Showing posts with label washington post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label washington post. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

06/07 Casey Anthony and the court of public opinion




So the jury, at last, has spoken: In America’s first tragic, tawdry, tortuous Trial of the New Century — which seemed as though it would never get started, and, once it began, seemed as if it would never end — the state of Florida managed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony . . . lied to the cops.
That’s it: Four misdemeanor counts of “providing false information to a law enforcement officer,” punishable by a slap on the wrist, pretty much.

First-degree murder? Not guilty. Aggravated child abuse in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee? Not guilty. Aggravated manslaughter of a child? Ditto.
Say wha . . . ? How could this be? The court of public opinion (read: the media — TV talking heads, especially) long ago reached its verdict: She must be guilty.
“A snake charmer,” declared Nancy Grace of CNN.
“I am shocked by” the verdicts, tweeted Joy Behar of ABC’s “The View” after the jury’s decision was announced Tuesday. “Though I can’t say this isn’t the first time Florida’s screwed up an important vote.” On CBS, the co-hosts of “The Talk” wept.
The jurors haven’t commented publicly yet. There were reports that they had agreed to keep quiet. We’ll see. When bookers for the big network morning shows start offering five-figure “licensing fees,” some tongues on the panel might loosen.
And here’s what they might say: We don’t know how Caylee died. Nor do the police. Nor do the prosecutors. The autopsy was inconclusive.
By the time the child’s remains turned up in a swamp, months after her disappearance, they were badly decomposed and long past telling what killed her.
The state presented a mountain of evidence that Anthony, 25, was a lot less interested in being a mother than she was in being a party girl, and that she lied, lied, lied — again and again, often ridiculously — to conceal her daughter’s death.
Yet for all the public loathing of Anthony that the evidence whipped up, for all the vilification she was subjected to in the talk-show arena — the fact is, being a lousy mother isn’t a capital offense. Not seeming to care that your child is dead isn’t punishable by lethal injection. Being seen as despicable, of course, isn’t the same as being legally guilty.
In the end, the state’s case had a giant hole. There simply was no clear evidence that Caylee was slain intentionally. It was a hole big enough for an acquittal.
“I hope that this is a lesson to those of you who have indulged in media assassination for three years — bias and prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be,” said defense lawyer Cheney Mason, scolding the press Tuesday.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, the term “Dexter Morgan” started trending, referring to the serial killer in the popular Showtime series “Dexter,” an avenging psychopath who slays criminals who have avoided justice, who have beaten the rap.
In magazine racks this week, the cover of People features a photo of Anthony, and wonders: “Getting Away With Murder?” A lot of people think so, shouting angrily in front of the courthouse and banging out righteous condemnations on the Web.
But it turns out, there was no murder. At least, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
“This was a horrible tragedy, an accident that snowballed out of control,” defense attorney Jose Baez told Fox News, referring to Caylee’s death.
“The jury saw that,” he said, “and they’re the ones that heard all of the evidence, not the propaganda and the speculation and the Frankenstein-like lynch mob that ensued throughout the last three years.”
Staff writers Elizabeth Flock and Sarah Anne Hughes contributed to this report.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

05/07 Did Dominique Strauss-Kahn Try To Rape Tristane Banon?


