Casey Anthony: The TV Show

I have long believed that we live in the United States of Entertainment.  And our fascination with the Casey Anthony trial does nothing to change my mind.

We were drawn to the trial because it was a TV show, and we Americans love a good TV show.  This one was a reality TV show with real characters and real drama, unlike the phony reality shows that litter the television landscape and aren’t even real.  And this real life drama show had a real star – Casey Anthony – who might be sentenced to death at the end of the show.


Who cares about the bozos on the Jersey Shore, or the Kardashian bozos, when you can have Casey Anthony in your living room?  Did she do it?  Did her father do it?  Did he really molest her?  Was he having an affair?  Will the jury vote for a lethal injection in her arm?

This is what we call “good television.”

And we were fascinated with the trial even though it wasn’t even an important news story, except of course, for the people directly involved.  It wasn’t about race, like the O.J. Simpson trial. It wasn’t about fame, which explained why so many Americans were hooked on the John Kennedy, Jr. plane crash story.  It wasn’t even by the clash of classes in our culture.

But it was about something we can’t resist:  the pretty girl next door — on trial for her life.

Sure, we have two wars going on where Americans are dying for their country.  But they don’t get one-tenth the attention that Casey Anthony got.  Sorry, all you military folks out there dodging bullets and rockets. You don’t get ratings – unless of course a bomb goes off and kills a whole bunch of people while the camera is rolling.

That’s also good television.

What about the debt crisis and the budget and stuff like that?  Those are real stories with serious consequences.  Why don’t we get more of that from journalists who keep telling us how respectable they are?

We will get hours and hours of that on television.  I’m sure of it. When hell freezes over.

But not all trials involving young women and their dead little girl make for good TV.  For instance, if Casey Anthony were a black woman with a black baby, the TV networks wouldn’t have given the story 10 minutes, from beginning to end.  Remember, this was a true crime drama about, Casey, the girl next door.  The white girl next door, with the cute little white dead kid.

And if there wasn’t any video of the adorable little girl, you wouldn’t have seen much of the trial on TV, either.  TV rule #1:  You must have video if you want to get on the air.

And if Casey was fat.  Or ugly, with a big pimple on her nose.  No way they’d cover that trial.  It’s also against the rules.

But TV executives aren’t the only shallow ones.  So are lots and lots and lots of Americans. In fact, we can be a remarkably shallow people at times.  And this, my friends, is one of those times.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Portable Offices

    Thank you for every other informative site. Where else may I am getting that type of info written in such a perfect manner? I have a challenge that I am just now running on, and I have been at the glance out for such info.


    My brother suggested I may like this website. He was entirely right. This submit actually made my day. You can not imagine just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thank you!




  • Kay Randazzo

    Is knowing the cure a necessity for recognizing illness? Does one need to know how to “fix” what’s broken, in order for the ‘brokenness’ to be valid? I keep hearing that the United States Legal System, specifically the Jury System, is the best justice system in the world. The Jury System is made up of individual jurors–accordingly, it is these individuals upon whom our justice system relies. In my perhaps flawed understanding, I cannot comprehend how a random group of “peers” can be chosen for such a task without any sort of intelligence test as to their ability to THINK, and THINK CRITICALLY. I can accept that one need not be a professional, or an educated person in the higher sense, in order to qualify as a juror– but one should at least prove an ability to comprehend & grasp complex thought, and display an ability to communicate such. Of the too few jurors that have come forward in the Casey Anthony case, and one female juror in particular stands out, they appeared to have a “reality TV” comprehension of the world, and a grade school vocabulary at best. When words like “whatjimacall it”, and “whatever”, and phrases such as “well, like, y’know, like” are used by a juror to explain, describe, or otherwise communicate the reasoning behind their decisions, it’s not merely their vocabulary that gives cause for concern. I question their ability to think in ways crucial to make an informed decision. I’m alarmed at the mindset that refuses to question a jury’s ABILITY to THINK. I am also frustrated that the issue of juror intelligence, or lack thereof, gets dismissed as a sort of sour grapes issue– that if they came back with a decision I agreed with I wouldn’t be complaining. That kind of mindset undermines the entire point. The “Jury System” is made up of jurors. Not everyone is qualified to be one. This is not a fault of those picked. It’s a disgraceful negligence of those doing the picking.

    • Will Swoboda

      You are right. I believe that jurors should be able to be able to think clearly and express themselves in a mature manner.I read once that defense lawyers really look for the most incompetent jurors as possible.

      • Auth

        ecmipan117 on June 13, 2011 @CutThroatKid123 I didn’t know the exact price, I only knew it was someonthing REDICULOUS, especially for a hat .. and the last time I played was like 6-8 months ago.

