John King, USA

The latest political news and information on the most important stories affecting you.
July 5th, 2011
09:33 PM ET

Why was Anthony murder trial so popular?

CNN's John King asks Diane Dimond of Newsweek and Jim Moret of "Inside Edition" about the Casey Anthony trial.
Filed under: Interview
soundoff (11 Responses)
  1. Donna Porter

    Good show tonight John.
    Does anyone on the panel think that Casey was surprised herself at the verdict? She looked pretty surprised to me. I am disappointed that the jury didn't think lying for 31 days and going out partying all the while your daughter is apparently missing or has drowned (depending on what story you believe) wasn't a big enough clue in this case.

    July 5, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
  2. Donna Porter

    Can you ask the lawyer's on your panel how difficult is it to defend a client you know is guilty.

    July 5, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
  3. Mike Grisham

    They say no motive in Casey trial..... that there is no precedent for a Mother to kill a child for another man. Review the Diane Downs case 1986 I think. She killed one child – tried and failed to kill two others – all for the affection of a man she wanted – a man who did not want kids.

    There are lots of cases of Mothers killing their children for no apparent reasons.

    What a joke this trial and result is. So de-values the life of a young child.

    July 5, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
  4. flygal

    Horray for the Defense Attorney's! Nancy Grace your hateful remarks didn't make a difference to the Jurors.
    Yes, someone in the Anthony family knows exactly what happened to Caley. The entire Family should have been placed in jail.
    They all will have to answer to GOD!
    Meanwhile, judge and you also will be judged by God!
    Perhaps Casey is abnormal in her mind and this is the reason why she continue to party...
    The man that found her could have been the real killer! This is a cover up on the Anthony family.
    RIP Caley!

    July 5, 2011 at 10:31 pm |
  5. Matthew

    Every defense attorney you interview will always say the same thing. Not because they believe that Anthony isnt responsible, but because they NEED to say that for their own cases. They only succeed on reasonable doubt. Its much better when you interview people that are subjective and don't have their own agenda.

    July 5, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
  6. Laurie

    If the jury in the Casey Anthony trial thought she was not guilty – who do they believe did it then? – George – I think we all find that hard to believe

    July 5, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
  7. Melissa Schreiber

    What I don't understand is how can we pick people to be jury member when they have prior conviction. They are called to make a dicision based on the laws of the state when they themselves didn't have respect for the laws?

    July 5, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
  8. Sandy Veach

    Why does CNN always put up two defense attorneys against one prosecution attorney? Why slant the opinion about the Anthony trial?

    July 5, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
  9. PEEDINDENVER

    Poor Caylee..Let's watch the Defense team drink and party..Shame on the Judge..he should of instructed them to the fact that circumstantial evidence is ok...example...a child says they washed their hands, but yet the soap is dry...towel is not soiled....sink is not wet...WE had that evidence..the laundry coffin Caylee was thrown into the swamp with...The smell of death....The winnie the poo blanket...I think the state should find a way to file a civil suit against Casey to recoop the money that was spent...and the jurors thru away...Shame on then alllllllllllll. Stupid Stupid people.....Bottom line what about Caylee...............RIP but how can she, her murderer is going free.....

    July 5, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
  10. jan

    People are idiots. the jury didnt deliberate.

    July 6, 2011 at 1:23 am |
  11. Diana

    And the beat goes on. Having served on the grand jury in Texas, I can say with certainty that whatever prejudices I may have had going into the grand jury dissipated with our first case. In Texas, you may not be charged with a felony without a grand jury filing a true bill after determining there was probable cause to go forward with a trial. That is a heavy burden and one we didn't take lightly. We realized we had to ensure we found probable cause because someone's liberty was at stake. So, too, this jury. Once you become a juror your attitude changes. You are no longer part of the public and can't just say she did it without proof. The fact the jurors returned with a not guilty verdict is a testament to how seriously they took their charge. They had to know their decision would be very unpopular and that the easier route would be for them to vote guilty. And people wonder why they won't talk? They will be vilified by the media and the public.

    July 6, 2011 at 10:38 am |
« Back to main