Nancy Grace is known for her explosive comments and accusations when it comes to the hottest crime cases in the United States. She hunts down the evidence and makes assumptions based on this evidence on her television show on HLN. Her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial was no different.
Nancy spoke with CNN regarding her role in making the Casey Anthony case a national case. She mentions that she does not "give a fig" about what the defense team thinks of her. Nancy also mentions that she would have tried Casey Anthony in a different way, focusing on the "CSI effect" of the evidence. She does not believe that the jury made a decision based on circumstantial evidence, as many cases are circumstial. People do not commit murder in the open.
What Nancy may be missing here is the lack of physical evidence. A single finger print or a DNA sample may be all the jury was looking for to give her a guilty verdict. What many viewers do not realize, especially when watching high-profile trials like the Casey Anthony trial, is that Nancy is a prosecutor; it is her job to find evidence to weave together a story to convince a jury about a defendant's guilt.
Nancy Grace has been deeply emerged in the story about Caylee Anthony. She has continuously said on her television show that finding justice for Caylee has been to convict Casey of murder - simply because that is what a prosecutor does. A prosecutor does not admit to finding justice for victims by finding their respective killers whoever it may be - no, it is about finding a person of interest and weaving a story together to make her guilty in the minds of the public.
After the verdict came out, Nancy Grace made explosive comments about the defense's celebration party, adding that the devil was dancing along with the defense. Her actions and comments speak volumes about her as a person and prosecutor. For one, it shows that she cannot think objectively about a legal case. She is deeply involved on an emotional level, which is not allowed when judging a case. In addition, she could not admit to the fact that there were flaws in the prosecution case. Rather than people supporting Nancy Grace, they should ask about her credibility as a prosecutor, as untrained lawyers saw the flaws.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40 ( 2 removed by Mary Jane )
The air sample test revealed there was Chloriform in the air. That is not unusual. Especially with the defense that she had garbage in her trunk that was left there for a time. And besides that, it could have been her father or brother who had the body in the trunk of her car. She may be guilty but they didn't prove it. Not even based purely on circustantial evidence. In fact, the case they built contributed to the verdict rendered more than not.
Oh wait Nancy said she did it. Case closed.
Apparently not.
"Apparently not."
Dumb as the jury's verdict!
I don't think the evidence showed she had her daughter in the trunk. I think it just showed there was the presence a high concentration of chloroform in the trunk, which can be contributed to a number of factors. There again, inconclusive and therefore reasonable doubt.
Casey was found guilty of lying (covering up the crime), but she was found NOT guilty of what she covered up.
I understand reasonable doubt, but there were so many questions that were not answered.
Why did Casey wait 31 days to report her daughter missing?
Why did she lie so much?
What was Casey's dead daughter doing in her car trunk?
(A strand of Caylee's hair was there and a body was in that trunk)
The prosecution did a horrible job and they should never be allowed to work on another case again.
The whole thing is sad and it reeks.
There was more than enough evidence to convict.
I wonder if her friends were on the jury.
George Vreeland Hill
What is it with people like you? Do you want a justice system that is based on non justice? Face it man, they blotched their case against her and lost, all because they didn't take a little more time to try to build a better case, if she is guilty. There is currently no one in this world that can say definitely for sure whether she is or isn't, except her, and perhaps some of her family.
And if you believe in Nancy Grace justice, I pity you. Nancy Grace is a joke on the justice system. More pertinent, she's a thorn in the crown of justice. Her justice is solely base on her own twisted and biased personal feelings, emotions, and obscure imagination.
The thing about a court case is that defense only has to raise reasonable doubt. They do not have to answer the questions you put forth - although, it would be nice to know those answers.
Now having said that, would I like to know how Caylee died? Not really but it would somehow settle the issue in chief. Do I think it was an accident? I'm going to use a Mythbusters term and say it's plausible. Could a stranger have taken Caylee? Again, plausible.
This trial was open and visible to anyone that wanted to watch it and that's the way our system works, despite its warts and flaws. Casey Anthony, like any defendant, has a right to face his or her accusers in open court and question them as well as not have to testify. The court system is a living, breathing thing and anyone that even wants to consider killing it is a fool.
In the UK ANY media coverage on a trial can only be reported to what was given in evidence and any person like this Nancy woman would not be tolerated until after the trial verdict, then and only then would she be able to talk in detail about the people on trial. If she did do what she has done in your country she would have been thrown in jail for contempt and in the UK that could mean life or until the judge thought she had learned her lesson.
Nothing should influence your peers in a trial, just the cold hard evidence facts that say you are either not guilty or that you are guilty.
We don't even have televised trials, we see justice far too important for it to be a side show to titillate the masses.
Dont get me wrong we also have trials that dont go the way that we would like, but as I always say thats the fault of the Crown Prosicution Service that has not presented the case properly, if they did present the case properly no amount of Fancy Dan lawyers would get the guilty off.
What fingerprints do you want? Most bodies found rotting in the woods or garbage heaps don't have fingerprints from the suspect. Just because you can't put two and two together doesn't mean that more intelligent people can't.
