What parent when being interviewed by police about their "missing" child will refuse that an accident happened, over and over and over by the way, and instead claim that a non-existant nanny kidnapped their child while they were at a job that also didn't exist then sit in jail for 3 years before finally deciding to say that the "missing" child really did die in an accidental drowning and only admit that on the first day of their 1st degree murder charges trial UNLESS the child was in fact murdered and that parent had committed the murder?
There is no reason whatsoever for a parent to claim repeatedly that there was no accident at all when the police have given that parent an "out" if it was true. There are clear signs that it was in fact murder and not an accidental drowning. Unfortunately the jury in this case did not bother to take the time to examine the evidence, ask questions, re-listen to testimony, etc. The grandparents of the child also decided to ignore the evidence as their daughter meant more to them than justice for their dead granddaughter.
Now not only will the mother (she and her lawyers hope) make lots of money off of her dead daughter, the grandparents (they and their lawyer hope) will make lots of money off of their dead granddaughter. Heck, they all get free vacations off of the back of Caylee as well. Win, win, win for them and a huge lose for Caylee.
MOO