So, about this Casey Anthony coverage ...

[Akoto]

I don't know the law, so I would ask you to take this as the honest question it is. :)

Casey Anthony was found not guilty of all but lying to police. That was the conclusion of the jury. Even so, cable media is still covering the case all day long (particularly on HLN), and they continue to blatantly talk as though she were guilty of murder. Jane Valez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace are particularly guilty, but there's a whole host of them going to town.

So, the question. With the verdict clearing her of the crimes (whether or not we privately believe her to be guilty), how are these continued accusations not slander? This seems like an invitation to a law suit.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1. In a civil case I believe Casey would be deposed.

I dont think she would like that.
In fact, I read something about Casey being sued
herself civilly by the woman Casey falsely accused
of being the nanny who, Casey claimed, had taken her child.

[Broderick]

2. Who knows

As one that strongly disagrees with the verdict and followed it from day 31, I wish people would stop profiting off it all the way around. Now it's the jurors chance to profit and parts of the family are writing books and there are rumors of the grandmother inking a two million dollar deal, a juror turning down 50k because it wasn't enough and a woman juror pre-empting with non-existent threats so her value goes up. Sick of it, meanwhile Rome burns, and I apologize for the run-on.

[tallahasseedem]

3. I would like them...

to focus on the hundreds of other children in this country who have been brutally murdered, beaten, etc. I am sick of it all.

[DJ13]

4. HLN is pissed because they had her guilty two years ago

They are in face saving mode now.

[Hepburn]

6. Boy, isn't that the truth...

...suddenly some of the worst talking heads are saying how he or she had a clue about how the verdict was gonna go the wrong way. Yeah, right...:eyes:

Sheeeeeeeeeeesh, Nancy Dis-Grace and Jane Velez Mitchell are the worst by far, but that idiot Dr. Drew is not too far behind.

Man, give it a break!

[Whisp]

9. Graceless POS and her kind may have been partly responsible for the failure

to make a case by the prosecution. She (Grace) was screaming about the death penalty and we all know the media is very influencial on these things – so the prosecution had to proceed and could not prove premeditated murder.

If the Graceless asshole wasn't whipping people up in a frenzy perhaps a lesser charge would have the jurors agree with a guilty charge.

Sad statement all around on how the media, instead of being educators and information givers, fuck things up continually. fuck them up and suck corporate teat.

useless

[Hepburn]

5. Agree...

...but I doubt if she would win a civil suit because the proof is a preponderance of the evidence and she could be asked all the questions that were not asked her in the criminal case when she declined to testify.

So, yeah, a technical slander ~~ but no way could she win a civil suit, IMO, nor would she want to testify about her part in teh death of her child.

[Jazz Ambassador]

7. I think it goes something like this

First, in order for it to be slander, the kranky kable kommentators would have to be lying. Technically, they're not lying -- they're speculating. The fact that the jury found her "not guilty" is not proof that she's not guilty -- it's just proof that the state failed to establish her guilt in a court of law. Were Anthony to sue for slander, she would have to prove she didn't kill her kid, which would be pretty tough to do.

Second, kranky kable kommentators are insulated from charges of defaming her by the fact that she's a public figure (ironically, since she arguably became a public figure thanks to the endless attention from kranky kable kommentators).

[jberryhill]

8. Defamation would have to be proved by a preponderance of evidence

The verdict of not guilty was apparently rendered on the basis of the jury's belief that the evidence presented by the state did not eliminate reasonable doubt as to the charge of murder.

Having followed the case to some extent, I agree with the jury's verdict.

I do believe that Casey Anthony most likely engaged in a criminal act resulting in the death of that child, but I do not believe the state proved it to the threshold required for a criminal conviction. Too many loose ends, unreliable witnesses, contradictory testimony, etc. were enough to drive the "reasonable doubt" van through the state's case.

But my belief of "most likely" or "probably" is not "beyond any reasonable doubt". It's a shame, but that's how it looks to me. Reasonable minds can differ.

However, in the context of a civil suit for defamation, Anthony would have to show by a preponderance of evidence that the statements made in the press are false. That's not going to happen.