Conclusion

are not held to a sub judice standard which legally suppresses the publication of certain information such as previous convictions and other information that can elicit bias. Furthermore, ‘fl ash mobs’ of people coming together on social media ( Brown, 2012) can very quickly generate opinions, unfounded on fact, for all potential jurors to access and review.

Pretrial publicity is at the heart of the discussion in Chapter 11 where we examine the eff ect of pretrial publicity on the construction of Amanda Knox’s guilt (and innocence). Indeed, traditional media platforms delivered prolifi c coverage of Casey Anthony’s case from the moment she was arrested in 2008, even though the trial itself did not take place until 2011. Incentivised to increase ratings, aspects of the story were sensationalised ( Ashton, 2012 ; Moran, 2019). Narratives about her life and character as well as interpretations of the evidence were expressed via various media platforms. Despite the trial verdict of ‘not guilty’, the court of public opinion found her guilty of murder and she and her family were subjected to social punishment (Moran, 2019). For example, in September 2008, before Caylee’s body was found, YouTube clips were uploaded of protesters outside the Anthony home. They held up placards affi rming Casey Anthony’s guilt with one sign declaring ‘Casey is a baby eater’ ( YouTube Clip, 2008 ). Because she was found guilty in the court of public opinion, the punishment has been both social and economic. She has been ostracised in the community (Moran, 2019) and has apparently struggled to maintain a living with several failed business ventures (Hernandez, 2021).

Conclusion

In this chapter we have aimed to highlight the weakness of the prosecution strategy in the Casey Anthony trial within the framework of establishing the requisites for proving guilt. We have further learned how Bennett and Feldman (1981) help us to understand that, with circumstantial evidence, a person’s guilt or innocence is judged by the three dimensions of opportunity , motive and capability. If the defendant (actor) and the act cannot be connected to each of the requisites, then the defence is provided with a more realistic prospect of raising reasonable doubt. Additionally, if, in a murder trial, the prosecution cannot determine the cause of a victim’s death conclusively, then they succumb to the possibility of the defence reconstructing the story entirely. This is what happened in Casey Anthony’s trial. In this chapter we have built on Bennett and Feldman’s framework to show that the prosecution and defence will have far lower probabilities of success if they off er more than one version of presence, action and state of mind. Ultimately, the prosecution presented three separate constructions of events for the same event (death of Caylee) although, interestingly, this strategy did not feature in Ashton’s (2012) explanations for the acquittal of Casey. Finally, it is much more likely