I've been seeing and hearing so many opinions about what constitutes reasonable doubt. In listening to the jurors who have spoken, I think they did have reasonable doubt, at least in their own minds. If I doubt someone did something, and it hasn't been proven to me that they did it, then that is reasonable doubt. If someone is charged with a crime, then I have to have definitive proof that they did the crime, or that it could not have happened any other way, before I can say someone is guilty.
The jurors didn't follow the case for 3 years or have the Casey-is-guilty theme drilled into them all this time by the likes of Nancy Grace, so all they saw was what was presented in the trial. What they saw was the defense poking holes in the state's case, and the prosecution not proving that it was Casey and ONLY Casey who could have done this, or that it was premeditated murder rather than an accident.
I don't think they bought into the drowning theory, but they didn't buy the prosecution's theory that she killed Caylee so she could party, either. In short, they did not have enough evidence to say Casey was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was doubt, and it was reasonable, to them.
I also see and hear a lot of talk about them not looking at the evidence or not asking questions or reading testimony during deliberations. If your mind is made up by the time the closing arguments are done, you don't need to do any of that. I'm sure their memory of who said what is pretty clear.
And, one last thought.... if I had not followed this case at all, and I had heard the defense's theory that George had disposed of the body to protect Casey, and hearing that he drove that car home and did not report it to LE about the smell of decomp, and if I sat there and watched him be belligerent and angry towards the defense attorney, and believed that he was lying about the affair, and had such selective memory... I would have definitely started having suspicions about him myself. I would wonder why he sat on the stand and said he put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4, that his daughter was the last one to see his granddaughter alive and that he now believes she killed her daughter. My mouth would have been hanging open by then, because I cannot believe a father would say something like that on the witness stand about his own daughter. My own dad would have just chosen to say nothing. He would never tell the world his child was a killer, even if he believed it.
FWIW, I think these jurors were given an extremely difficult task and it's my opinion that they did the best they could. I feel terrible that they have been villified by the public and even the media. I feel terrible that they are called horrible names and threatened to the point of fearing for their safety, and I hope that people will try to be more understanding towards them. This is not the first time a person has been acquitted when the world believed them to be guilty. Innocent people have been convicted as well, so Justice is not always fair. We can't change the system, so we have to accept it as it is. I support their decision, even if I can't 100% agree with it.