  • Don Cass

    The reaction to the verdict has been astounding (but predictable). It consists mostly of an army of the brain-dead, led by such mental midgets as Bill O’Reilly, who actually believe they are better qualified to determine the fate of Casey Anthony than the twelve jurors and four alternates who heard the case and were charged with determining the outcome. These comments demonstrate that many idiots in our society actually think they KNOW Casey Anthony was guilty of capital murder after watching a drama on TV, and hasten to add that the jurors must be stupid if they can’t see what everyone else sees. People actually have gone out into the streets carrying signs that insist tht Casey must pay for her “crime” that the jurors were too stupid to detect. O’Reilly goes on with his ranting, day after day. He appears to be out of control. He and other millionaire celebrities, including Goldberg and Miller, have joined him in condemning the verdict. O’Reilly is starting to look like a total control freak. Let me explain them to you. There are people who are too lazy to recognize that human behavior takes many forms, and that what appears obvious may not have happened at all. It takes enormous chutzpah for a man like O’Reilly, who pontificates from a studio in New York, to decide life-altering murder cases that occur in Florida, and to dismiss the conscientious jurors as idiots. Think about it.

    • Kay Randazzo

      These jurors took only 11 hours to decide on a verdict. I’d say it’s they who viewed the whole case as a TV drama. The verdict is in. The Casey Anthony case is now history. The state of our jury system lives on, in all it’s brokenness. That’s the issue.

  • Nancye

    Final comment! It’s too bad that one juror didn’t have the guts to hang the dang jury. And then they would have had to try her all over again with a new jury, and just maybe that jury would have had sense enough to convict her. How many people have been convicted on less circumstantial evidence that was produced in this trial?

    • Bob Hadley

      You want to talk about guts? I think the jurors had guts to stick to their guns and acquit. They must have known that the atmosphere was highly charged against Casey long before they were sequestered.

      Chances are that if they had conjugal visits, the jurors knew that the case was still receiving heavy media coverage and that emotions were even higher. Surely they knew that, unlike in the OJ case, virtually no one would like their vedict.

      It would have been easy for the jury to convict. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all the jurors did their job by dispassionately following the law. But don’t imply that they didn’t have guts just because you don’t like the outcome.

  • Shirl

    The Scott Peterson jury didn’t need a road map and a snap shot of the crime to convict. Casey lied to the jury thru her attorneys and they bought it hook-line-and-sinker. A real travesty. They lost sight of what the trial was all about. A little girl who never had a chance and was betrayed by her mother.

  • Adam B

    So when are you and Geraldo going to throwdown he said he owes you a bloody nose.

  • Nancye

    I heard today that Casey is moving to Houston, Texas when she’s released. She better be careful who she murders in Texas because they don’t take kindly to murderers. They just executed one yesterday.

  • Ellie Velinska

    I hope for a change they will not turn the debt-crisis debate into ‘good TV’, although partisan talking heads can easily twist it into ‘the Rich and the Poor’ class warfare saga.

    • Varun

      Gotta love the way Jose keeps eaernding himself to Judge Perry. He is the polar opposite of everything Judge Perry stands for. Does this man EVER think about the consequences of his choices?

  • Nancye

    P.S. I don’t know what happened to my last comment but I think she’s guilty as sin.

  • Nancye

    One more comment about “The Casey Anthony TV Show”. I’m retired and I watch TV. I DIDN’T ask for the Casey Anthony trial to be on TV non-stop. The last fews days of the trial Fox had it on practically 24/7. And yes, there were other TV channels to watch – which I did – but then there’s always the top and bottom of the hour to give us “updates”. Then there’s talk shows. Ditto!!! It has been as bad as the OJ circus, but again, I didn’t ask for it! I’d hoped that today we would finally have “peace in the valley”, but no such luck. To make matters worse for us TV watchers, most of the summer shows are reruns. Great!!! I even got out some of my old 33 1/3 records to play to break up the monotony, plus audio tapes. I can do it! I will! When the twit gets out of prison and writes a book, you better believe I won’t buy it, nor will I watch her on all the TV talk shows. And yes, I know there’s a little on and off button on the TV and I have and will use it. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, I think Casey is guilty as sin but I wasn’t on the jury. Too bad!

  • MerchantofVenom

    Yes it becomes a media circus, but I’m sorry, I have to disagree. Speaking for myself I am sick and tired of seeing murders walk. I would like to see justice served. Drew Peterson in all likelihood killed his third and fourth wife and as yet to be tried. Robert Blake killed his wife and walked. Lets not forgot OJ. Now Casey Anthony stands to make millions by killing her daughter. Moral of the story; if you have a smart enough attorney and a dumb enough jury you can get away with murder.

  • frank

    Yesterday’s outcome has nothing to do with a jury’s “unnatural act of dispassionate analysis and deliberation.” You collect me twenty-four people from your local mall on a Saturday afternoon, & I’ll be amazed if one of them can balance a check book, let alone perform “unnatural acts of analysis,” passionate or otherwise. Juries can do whatever they want to do whatever a judge says, whatever the arguments. High-profile cases especially often go to a jury’s collective head. I heard just a few minutes ago that one of these bozos is now asking five figures minimum for an interview–as if anyone needs to hear from any of these people. We’ve already heard from them, and once is enough.
    Sometimes–every once in a hundred years–a jury’s freedom is a good thing. More often it produces travesties like yesterday’s verdict.

