How YOU would rule 'Tot Mom' Casey Anthony

[CatEyes]

Peeps

Could we all please reconsider posting the pics of children here.

Everyone here is familiar with everyone posting and it is basically a "family" [dysfunctional as it is, at times]

However, pls remember there are thousands of people who are here regulary who have never posted - they just watch.

Cat

[conversationpc]

Easy verdict and the jury got this one right. Not only did the state not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they really didn't prove much of anything. The jury did what the law compelled them to do, and that's find her not guilty. But that doesn't mean she's not a disgusting human being.

I disagree. She's as guilty as sin. There was more evidence of her guilt in this case than in the Peterson case and no one thinks that guy shouldn't have been convicted.

[Melissa]

Oh spare me the "emotional investment" lectures Give them to someone else, or shove them up your ass. That child deserves the emotion. She certainly didn't get it from her mother while her body lay in her mother's trunk rotting before being dumped like garbage. Her defense didn't do jack shit, SHE did all the work before she was even arrested, knowing that as long as her child"s body rotted to nothing left but her skeleton, then it would be hard to prove. And I don't HAVE to like that "that's how the system works". You don't have to like my opinion, but save your lame ass lectures for someone who gives a shit. I don't.

[S2M]

You can't tell me at least ONE person didn't think she was guilty. Some Jack Lemmon type that tried to logically talk the others into seeing the light, then was ceremoniously told to STFU. 'We just want this case over with' . A hung jury would have been better. Then the prosecution would have been able to re-try the case......In a circumstantial evidence case that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That reasonable doubt can be looked at in two ways: innocent and guilty. Meaning that some evidence has shown innocence, and some evidence has shown guilt. The jury is instructed to select the evidence that indicates innocence.

[steveo777]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

[Melissa]

You can't tell me at least ONE person didn't think she was guilty. Some Jack Lemmon type that tried to logically talk the others into seeing the light, then was ceremoniously told to STFU. 'We just want this case over with' . A hung jury would have been better. Then the prosecution would have been able to re-try the case......In a circumstantial evidence case that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That reasonable doubt can be looked at in two ways: innocent and guilty. Meaning that some evidence has shown innocence, and some evidence has shown guilt. The jury is instructed to select the evidence that indicates innocence.

Exactly. What I *want* to believe is that the long deliberation was mostly over the negligence. But unfortunately since it's only considered "elemental" that she didn't bother reporting her toddler missing for that long, then it's not enough. And that's just pathetic.

[S2M]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

Wrong. As I stated, in circumstantial cases where there is just as much innocence evidence as guilty evidence - the jury is again, INSTRUCTED to default to an innocent verdict. In this case, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty, and proven BARD that she was innocent. For some odd reason the jury is instructed to side on the innocent side.

[S2M]

"Where the evidence is susceptible of two constructions, it is the jury's duty to adopt that construction which points to defendant's innocence (CALJIC No. 26); and where circumstantial evidence is relied upon as proof of guilt to justify a conviction, the facts or circumstances must not only be entirely consistent with the theory of guilt but must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion" (CALJIC No. 27)


"If the evidence in this case [as to any particular count] is susceptible of two constructions or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable, and one of which points to the guilt of the defendant, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law, to adopt that interpretation which will admit of defendant's innocence, and reject that which points to his guilt."

[conversationpc]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

[Melissa]

What bothers me about the jury is despite those instructions they still COULD have voted guilty on the negligence. And by not doing so, that's saying it's perfectly fine her kid was missing for THAT long without reporting her child missing, who was then found dead, and that will NEVER sit ok with me regarding that jury. I have no respect for people who can't see right from wrong in the protection of children.

[S2M]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True. I've seen people convicted on JUST Eyewitness testimony of an alleged verbal threat....

[steveo777]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

And in this case the jury was not convinced. Legal experts predicted this outcome already. I'm not saying she's not guilty.
I believe she is guilty of something and was either directly or indirectly involved in this child's death. An accident, maybe
caused by some type of negligence? We may never know what really happened. Maybe the kid got poisoned, maybe she
drowned, or worse, maybe she was outright murdered by her mother.

