Well, people on this board seem to be a bit down after the verdict (which for the record, even although I viewed Casey's case more favourably than most on this board, I disagreed with to an extent). So, I thought I would point out a, welcome, gold nugget: The cross-examination of Casey Anthony. Now that Casey Anthony has been acquitted of all charges, I would imagine that any Fifth Amendment privilege would be lost, or at least severely restricted. I am not that au fait with this area of US constitutional law (or any US law for that matter) so I could well be wrong. But if I am correct then it would seem that KC could be compelled to tesify in the upcoming civil trial (the on brought by the real "Zanny"). More importantly, some of the questions material to the criminal trial are also material to the civil case. In particular, forcing KC to speak about the 31 days could be interesting. I think we can all agree, that a cross-examination of KC on the 31 days would be interesting! In actuality one of the main things I really wanted to see from this case is a clear explanation of what exactly happened (regardless of how strong you felt the prosecution case was as to her guilt, it left a lot of questions open as to what happened). Indeed, I would have felt it would be appropriate to greatly reduce any sentence if she would give a true and honest confession to what on earth happened. This I appreciate would be difficult to work in practice because of the necessity of arbitrating the truthfulness of any "confession" if correct. However, I think we can get closer to the truth (whatever that may be) if KC is forced to testify and subject to cross examination, enforced with suitable contempt sanctions and a return to jail if she refuses to testify/ There are, however, a few stumbling blocks to this that I can think of: I don't know if motions for summary judgement have been briefed and argued yet. From what I understand from reading the lawyers thread, the civil case brought by this Zanny person is weak so could well fall foul of a motion for summary judgement/dismissal, especially if there is no material factual dispute. On that note, the civil case could settle for a relatively small sum avoiding the need for a trial and KC's compelled testimony. (NB: I imagine there are a lot of people who would be willing to pay Gonzalez to keep this litigation going to have KC compelled to testify. However, this is complicated since whoever was propping up the litigation could become liable for champerty and maintanence (google/wiki it).) I would think (again not sure on this), that KC could still take the fifth on relation to any crimes that she has not been charged with (perhaps once that occurred after the 31 days). Again I am not sure of how this would work in practice in this case.