Seven ways to check his story and hers against the evidence.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Tristane Banon. Click image to expand.Out of the frying pan, into the sautee pan.
While the New York sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn unravels, another case against him has surfaced in France. Tristane Banon, a friend of Strauss-Kahn's daughter and a goddaughter of his second wife, is filing a complaint against him for attempted rape.
Strauss-Kahn wants the collapse of the New York case to discredit Banon. In a statement from his lawyers, he "notes that this complaint comes quite conveniently right at the moment when there is no longer the slightest doubt about the false nature of the accusations against him in the United States."
But that isn't true. The falsity of the accusations in New Yorkremains in doubt. And Banon's case is a separate question. The New York accuser has failed tests of corroboration. Banon is entitled to the same tests, with the possibility of a different result. Can her allegations be confirmed? Let's investigate them.
Banon says that in February 2003, when she was 23, she interviewed Strauss-Kahn for a book. Afterward, he phoned her and asked her to meet him at a Paris address for a follow-up interview. The address turned out to be an apartment. There, he touched her and became increasingly physical. She resisted. On a TV show four years ago, she said, according to a Telegraphtranslation, that the encounter "ended very, very violently because I told him clearly. ... We didn't merely slap each other. … I gave kicks, and he undid my bra, he tried to undo my jeans." Agence France Presse translates her account differently: "I told him clearly 'No, No!'—and we finished up fighting on the floor. There wasn't just a couple of blows. I kicked him, and he tried to unclip my bra, to open my jeans." In an interview just published in L'Express, Banon describes
his fingers in my mouth, his hands in my pants. … [He] grabbed my hand and arm, I asked him to let me go. … He pulled me toward him, we came down and we fought on the ground for several minutes. ... He was violent. When I realized he really wanted to rape me, I started to give him a kick with my boots, I was terrified and I told him: "You're not going to rape me?" And then I managed to free myself, I ran downstairs …
Banon says she tried to stop Strauss-Kahn by reminding him that she was close to his daughter's age. She says he replied: "What does Camille have to do with it?"
Advertisement
In his authorized biography, published four months ago, Strauss-Kahnsays of Banon's allegations, "The scene she describes is imaginary. Do you see me throwing a woman on the floor and being violent, as she claims?" He saysBanon "contacted me through my daughter Camille … The interview took place normally, and at its end, I had a phone call to Michel Field to grant him an interview in his turn."
It sounds as though Strauss-Kahn is describing the initial interview and denying that he phoned Banon for a follow-up session at the apartment. Such a denial would make it easier to check his account and hers against external records. Here are a few of them:
1. The apartment. Banon says it was located "between Montparnasse and the National Assembly, in a street near the Boulevard des Invalides, and he told me it was the apartment of a friend." She says it "was almost empty, white, exposed beams, a coffee machine, a round table … an empty library, and, basically, a room with a bed." If Strauss-Kahn denies that they were together in such an apartment, it should be possible to find out whether it existed, and, if so, whether one of his friends owned it. If it did exist, Banon's description can be checked for accuracy. If she's accurate, Strauss-Kahn would need to explain how she knows what it looked like inside. Alternatively, if he admits to meeting her there, other French journalists can be quizzed to find out whether he invited them to the same place, or whether he reserved it for pretty young women.
2. The tape recorder. In her 2007 account, Banon said, "I put down the tape recorder immediately to record. He wanted me to hold his hand while he answered, because he told me: 'I won't be able to if you don't hold my hand.' And after that, from my hand, he went to my arm, and then a bit higher." In her latest account, she says that after Strauss-Kahn held her hand and she told him she wanted to leave, "He stopped the dictaphone, grabbed my hand and arm," and the struggle began. If these accounts are true, then she had a tape recording of him asking to hold her hand, which would falsify his depiction of their interview as normal. Where is the recording?
3. The call to Mom. Banon says, "I managed to free myself, I ran downstairs, I found myself in my car, I called my mother because I could not even drive, I was shaking so much." Does Banon's mother recall this conversation?
4. The parking ticket. Banon says she got a "PV" (French parking ticket) at the meter where she parked for the interview. Where's the ticket? The address would help nail down the apartment's location, and the time could be checked against Strauss-Kahn's schedule. It could also be compared with his phone records to see whether he called Michel Field afterward.
5. The text messages. Banon says that after she left the meeting, Strauss-Kahn "sent me a text message straight away saying: 'So, are you afraid of me?' in a provocative tone. … After that, he was continually sending me text messages." Do her phone records show these text messages? If so, how could Strauss-Kahn explain them?
6. The apology. Strauss-Kahn says that in the last four years, he and Banon's mother, a fellow Socialist politician, have run into each other two or three times at party events. According to Strauss-Kahn's biographer, "They talked about the accusations against him by the young writer. And have, according to him, left on good terms, as if this case was a misunderstanding." But Banon's mother says that in one conversation, Strauss-Kahn told her, "Je sais pas ce qui m'a pris, j'ai pété un plomb." Roughly translated, that means: "I don't know what came over me. I lost my mind." This report from Banon's mother doesn't depend on anything her daughter said. It's a direct quote from Strauss-Kahn. How does he explain it? Is the mother delusional as well as the daughter?
7. Francois Hollande. Banon says Francois Hollande, who was then the head of the Socialist Party, knew about her victimization, called her about it, and recommended that she pursue a complaint. But Hollande says he has "no knowledge of the facts, real or imagined" and was "never aware" of such grave allegations. Banon now says of Hollande, "He lies." Does he? Or does his failure to confirm her recollection undermine her credibility?
Either way, Banon deserves to have her story tested against the evidence. Maybe it will discredit her. Maybe it will discredit Strauss-Kahn. What's important is to focus oncorroboration and falsification, not on who wins or loses. Forget the case in New York. Set aside your prejudices about rich men and rape accusers. Banon, like Strauss-Kahn, is entitled to a fair hearing and thorough scrutiny. Don't take her word for what happened. Don't take his, either.
Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Human Nature's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:
Latest Twitter Updates
  • You know how people always say they're "battling" cancer? This time, I'm rooting for the cancer. http://t.co/ktCd8Xi about 12 hours ago
  • "The very brief time period inside the hotel suite strongly suggests something other than a consensual act.” Seriously? http://t.co/KttkWvU 2 days ago
  • So the DSK case wasn't as it appeared. I bet it still isn't. I bet DSK's team fed the DA leads vs the accuser and let the DA take the credit 2 days ago
  • My new tennis policy is to root for whoever doesn't grunt. Kudos to Petra Kvitova. May she win many more. http://t.co/WuWRxVs 3 days ago
  • If this slide show doesn't turn you into a Republican, nothing will.http://t.co/TZTkbHc 5 days ago
Follow William Saletan on Twitter.

