Anthony must pay almost $100K for investigation

She's got the money, and she can always file for bankruptcy as well.

She can't claim this on bankruptcy.

Thank you all for making her rich off the death of a 2 year old.

No thank the media. We love it and they keep giving it to us.

At Stars:

What really makes my blood boil is that non of these KNOW IT ALLS found out who took that baby girls life! Casey may have to pay for something that sitting in jail is a thing of the past with her, she can get through it, but her lil daughter will never get too see another day of life.

Where she is now is in a place of peace and receiving all the love and care she should of received while living and breathing on this planet and the Savages took that from her!

I bet that killer is happy for what he/she did. Irresponsible! For any media to post her smirk face on line, God how disgusting!

They wouldn't have had so much overtime if she hadn't led them on a wild goose chase with her ridiculous stories of a job she didn't have and a nanny that didn't exist. She needs to pay.

I agree, if anyone should be made to pay, it should be the incompetent prosecutor.

I agree Starseeker. This feels more like a shallow attempt by the state to save face in the eyes of the tax payers that funded this whole debacle. I use to want her to be held accountable for the death of Caley, but as time goes on and more ridiculousness comes out, I just want her to go away to some foreign country where we wont have to hear about her anymore!

This is really just an end-run around double-jeopardy. The state still wants her to pay for a crime she was found not guilty of. There's something wrong about that.

If anyone should pay, it should be the prosecutor.

@Z1: High 5 on that!

I agree, if anyone should be made to pay, it should be the incompetent prosecutor.

The public wanted her prosecuted so the prosecutor used what he had. Which was not enough. No incompetence.

Nick, it would have been more than enough for any other prosecutor to make a conviction. If he couldn't it's only because of his incompetence. It's not enough to simply have evidence, the prosecutor has to know what to do with it to make the case stick.

I used to have a boss who said why would I pay someone overtime to do a job they couldn't do during their 8 hour day.

That's like saying "you can't budget the money I give you now why should I give you a raise"? Does that make sense?

In context, it does make sense...

He was saying I'm not paying for someone incompetent (or goofing off all day and late starting their job) overtime to do what they should have already done.

Yes, you would have to question who cannot properly budget their money why they should get more. i.e. The government cannot properly control their spending so why should we give them more... They see one dollar and find 2 or 3 ways to spend it; then they do just that, spend the one dollar 2 or 3 times. Some problems are because of bad management and not a lack of funding.

How she looks is not relevant to the law, Justice is blind.

Hey I don't like how your hair is cut and it's not combed nicely ... lets put you in jail and have you pay fines you must be guilty of something even if I cannot prove anything.

Believe me everyone would want the same treatment.

STAR: A CHILD WAS MURDERED! She has lied and lead the police on a wild ride, lied about EVERYTHING, yeah if she even had one ounce of honesty the resolution to what happened to that baby would of been solved, whos too say WHO in that family took that little girls life

I for one wouldnt be stupid enough to put my kid at risk then lie to a jury or the law to avoid prison!

How my hair is cut or grown has nothing to do with how one would appear to fool a jury! End of story!

Besides her whole personality and how she conducted her self during the trial was in question... go back and check on CNN with those reports before you go attacking someone!

This was a media circus for ratings... I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for their opinions or prognostications especially CNN's who was one of the most egregious.

As far a Casey, the court failed to get a conviction so that should be the end of it. You would want the same if it was you.

Assuming Casey is as bad as everyone believes she will screw up again and be caught. Case in point, OJ.

What is being done by the media and the state of Florida is illegal as far as I can tell and it's taking us dangerously close to the abandonment of the rule of law in favor of the modern equivalent of lynch mob mentality. The Media, Facebook, and Twitter just allow it to grow exponentially and extremely fast.

Look at what's happened to people with the same name or similar looks as real or suspected criminals. Their lives are being destroyed by rabid lynch mobettes with no F-ing clue what they are doing.

Sorry but your (everyone's) opinion is just that; and is NOT the law. You suspend the rule of law and chaos will ensue.

Circus smirkus! The bottom line here is that a child's life has ended by a reckless person who didnt have enough knowledge how to protect her!

Defend her all you want! What does lil Caylee get out of all this? hmmmmm?

When you come back with a reasonable answer then perhaps the posts will weigh out the odds.

But this is a vine for opinions and murder is murder no matter how you cut it! The child didnt even reach 3!

here have a recourse of the situation

Caylee Marie Anthony (August 9, 2005 – June 16, 2008) was an American two-year-old girl who was reported missing in Orlando, Florida in July 2008, and whose remains were found in a wooded area near her home in December 2008. Her 22-year-old mother, Casey Marie Anthony, was tried for the first degree murder of Caylee but was acquitted. She was, however, convicted of lying to police officers. Anthony's televised murder trial during the summer of 2011 was described by Time magazine as "the social media trial of the century."

Caylee lived with her mother, Casey, and her maternal grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony. On July 15, 2008, Caylee was reported missing to 9-1-1 by Cindy, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days and that Casey's car smelled like a dead body had been inside of it. She said Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts and finally admitted that day that she had not seen her daughter for weeks. Casey fabricated various stories, including telling detectives the child had been kidnapped by a fictitious nanny on June 9, and that she had been trying to find her, too frightened to alert the authorities. With the child still missing, Casey was charged with first degree murder in October and pled not guilty. On December 11, Caylee's skeletal remains were found with a blanket inside a trash bag in a wooded area near the family home. Investigative reports and trial testimony altered between duct tape being found near the front of the skull and on the mouth of the skull. The medical examiner mentioned duct tape as one reason she ruled the death a homicide, but officially listed it as "death by undetermined means".