    • Bob Hadley

      There is no way for you to know that the jury’s decision in the Casey Anthony case had nothing to do with the “unnatural act of dispassionate analysis and deliberation.” You obviously made that up. Is that what you’d do if you were on a jury—just make things up to suit your passions?

      It sounds like your beef is mainly with our legal system, much of which is derived from our constitution. Criminal Defendants are constitutionally entitled to be judged by a jury of their peers. If you think your peers are inept, then your beef is with the jury system or perhaps with our educational system. But, your attitude may be more prejudiced than anything else.

      I am well aware of Mark Twain’s classic dirge regarding juries and jury trials in his book, “Roughing It.”

      Years ago, when I was a bailiff, I took care of jurors and potential jurors from the time they were first summoned through jury selection through trial. I was their “go to” guy. After each trial, I spoke to the juries at length regarding their decisions.

      In my experience, juries take their job very seriously and have a collective wisdom. Collectively, they have a very good recall of what is presented in court. They usually (albeit not always) follow the judge’s instructions and admonitions.

      Once, after a jury acquitted a guy of auto theft, the judge’s clerk said “He’s guilty, guilty, guilty!” The court reporter came up muttering, “Those jurors will believe anything!” Both the clerk and the court reporter had been in the courtroom from gavel to gavel. They were aware of all the evidence presented.

      I explained to them the gap in the prosecution’s case as identified by the jury. To their credit, both the clerk and the court reporter thought about it and then changed their minds. The clerk then said,” Wow, that jury is smart!” The court reporter, whose boyfriend was a police officer, said “I’m going to chew out my boyfriend because the police dept. didn’t do a thorough investigation.”

      Sometimes I disagreed with a jury’s reasoning and verdict, but so what? Reasonable people disagree all the time. Was the Casey Anthony jury unreasonable, given the evidence presented at trial and given the judge’s jury instructions? We don’t know at this point.

  • Bob Hadley

    I agree with your article above. It reminded me of something during the Elizabeth Smart saga. Or was it the Lacy and Scott Peterson saga or the Jon Benet Ramsey case? Actually, I’m not certain which saga it was about involving the disappearance of good looking white people.

    During the height of whichever saga it was, someone accused the news media of racial bias, referring to a case of a missing black girl who was very young. As I recall, the boyfriend was suspected. The case was somewhere on or near the East coast. Certain national news outlets were initially shamed into covering it.

    I can’t remember too many details about this latter case because, almost as soon as it started, the plug was pulled on the national news coverage. Why?… Why else? Not specifically because the case involved blacks, but because the coverage didn’t attract greens.

    But I do take issue with you dumping on the Casey Anthony jury today. It was premature at best and ignorant at worst.

    Remember the self-inflicted damage Michael Dukakis suffered when he gave a clinical answer to Bernie Shaw’s notorious question at one of the 1988 Presidential debates? The question was, “If someone raped and killed your wife, Kitty Dukakis, would you want him to have an irrevocable death penalty?”

    A more popular answer would have been: “Bernie, if someone did that to my wife I’d want to personally give him the death penalty. I’d want to hunt him down and kill him with my bare hands. But that doesn’t make it right.” Note: The answer should be given with obviously suppressed anger.)

    On the other hand, juries are not supposed to be popular or politically expedient. Their purpose is not to avenge outrage—whether their outrage, the Anthonys’ outrage, your outrage, O’Reilly’s outrage, or our collective outrage.

    The jury is required by law, and is under oath, to set aside their emotions and dispassionately apply what they see as the credible facts to the law as given to them by the trial judge during jury instructions. After a criminal trial, the jury is required by law to look for reasonable doubt. A jury cannot legally convict based on probability. It has to be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any judge or prosecutor will tell you this (unless, of course, he is on a conservative talk show, in which case he might give an evasive answer).

    To rant about Casey Anthony’s guilt as an analyst, as a citizen or merely as a human being is legitimate. But the jury is required to perform the unnatural act of dispassionate analysis and deliberation.

    At this point, we do not know why the jury acquitted Casey. Given the heated atmosphere, we may never know. It’s entirely possible that the jurors all agreed that Casey is probably guilty but that there is a reasonable doubt. In that case, they will they have the knowledge that they followed the law, but they will have to live with setting free someone who is probably a murderer.

    As you surely know, there is jury selection. Potential jurors are under oath to give truthful answer to questions asked by the attorneys and by the judge. If it appears as though they will be unable to dispassionately apply the facts to the law as given to them by the judge, they are excused. Geraldo would probably be excused from a trial of a involving an illegal immigrant. You and O’Reilly would probably be excused from most or all trials.

    Did the jury follow the law? Did they base their verdict on emotion? Did they hold the prosecution to poof beyond any doubt? Did they use common sense in deliberating about reasonable doubt? At this point, you and I don’t know.

