subjective judgment, as it appears?
It won't surprise me if we eventually learn she did not kill her daughter.
It's difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. Otherwise, it's possible that any person believed guilty, or found guilty by a jury, could later be found to be innocent. That's just a given and hardly negates any of the known evidence until or unless it happens. Which I seriously doubt it will, there being only one logical suspect given all the
facts in this case.
If you want to judge her, do so based on facts, not assumptions.
I believe that it
is facts, not assumptions, which
have convinced most people of her guilt. Why do you seem so convinced otherwise?
Hate her for failing to report the girl's disappearance, lying to the authorities, and anything else she admits or was convicted of. But don't hate her for killing her daughter because we don't know that to be true.
You mean
you don't know it to be true. And, yes, none of us knows it to be true beyond all
possible doubt either. But as I said above, that isn't the legal test for guilt. (Although I believe Anthony's attorneys successfully convinced the jury in this case otherwise by confusing them as to what constitutes
reasonable doubt.)
As it did to Yusef Salaam and his codefendants, the news media stirred up people's prejudice about Casey Anthony. With the spread of cable television and the Internet these past two decades, it was probably even worse for a white woman than it was for those brothers back then.
You seem to be merely
assuming it is nothing but "prejudice." What makes you so sure that it
isn't the
facts of the case which have convinced most of those following the case, including
many legal experts, of her guilt? That is, what
evidence or
facts do
you have to support your apparent contention that this is merely about "prejudice"? The fact alone that the media sensationalized this case hardly constitutes proof of such a contention.
More specifically, what evidence do you have to support the claim that it was "probably" "even worse for a white woman than it was for those brothers back then"? Are you suggesting that whites are inordinately victims of prejudice in the U.S. or that women are, or both?
In short,
you seem to be merely
assuming "prejudice" without offering any evidence or facts that I can see to support this assumption. Nor, as far as I can tell, have you provided any evidence that the jurors
weren't prejudiced in their decision in this case. Are you sure that
they weren't prejudiced in her favor
because she was a white woman? That is, you've offered nothing to establish their verdict as more credible than anyone else's
opinion. In fact, the
only difference is that their decision has
legal standing, while others' opinions do not.
Or perhaps you're naive enough to believe that a particular jury's finding of "not guilty" in itself is compelling evidence of innocence or "insufficient evidence." If so, I again refer you to the O.J. Simpson case. Obviously
both those juries
couldn't have been right about the facts -- could they?