The trial lasted six weeks, from May to July 2011. The prosecution sought the death penalty and alleged Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform, then applying duct tape, because she wanted her freedom. The defense team, led by Jose Baez, countered that the child had drowned accidentally in the family's swimming pool on June 16, 2008, and that Casey lied about this and other issues because of a dysfunctional upbringing, which they said included sexual abuse by her father. The defense did not present evidence as to how Caylee died, nor evidence that Casey was sexually abused as a child, but challenged every piece of the prosecution's evidence, calling much of it "fantasy forensics". Casey did not testify during the trial.

On July 5, the jury found Casey not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. With credit for time served, she was released on July 17. The verdict was greeted with public outrage, and was both attacked and defended by media and legal commentators. Some complained that the jury misunderstood the meaning of reasonable doubt, while others said the prosecution relied too heavily on the defendant's allegedly poor moral character because they had been unable to show conclusively how the victim had died.

Yeah keep defending her, good idea.

All media orchestrated bull@!$%#. The only thing that is relevant is what was presented in court and duly judged. Verdict - not guilty.

Realize that your hate and opinion was orchestrated and manipulated by the media for their own gain.

This isn't a court either so whatever anyone else opines here is just that as well.

I'm in favor of the rightful rule of law not abuses of power and media circuses. I don't care if it's Casey or anyone else.

The media will always run a circus through town, that's what they are paid too do. My hate?

I despise the fact of a life being taken before its time! thats my opinion! As for you, watch what you insinuate, the ignorance can get mighty nasty. I wont waste my time arguing with someone who dont see it for what it is.

Some complained that the jury misunderstood the meaning of reasonable doubt,

Reasonable doubt needs no explanation. My reasonable doubt may not be the same as yours. The judge can't explain what reasonable doubt can be. It's as simple as "I don't believe that". Nothing else and no explanation needs to be given.

Ooooops, careful there ArizonaBill ya might get chastised for rallying in justice for Caylee... remember now, Caysey is a star now. <smirk>

I lived in Fla. back when Ted Bundy did his thing,, and we would have loved to have him released in Lake City Fla.,,,,"Florida Justice" would have been swift in Ted's case, and no one would have cared or said anything.

Ohhhh yeah I remember Ted... if my memory serves me correctly they had to spare energy just to fry him in the chair. He did have some mad eyes with that look of his but he was a smart guy when it came to law even the judge told him that once.

Scott: didnt she turn down a contract on telling her story also? and now is being sued for that?

ScottyW1,,,Actually since Jessica Lundsfords was killed by slime ball John Evander Couey it is against the law in Fla. to lie to a law enforcement offricer. That much we did get changed,,better re-check your law books Scotty.

its against the law period to lie to any law enforcement. but then again its not like there hasnt been news reels of them breaking laws either so... tid for tad

Mary Poppins,,,Actually before Jessica Lundfords was raped and murdered Florida did not actually have a Law on the books for "Lying" to a Law Enforcement officer,,,hard to believe but it is the truth. They now because of public outrage do have that law on the books now,.,

And we have "Jessica's Law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica%27s_Law

Not sure about that......

False information and lying, like under oath can cause problems

Under Constitution you can REMAIN silent........for sure

greg m-1174186,, Lying under "Oath" is one thing, and against the law in all States

Just not telling the truth to a law enforcement officer is different, that is what the people did in the Jessica Lundfords case.

A person being held as a "Suspect" does not have to make incriminating statements.

arizonabill - I haven't been under the gun for a long time, so maybe the laws have changed, I have been wrong before. as long as I am not under oath, from my point of view since they (the police) can lie to me I can lie to them; I know the constitution say I have the right to remain silent, not actually lie.

however I still don't believe she or anyone else is or should be, responsible for the cost of investigation or prosecution, especially if not guilty of the crime they lied about, it sets a precedence that would quickly get out of control and easily abused.

Lying to the police is not a crime and causing them extra work is their problem.

Especially when you might incriminate yourself. Protected by the 5th Amendment.

We have the right to remain silent, the thing is Casey did not remain silent, she had the police conducting lenthy, time consuming searches for the non-existant kidnapper with her over-the-top lies. I believe that would be termed obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

Which criminal doesn't lie to the police?

Mary - you are right the child is the victim, no one is defending Casey; I disagree with the ruling because it is a bad ruling and has nothing to do with who the ruling is against. not all rulings or laws are good, especially the knee jerk kind. I know emotions run high with this case, but my opinion is based in how easy this type of ruling would be to abuse.

example - you get pulled over for speeding, you say "why no officer I was not speeding" and take the case to trail and found not guilty, but wait, now you find you are being held liable for the cost of the "investigation" into the speeding charge, this will happen if this is allowed to stand. the law supposed to be about reason, not emotion.

Scotty, you're wrong. Casey sent them on wild goose chases, they were following her "leads", (1) took them to her job, found out she was lying, didn't even have a job, but she made them actually go to her non-existant job to be told it was a lie; (2) had them searching for the kidnapping nanny, even took the cops to the non-existant nanny's apartment, yet another lie, the whole state was looking for this woman; (3) finally told them after comming up with the last excuse, the accidental drowning, that she did dispose of Caylee's body, so all that money spent searching for her body was also wasted, she could have taken them right to it.

So Casey caused all that added expense with her continuous lies. That's why she needs to pay for it.