Didn't Nancy have a personal problem, something about her boyfriend getting whacked? I remember how she ranted against some "bad guys" in the past only to go dead silent when they were exonerated. I know what she is, I don't give much credence to her ravings.

I don't even think she's necessarily convinced of guilt or innocence; just interested in whether a "crusade" will get her an audience. She has the same interest in logical dialogue as Rush Limbaugh.

i have it down pat, never watch any of those kinds of shows where the speaker seems to think they are the story.......and everything else is second.

This entire case and the news coverage was a complete waist of time and human energy...but it does raise 1 pertinent question...Is our Civilian Justice System capable of providing justice to Terrorists (Osama), when the much of the evidence would have been second hand, tainted with chain of custody issues, with all of the circus sure to follow the trial??? I Think Not, Go Guantanamo

What's so backwards is that Nancy Grace decides someone's guilty FIRST and THEN says, "start the trial." How can a former prosecutor be proud of such a message each and every broadcast? Thank God these sort of actions were outlawed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Frankly, all you people who have been following this and watching it as entertainment are disgusting. The people in this country are getting more and more hardened and insensitive, like the Romans who watched criminals get eaten by lions in the coliseum for entertainment. This trial should have NEVER been on TV; I am truly amazed that this sort of gawking is legal.

So far I voted on everyone above my post and will continue down the line on anyone else that thinks that Nancy Grace is a media wh#re. I thought it was called COURT tv. Nancy Grace and the rest of the bunch are hardly impartial to court proceedings. Vinnie Politano is starting to get on my nerves and that Mitchell chick...grrr. I gotta get a life.....what I'm trying to say is I don't feel comfortable with this type of programming that takes the air right outta "innocent until proven guilty". Nancy Grace's motto is "guilty until I'm filthy rich".

I know what you mean Lisa. On a different message board I saw a post and the guy was calling people who were part of the whole courtroom scene by their first names and talking about what part they played in each other's life it was worse than my aunts discussing a soap opera. This whole thing was brought about by the death of a helpless little girl, not the public's starvation for drama, any drama no matter how horrific.

@nancy

I'm not sure you can call any one person a media whore, it is the Media...that's kinda like calling a person a baseball player because he plays on a baseball team

Nancy Grace is probably one of the more repulsive and disgusting personalities on TV.

If there's anything she needs and loves more than publicity it's seeing someone get gassed or imprisoned for years whether or not they really did the crime (Of course she ALWAYS believes they did but I don't think she really cares all that much).

At least in her public persona and socially she's a mean, sadistic person (and I use the word in the technical sense) , and infects others with her disease.

It's not surprising that she was a prosecutor and considering how right wing and corrupt the judges and oversight agencies are now a days I'm sure she got away with murder (probably literally) when she was doing that job.

It's amazing in some ways how little American society has changed from a hundred or so years ago.

They used to have public hangings in the old west and people would come from miles around and make a picnic out of seeing some poor bastard swing (probably many of them were innocent too).

Grace and the other bottom feeders on TV, etc. are the same as the old "hanging judges" who give the crowd something to roar about.

Of course neither Grace nor the people responsible for her show care a whit about any of this. They just care about "Being successful" and of course $$$$.

This is from the MSNBC article and I've included a quote at the end to give it some perspective:

HLN President Scot Safon said he was comfortable with how the network had covered the case.

and here's why he's "comfortable"...

HLN's ratings success is an indication that its focus on high-interest legal cases is likely to continue. Safon said HLN wants to concentrate on "water cooler" news stories that people like to talk about, and the Anthony case fit the approach perfectly.

Say it again Tom: "The selfish spirit of commerce... knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to Larkin Smith, 1809. ME 12:272

Dear Nancy Grace:

STFU.

kthxbuhbye

If you don't like Nancy Grace or the others (and I don't), then you need to contact your representative and have a law passed which makes it a felony to air a person's name, photograph, and particularly his/her contact information in any case which has not yet been tried.

