The media's influence on criminal trials: Part Two (Casey Anthony)

The research I’ve carried out on the case involving Casey Anthony and the murder of her two year old child, Caylee Antony, is one of the hardest I’ve done so far. The pictures of Kaylee when she was still alive are haunting, not because she looks abused or neglected in any way, but because of how beautiful and innocent she appears to be. Her giant, deep, green eyes look into the camera with a very touching look, and I’d be lying if I said I haven’t welled up a few times whilst reading about the horrific things that happened to her (or didn’t?)

Caylee Anthony was born August 9^th 2005 to party-loving, young mum Casey Anthony. She was born in Orlando, Florida and lived with her mother in a house shared by Casey’s parents, George and Cindy Anthony. According to a conversation Casey had with a neighbour back before Caylee was born, Casey was seven months along in her pregnancy before she realised and didn’t know who the father was as ‘it was a one night type thing.’

Background accounts and reports from friends and families suggest that Casey was never really fond of parenting, instead preferring her young lifestyle and unable to accept responsibilities of a parent. It is very probable that she would have resented Caylee and blamed her for holding her back during her young adult life.

According to Casey’s father, Casey had an argument with her parents that resulted in her leaving the family home on June 16^th 2008 and did not return for a month. During this time, Cindy, Casey’s mother, repeatedly phoned Casey and asked to see Caylee, who she was not used to spending so long without. Casey consistently fabricated stories about Caylee’s whereabouts, which involved her being at the beach, theme parks and with a nanny named ‘Zanny’ Fernandez-Gonzalez (it was later determined that a nanny named ‘Zanny’ did exist but she had never met any of the Anthony family, nor knew who they were.)

The eventual reporting of Caylee’s disappearance happened by accident. Casey’s car ended up in a tow truck yard, in which her father retrieved and brought back to the family home. Both her father and mother noticed a distinguishable smell coming from the trunk that could only be described of the smell of a decomposing body. Cindy phoned the police immediately and explained how she hadn’t seen her granddaughter in thirty-one days and added, “There is something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car.”

Casey told police she hadn’t reported her child missing because she had tried to find her by her own means. She then told police that she believed Caylee had been abducted by her nanny, Zanny, although further along in the investigation it was determined that nanny did not exist in their lives. Another example of Casey’s fabrications is she told police she worked in an office in Orlando Studies, yet when leading the officers down the corridor to her supposed place of work, she turned around and admitted she had lied about that too.

Casey was first arrested on July 16^th 2008, originally charged for false statements to law officers, child neglect and obstruction of a criminal investigation. During the August month of that year, a meter reader named Roy Krunk contacted the police on three separate occasions and told them about a suspicious looking object found in a forest area behind the Anthony home. The police officers sent to investigate stated that they did not find anything. Finally, on December 11^th, 2008, the police found Caylee’s body in the area after another phone call from Krunk. Due to the level of decomposition of the body, her cause of death was ruled undetermined, but it was ruled a homicide due to duct tape being found on Caylee’s skull and circumstance.

Casey Anthony was charged with first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police. The trial began on May 24^th, 2011 and the trial ended with Casey’s acquittal on July 5^th 2011.

Casey Anthony’s trial is by far one of the most iconic trials in terms of media involvement. The vast majority of America, and parts of the world accessible to the case, were outraged with the outcome of the verdict, not guilty, despite substantial, hard evidence that Casey had murdered Caylee. Celebrities, news anchors, politicians and general members of the nation publically expressed their absolute outrage and disgust. Whilst the trial was on-going and afterwards, the public resembled an angry mob hell-bent on causing a witch hunt. In hindsight, and after extensive research, the public’s reactions to this case were highly inappropriate and worked against the prosecutors of the case. Casey’s defence attorney said the media’s impact worked in her favour, with the media creating vicious and slanderous rumours and lies that confused the jury. They felt an immense pressure to convict Casey just for the fact that the rest of the world wanted it to be that way. Because of this, in addition to other evidence of course, they clearly decided to go easier on her.

