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.
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?