    To rant against the legal system is certainly valid. Maybe there’s a better way. But to rant against the jury, and to say that they have absolutely no common sense, is ignorant—at this point anyway.

    Yes, I think Casey was probably guilty. If I was on the jury,, I may well have voted to convict. (But, on the other hand, jurors are legally required to be open minded when deliberating.) What happened to her daughter is beyond outrageous. I thought OJ was certainly guilty. But to vent outrage on the jury is an act of selfishness—at this point anyway.

  • robin in fl

    as most of the time I tend to agree with you made for good tv.

    what people saw was the ‘perfect little’ family,with the well groomed mother and father,with the nice looking 2 children,in the nice house,with the nice pretty backyard,with the cute little child….all was perfect.all was well…well almost all..they all turned out to be a bunch of liars that were really f’d up!..and the girl next door turned out to be one of the biggest pathological liars of all time ..and no matter who did what or how nice everything appeared to be ,the child was still dead. ….ahhh yes..the ‘perfect family, appeared to be some of US!!!…the secret came out..some of ‘us’ ,that want everything to look” just so” are living the ‘perfect little lie!! ..plain and simple.yep.made for real good tv.

    and as you say,had the people been not so nice looking ,or from another side of one would have really watched for more then a minute or even cared…..sad ,but true.

    I may not like reality tv(except for the celebrity apprentice ,which I still wish bernie g would be on..I just know you would win bernie! ),but I will admit to watching this trial .I liked watching the trial,it had it’s cast of characters better then any law & order episode I have ever watched…the outcome made me shake my head in disbelief ,walk away wondering if there was any common sense left in the world,while hearing a song run through my head by a group called ‘the banditos’ in titled ‘everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people’..(you tube it,it’s quite a catchy little song) ..and I did learn something..I learned that I need to step away from the tv and the computer for a while!!!!

  • EddieD_Boston

    The little girl was adorable and, as a father, it made me sick knowing someone killed her. But it’s a “the chicken or the egg” theory thing…
    Do we watch b/c we can’t get enough or does the media force viewership down our throats as a story like this is on every channel, all day long?
    I tried to ignore it until the verdicts were announced, when I did tune in. But Rikki Lake nation eats this stuff up.

    My guess…Casey Anthony will be pregant again in 6 months. Only stupid people are breading and in 100 years this country will be in dire straights. But I’ll be dead by then and it won’t matter to me.

    • Lacee

      I love you Eddie.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Wow, thanks. I hope you’re a woman. If not I’m flattered none the less.

        And I now realize I have a typo in my original post…breeding not breading

        • Vince Ricardo

          “And I now realize I have a typo in my original post…breeding not breading” – I was just thinkin’ that you had had a really bad experience with a bake shop and the decline in the quality of American pastries, lol.

  • Frank

    Who knows why a case like this about someone no-one ever heard of suddenly becomes an obsession? It started with the media, then it just spread like the Spanish ‘Flu, and all over the world apparently. My guess is that it was because (a) the victim was a small child, and (b) she was disposed of like garbage by (c) her own mother. It certainly wasn’t because of the mother, who is a completely uninteresting person. My own suspicion is that this case and its little victim provided the kind of emotional catharsis that tragedy–according to Aristotle–provided the ancient Greeks, the emotions being pity, fear, and guilt, the emoters chiefly but not entirely women. After all, how many women in the civilized world have murdered their babies in the last thirty-five years? Fifty million? And how many of those babies were disposed of like garbage? And how many of those women were completely ordinary women you might bump into in the supermarket?

  • D. McConnell

    Thank you for putting Gealdo Rivera in the loud-mouth, hypocrite box he deserves. Your points on the Tuesday O’Reilly show were so lucid and on the mark. It is calming to hear someone apply common sense and not bombastic emotion or sensationalistic volume to a discussion on this case.

    A question; O’Reilly cited the huge viewership of the trial. But, I for one tried to change the channel to important ‘news’ whenever trial coverage came on. I could not. The trial was a persistent irritant on most all cable news. Fox went non-stop for hours on the FOURTH OF JULY with sprawling LIVE coverage of a slow, dripping momentum. Obama didn’t get that much coverage when he committed our nation to our third war. So, is it that “we viewers can’t stop watching”, or is it that we’re NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE to stop watching? Would it be more accurate to say “the MEDIA can’t stop COVERING it”?

    • Kip

      “loud-mouth”, “hypocrite”, “common sense”, “bombastic emotion”, “sensationalistic” … who’s the one being vitriolic here?

      Why can’t people accept that an impaneled jury just might render a verdict that we don’t approve? WE’RE NOT ON THE JURY … that’s how our legal system has always worked.

      • Denise

        Oh please. Of course we understand that juries render verdicts we disagree with. It happens everyday. But we still reserve the right to disagree and believe, having watched the entire trial myself, that the jury failed miserably. The jury that was picked via voir dire was unfortunately a terrible group to decide this case. With that said, the jury needs to answer up as to why they came to their decision instead of hiding like a bunch of cowards…they tucked their collective tails and ran. How pitiful.