Here let me give you a prime example of a guilty person who was convicted without the cause of death being known. (What?!?! Juries can be smart enough to do that?)
Scott Petersen was convicted and even sentenced to Death Row for murdering his wife and unborn child. It was completely circumstantial, but the jury was intelligent enough to convict beyond a "reasonable" doubt. What?! No fingerprints on the decomposing bodies? What?! No DNA connecting him? What??!! No cause of death determined? I guess circumstantial IS enough to convict.
Circumstantial is usually the vast majority of the evidence in murder trials. Sorry that real life isn't like a Hollywood movie for you. Sorry that most murder cases aren't neatly solved in 60 minutes with commercial breaks. To people of limited capacity, it was much easier to follow the distractions presented by the defense in opening statements.
That is why they chose this jury. Look at the OJ case. PLENTY of DNA evidence. That jury didn't bother to deliberate either. They weren't smart enough. Even with DNA, this jury wouldn't convict because juries don't like convicting pretty white women.
30+ days on a trial and the Casey Anthony jury didn't bother to read back any evidence. I guess that fancy scientific evidence was pretty easy to memorize. But the statements from a known liar sure did baffle them.
Ooohh! Look! A squirrel!
Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you.
Do I think she is innocent? No, not at all. Do I think she knows something? Absolutely. Do I think the police needs to take a closer look at George to find out what happened? Absolutely. He could break this case wide open (by either incrimination or elimination). If they can prove he had absolutely no part in it, then it narrows down the list of potential suspects.
Now, I do not appreciate your tone of voice with the "let the adults speak here" and the squirrel comment. You don't know anything about me and I don't know anything about you. But clearly, you have something to prove and I am still waiting ...
Second, you don't like my tone? I could say the same for you. My tone changed with your snotty response. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were just naive.
Thousands of murder cases don't rely on DNA or fingerprints. You expect real life to be like TV or the movies and it isn't going to happen. As for the squirrel comment, you did EXACTLY what the defense wants you to do. They want you to look at everything BUT the evidence that was entered. They try to distract you with unfounded accusations.
FACT: Casey Anthony was convicted of lying...George, was not. Nor was he charged with Perjury during a felony case. Why not? Because the defense can make any accusations and not have to prove them. It was never entered as evidence in any way or form. So the defense distracts gullible people with shiny objects and they don't concentrate on the 30 days of evidence.
Lowe testified at a pre-trial motion hearing in March that a hair strand found near the trunk liner of the Pontiac that Casey Anthony was driving before her daughter disappeared showed signs of "post-mortem root banding." Lowe also testified that the hair showed "apparent characteristics of decomposition."
That's not George's car...but when they can distract you from evidence in the trunk, and get you looking elsewhere, then the defense has done their job. They don't want you to look at the mountain of evidence that is entered.
Please note, George will never even be arrested, charged or investigated further in this murder because a Grand Jury didn't find the preponderance of evidence pointed toward him. All of the evidence taken together points only towards one person.
IF you look at the Scott Petersen case, it was the totality of the evidence. Not the one smoking gun. In this case there has never ANY evidence connecting George. All the police investigations NEVER turned up his involvement. Somehow, the defense claims that CASEY ANTHONY, a convicted liar, claims that he is involved during their opening statements, and the sheep on the jury went there. NO EVIDENCE needed beyond what CASEY provided, but in the US court system, they can claim that and never have to prove it, nor be cross examined in regards to it. To buy into your theory that George is involved, I have to believe that Casey Anthony is NOW telling the truth, George then called the police to have them investigate his daughter and get the police involved looking at his daughter as a murder suspect instead of trying to make it look like a stranger abduction.
Ask anyone in police work and they will confirm 100% that George was investigated and the prosecution also investigated all of those accusations. Since there was NO EVIDENCE presented, the prosecution can't counter it because it was never entered into evidence.
Thus, the sheep were easily distracted and ran to sit with the other sheep.
I am sorry if you don't understand how it works, but that is the reality.
However, if you want to align yourself with Homophobic neanderthals like Card who like to threaten people who disagree with them, go right ahead. However, I am still waiting for one bit of credible evidence that George was involved. However, the woman accused of murdering her child is the only one who claims he was involved. Why didn't she turn him in then? Why didn't she bring this up 3 years ago when George had her investigated?
Reason to doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. Even if Casey Anthony WAS sexually abused every day of her life by her father, brother, and mother, there is no evidence they were involved in Caylee's disappearance. Just some vague accusations from a convicted liar....Hmmm, I wonder if she had any reason to lie to get away with murder? No, she was probably telling the truth this time....she just wouldn't get on the stand to say it...because then she could be cross examined.
YOUR A TROLL! So is your red headed friend.. you two make being a reporter a crime.... you guys wouldn't know how to honestly report your own birthday..... Your teaching Americans how to successfully hate each other. your worse than Casey Anthony...you should be put in front of a live audience in handcuffs for your misdeeds YOU NASTY LITTLE HUMAN.....