This is a clear example of how the sensationalism of openly accessible trials can negatively affect a verdict. Caylee Anthony was a beautiful little girl and something horrid and unspeakable happened to her. Without a single doubt the majority of ‘everyday’ citizens were disgusted and livid at what happened, with an urge to seek revenge for this poor little girl who could no longer speak for herself. This was heightened by the fact that all crime scene photos and evidence were accessible to the public, along with the actual trial possible to view by anybody. In my opinion, you could almost compare it to bearbaiting. The public, who were already raging with anger at what they were guessing had happened, now had photos and professional opinions to back up and justify their insanely angry attitudes. I personally believe that an extremely sensitive case like this should be privatised, with only the facts and verdicts given.

A statement by one of the copious amounts of spectators who lined up for hours for a chance to sit in the public gallery sums up, for me, the monstrosity of the sensationalism of this case;

News anchor: “What are you hoping to see in there?”
Lady (who had travelled hours to get a place in the courtroom): “Oh I dunno really. Some good testimonies, something juicy and fun!” (sic)

Had she forgotten that a two year old girl had been killed and dumped in a ditch? Where was the respect for this innocent child?

Since her acquittal, Casey has made blogs and video entries for the public, discussing life after her trial. Another example of this media showmanship that seems in impeccable poor taste to memory of Caylee.

Despite all of the drama and politics of this interesting trial, poor little Caylee Anthony’s mystery still remains unanswered. Instead of focusing on the justice for this toddler, the case turned into a circus of ‘Did she? Didn’t she?’ for Casey. There still remains the vital question; ‘What happened to Caylee?’ and although there is substantial evidence that strongly indicates that Casey knows what happened to Caylee, unfortunately it seems she will take that information down to the grave with her.

The War On Drugs: Leah Betts Campaign.

When I was growing up, particularly through primary and secondary school, I remember being told about the drug ecstasy, and how awful and dangerous it was. Back then it was commonly called 'X' in my school, which actually gave the drug an even more chilling persona. I can clearly recall my initial judgement being that ecstasy commonly killed people, especially first time users, and that it was insanely dangerous and should be avoided at all measures.

Partly for this reason was a particular case of Leah Betts, who was an eighteen year old girl from Essex. Leah had been at home with her friends, shortly after her eighteenth birthday in November 1995, and had taken an ecstasy (MDMA) pill. Within ninety minutes after swallowing the pill, Leah drank twelve pints of water. The excessive amount of water consumption caused her to suffer from water intoxication and hyponatremia, which resulted in swelling and damage of her brain and as a result, left Leah in a coma that she eventually died from. It is also stated that the consumption of the MDMA may have left Leah in a position in which she may not have been able to urinate, causing an even more damaging case of hyponatremia, but that if the ingestion of such an excessive amount of water was not present she would not have fell into the coma.

This is a very sad and distressing story that I happened to be researching about a few days ago. But what caught my attention, and subsequently led to this blog post, is this additional piece of information:

Following from Leah's death, there was a £1million pro-bono campaign carried out by three major advertising companies; Booth Lockett and Makin, Knight Leech and Delaney, and FFI. The campaign featured the production of a particular horrifying poster of Leah, with the caption "Sorted: Just One Ecstasy Tablet Took Leah Betts."

I have a vague memory of this campaign, and the reaction of the shocked nation. It seemed to effect people even more so than usual drug horror stories, as Leah seemed to be from a loving and 'normal' family. However, although it was not widely reported, Leah had actually taken ecstasy before and on at least three other separate occasions.

Also, one of Boothe Lockett and Makin's major clients happened to be a brewery, and around the time of Leah's death there were reports of alcohol industries blaming MDMA for a loss in profit and citing the ecstasy scene as high competition, due to a lot of interest in the rave scene of the nineties. The two other companies happened to represent the energy drink, 'Red Bull', in which Knight Leech and Delaney had earned over £5million and a member of FFI's group stated 'We do PR for Red Bull and it's very popular in a lot of clubs, as it is a substitute for taking ecstasy.'