They do this in European countries, and it is helpful in making sure that there is an impartial jury. It is also helpful in making sure that it is less likely that people will have their lives ruined by prosecutors who are just looking to make points with viewers/voters--prosecutors who want to become media personalities or politicians.

There are problems with making sure that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty--and thus cannot be identified by the media--but there is probably a lot more to be gained than to be lost. For one thing, it is less likely that prosecutors would have tried a Hail Mary on this trial and gone for first-degree murder. This was a manslaughter case, at best, due to the poor quality of the evidence. The mother would be in jail if they had been more sensible with the charges.

We can put a stop to shows like this if we put a stop to the media being allowed to use people's names and images before they have been convicted. The kind of people who watch these shows are going to keep watching--and even though it is a small number of people, it is enough to keep a tiny network afloat. The majority, though, can speak and shut this tripe down.

Call your legislator.

Guys, I don't like Grace at all and never watch her, but being found not guilty does NOT mean she is innocent. This woman had something to do with the death of her daughter and she will live with it the rest of her life. COurse she lies so damn much, maybe it wont affect her at all and she can go out and live her "beautiful life" and never think of her daughter again. I can't stand to look at that woman and hopefully this train wreck of a family will ride off in the sunset. No better than OJ. Not enough proof, but guilty as HELL.

Better yet, call the advertisers that run their ads during that show. Get enough people to say that they're gonna stop buying their product until they yank their ads off that show, and someone's gonna listen. I believe that TV advertising would be the real driving force to quell that crap- and maybe cancel a crackpot show or two...

I don't get HLN here on the Island, I'm not sure why everyone seems so angry at this "Grace" person...I just can't believe that all of you believe this story, that this lawyers comments were directed at 1 person...I watched every single "News" outlet, pumping out talking heads for hours on end...hell FOX even had "Mark Furman", who in the their right mind would hire "Mark Furman" for anything except weed trimming...Every Station was doing the exact same thing

Trust me, Nancy Grace decides guilt in these cases within 24 hours of the body being found and before any information is provided by the authorities. She criticizes anyone who disputes her opinions including the polica, the district attorney, the court and the defense. She isn't interested in finding the truth.

Hey, Scot Safon ----- Isn't "water cooler" talk another name for GOSSIP? You stand by your approach to "news" this way? There was a news program, NOT YOUR CHANNEL, which showed a clip from Ms. Nancy Grace commenting about the trial and asked one of her guests, " Don't you read the Inquirer?" The bemused guest responded in the negative and the commentator of the other channel gazed at the camera and said --- nothing. Ms. Grace is apparently a very biased and sensationalist person, reeking of envy and posturing for the gullible public. Your network should be ashamed of her. Instead, you sing her praises. Your standards must be quite low to allow such a drivel spewing individual (man or woman) to represent your media outlet. Have you even looked into her past professional background? If not, go to Google and see what comes up when you do a search. Apparently, she left the Prosecutor's office after engaging into VERY QUESTIONABLE PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR. She is, sir, being nothing short of a Harpy.

I've never watched Nancy Grace. But I do know that these defense lawyers are liars and whores - so I really can't take ANYTHING they say seriously.

I disagree with the verdict, but it's not in my hands, anyway.

However, in another sense, I'm glad that Nancy Grace and the NLM (Nationwide Lynch Mob), that she was so carefully cultivating, did not get their way!

Bean@home has made an excellent point.

Why should the name and contact info be released before conviction? Yes, we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press - but it wouldn't harm either freedom to be constrained in certain cases.

There are many cases where a person's name, photo, and address are printed by a newspaper when they are suspected of a crime. There are some very unkind people out there who respond with anger.

Locally, we had a case where a black minister was accused of child molestation. The news coverage was lurid and sensational, printing his name and photo and street address. Several people threw rocks through his windows at 3 A.M. and someone poisoned his dog. Someone else fired shots into his house. This went on from his arrest through his trial.

The sad thing was that the little girl had invented the whole story, and later admitted it. If she was an adult, she could have been charged with filing a false statement, but she was only 14. I don't think anything happened to her.