      • D. McConnell

        Golly Kip, sorry I used adjectives. I didn’t understand that I wasn’t allowed to use adjectives without crossing some line. You’re right too, (of course), there was nothing “sensationalistic” about this trial coverage. Oh, nooo.

    • Vince Ricardo

      Though I don’t watch a whole lot of tv, I managed to miss just about all of the trial, except for the jury’s decision yesterday (and I CHOSE to watch that), so do yourself a favor and either watch something other than “cable news” or else turn the tv off and pick up a good book. You’ll be better for it.

      Kills me when people blame someone else for what THEY see on tv. Cracks me up, really.

      • D. McConnell

        Golly, Vince, do I not get to suggest that NEWS meet any standards. I should just swallow whatever anyone feeds me…Or pick up a book. What if you don’t like the book I pick up, or my reaction to the book – will that “kill you” too? Piss off.

        • D. McConnell

          Oh, and Vince, if you dont like my comment, or any other comment here – why don’t you just log off this blog and pick up the one of the precious books that make you feel so superior and noble. I mean, isn’t that your own argument? Yes, it is.

          • Vince Ricardo

            That cracked me up, also, Thanks! Believe me, if I was so superior and noble, I wouldn’t even be reading your comments (Because I wouldn’t be on these forums, of course. Superior people don’t read internet forums, correct? Not sure, I’m just guessing). I am, however, noble enough not to tell you to simply “piss off.” Well, not over the internet, ’cause that’s pretty cowardly but, meh, so be it. … oops, did that sound “superior?” Perhaps.

            Seriously, though, it did crack me up that you not only tried to justify your lack of knowledge of the TV remote with a “shouldn’t the News be better than this?” quip (actually, I do agree with you there), but to somehow feel as though I give a hoot about what you read (and, obviously, you CAN read … see that? That was a smarmy comment … actually, just using the word “smarmy” is smarmy). I don’t. Wait, though, that’s not part that really cracked me up. The funniest part is that you came back, HOURS later, to add your second comment to it. It’s like when you think of something really funny to say, AFTER the person you were going to say it to walks off. Good stuff! Gracias!

          • D. McConnell

            “Seriously”,Vince, practice what you preach; log off and read your books. You’re way too comfortable passing judgement on others (as if others couldn’t wait for you to correct them). I couldn’t care less what you think of this comment: Piss Off.

    • Kathie Ampela

      I want to know who decides which true crime cases will be given non stop coverage and which cases will be ignored..who was the decision maker that said “let’s present endless Casey Anthony coverage and nothing else because that’s what the viewers want.” That has long been a problem with television..the decision makers treat the viewers like idiots. It would have been fine to report the story and leave it at’s the tabloid sensationalism that turned me off. I do read a good book when I have the time..and this trial gave me some more time, so I guess I should be thankful 😉 I don’t watch Fox News 24/7 because there are just so many news stories on any given day that can be analyzed…but the coverage of this trial was too much. How about some educational programming instead of a media feeding frenzy on a dead little girl?

  • Kathie Ampela

    Good article, Bernie, except for the use of the word “we.” “We were drawn to the trial because it was a TV show, and we Americans love a good TV show” is an example. Please speak for yourself. I, for one, was really sick of hearing about this case and was puzzled as to why it got so much coverage in the first place. It is a noble pursuit to feature a true crime case on a TV show if something good can come from it, such as freeing a person being wrongfully convicted or exposing a judge making a ridiculous ruling. It’s quite another to turn a murder trial into a reality TV show for ratings. TV cameras should not be allowed in courtrooms. Check out a movie from the 80’s called “The Running Man”’s the next step for us. How far will TV networks go for ratings..I see that it’s already in the works…Casey Anthony is fielding offers from tabloids and networks for her story.

    • Kip

      Amen … there are some of us who aren’t a part of this mob mentality. Some of us understand the difference between innocence and being found legally “not guilty”. Our opinion has zero legal weight in this discussion.

      • Geno

        No Kip, it isn’t “Mob Mentality” or any other catch phrase you may have heard. It’s common sense, of which there is an extreme lack of in our society. Are you going to say “Fantasy Forensics” next? BTW, that’s another catch phrase with no real bearing on anything. This about the death of a child. You might want to remember that instead of self-righteously patting yourself on the back.

    • Danny

      Cheney Mason wenatd the good doctors to rebut the consciousness of guilt’ that was worded in Judge Perry’s Order when he denied the motion to supress the Universal interviews etc. I stand to be corrected.

  • Tim

    It’s becoming very annoying listening to some people say how it was only a circumstantial case. Circumstantial evidence is STILL legal and effective evidence! All it takes is some basic common sense to connect dots. These 12 jurors obviously have none! I live in Orlando and I’m so disgusted that this child murderer will most likely be walking free tomorrow.