A poster created by rock band Chumbawumba in retaliation to the iconic Leah Betts poster.

I find these particular areas of this case extremely interesting, as it suggests to me that Leah's death may have been used as propaganda towards steering people away from ecstasy use; not for fears of people's well-being and health, but as a business and profit movement. Leah's death was blamed on the consumption of one ecstasy pill, when in fact it had been an attributing factor of excessive water consumption that led to her coma, yet this was not as publicized.

MDMA has been scientifically proven again and again to be one of the most harmless drugs consumable. In a recent study in the UK, of eighty-one deaths where MDMA were present, only six people died from simple MDMA toxicity. Deaths associated with MDMA tend to be related to heatstroke and water intoxication, caused by excessive dancing or water consumption (as in the case with Leah) and not just the drug itself. It is proved to be less dangerous than most prescription drugs, yet there is a build up of fear and hatred towards the drug as if it is as terrifyingly dangerous as heroin or crack cocaine.

Unfortunately, because of this use of scare tactics towards ecstasy, and misinformation being given to people about the actual effects of the drug and how it can be safe to consume, the MDMA scene has now become dangerous. This, in my opinion, is due to a demand for a legal high that will imitate the effects of MDMA. Legal highs are a combination of chemicals that are yet to be tested, so can legally be obtained, and they are becoming increasingly more common. One example of a legal high that became popular was methadrone (AKA Meow Meow) which was proven to be extremely more dangerous than ecstasy, killing over sixty people over an extremely short period of time. 

With every kind of pleasure in life, it should be noted that consumption should be in moderation. Long term and frequent effects of MDMA can definitely cause depression, memory loss and brain cell damage. This can be said for most substances, including drugs that are given to people by the NHS. Of course, ecstasy can also be seen as a 'gateway' drug that could influence the consumption of harder, more dangerous substances. However, can we say that an attributing factor of that is when faced with an ecstasy experience after being told exaggerated stories of how dangerous it is, people may believe that due to the safe and happy experience they eventually went through, that they may experience that same safe and happy high through more dangerous and addictive drugs? If ecstasy is not as bad as once predicted, what's to say crack cocaine is as bad?

MDMA, if used correctly, can be used to help people with depression, family problems or problems with their relationships and confidence. With correct information, safe advice and the ability to control the manufaction and distribution of ecstasy, the dangerous legal high scene would die out and the public will be exposed to a safe and controlled drug environment. In terms of the war on drugs generally, I believe that the public are told too many exaggerated horror stories and are mislead information. This may deter the majority of the public from taking any drugs in the first place, but for the people who do end up experimenting, the lack of true information and safe guidance can be disastrous.

Introduction to world issue posts.

Crime is a constant interest for me and has been for years. In fact, one of my first memories of starting secondary school at eleven years old was renting a true-crime book from the library and the look of curiosity and slight horror from the librarian as I approached the counter with it. It is a subject I will never get bored of talking about and something I feel, knowledge wise, is constantly growing for me.

Along with discovering criminology, in the last few years I really believe I've started to find myself, so to speak. I've become increasingly more aware of my surroundings and issues in the world. I can't remember ever being this aware, and I feel the older I'm getting, my levels of compassion and empathy are growing at an alarming rate. I suppose when you are younger, levels of immaturity and less life experiences can keep you very grounded and living in a closed off bubble.

Now I am constantly reading and researching about the conditions other people are living in the world. It is something that makes me feel incredibly grateful to live where I do, along with realising how much we can all take our societies for granted. Places around the world where human rights are not considered important nor are they considered important news for us Westerners makes me feel upset, confused and angry. Why is it that I only found out about the horrific conditions that Palestinian people face every day last year, by stumbling upon the conversation with my partner, yet I can barely avoid finding out what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast this morning because it is planted all over our important newspapers?