The suspect was not just acquitted, he was found not guilty by exculpatory evidence. Of course. that didn't bring his dog back or pay for the damages to his home.

Every now and then, I still hear some absolute dunce, angry about the acquittal, say he should be castrated - stuff like that.

When the press unleashes a torrent of anger, some people remain angry even after the trial is over.

Every other major industrialized nation has a law that prevents the press from releasing any information about a suspect until after a conviction. We need a law like that too.

@tanainkc

It's not only the defense lawyers who are liars. Many prosecutors are just as guilty of lying, and hiding or corrupting evidence which would help prove a suspect's innocence. One case that comes to mind is the Julie Amero pop-up porn case from a few years ago, in which Julie, a substitute teacher, was tried and convicted of something that was beyond her control. The prosecutor in that case brought on an "expert" witness, a cop with a very limited knowledge of computers, whose evidence relied on a tracking program which didn't tell the whole story. It was later discovered that that computer she was using was infected with spyware, and that the person in charge of computer security in the school hadn't been doing his job properly, causing the pop-ups, which were seen by about half a dozen students, and which led to her arrest.

This lady suffered poor health and a miscarriage, and her family's finances were devastated because of the trial. The local newspaper, a rag called the Norwich Bulletin, crucified her in the press (Nancy Grace style), then backed off when the evidence started to show that she might not be guilty. The newspaper's online history of the case suddenly disappeared. A Superior Court judge finally threw out the case, citing that it was based on false and erroneous information. The prosecutor wasn't finished however. He wanted blood, and moved to set up a retrial. The defense finally made a deal in which Julie would plead to a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct, pay a $100 fine, and give up her teaching license.

The only thing this lady was guilty of was poor judgement. She should have shut off the computer when the pop-ups started, even though she was told not to by the teacher she took over from. I lost all faith in the American justice system during that case. I believe that ALL lawyers are corrupt, included the "good" guys. I also believe that it should be illegal to discuss the details of a case on television before it ever gets to trial. In the Anthony case, I personally believe that she was guilty, but there was no way that she could have a fair or impartial trial after Nancy Grace, and those like her, had polluted public opinion. I think that Ms Grace should now be put on trial for interfering with justice.

I've been watching Nancy Grace off and on, here and there, for years. I can sum up how I feel about that woman by saying "I'm glad I don't have to live with her". I think she's a witch, and a powerful pain in the ass.

But, about the trial. If you think Casey Anthony is actually guilty, please present one shred of evidence that PROVES it, because the prosecution was simply unable to. I watched most of the trial live, and while tons of circumstantial evidence were introduced into evidence, none of it was useful in PROVING Casey Anthony personally and purposefully killed her child.

I understand that most people think Casey did it and therefore got away with murder. But you need to ask yourself what has convinced you of that: the actual evidence, or the media and all the other people who have been telling you what to think about this case, for years now. Those people were all wrong. The hard evidence is what it is, and is all that is important here.

The defense presented a theory of accidental drowning, and without leaving out one single piece of evidence presented at trial, that theory still works perfectly. It is totally plausible and explains the smell and flies in the trunk of the car, Casey's odd behavior, the delay in informing police, the lies that Casey told, everything. That is reasonable doubt and the jury had no legal choice but to come back with a not guilty verdict. Anything else would have been jury misconduct. They have to make their decision based solely on evidence presented in court, and leave their emotions and biases out of it. That is their job, and they did it well.

You don't have to like the fact that Casey is now going to essentially walk. You can even blame the prosecution if you want, as I have, but in truth it's not really their fault, either. The physical evidence was weathered and there just wasn't much else to go on. They had no choice but to present a circumstantial case but the defense presented one that worked just as well, if not BETTER, than the prosecution arguments. You can't convict without real proof and that proof just doesn't exist anymore.

I think Casey did it, but I'm glad the jury didn't convict her. If they had, I would be far more terrified of what other sorts of errors could happen in our system of justice. We have the fairest system in the world. There has to be proof, real proof. If you are lucky or smart enough not to leave any firm evidence behind, then you have to go free. That's WAY better than sending innocent people to prison, or heaven forbid death row.