05/07 Casey Anthony cleared of murdering 2-year-old daughter; defense attorney criticizes the media


ORLANDO, Fla. — Casey Anthony’s eyes welled with tears and her lips trembled as the verdict was read once, twice and then a third time: “Not guilty” of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.
Outside the courthouse, many in the crowd of 500 reacted with anger, chanting, “Justice for Caylee!” One man yelled, “Baby killer!”
Video
Jury announces verdict. The jury took less than 11 hours to find Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was convicted of four counts of lying to investigators who were looking into the June 2008 disappearance of her daughter, Caylee.
Jury announces verdict. The jury took less than 11 hours to find Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was convicted of four counts of lying to investigators who were looking into the June 2008 disappearance of her daughter, Caylee.
Video
Casey Anthony broke down crying as prosecutors called her a liar who murdered her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. She closed her eyes and rested her chin on her fist. (July 3)
Casey Anthony broke down crying as prosecutors called her a liar who murdered her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. She closed her eyes and rested her chin on her fist. (July 3)
More On This Story
In one of the most divisive verdicts since O.J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife, Anthony was cleared Tuesday of murder, manslaughter and child-abuse charges after weeks of wall-to-wall TV coverage and armchair-lawyer punditry that one of her attorneys denounced as “media assassination.”
Anthony, 25, was convicted only of four misdemeanor counts of lying to investigators who were looking into the child’s June 2008 disappearance.
Anthony could get up to a year behind bars on each count when she is sentenced Thursday. But since she has been in jail for nearly three years already, she could walk free. Had she been convicted of murder, she could have gotten the death penalty.
After a trial of a month and a half, the Florida Ninth Judicial Circuit Court jury took less than 11 hours to reach a verdict in a case that had become a national cable TV sensation, with its CSI-style testimony about the smell of death inside a car trunk and its storyline about a seemingly self-centered, hard-partying young mother.
Prosecutors contended that Anthony — a single mother living with her parents — suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she wanted to be free to hit the nightclubs and spend time with her boyfriend.
Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Anthony panicked and concealed the death because of the traumatic effects of sexual abuse by her father.
State’s Attorney Lawson Lamar said: “We’re disappointed in the verdict today because we know the facts and we’ve put in absolutely every piece of evidence that existed.” The prosecutor lamented the lack of hard evidence, saying, “This is a dry-bones case. Very, very difficult to prove. The delay in recovering little Caylee’s remains worked to our considerable disadvantage.”
Anthony failed to report Caylee’s disappearance for a month. The child’s decomposed body was eventually found in the woods near her grandparents’ home six months after she was last seen. A medical examiner was never able to establish how she died, and prosecutors had only circumstantial evidence that Caylee had been killed.
The jurors — seven women, five men — would not talk to the media and their identities were kept secret by the court.
The case played out on national television almost from the moment Caylee was reported missing three years ago. HLN’s Nancy Grace approached the case with the zeal of the hard-nosed prosecutor she once was, arguing that Anthony — or “the tot mom,” as Grace routinely called her — was responsible for her daughter’s death.
Anthony’s attorney Cheney Mason lashed out at the media after the verdict.
“Well, I hope that this is a lesson to those of you having indulged in media assassination for three years, bias, prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be,” Mason said.
Without mentioning Grace by name, he added: “I’m disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don’t know a damn thing about.”