Knowledge is power, and I believe ignorance is one of the most poisonous human traits that adds no value to our societies and well being. 

I've decided to start incorporating a few political and world issue posts into my blog, along with my crime posts. I feel they are important issues that I need to discuss and try to teach other people who aren't aware. They make up at least 50% of the conversations I have with my friends and family regularly, and I feel they are great subjects to incorporate into criminology.

The first planned post is an introduction to North Korea in the next day or two, so keep an eye out for it if it's something that would interest you.

School shootings and bullying (Part One - Chardon high school)

High school shootings are undoubtedly horrific and devastating events that become infamously famous due to the sheer evilness and seemingly randomness of the shootings. Chardon high school shooting took place in February 2012. Three people were killed and another three critically injured, with one now paralyzed for life. The shooter, seventeen year old T.J Lane, did not actually attend the school but was waiting for a bus in the area. It is reported he knew the victims and was bullied by them. He was described as 'an outcast'; a typical comment on someone who is bullied.

What strikes me as the most chilling aspect of the whole situation, was T.J's lack of remorse and empathy for his victims and their families. His somewhat iconic murder trial, in which he revealed a white shirt with the word 'KILLER' drawn on it and his constant smirks and smiles when face to face with the victim's distraught families is something that will no doubt go down in history as an epitome of evil. In addition, his incredibly chilling line, "The hand that pulled the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to the thought of it. Fuck all of you." has now become infamous.

What I've been researching is a question that ran through my mind after watching his actions throughout his trial; is T.J a psychopath or was he conditioned that way due to horrific bullying from his peers?

When I was at school I was bullied. I can clearly remember what it was like to go through such immense distress of the name calling and psychological torment I was subjected to for years. What adults tend to forget, is that from the ages of five until sixteen (eighteen in America) school is a constant in your life. It takes up most of your time, and throughout those childhood years you are travelling through the most soul-searching period and experiencing your first tastes of socialisation. Also, you are constantly told that the adults in authority are there to protect you. From first hand experience, this is not the case at all. Children, specifically young adults will attack and abuse in situations when adults are not there. Personally I was bullied in a maths class for nearly two years every single day at a table at the back of the class. The teacher never noticed despite for a whole hour, every day, for five days in the week, I was being severely tormented. The psychological damage of these experiences throughout school still effect me to this day in terms of confidence, self esteem and anxiety. However I am finally starting to feel stronger and more confident in myself, albeit a slow process.

If you are subjected to bullying throughout the first stages of your socialising, more times than not you are left with a negative and poisoned view of the people in the world, specifically the ‘popular’ ones. Not only do you grow to resent the people, but the location itself becomes a heinous hellhole that you dread going back to, over and over again. I can still remember the butterflies that filled my tummy with immense anxiety and fear when I walked back to that school, knowing I was about to experience yet again torment and abuse for the day.

I am in no way justifying the actions of T.J; what he carried out that fateful day in February 2012 will never be excusable. My personal opinion on the matter is that the conditioning of bullying caused something, somewhere in his head to snap and carry out the monstrosity of the killings. His smug face during the trial shows that he didn't care for the victims or their families. Instead, he was proud of what he'd done. He finally had his revenge. He finally made those tormenting bullies scream like they'd done to him for years.

I hope that people can realise the seriousness of what I believe situations at schools can do. I think it does definitely have the power to cause someone to snap, especially in a country such as America where guns are easily accessible. Bullying needs to be taken incredibly seriously, and children shouldn't have to be forced to sit classes with students day after day when it's evident they are being tormented by their peers (Are you listening, Chafford school?) When you have been oppressed for a long time, and you feel like you have nothing to loose, what will stop you?

T.J Lane was sentenced to three life sentences to be carried out consecutively in February 2013. Due to him being only seventeen at the time of the killing, he was ineligible for the death penalty.