American justice, such as it is, was served. I feel bad for Caylee and her family, but quite frankly she's been dead a long time and her death isn't worth upending our entire system of criminal justice over. The correct verdict IN THIS EXACT CASE was not guilty, based on the evidence presented at trial.

I believe that the longer this verdict percolates with the public and the more the "talking heads" dissect this case for what it really was, more and more of them, and you, will come to agree with those of us who think it was the right verdict. I certainly hope so.

@aquatone - I can't believe no one responded to your post. It actually serves as a reminder that even with its flaws we do have the best judicial system in the world. Of course she did it - and I don't watch anything on TV so fortunately I haven't seen what others are commenting on. I just wanted to say thanks for the reminder that even when it doesn't work to everyone's satisfaction the court system usually works. I know there are many exceptions so please no posts listing all of the miscarriages of justice each of you have witnessed, but overall I would rather stand before a judge and jury in this country then in any other. Who knows what lies ahead for Casey and her family. I doubt she grieves for Caylee. I believe she actually is a sociopath, but again her life has no bearing on mine so

anthony defense attorney statement: "don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it"

wow! NOBODY! I mean NOBODY! needed any sort of law experience or a law degree to see that she was guilty...we did need "the law to do it" by that "I" mean we needed the law to be upheld in the court this case took place...it was not...and a guilty person went free.

You would think in such an obvious "open and shut" case the defense would be in hiding after helping a murderer go free...it is clearly the opposite...these pricks are proud of themselves( and with good reason, they made a murderer into an innocent person(in the eyes of the law))

hey future murders, note to self, hire anthony's defense team if you can afford it!

You obviously can't prove she was guilty, any more than the prosecution could. You're just using your emotions, not your brain. The law says there has to be proof presented in court. No such proof exists and thus could not be presented. It may suck, and you may not think the verdict was right, but if so, you're just plain wrong, just like so many other people.

I'll say it again: tell us what facts PROVE she murdered her daughter, with or without premeditation. I'm telling you right now, there are NO SUCH FACTS. End of story, and end of case. Do YOU want to be convicted of a crime with no hard evidence against you? That's what you're saying this jury should have done to Casey Anthony. And it's WRONG...even if she's really guilty of murder. Just the way it is.

facts!...she admits too burrying the body(i.e. testimony...i.e. FACT), she was the last person to see the body(i.e. witness...i.e. FACT), duct tape was found on or around the body(remains)...casey admits the child drowned and she burried the body...now explain the tape? why would you tape a child's mouth after they have drowned?...(story doesn't add up with evidence...FACT!)...guilty lady goes free...FACT!

PLUS i don't know how you only get 4 years for making a drowning accident look like murder, and naming your own father as accomplice as a lie...

I just don't get it!

Two FACTS about that tape: 1) it could have been moved by animals. Pieces of tape were found as far from the body as 30 feet or more, based on actual testimony in the trial. Just because tape was found on Caylee's skull doesn't mean it was there all along. 2) If you're trying to avoid prosecution for criminal negligence in the drowning of your child, you just might put duct tape on the dead body's face before you bury it, to make it look like a murder performed BY SOMEONE ELSE. It may have been part of a cover-up, and NOT a murder.

Furthermore, Casey neither testified that she buried the body herself NOR TESTIFIED IN THE TRIAL, AT ALL. Your so-called "fact", isn't.

but she said it and it was recorded...may have not been on the stand while saying it but now its just obvious to me your just defending a murderer...regardless there are already plenty of angered citizens in florida making threats to the members of the jury...and for once in my life I understand the civil backlash of this situation and offer my disdain and hatred for casey anthony, her family, the jury, and definitely pure hatred towards the defense team. none of them are welcome in my town, and if any of them show their face here...it wont be good( open ended threat).

I hope they all rot in hell!

What is really scary is the thought of her back when she was still a prosecutor. How would you like to be an innocent defendant and see her sitting at the prosecution table?

