THG Asks: Did the Casey Anthony Jury Get it Right?

by at . Comments
THG Asks!

Welcome to THG Asks, a feature in which two of our celebrity gossip experts debate topical issues in the entertainment world and you decide who wrote the winning argument!

Today, THG Asks: Did the jury in the Casey Anthony case get it right?

YES by Hilton Hater

I firmly believe Casey Anthony is guilty. But I don't know this for a fact. I wouldn't bet my life on it. Would you?

That's the decision jurors were faced with in this case; heck, in any court case. A strong suspicion isn't enough, a hatred for the defendant doesn't suffice, a number of lies and conflicting stories don't add up to the one key element missing here:


Can you tell me how Caylee died? Is there DNA that links Casey to the scene? Is there anything beyond (admittedly grotesque) stories of how Casey partied soon after her daughter disappeared and her searches for terms such as "chloroform" online?

Our court system places an extreme burden of proof on the prosecution because the last thing anyone wants is for an innocent person to be convicted. Jury members are instructed to take the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously.

A killer has almost definitely walked free. Nancy Grace has been given opportunities to rant like an attention-starved lunatic. Both results are regrettable. But, given a lack of hard evidence, I'm not sure what we could do to change them.

Casey Anthony Picture

NO by Free Britney

Come on. That's my response, as a human being, to the argument that the jury did its job acquitting Casey Anthony. Simply put, the jury dropped the ball.

Falling prey to a baseless defense and what was lacking from the state's case, 12 people somehow declined to focus on the ample proof of her obvious guilt.

The jurors were sick over this, they claim, and "wanted more evidence" to convict Anthony. What the heck did they need? Raw video? An eyewitness?

A dead person's hair was in Casey's trunk, along with high levels of chloroform, a term searched for on her family's computer (along with "neck breaking").

Residue of duct tape - a rare brand found in the Anthony garage - was also present. Then there's Casey's blatant, ever-changing lies and unstable behavior.

More than enough evidence apparently wasn't enough.

Alas, the real world isn't CSI or NCIS, where a perfect DNA match always materializes at the 11th hour. Actual brains and gumption were required here.

Whether blinded by conjecture, unable to put two and two together, or just spineless, the jurors failed, and a child killer is free. That's something to get sick over.

THG Asks you ... did the jury get it right?


"Can you tell me how Caylee died? Is there DNA that links Casey to the scene? Is there anything beyond (admittedly grotesque) stories of how Casey partied soon after her daughter disappeared and her searches for terms such as "chloroform" online?" Someone's been watching too much CSI. 1. Expecting a definite cause of death on a body discovered as long after death as this one is simply ridiculous. 2. There is not always DNA evidence. DNA evidence, when present, is not always reliable. DNA evidence is not necessary for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. There is a strong collection of circumstantial evidence combined with the ridiculous nature of the defense's case. Circumstantial evidence alone (without a *shred* of direct evidence) can indeed be sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. This verdict is a combination of juror stupidity and the CSI effect.


Hey Kinsu - If it was up to you Scott Peterson would still be
walking free. Circumstantial evidence is used in almost all murder cases. Very few murders have someone video taping the act. Why would any mother throw her baby away like trash and then lie about her being taken. the lies were to throw everyone off. She's
a bad seed. Accusing her father of molestation and then not taking
the stand to prove it? All a smokescreen by fatman Baez.
Casey was the last one seen with Caylee, who else threw her into
the marsh, by the way, where she had buried 2 of her pets in similar fashion. Get real girl.


She only got off bcuz she is white


Unless ALL the jurors have photographic memories, how could they possibly remember ALl that evidence, since they NEVER asked to see, hear or look at any of it? These jurors were LAZY, wanted to get home and deliberated on things that were not evidence or proven...that was rule number one. They were told to ONLY consider the evidence and yet, they somehow think George Anthony did what the defense accused him of? NOT PROVEN! The Scott Peterson jurors had far more intelligence than the Casey Anthony jurors did and that trial was pretty much circumstantial as well. What were they thinking would be left after 6 months of laying in a swampy area after a tropical storm blew through? Wonder if they even know what 'connect the dots" means? They Failed a child, the justice system and the public!




This was a self-serving jury...looking to make big bucks...and that EVIDENCE is crystal clear!!! A shocking verdict sells!! There is only one True Justice..GOD...and just as that lightning struck that tree where little Caylee's remains were found--is PROOF beyond any doubt that they will all get what's coming to them!!! People let us all use our common sense...DON'T BUY ANY BOOKS, OR MOVIE TICKETS OR SUPPORT ANY TV SHOWS THAT WANT TO INTERVIEW ANY OF THESE SCUMBAGS...DUHFENSE LAWYERS OR JURORS!!!


12 Idiots.


The jury did not ask to see any transcripts or evidence. I don't believe 12 jurors would have believed there was not enough to convict when every other prosecutor in the US believed there was. They are sick to their stomachs? Good, you should be. You made the choice, you live with it. Let's see how many get book deals now. That should tell you what was more important to them.


These 12 jurors would probably have set Philip & Nancy Garrido free as well!


Be nice to your mom. Apparently its legal to kill kids now.....

Tags: ,