    • Kip

      More attacking of the jury …. they alone define “reasonable” doubt in this case. None of us have the LEGAL charge to make that definition. It’s why the verdict is never determined by another TV poll.

  • Sam

    wow the lack of faith in your justice system and your fellow citizens Is staggering… ie the jury. The total distrust of the verdict says more about the medias unwillingness to admit there bias could have been wrong than anything else. I’m sitting in new Zealand and am glad I live in a country that does not get upset when a woman who could have been murdered…. Sorry I ment get the death penalty who could be innocent gets to live.

    • Ned

      Well, guess that’s because you live in NZ and are too busy criticising the USA to pay attention to details.

      • Kip

        Another ad hominem reply to someone with whom you disagree … “well, that’s because you’re stupid.” I seem to remember a lot of liberals complaining when Bush won his second term, “All those who voted for Bush are just idiots.” Wonder if some Republicans said the same thing when Obama became President. This whole style of argumentation and name-calling is sophomoric.

  • Brian

    Good article, Bernie!

    In regards to the trial, they had nothing on her that warranted a first-degree murder charge. All of the evidence was circumstantial. But, a “not guilty” for child abuse was a joke.

    The family seems to have many issues and who knows what really happened, but I wouldnt be shocked at all if the father was involved. Didnt he try to kill himself when Caylee was missing or found dead?

    • Nancy

      I think that was more because the family is so disfunctional and he was truly torn to pieces with not knowing what happened to the grandaughter he loved or how his own daughter could have been involved. And circumstantial evidence IS MOST DEFINITELY evidence. She did it. She’s guilty. The jury was stupid, and they didn’t have to give her the death penalty anyway. Now this child murderer walks free. Pathetic. Americans don’t seem to be able to make any good decisions anymore about anything.

      • Brian

        While it seemed like the jury lacked a collective critical thinking skill, you cannot charge someone for first-degree murder with just circumstantial evidence.

        In regards to Mr. Anthony, the suicide attempt/gesture reeked of guilt. Didnt he report smelling decomposing flesh in the car, but never alerted law enforcement?

      • Dan Farfan

        “She did it.”
        Fortunately the legal system doesn’t accuse people of pronouns.

        “She’s guilty.”
        ” Americans don’t seem to be able to make any good decisions anymore about anything.”
        Fortunately we try people with jurors not exaggeration-prone TV viewers.

        • Kip

          Yep …

          • John

            I’m write and eat left hedand, but I bowl, cut with scissors, and throw with my right hand. I also grind my teeth at night and wear a mouthguard so attractive, haha.

      • Kip

        And you’re stupid … and fat. Does that prove anything. Nope. Just an adult whining like a child who doesn’t get his/her way.

      • Vince Ricardo

        People rarely make good decisions based on just emotions. It’s a good thing our justice system isn’t based on relying on them. Though they wouldn’t be human if they didn’t have emotions, hopefully the jury left them at the door when they went in for deliberations. Actually, it’s obvious that they did. Though I don’t know you, from your statement I sincerely hope you are never chosen to serve on a jury of your peers, though I’m fairly certain you would be “weeded out” in the vetting process.

      • Brian

        If you are a sitting on a jury and heard a dozen people state differents scents from a car at various times, would you convict her of first-degree murder? Because that and a theory of why she killed Caylee was the prosecution’s main arguments. Casey’s web of lies and her parents lack of awareness are the reason she is not guilty of anything.

        Look, I believe she killed Caylee and at the very least knows the truth as to what happened. But those arguments were weak, going for first-degree murder was a bad move, and her parents involvement with everything raised a lot of doubt.

  • Bruce A.

    I did not watch or follow the trial that closely, to be truthful I could even stand hearing about it.
    In the end the killer is not know, another lawyer will have made a name for himself.
    There will be interviews & book deals maybe a movie etc. I have no doubt about that.
    A lot of money will be made off this dead little girl. Just don’t expect me to spend a cent on it. Very, very sad indeed.

  • Mike in NC

    I watched your rant on Fox last night Mr. Goldberg and feel you really missed the boat with your viewpoint. You have morphed into a “TALKING HEAD.” Cheney Mason was absolutley correct in his assessment of the media and the conviction with which they carried out their reporting duties for 3 years worth of coverage on this case. The public convicted the defendent on what was reported, the jury based their acquittal on what was presented. Isn’t that the basis of our judicial system? The courtroom is no place for the media.

    • Kip

      Good job … we all want to watch a car wreck. How DARE they not allow our peering eyes to be involved in a jury’s deliberations. 😉 Funny, O’Reilly last night was almost DEMANDING that the jurors give their reasoning for their verdict. Media can only speculate when those jurors don’t talk.

      • Dan Farfan

        Actually, I think Bill wants the jury to TRY the case and convince HIM. Although as everyone who watches The Factor knows, Bill decided his result long ago. And Bill will never accept the truth that justice and retribution are not synonyms.