Nancy Grace abandoned both "justice" and "journalism" when "sensationalism" paid better.

Nancy Grace is as disgusting in her own right as this case. Also not particularly bright. Although I wanted a guilty verdict it was clear that the prosecution did not make its case. I believe she did it. I also believe the jury came to the only conclusion it could given the task they were charged with. Grace must know that; she can't be as stupid as she comes across. So I take back my comment about her not being bright. She is just a media whore who makes a living being obnoxious and offensive. Actually she reminds me a lot of Jerry Springer except that Springer was always kind of laughing at the trash he presided over.

Nancy Grace AND HER NETWORK should be sued for libel - in more than one instance and banned from TV!

This "made for TV" personality, tries and convicts people publicly, showing only partial truths and HER OPINIONS.

Nancy Grace = what a WITCH!

I agree 100%. I wish and hope the cable news networks rid themselves of this type of programming. I use to be able to catch up with the news of the day, international and world news, from CNN Headline News when I missed the NBC, CBS or ABC nightly news programs when working late. As far as Grace is concerned, I could never could stand her egotistical personna. When she shows up on my screen she dissappears quickly with the push of a button. She and CNN have ruined CNN's night time programming. She is a loud-mouthed screaming sensationalist that needs to be sent packing. She could not shine the shoes of a journalist.

dammit people why are you only giving nancy all the love........jane velez-mitchell is an equally disgusting shrew who can give nancy a run for all that money they constantly prostitute themselves for...........apologies to prostitutes the world over.

Nancy Grace is a perfect example of: Manufacturing Consent By Noam Chomsky

The propaganda model

Using the propaganda model, Manufacturing Consent posits that corporate - owned newsmass communication media — print, radio, television — are businesses subject to commercial competition for advertising revenue and profit. As such, their distortion (editorial bias) of news reportage — i.e. what types of news, which items, and how they are reported — is a consequence of the profit motive that requires establishing a stable, profitable business; therefore, news businesses favoring profit over the public interest succeed, while those favoring reportorial accuracy over profits fail, and are relegated to the margins of their markets (low sales and ratings).

Anyone who takes any value in mainstream media can stand in the line of SHEEPLE and be counted.

Nancy Grace is completely disgusting and I will not even watch her out of that disgust.

Mainstream media is a serious problem in America.

I guess John and most of the folks posting here don't like Nancy Grace....you probably relate more to someone with Casey's strong moral values or Jose's times of writing bad checks..not paying child support and his house about to be in repo ...surely not to Nancy Grace who gives voice to missing children and children whose voices and laughter were silenced by murder......,not to let them be forgotten..like little Caylee. Hey guys..there's this little off button on a tv..if you don't like it....turn it off DA........

Nancy Grace is a joke and will always be a joke. Anyone that believes what she says is also a joke. This country was built on you are innocent until proven guilty. Nancy Grace feels that she does not have to live by that rule. That is why she is a joke. She convicted this women before that poor little girl was found. Nancy never gave a care about that little girl. It was all about rating. You people that follow Nancy need to have your head exam. If Nancy cannot allow the system to work as designed, you can bet that anyone of you that follow her will be her next story. Guity before any evidence is presented. I really hope none of her follower ever get accused of something they did not do because Nancy will hang them out to dry.

The best way to avoid this crap...shut off your cable, give up your satellite dishes, and plug into WII and watch NETFlixs...No more freakn news crap...only internet news for me...lol I like to know what is really going on...it all comes out in the print! Reporters look up and you will see we are all watching you...when you screw up a report we see it first hand...don't be lacking in your investigations or think us duped by your lack there of...we even see when you put stuff into the report that is letting the cat out without really letting the cat out!! Thank you Internet reporters for all you do to keep us posted when THEY won't let you really report.

cept she makes her opinion seem like fact. It's the media's obsession not mine. I would see this and turn it off. So where's the media with Amanda Knox? Everyone knows she didn't kill anyone. I can't say much about Casey because the Media totally destroyed Casey. OJ's verdict is still more shocking. This one became rather obvious she'd be acquitted, only the media would say it's a shocker. Really? so why did the jury look agitated when the prosecutor was saying his closing arguments. Just a bloody show trial. and HLN with mud on it's face. Besides. HLN did come up with this idiot called Glenn Beckkk.

cable and the news were just stating the obvious that she was guilty she got off not because she was innocent but that it could not be proven that she was guilty. SHE IS NOT INNOCENT.

oohma, one of the things that make her particularly disgusting is that she is a former prosecutor, which means that she went to school to become an attorney.