[Angel]

What bothers me about the jury is despite those instructions they still COULD have voted guilty on the negligence. And by not doing so, that's saying it's perfectly fine her kid was missing for THAT long without reporting her child missing, who was then found dead, and that will NEVER sit ok with me regarding that jury. I have no respect for people who can't see right from wrong in the protection of children.

Exacly! She admitted that the child was missing for 31 days-regardless if she killed her or not (which she did!) so how, in anyone's world, is having a child missing for 31 days and not reporting it to anyone, NOT neglect?

[Saint John]

Locking her up so early where she couldn't talk is what essentially blew the investigation. Leaving her out to tramp around, get wasted and act like the total whore that she is would have (probably) yielded a treasure trove of information and some sort of confession/admission/incriminating words. Allowing her the comfort of a lawyer and sobriety was just plain stupid. But I understand that they thought there was a still a chance to find the child alive. But, statistically, that virtually never happens. The D.A. should have never agreed to file charges.

[Angel]

Locking her up so early where she couldn't talk is what essentially blew the investigation. Leaving her out to tramp around, get wasted and act like the total whore that she is would have (probably) yielded a treasure trove of information and some sort of confession/admission/incriminating words. Allowing her the comfort of a lawyer and sobriety was just plain stupid. But I understand that they thought there was a still a chance to find the child alive. But, statistically, that virtually never happens. The D.A. should have never agreed to file charges.

There were "incriminating words" but they were not allowed to be admitted into evidence. She had a "bodyguard" which was essentially a person hired by the bondsman to stay with her to make sure she didn't try to flee. The bodyguard said that she talked to her about the child in the past tense, told her she got a tattoo "in her memory" and all of this before the remains were found-she already knew she was dead.

[lights1961]

where was the guts of at least one juror who wanted to stand up for baby Caley... and vote with their consious... I think, being a juror, I would have been the lone person who kept his hand up in favor of getting a conviction of at least manslaughter... and neglet... not the death penalty...and keep it up until slowly everyone would see it that way... I mean who else had the motive... no one... except the mother... CALEY, ruined her social life and she wanted back in the game...the only way back in was to make certain CAley wasnt in her life...

***it seems like the lying help everyone get out of the mess that was created...and that is a really huge issue...
I feel god will work his mysterious ways... just saying..

R

[Jubilee]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

[S2M]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

You are wrong as well. Didn't you read ANY of my posts? You mentioned speculation as a point in your premise. Isn't speculation just the kind of tool a defense lawyer uses to throw doubt on let's say...an alternate theory? Throw some speculation out in the courtroom as to maybe someone else did it. Seems to me the defense would have been given latitude to promote speculation, but the prosecution wasn't allowed the same courtesy? You also mentioned leading a reasonable person from point A to point B. A partier, who loved sleeping around...who saw her daughter as a hinderance...who didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days. Dancing on table tops while her daughter was missing. All smiles. How reasonable does one have to be to be led from A to B? Hmmm?

[ebake02]

I'm not sure what's worse, Casey being acquitted (I don't agree with it but it was the right decision) or FoxNews camping outside her parent's house watching their every move this afternoon. It makes me sick.

[YoungJRNY]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

You are wrong as well. Didn't you read ANY of my posts? You mentioned speculation as a point in your premise. Isn't speculation just the kind of tool a defense lawyer uses to throw doubt on let's say...an alternate theory? Throw some speculation out in the courtroom as to maybe someone else did it. Seems to me the defense would have been given latitude to promote speculation, but the prosecution wasn't allowed the same courtesy? You also mentioned leading a reasonable person from point A to point B. A partier, who loved sleeping around...who saw her daughter as a hinderance...who didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days. Dancing on table tops while her daughter was missing. All smiles. How reasonable does one have to be to be led from A to B? Hmmm?

Not only did she smile her ass off on table tops while her little girl was rodent meat, she smiled & sometimes laughed inside of the courtroom as well. There was a plethora of evidence and common sense behavior in this case from "point A" to "point B." Put down the rule book for one second and when you do, if you cannot connect the dots of A to Z on the evidence that was collected in this case by watching the back-bone of Casey alone then it's no point in going forward with argument. Casey Anthony is 100% child murderer.