The defense team gathered after the verdict to celebrate at a restaurant across the street from the courthouse. At one point Mason was seen in the window extending his middle finger toward the crowd outside.
Grace said after the jury’s decision: “There is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth.”
Given the relative speed with which the jury came back, many court-watchers were expecting Anthony to be convicted and were stunned by the outcome.
Anthony’s parents left court quickly after the verdict without hugging or saying anything to Anthony. As court broke up, she smiled broadly and tightly hugged her lawyers.
“While we’re happy for Casey, there are no winners in this case,” Anthony attorney Jose Baez said after the verdict. “Caylee has passed on far, far too soon, and what my driving force has been for the last three years has been always to make sure that there has been justice for Caylee and Casey because Casey did not murder Caylee. It’s that simple. And today our system of justice has not dishonored her memory by a false conviction.”
Because the case got so much media attention in Orlando, jurors were brought in from the Tampa Bay area and sequestered for the entire trial, during which they listened to more than 33 days of testimony and looked at 400 pieces of evidence. Anthony did not take the stand.
The case became a macabre tourist attraction in Orlando. People camped outside for seats in the courtroom, and scuffles broke out among those desperate to watch the drama unfold.
In closing arguments, prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick showed the jury two side-by-side images. One showed Anthony smiling and partying in a nightclub during the first month Caylee was missing. The other was the tattoo Anthony got a day before law enforcement learned of the child’s disappearance: the Italian words for “beautiful life.”
“At the end of this case, all you have to ask yourself is whose life was better without Caylee?” Burdick asked. “This is your answer.”
Prosecutors also focused heavily on an odor in the trunk of Anthony’s car, which forensics experts said was consistent with the smell of human decay. But the defense argued that the air analysis could not be duplicated, and that maggots in the trunk had come from a bag of trash.
Prosecutors hammered away at the lies Anthony told when the child was missing: She told her parents that she couldn’t produce Caylee because the girl was with a nanny named Zanny — a woman who doesn’t exist; that she and her daughter were spending time with a rich boyfriend who doesn’t exist; and that Zanny had been hospitalized after an out-of-town traffic crash and that they were spending time with her.
Baez said during closing arguments that the prosecutors’ case was so weak they tried to portray Anthony as “a lying, no-good slut” and that their forensic evidence was based on a “fantasy.” He said Caylee’s death was “an accident that snowballed out of control.”
He contended that the toddler drowned and that when Anthony panicked, her father, a former police officer, decided to make the death look like a murder by putting duct tape on the girl’s mouth and dumping the body in the woods a quarter-mile away. Anthony’s father denied both the cover-up and abuse claims.
The verdict could divide people for years to come, just as the Simpson case did, with some believing Anthony got away with murder.
Ti McLeod, who lives near the Anthony family, said, “The justice system has failed Caylee.” Jodie Ickes, who lives a mile away and goes to the same hairdresser as Anthony, said she is against the death penalty and was glad that Casey wasn’t facing execution. “I’m comfortable with the outcome,” she concluded.
Among the trial spectators was 51-year-old Robin Wilkie, who said she has spent $3,000 on hotels and food since arriving June 10 from Lake Minnetonka, Minn. She tallied more than 100 hours standing in line to wait for tickets and got into the courtroom 15 times to see Anthony.
“True crime has become a unique genre of entertainment,” Wilkie said. “Her stories are so extreme and fantastic, it’s hard to believe they’re true, but that’s what engrosses people. This case has sex, lies and videotapes — just like on reality TV.”
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Monday, July 4, 2011