In her quest now to be a big "tv personality", all of the constitutional rights she was trained to defend go out the window when she convicts someone without the benefit of trial. She knows this, but the dollar is now more important to her than the Constitution.

A bottom-feeder of the first magnitude.

justice like just about everything else has now become the dollar. Sad but very true.

Yeah, kind of like fingernails on a blackboard.

hahahahahhaha I totally concur!

not as rich as her mother will be once she "sells her story" to the same media whores her lawyers are now trashing.........only in america.

I have found a home! I was beginning to think I was the only person to think of this case and Nancy Grace and the whole HLN crew in this way, and you see and hear all of the witch hunters (general public) and it is SCARY! They see and follow the hype and I am blown away at the feeling if she's been arrested she MUST be guilty. Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? What is happening to our country?

Thank you BECKI>>>>scary as hell.

if it's the I.R.S. charging you your guilty until declared innocent.........with zero compensation for any losses you incur while your life is destroyed.

Anon5,

Then why are you commenting?

That sounds pretty good right now!!!

chocolatemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm%0,,,,,......

Kind of like coming across a bad car accident. You look initially but then have to turn away before you hurl.

cnn..............................................click

weather...............................................click

disc................................................................click

mtv..........click

grace.click.click.click.click

I Agree Handsome Harry ...I'd like to bend her over the Side bar and pound that ass!!

I completely disagree with the 'too dumb to get out of jury duty' comment.

Jury duty is one of the most important civic duties we have in our democracy. It should be taken very seriously and carried out with a deep respect for the legal institution. You should be honored to be part of it instead of disparaging those who have willingly given their time to serve.

In my humble opinion, anyone who looks at jury duty the way you do is partly responsible for the failings of our legal system.

V.I. Ulyanov

Similar to the O.J. case? No, not really. The difference is in jury composition.

That is one thing I can certainly agree with, the OJ jury were a bunch of racists and there was no way they were going to convict him.

About jury duty... I have been called and was willing to sit on a jury on 3 occasions... Every time the prosecution heard that I had a Ph.D., they asked me to be one of their exceptions for dismissal... It really made me wonder why the prosecution would not want me on there... are they afraid that Ph.D. = liberal = for the defendant? The funny thing is that, in 2 of the cases for which I heard the initial evidence, I thought it was an open and shut case for the prosecution... Maybe they don't want people with Ph.D. because other people will defer to them... who knows... just saying...

I do agree with your last sentence. Burden of proof was not met and jury was smart enough to go on evidence and not feelings.

You answered your own question...

"The funny thing is that, in 2 of the cases for which I heard the initial evidence, I thought it was an open and shut case for the prosecution."

YOu weren't there and you didn't know for sure but you are sure it was open and shut by golly!!!

Most juries are this dumb. Unfortunately. Did you really think they could find 12 intelligent, productive, GAINFULLY EMPLOYED people to sit a jury for weeks on end? Duh.

of course not tanainkc...my apologies to anyone who served on a jury...but jurors are the lowest grade civilians, they are the ones too stupid to get themselves out of jury duty, they are okay with the measly pay the court gives them as opposed to working their "high paying job?"...no there probably unemployed...they are usually old or dumb or both.

what I mean to say is: "RETARDED VERDICT FROM A RETARDED JURY"

Where I work while on jury duty I still receive my full pay less what the court pays. So no being on a jury does not mean you are unemployed.

Simply put the prosecution failed to make their case and the jury knew it and gave the correct decision. (apparently character assassination and circumstantial evidence isn't enough in this country for the death penalty.)

