Nancy Grace is openly criticizing Casey Anthony‘s latest venture into legal advocacy, calling it a blatant attempt to cash in on her past and emphasizing that the focus should remain on Casey’s tragically murdered daughter, Caylee. Nancy argues that the media attention should not be diverted from remembering Caylee’s tragic story and seeking justice for her untimely death, which still resonates deeply with the public.

In a candid conversation with TMZ, Nancy did not hold back her opinions—she accused Casey of merely seeking financial gain, reaching into the pockets of unsuspecting supporters. What astonished Nancy even more was that there has already been a significant number of subscriptions to Casey’s Substack, where she offers supposed legal advice. This reaction from the public highlights a troubling trend of people potentially being misled by Casey’s questionable motives.

In an eye-opening video, Nancy passionately critiques Casey, reminding viewers that her claimed “legal expertise” stems from her own trial for murder. Nancy makes it abundantly clear that masquerading as a lawyer to provide legal advice for financial profit is not just unethical, but also illegal. Casey recently announced her new Substack platform through a TikTok video, further fueling the controversy surrounding her actions.

Nancy’s main concern remains focused on achieving justice for Caylee, who was only 2 years old at the time of her tragic death. She emphasizes the importance of not forgetting the horrific details surrounding Caylee’s murder, urging the public to keep her memory alive and advocate for justice on her behalf.

Caylee’s disappearance in June 2008 was followed by the shocking discovery of her remains months later, igniting a media frenzy that intensified during Casey’s highly publicized trial. The case captivated the nation, and the ongoing discussions highlight the lingering impact of this tragic story on society.

Although Casey was acquitted of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse charges in July 2011, Nancy insists that anyone who supports Casey financially is essentially casting another “not guilty” vote in her favor. This notion raises significant ethical questions about the implications of supporting individuals with such a controversial past.