        Boy did I miss “Miss Megyn” last night to slap Bill down and explain his mistakes in the intro and talking points. She’s the only person with a legal background Bill respects. Oh well, I’ll take comfort in my hallucination that Megyn was at home yelling at the TV for us all. :-))

      • Denise

        I agree with Bill. The jury needs to answer up as to why they came to their decision instead of hiding like a bunch of cowards…they tucked their collective tails and ran. How pitiful.

      • Mehmet

        Let’s see what Richard says. I bleieve, if the doctors are allowed to testify, they can speak on Casey’s behalf without her taking the stand. Liz, did you read the defense motion?

  • Robert Stubbs

    It was a good article but I have a slightly different slant on why a single black woman whose child “went missing ” wouldn’t receive the same media coverage. The outrage from the so called spokesmen of the black community would explode outward saying that such coverage is making the Black Community look bad and that all of it is based in racism. The PC crowd would mobilize and you would have Eric Holder calling for investigations into the networks covering it.

    • Tim

      I agree with you 100% Robert! Sad but true!

  • Nancye

    What a miscarriage of justice. As someone said, the jury went from what they were advised, as to a “reasonable doubt” all the way to “a shadow of a doubt”. Many have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. How could the prosecution prove beyond “a shadow of a doubt” when the child’s body was nothing but a skeleton when found – no DNA, no fingerprints, etc. But when a mother doesn’t report her missing child for THIRTY days, but manages to party, gets a tattoo, and just has a great time, that tends to send out signals to anyone with a grain of sense. If Caylee drowned in the swimming pool, why was there duct tape on her mouth and nose (or rather where they used to be)? What about the odor in the trunk of the car? When she goes to sentencing Thursday, I bet the judge will let her go because of time served.

    The saving grace is that karma will catch up with her eventually.

    As for the media coverage – so what? What about the OJ trial?

    • Nancy

      This jury was pathetic. I cannot imagine NOT finding her guilty. But there it is. And I swear to God, I’ll NEVER WATCH ANY T.V. show that goes so far as to have her on for any interviews.

      • Kip

        When you don’t agree with an outcome and just resort to calling people names, that’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Like disagreeing with someone and saying, “Well … you’re just FAT!”

        I highly doubt that any TV show will suffer financially if you choose to boycott watching. You’re righteous boycotting will satisfy your indignation only.

        BTW, I think Casey was culpable in some way … but I respect jurors who make decisions. Problem is, so many of us who get to eavesdrop on these trials and see/hear far more than any of the jurors do … we just cannot accept a chosen panel of 12 jurors returning a verdict WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL!

  • Denise

    that would be I fear FOR our country

    • Kip

      We got that the first time you copy & pasted your reply …

      • Denise

        Good. How about you read it again and make an intelligent comment?

  • mike smith

    There’s not enough evidence to convict her. Yes, actions speak louder than words and no, I didn’t approve of her ways after Caylee was missing.

    Let’s look back what happened 40-50 years ago. There were a lot of African American men who were convicted on circumstantial evidence. With scientific technology of today there has to be substancial evidence.

    I still think Casey, George & Cindy were in it all together.

    I still don’t under stand taking the fifth and how people don’t have to take the stand bit if she did I am sure it would have came out on what happen to Caylee.

    If I was Casey and my child was missing the whole state of Florida would have been on fire until.someone paid attention to my requests and answers.

    • Beyzanur

      This film is hoilraius!!!! not because it’s terrible because the jokes are really more amusing than any comedy i’ve seen in a lllooonnnnggggg time! I found it at best one in the series, definitly.

  • Denise

    Sigh…today has not been a good day. On one hand I agree with you regarding your comment about the “United States of Entertainment.” I prefer to say the American Mob, which I believe is like the Roman Mob, and how the Roman’s thirst for entertainment (mostly bloody) was insatiable. However, some of us watched, not to be entertained, but in hopes that justice would be delivered for a defenseless little girl. Even though we still (for now) have the best criminal justice system in the world, today it failed, miserably. With a jury like that, I fear our country.

    • Dan Farfan

      “Even though we still (for now) have the best criminal justice system in the world, today it failed, miserably.”

      Your expectations and understanding failed (probably not for the first time), not the justice system. Justice is a process, not a result. But wait, you say, “reporters” stick microphones in faces after verdicts and ask, “Was justice served?” To use Mr. Goldberg observation, that’s entertainment. It has nothing to do with truth or justice or even proper wielding of the language.

      The justice system is all about adjudicating disputes according to the law. It’s not about “finding the truth” or “getting justice” “for a victim.” Strike those cliches and slogans from your vocabulary and the line between the law and entertainment won’t be so blurry.

      Do you want to know who justice is for? Everyone. When a court ensures the legal system is implemented according to the law, justice is done, for everyone. Because you think you might have voted differently is why we won’t be trying people on TV. It’s why we won’t be confusing anytime soon jurors and viewers. Rejoice that our justice system is strong enough to not bend to the lunacy of emotion and public pressure for retribution.

