Follow Zap2it:
'The View' weighs in on Casey Anthony, interviews prosecutor Jeff Ashton
Twitter
Google
We'll grant you that the bar for reasoned discourse of the Casey Anthony verdict on television has not been set especially high. Still, we were a little surprised to find that "The View" featured one of the more rational discussions of the case we've seen in the past 24 hours.The hosts discussed the verdict in the Hot Topics segment Wednesday (July 6), and while it was clear that at least some of the panel didn't much care for the not-guilty verdict, they also refrained from piling on either the jury or Anthony herself.
"It's one thing to sit in your living room" and hear talking heads summarize the case on TV, Sherri Shepherd notes in the first of the two clips below. "It's another to be sitting there [as a juror] and look at all that evidence."
Elisabeth Hasselbeck also wonders if the fact that a murder conviction could have resulted in the death penalty for Anthony weighed on the jury: "I would feel pause. Would anybody be able to make their kids lunch the next day and think, 'Oh, I just put somebody to death'?"
"The View" also interviewed prosecutor Jeff Ashton about the case (it's the second clip below) and asked him if going for a lesser charge might have helped the case. He doesn't think so.
"The facts that we had, the way we looked at them, this was a first-degree murder. "If the jury agreed with us about what happened, this was a first-degree murder."
What do you think of "The View's" take on the case? Were you surprised to see such a calm discussion?
Follow Zap2it on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest news and buzz
Photo/Video credit: ABC
Zap2it Elite Sheet Must Reads from the Web's In-Crowd
Featured Partners
I never thought I'd say this, but I actually share Hasselbeck's view: it certainly wasn't the overriding factor, but I do think putting the death penalty on the table was still a factor, even with non-death penalty options provided.
I would like to pee in Bab's coffee mug.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Jurors have a hard job and they are given specific orders when making their decisions..having said that, I think they over looked some valid evidence, such as the hair (from a dead person) was in the trunk, all the searches on the computer..but we have to accept their decision, just like they would have to accept it had it gone the other way.
I think Prosecutor Jeff Ashton did a great job with what he had.
Justice may not have come right now, but there will be justice served some time..wonder where her parents are regardnig will she be part of their lives?
I hope but seriously doubt that shows like the View will refrain from trotting out the Anthonys. Everyone, especially all of us in Florida have had enough of their lies. It is so PAINFUL thinking of Casey reaping a profit off of her daughter's murder. She is a miniacal lier and nothing she says would ever be close to truthful.
#1 I think that the jurors misunderstood the judge's instructions in regard to what constitiutes "reasonable doubt". The burden of reasonable doubt was overcome. There is NO other reasonable explanation than that Casey was responsible for the death. I don't care if you don't know where, how, or why. Caylee was IN HER CARE. This is a good argument for why we need professional jurors. You can't expect 12 lay-persons to appropriately understand and follow the law based on the brevity of the judge's instructions before they deliberat. I further submit that these jurors were LAZY. They didn't even ask for clarifications. Worn out and wanted to go home.
#2 There was soo much more that the prosecution could NOT present: Cindy Anthony had seen an EAP counselor who had suggested that she file for custody/guardianship of Caylee due to the concerns she had--Cindy will NEVER admit this (would illustrate that she could have intervened and Caylee might have been spared--and HIPPA laws prevent that from being discoverable. There was a HUGE FIGHT between Cindy and Casey on the night of the 15th of June (Father's Day, about Casey's behavior, which the prosecution knew happened but also knew that Cindy, again, would not substantiate. The jurors also DID NOT follow Judge Perry's instructions to NOT consider opening/closing arguments by the attorneys as testimnony. The ones who have spoken were clearly colored by Baez's UNFOUNDED allegations. I have followed this since the beginning and have examined every discovery document. I have also followed (though not participated in) many blogs. I have just as much of an ability to decide for myself what is reasonable and true in media and blog coverage as I do about what is "admissible". Why shouldn't the jury know it ALL???!!!
If the ladies of the view have not been giving the Anthony case much attention, now that people who have are livid w/ the verdict, it's a hot topic? They are the ones who are basing their opinions on summaries. And Walters should be ashamed for giving Baez and Anthony free publicity. These ladies have no standards. And to the point of 1st degree = death penalty... There were lesser charges. She wasn't even charged w/ negligence. Even if they thought drowning story made sense, the failure to administer CPR or call ambulatory services is in itself neglectful. These jurors made a mistake. So far comments from them reveal they believe the family had secrets and George Anthony knew more. If they were considering only the evidence, that wouldn't be so. They played detective and went against all common sense confusing it with emotional reaction.
I am heartsick over the verdict. I listened to the trial and cannot understand the jury. They were lazy or totaly ignorant. i have no faith in our jury system if they can let cold blooded killers go
Give casey anthony No Interviews, No Jobs, No Consideration, No Nothing. SHE IS NOT ONE OF US. Please.
I think a different "Caylee's Law" should be considered. That it be illegal for defense attorneys to present any UNPROVEN, UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES to unintelligent ignorant juries who are likely to get confused by things like this.