[Jana]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction on the charges of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

[YoungJRNY]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

What about the Scott Peterson trial? There was MUCH-LESS evidence in that trial but it was so obvious of what that man did that the ruling was a no-brainer. A not guilty verdict is unacceptable to the public but we all have to live it with it, just like we had to live with O.J Simpson. It'll be tough. I honestly think this is 10X worse than O.J because there was ATLEAST a SLIM chance that you could say "meh, maybe he didn't do it but...yeah he did it" type thing. Here, there was a little toddler involved, which is crossing that line to begin with and you just KNEW Casey was involved since day 1. In my mind, it was the jury that committed a crime.

[ebake02]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

In my mind, it was the jury that committed a crime.

You can't convict someone on circumstantial evidence. A jury cannot inject personal feelings into a criminal case, they know she did it but that doesn't matter, they have to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented and the evidence presented didn't prove a damn thing. Besides, given the lack of anything solid, her conviction would have been overturned on appeal anyway. No Appeals Court would uphold a conviction using the shitty piss poor evidence that the state presented. The DA totally fucked this case up and a child killer walked free because of it.

[S2M]

I thought she was guilty as hell all along. That said, there is no preponderance of the evidence to convict.
No official cause of death
No proof that Casey actually committed a physical act that would have killed her
All evidence the case was speculative, not 100% scientific.
Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury did their job according to what criteria is required to convict or acquit.

The evidence does not have to be 100% scientific nor do they actually have to know the exact way she died, ala Scott Peterson who was convicted on much less.

True...but the prosecution still has to be able to construct a timeline of (factual) events that would lead a reasonable person from point A to point B. Not speculation, not rumors & innuendo, not sordid details & red herrings. This case was fraught with all sorts of nasty little things that made for an unsympathetic Defendant. Should have been a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Unfortunately, they had everything on their side, except the facts.

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

In my mind, it was the jury that committed a crime.

You can't convict someone on circumstantial evidence. A jury cannot inject personal feelings into a criminal case, they know she did it but that doesn't matter, they have to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented and the evidence presented didn't prove a damn thing. Besides, given the lack of anything solid, her conviction would have been overturned on appeal anyway. No Appeals Court would uphold a conviction using the shitty piss poor evidence that the state presented. The DA totally fucked this case up and a child killer walked free because of it.

It's been done numerous times.....think again.

[G.I.Jim]

I'm not sure what's worse, Casey being acquitted (I don't agree with it but it was the right decision) or FoxNews camping outside her parent's house watching their every move this afternoon. It makes me sick.

Was Fox News the only news agency there?

[Jubilee]

You are wrong as well. Didn't you read ANY of my posts? You mentioned speculation as a point in your premise. Isn't speculation just the kind of tool a defense lawyer uses to throw doubt on let's say...an alternate theory? Throw some speculation out in the courtroom as to maybe someone else did it. Seems to me the defense would have been given latitude to promote speculation, but the prosecution wasn't allowed the same courtesy? You also mentioned leading a reasonable person from point A to point B. A partier, who loved sleeping around...who saw her daughter as a hinderance...who didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days. Dancing on table tops while her daughter was missing. All smiles. How reasonable does one have to be to be led from A to B? Hmmm?

Correct! Keep in mind the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove its case, the defense only has to create reasonable doubt. We stipulate the Defendant was a partier and she loved to sleep around (which may have been a bit over-hyped by the prosecution, but ok), and she apparently knew of her child's death & failed to report it. The statement that the Defendant saw her daughter as a hindrance is speculation by the prosecution. The fact of the matter is, the Defendant didn't seem to have a problem leaving her daughter in the care of other responsible adults while she crept about doing her thing. I just don't think the jury bought the "hindrance" thing. I don't think you can draw a straight line conclusion from party-girl to murder (which the also couldn't prove).


You know, S2M, you surprise me. For someone who demands absolute proof of the "Sky Wizard", you are shockingly easily deceived by this poorly executed attempt by the prosecution to make us believe we've seen something that we really haven't seen.