      “With a jury like that, I fear our country.”
      Naww. No reason to fear. The country isn’t out to get you. I promise. :-)

    • Nancye

      July 6, 2011 – 12:24 am
      Sigh…today has not been a good day. On one hand I agree with you regarding your comment about the “United States of Entertainment.” I prefer to say the American Mob, which I believe is like the Roman Mob, and how the Roman’s thirst for entertainment (mostly bloody) was insatiable.

      (((However, some of us watched, not to be entertained, but in hopes that justice would be delivered for a defenseless little girl.)))

      Even though we still (for now) have the best criminal justice system in the world, today it failed, miserably. With a jury like that, I fear our country

      I couldn’t agree with you more. And for the past few days, that’s all Fox News had on, so for those of us who watch news shows, how could you miss it.

      • Vince Ricardo

        This may sound cold, but the “defenseless little girl” is far beyond caring about whether or not justice was served. Let’s not all pretend this was for the little girl. It wasn’t.

        Whether or not Casey Anthony murdered her daughter, or had anything do with it, she, quite obviously, has some severe mental issues.

        • Ayoub

          I just used mneicd/powdered garlic!! (as a side note for fresh garlic I always freeze my whole peeled cloves and just chop them from the freezer when I need them so to avoid smelly fingers)

  • Gene

    You are right on the money Bernie. In addition to that, this jury would not know good circumstantial evidence if it bit them in the ass. We live in a CSI age where people demand video, fingerprints, DNA and a confession before they will convict anyone. As far as your comments about Heraldo “Jerry” I look like a 70’s porn star Rivera, in a heartbeat he would convict someone who killed an illigal immigrant. One thing I have learned about juries…they predictably unpredictable.

  • Bob

    Nice rant! But as one “home entertained” viewer, who watches O’rielly for the same reason i watched some of the trial, i would have voted the same way as this jury! Take your vengence on the prosecution, or move abroad where they may have a justice system to your liking!!

    • Mickey

      Speaking of nice rants, you didn’t really tell Bernie to love it or leave it did you? Not smart in the 60s, not smart today, Bob

    • Bob

      … and the 2 wars do not get this much coverage because i can’t make the media and politicians sit in a court room and explain to me why we still have 2 wars going on, ergo debt crisis!. The media (all factions) need politicians, and politicians (all factions) need media heads. Talk about “failure to testify”!

      • Ron Kean

        “…i can’t make the media and politicians sit …” Who are you?

        Some time ago activists and leaders decided that people who couldn’t afford a house should own a house. So they got the government to grant loans and guarantee the money. Prices went up because there was no risk to loan the money so everybody borrowed and owed. Then it went bust. And that’s how the debt crisis happened. Wars added debt but the problem was more domestic.

  • Annie14

    I saw you on The O’Reilly Factor and agree with you on verdict and jurors. Do you feel she could be charged with lesser charges such as not reporting minor child missing for 31 days, and not reporting a death when the defense stated she was present. Not reporting an unlwful disposal of a body since she claims she saw daughter dead and saw dad take body? what are your thoughts? Many mobsters go down on tax issues and not the other crimes, even Martha got time for hiding information to police, maybe they can charge her with 20+ violations and which ones stick!

    • toni hayes

      should not fixate on date “31 days”, that baby would NOT have EVER been reported “missing”, if it had not been for the grandmother. That is all anyone needs to know.

  • Kip

    Good insights, Mr. Goldberg … yes, as usual.

    I will have to remind you though, sir, that your disgust (as you called it on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor) was not well disguised in your interview. I, too, believe that this defendant was guilty … if my vote on the jury would have counted. But it didn’t. Neither did yours. Neither did Mr. O’Reilly’s.

    Ad hominem attacks on the jury’s intelligence or lack of a “modicum of common sense” is a logical fallacy. The liberals referred to everyone who voted for Bush as “stupid”. Same fallacy. We’re all more intelligent in our debating prowess than that. I’ll still be reading every one of your posts, nonetheless!

    • Dan


      Don’t really think bernie’s saying the jury lacked a modicum of common sense is in the same ballpark as libs saying W was a moron, a nazi, and a war criminal. Degree and tone matter.

      • Kip

        Degree and tone is in the eye of the beholder … what is “reasonable” is as well. For me, it’s the principle and double standard that I look for.

        I heard a Jewish friend of mine here in SoCal (Republican at that) call for someone to hunt down Casey Anthony and murder her as soon as she walked out of jail. I merely mentioned to her that for someone with a Jewish heritage, whose people were savagely and horribly murdered by a Nazi regime, to call for someone else’s murder whom they hate … that, too, is a horrible thing to say.

        She turned to me and called me an Anti-Semitic bigot … and I’m married to a Jewish woman!!

        I just don’t like double standards and “pragmatism over principle” wherever I see it.

  • Dan Farfan

    Well put, as usual, sir.
    There is one dot you could connect to really slam dunk your analysis even to those who still doubt – the number of 2-4 year old American kids missing/killed since the day this story broke. Very sad, indeed.