Given what was presented in court this jury has renewed my faith in our judicial system.

didn't know you only get 4 years for burying the body of your own child after a drowning accident and making it look like a murder all the while naming your own father as accomplice and leading police on a wild goose chase for over three years...

oh yea working stiff...justice was served all right( sarcasm...)

"Justice served"? Maybe or maybe not, it's hard to tell as there is no proof.

All it would have taken is one tiny sliver of irrefutable evidence and this verdict would have been different. As it was the prosecution's evidence was refuted piece by piece by piece.

That is the biggest problem with trying a circumstantial case in court. So long as both sides can make the evidence fit a story without contradiction then there is no case.

You cannot convict someone just because you want to. There has to be irrefutable evidence of that persons guilt. At least that is the way our justice system is supposed to work, and did in this case.

The only thing that this trial proved is that she is not a nice person and that she lied.

However, "the system" will NEVER be able to protect her from being convicted in the ever-present, media-generated, "court of public opinion." In that court, she's still being tried and convicted every stinking day and night since this case started three years ago.

Why, oh WHY, did the media (not just Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell- ALL of them!) think we needed the blow-by-blow accounting of this girl's entire last three years, complete with jailhouse tapes? I, for one, DO NOT NEED to see any more reality TV- I've had my fill of it for a couple of years now, and get too much as it is by just watching the news...

Amen!

DITTO!!!!!

Never watched Nancy Grace. I'm lucky. I can switch the channels on my new-fangled tv. You should try it.

ditto jane velez mitchell

Michael,

One could actually follow the entire court proceedings on T.V., not watch snippets or Nancy Grace highlights.

You can read all the testimonies, cross examinations, evident submitted, view police notes, etc. on line.

My contention is that if there are 400 pages of evidence, multiple videos, tapes, data collected, etc. no jurors ever taking many notes, no evidence or material asked to be brought to the jury room for examination deliberating for little more than 10 hours, the last four took place today after they came to court already dressed up, so it was apparently they had already decided., this was an O.J. symptoms case all over again.

They were not to come to a decision until they reviewed all the evidence and discussed it among themselves. Do you really think they evaluated any thing with any rigor in 10 hours. Three of the jurors only had 11th grade educations.

I by the way, don't watch Nancy Grace. I dislike her histrionics and hyperbole.

I think they had a good jury. They obviously thought through the emotional appeals to find the only reasoning that made sense. I have a Ph.D., but I know many people who don't have formal educations that I would welcome on a jury any day. --Not putting you down, I'm just sayin' that I don't agree with your conclusion about someone not being a good jurist because s/he has only an 11th grade education.

It
was a good jury. Everything of that trial can be seen and read online. Since
the onset of this case I've been a staunch listener to everything I could watch
and read on this case in the past years. Man if it doesn't make good sense then
something is wrong. And that's the bottom line. This case reeked with reasonable
doubt. It is a tragedy that a human is
gone, but the verdict was just, despite the sensationalism of the media. The media has always been a double edged sword,
but it is good in that those that paid attention to it ALL, made the right
decision. Those jurors sat in that court room for a very long time. They saw and heard everything. As far as the
11th grade comment! Lol I know a man running a city here in the state I live in, that doesn't have but an 8th grade education
and a g.e.d. For years, he didn't have the G.E.D and was running that city. Don't fool yourself. All going to collage means is that 1. You are
blessed to have the money or access to it
to go/attend and 2. If you pass, all it means is that you at least have proven
to yourself a select others, that you have a capability to learn, not that
you somehow how have more intellect than
someone not so blessed. I spent 5 years in collage, came out with an ove all
3.9 Gpa. Have a degree in Animal Behavioral Science. I saw plenty of really
stupid people doing stupid things in collage too.

I completely agree, but sadly she is a performer in the same vein as Hitler and Mussolini. She is a demagogue who panders to public ignorance and emotion.

hear hear! <applauds loudly!>

amen.

Ditto! How will the masses ever see this? Scary isn't it?