The media's influence on criminal trials: Part One (Jodi Arias Vs Travis Alexander)

Recently I've become increasingly more interested in trials. I would say my niche is definitely criminal psychology; trying to decipher what appears to happen inside a criminal’s mind, along with their situations and experiences, resulting in an estimated profile of who they are. Understandably, I tend to focus my research on the psychological side of criminology, but recently I have been beginning to learn more about the law side of crime, along with topics that I know will be included in my university course such as terrorism and the media.

The last two weeks I have been doing extensive research into the media and their contribution to the sensationalism of American criminal trials. I’ve decided to write a ‘series’ of blog posts focusing on individual trials and what impact the media has had on them. This first addition will focus on the Jodi Arias vs Travis Alexander and the state of Arizona trial, which is technically still on-going due to her sentencing being determined this year.

Travis Alexander was a salesman and motivational speaker, with a fantastic career and social life. He was also a Mormon, and took his religion very seriously, as it helped him through a difficult childhood in California, in which his drug-addicted parents neglected him and his seven siblings. His Mormon grandparents chose to raise him after his father’s death, and introduced him to a more positive life, in addition to a new found faith that he would hold close to his heart until the day he died. Jodi Arias was a beautiful, young woman, also born in California and met Travis at one of his motivational speeches during a conference in Las Vegas in September 2006. They were both instantly attracted to each other, however due to Travis’s religious ties they were unable to fulfil their lustful wishes. Jodi was later baptised as a Mormon by Travis and they were able to start their relationship officially in February 2007.

Unfortunately, their relationship did not go as swimmingly as one would hope. Jodi became increasingly jealous and paranoid as Travis mingled with female friends. Jodi felt as though Travis was embarrassed to acknowledge his relationship with her to his Mormon friends, despite their physical relationship growing more intimate and seedy behind closed doors.  Regarding their sex life, Jodi said in court, “I felt like a piece of toilet paper. I kind of felt like a prostitute. It seemed like Travis kind of had a Bill Clinton version of sex; where oral and anal are also sex to me, but not for him.”

Travis ended his relationship with Jodi in June 2007 yet still continued to have sex with her. He was due to fly to Mexico on June 10^th 2008 and originally requested that he could take Jodi with him. In the lead up to the date, he asked if he could take another female friend instead.

Travis was discovered dead by his friends in the shower of his home on June 9^th 2008. He had been shot in the head, stabbed 29 times and had his throat cut so deep it had nearly decapitated him. In the 911 call made by his deeply disturbed friends upon finding his body, they mentioned Jodi and how Travis had said she had been stalking him and intruding on his personal life via Facebook and email accounts.

During the crime scene investigation, a digital camera was found in a washing machine with an attempt to wipe the images taken on it. A specialist was able to retrieve some of the images and found unimaginable evidence linking Jodi to the crime. At approximately 1.40pm, a series of sexual images of the pair were taken, in which they were clearly having sexual relations and enjoying each other’s company. At around 5pm, more images were taken of Travis showering. The last image of Travis taken alive was at 5.29pm. 

Following on from this image, a blurred picture of someone (believed to be Travis) bleeding extensively on the shower floor was taken. A bloody handprint was found in the hallway (in addition to an extremely large amount of bloodstains on the floor) and it contained both Travis’s and Jodi’s DNA. A large collection of the crime scene photos were leaked and are available for anyone to view online.

Jodi was arrested six weeks later on July 15^th. She originally pleaded not guilty and fabricated a story that involved two masked gunmen breaking into the home and attacking both her and Travis, with her escaping out the door after they had shot Travis. Her original police interview is available to watch on YouTube, here is an excerpt;

She also took part in a media interview and continued to dishonestly tell this story which is available to watch here; 

Upon the start of her trial, Jodi changed her story and admitted dishonesty. She then claimed she killed Travis in self-defence, after a long abusive relationship with him. She claimed Travis was an abusive and violent man who indicated to her that he was a paedophile. This shocking blow of false information caused public outcry, as the majority of the nation determined she was slandering Travis’s image for her own manipulative gain. In addition, she was crushing Travis’s reputation in a way to project herself as the victim despite Travis’s brutal and gory murder.