04/07 On the Fourth, a declaration we still must live up to


Editorial Board Opinion

MORE THAN 130 British ships had set sail from Nova Scotia on June 9, on their way to the rebellious American colonies. The king of England had hired thousands of German mercenaries. The British penalty for treason was death and confiscation of one’s estate. These were some of the things on the minds of members of the Continental Congress as they met in Philadelphia to debate independence 235 years ago.
“And yet,” writes the historian Pauline Maier, “as the British began to bring the greatest fleet and the largest army ever assembled in North America into action against the Americans, Congress devoted the better part of two days to revising the draft declaration of Independence. Wars, it understood, were not won by ships and sailors and arms alone. Words, too, had power to serve the cause of victory.”
The Declaration of Independence, which we celebrate today, wasn’t even an official act of government. The Continental Congress had voted for independence on July 2. The July 4 Declaration, drafted mostly by Thomas Jefferson, was meant as inspiration for the soldiers and to justify and explain a drastic action against the crown to a divided and worried public. To be cynical about it, it was in some ways an early exercise in spin control, especially in its over-the-top excoriation of King George III’s alleged offenses. But in time it became — to use the title of Professor Maier’s 1997 book on the subject — “American Scripture,” with an impact on the national consciousness that far exceeded its revolutionary role.
The reason, of course, lay in the assertion “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . .” Those grand sentiments were by no means acceptable to all Americans, especially in the South, where society was both more hierarchical and bound up with the institution of slavery. But they were supported and sustained by many, and as the slavery issue began to tear the country apart, the words of the Declaration became the most powerful statement of the contradiction at the heart of American society.
“The Declaration of Independence set forth a philosophy of human rights that could be applied not only to Americans, but also to peoples everywhere,” writes Gordon S. Wood, a historian of the Revolution. It might even be cited as an example of what’s now called “American exceptionalism,” but it’s good to remember that it didn’t become a reality until well after Abraham Lincoln had restated it in a new scripture delivered over the graves of thousands of Americans whose bodies had covered the field at Gettysburg just a few months before: on the morning of July 4, 1863. Realizing the ideals of the Declaration is not an easy matter of sloganeering. For some it requires sacrifice; for most it demands at least a decent respect for the opinions, rights and essential patriotism of others.
l
A footnote: We hope that some members of Congress’s new “Tea Party Caucus” can make it down to the fireworks Monday night. It might be a good time to reflect on the primary motivation for the original Boston Tea Party, which was that Americans should not be taxed by a government in which they had no parliamentary representation. That right to a voting representative is still denied to all who live in the nation’s capital, and some of them must be wondering why members of Congress who so revere the Founders haven’t done something about it.