They are all on the other article posting over 4000 how CASEY is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY...all of them...Jury voted...NOT GUILTY...I had to leave as they posted faster than I could keep up with...so if you want to see the public base influenced by media hype...there they are.

As will you Jerry. The Great Judge might ask you to explain why you believed it was your place to sit in judgement.

Finally, a credible witness comes forward with the truth. Why didn't you testify at the trial? If nothing else, you could have presented yourself as a Friend of the Court if prosecutor's refused your voluntary cooperation on the basis that presenting an idiot might compromise their credibility. No doubt, they were already substantially burdened with that problem shortly after the trial began.

First thing Jerry. There is no evidence that a murder occured. All anyone knows for certain is the child is dead. We don't know how it happened, let alone why. And, to go way out on that limb with the likes of Nancy Grace, naming some other person as a murderer without any evidence to prove that. Well, that limb is a bit thin for anyone with a human brain to be on.

So, climb down out of God's chair and remember that you walk on the same ground as the rest of humanity. We forgive you for being imperfect and stupid as most people are at times. Oh, one more thought ... Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Jerry, you should have taken the evidence you have to the prosecution before the trial was over.

jerry: were you with casey or anyone else who you suppose killed anyone. did you see someone committ a crime of murder or do you just suppose casey is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.supposition is just that. this case was based on circumstantial evedince nothing of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. the jury did their job wheather you or anyone like you agrees.

eww. Nancy Grace pretends to be one. do you really mean that?

How terrible for people to bash about the ONLY person that cares even enough to have a show about abuse of children instead of...say something more interesting like "reality" family shows where we get to see them get up, eat, dress, get drunk, let gas, fight...getting the picture!!!! Think before thy mouth opens...this could be your little girl, niece, granddaughter! God forbid something happens to one of them and then ALL of you would change your tune about the Nancy Grace's of the world! We need alot more of them that's all, so we can help more abused and lost people! Say a prayer for Caylee tonite and thank the good Lord that it wasn't you! But for the grace of God go I

Nancy Grace cares only about her ratings and not about the victims.

If it ever happens to one of my family, I sure hope that the news media keeps the @!$%# out! It appears that because of the news the real killer is still loose! Maybe if they hadn't stepped up to help...lol...they might have found the evidence to convict the killer...at this point it won't happen as they wasted to much time to convict the wrong person as usual...

Thanks for that Dee. You hit it on the head. Above everything (the snotty demenor, the childish name-calling, the stacked deck of interviewees), Nancy Grace is usually WRONG. If we needed more convictions, maybe we could get NG to start declaring certain defendants innocent. That would probably work.

For the same reason the National Enquirer sells so many copies. There's a base element in humanity that loves it when someone else is in misery. Gossips have been around forever and everyone knows one; the one that grins when they're telling you that someone's husband is having an affair, or someone's teenager is pregnant, or whatever. The population that needs assurance that their life isn't so bad because somebody else's is worse is out there - and loves to talk about everyone's flaws but their own. That's her audience.

Let's not forget Trenton Duckett. What she did in that case was pure Obstruction of Justice.

She should be prosecuted.

Probably for the same reason people watch Jerry Springer or Maury. They need to find someone else to criticize or condemn just so they have an excuse not to enrich or better the empty void that they call thier own life.

Little wonder people are pissed though. The person condemned by the popular media was not condemned by the jury that ultimately decided her fate, the entertainment value and smug satisfaction of watching someone else fry was not realized, therefore the show was "ruined" as it were.

I used to like watching her till I was watching the trial last week one day,Which I watched everyday all day the whole trial! Nancy Grace put on one of the banners running on the bottom of the screen the total opposite of what was said in the courtroom that day.I went back and watched it again as I tivoed it and I was correct and thought hmmmm she has already made up her mind and attempting to sway public opinion towards the prosecution..NOT very PROFESSIONAL for a Media Outlet&former SO CALLED professional and former prosecutor..SHAME SHAME HLN&NG DONE WATCHING YOU IJIOTS!!