America’s criminal trials are televised if they are exceptionally popular. Jodi Arias’s trial ran for 55 days and was streamed live to the nation. Every aspect of it was made available for the public to see; the cross-examinations, the verdict, the crime scene photographs, texts and emails exchanged and all background history of the accused and victim. Jodi has been interviewed by the press multiple times which have all been televised and are easily accessible to view, as well as creating a Twitter account which she updates very regularly (via television conversations with her followers) and selling her artwork on Ebay. The result of this, like all other trials which are made public, is that the trials become somewhat of a drama story, in which the people involved are catapulted into the media’s limelight and become infamous.

“Stories with child homicide victims and/or perpetrators are particularly likely to be featured so prominently that they become long-running stories with a familiar cast of characters, regularly invoked as symbols of wider issues or the state of the nation, illustrated by the Moors murders, and the Jamie Bulger and Soham cases.” – (Robert Reiner, 2007, The Oxford Handbook Of Criminology)

Although Robert Reiner’s quote is in regard to UK criminal cases, the quote is relevant to all popular, extreme trials that capture the public’s interest. Frequently throughout my research into Jodi’s case, I had to remind myself that this was actual reality, in which real people are going through an extremely distressing trial and a poor, young man was murdered.

In the UK, all cameras are banned from entering the courtroom. An artist is allowed in and will usually sketch main perpetrators of the case. A criminal’s mug shot is also released to the public. There is absolutely no chance of a video recorder being allowed in the courtroom to capture any footage of the ongoing trials for media gain. As a result of this, the UK public rely only on journalist reports to find out information throughout a trial. However, recent changes have been made, in which criminologist or media reporters can now update their Twitter accounts with step-by-step tweets on how the trial is panning out, as seen by Rupert Evelyn’s tweets during Ian Watkin’s trial and sentencing.

The reporting style of America’s media to this case has been shocking for me to watch. There has been no decorum, nor any privatisation of any details of the case. Everything has been on a platform for anybody to watch, whether it be live on television or found on YouTube. Jodi has been interviewed time and time again despite being in custody, and as a result of this has found herself becoming an international celebrity with a cult following. ‘Justice 4 Jodi’ t-shirts and wristbands are being donned by thousands of people, with ‘Justice 4 Travis’ merchandise also being sold. The public have been captivated by every minute of this story and trial, with hundreds of people camping outside Arizona’s state county court in the desperate hope of winning a spare seat in the courtroom as if the trial is as entertaining as a football game. Copious amounts of arguments and debates have flooded social media sites and chat shows in regard to Jodi’s guilt or innocence, with people able to input incredibly detailed arguments and opinions as if they have a personal relationship with the people involved in the case.

As a result of this incredible showdown of a murder trial, Jodi and all involved have become celebrities. Personally, something about that fact sends chills down my spine. The case was about Travis, and finding out the truth of his murder and gaining justice for him. Instead, his whole life, murder and intimate, personal details have been broadcast to the whole world and have been used as a source of entertainment. The sensationalism of the trial has over-shadowed the fact that this young, inspiring man with his whole future ahead of him was brutally killed, and that his family must now live on with the knowledge that the whole world knows the smallest, minute details of the most upsetting and distressing times of their lives.

Jodi was found guilty of first degree murder on May 8^th 2013 in the first phase of her trial. Due to a hung verdict on her sentencing, she is due to start her second phase of the trial in March 2014, in which the jury with decide whether she will face the death penalty or life imprisonment. Already, an interest is sparking back up again in the media and this will inevitably be the second part of what I can only describe as an intrusive, crazy and unbelievable media input to Jodi Arias’s trial.