[S2M]

You are wrong as well. Didn't you read ANY of my posts? You mentioned speculation as a point in your premise. Isn't speculation just the kind of tool a defense lawyer uses to throw doubt on let's say...an alternate theory? Throw some speculation out in the courtroom as to maybe someone else did it. Seems to me the defense would have been given latitude to promote speculation, but the prosecution wasn't allowed the same courtesy? You also mentioned leading a reasonable person from point A to point B. A partier, who loved sleeping around...who saw her daughter as a hinderance...who didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days. Dancing on table tops while her daughter was missing. All smiles. How reasonable does one have to be to be led from A to B? Hmmm?

Correct! Keep in mind the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove its case, the defense only has to create reasonable doubt. We stipulate the Defendant was a partier and she loved to sleep around (which may have been a bit over-hyped by the prosecution, but ok), and she apparently knew of her child's death & failed to report it. The statement that the Defendant saw her daughter as a hindrance is speculation by the prosecution. The fact of the matter is, the Defendant didn't seem to have a problem leaving her daughter in the care of other responsible adults while she crept about doing her thing. I just don't think the jury bought the "hindrance" thing. I don't think you can draw a straight line conclusion from party-girl to murder (which the also couldn't prove).


You know, S2M, you surprise me. For someone who demands absolute proof of the "Sky Wizard", you are shockingly easily deceived by this poorly executed attempt by the prosecution to make us believe we've seen something that we really haven't seen.

I didn't watch one second of the trial...barely saw any news coverage about it. And the reason I believe she did it, or was an accomplice is because she wouldn't take the stand. Only guilty people take the nickel. Everything else is just window dressing. It's not just that she was a partier, and supposedly 'slept' around - its that she did these things WHILE her child was allegedly 'missing'. Jurors aren't supposed make an inference from that behavior?

[Angel]

Correct! Keep in mind the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove its case, the defense only has to create reasonable doubt.

True, however, the defense could have fabricated any one of a number scenarios in which Caylee had died but it doesn't mean it's true. If they expect the jury to consider their theory seriously you would think they would need to produce some evidence of their own-which they did NOT! The key is "reasonable doubt" I do not think it's reasonable to think that the child died in the pool and the ex-cop grandfather duct taped, bagged and ditched the body, then the meter reader found the body and moved it around several times for his own benefit-that's not reasonable at all.

We stipulate the Defendant was a partier and she loved to sleep around (which may have been a bit over-hyped by the prosecution, but ok), and she apparently knew of her child's death & failed to report it.

So are you saying that if your child goes missing (allegedly) or dies it's perfectly acceptable behavior to party, get a tattoo saying "beautiful life" etc in lieu of reporting it to anyone?

The fact of the matter is, the Defendant didn't seem to have a problem leaving her daughter in the care of other responsible adults while she crept about doing her thing.

Did you miss the part where the "responsible adult" that she left her daughter in the care of was a woman that had never met Casey or Caylee Anthony? In essence, she didn't exist!!!!! That was a lie! It's highly probable that Zany the Nanny was really Xanax the Nanny!

I don't think you can draw a straight line conclusion from party-girl to murder (which the also couldn't prove).

It's not about drawing a line from party girl to murderer. It's about drawing a line from "how to make chloroform" to chloroform being found in her car to the smell in her car to the fact that she hid her daughters "disapperance" from everyone and then lied over and over and over about it, to the fact that the body was found so close to the home....that's the line I drew and it went directly from Casey Anthony to her dead child!

[ebake02]

I'm not sure what's worse, Casey being acquitted (I don't agree with it but it was the right decision) or FoxNews camping outside her parent's house watching their every move this afternoon. It makes me sick.

Was Fox News the only news agency there?

Probably not, I just Fox News flipping through the channels, I think Shepard Smith blew a load every time someone walked out that house. It was ridiculous.

[S2M]

I'm not sure what's worse, Casey being acquitted (I don't agree with it but it was the right decision) or FoxNews camping outside her parent's house watching their every move this afternoon. It makes me sick.

Was Fox News the only news agency there?

Probably not, I just Fox News flipping through the channels, I think Shepard Smith blew a load every time Someone was heard coming from the neighbor's house. It was ridiculous.

Fixed it for you...