Certainly the outcome of this trial could have been different if Caylee's remains been discovered sooner. Here are some random thoughts, not necessarily in order.
Obviously, the circumstantial evidence in this case was strong and convincing. I hold the jurors, and the court system as it exists, responsible for the outcome of this trial.
If you know in your heart that someone is guilty, and that belief is based on a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence, and if that evidence points nowhere else, if after some discussion you find that you can't get everyone to agree with you, that is no excuse to cave in and walk away, for any reason. You have to stand up for what you believe in. Otherwise, regardless of what the system requires, you in my opinion are not qualified to be a juror.
It's ridiculous to have the outcome of a case like this left in the hands of people who cannot possibly understand certain key aspects of the evidence. It has been suggested that juries should be made up of former judges, or perhaps detectives. Others have suggested that potential jurors should be given written exams to qualify. (And the verdicts in this case suggest that a second exam could well have been given before the jurors began their deliberations.)
Requiring a group of people from different backgrounds, with different beliefs, different values, and different biases to unanimously agree on anything is unreasonable. That almost never happens anywhere else in life, so why make it a requirement in court? Majority rules works fine pretty much everywhere else. That should be enough. An example: "In England and Wales, since the Juries Act 1974, a verdict may be returned where not more than 2 jurors dissent." (
Reference here)
The practice of either side being permitted to use paid witnesses who will say whatever someone wants needs to be examined if not done away with.
Defense attorneys and witnesses who slander people in opening statements or at any time in court or elsewhere need to be held fully accountable, as should everyone, with no exceptions, who is proven to having lied in court.
In principle, putting people under oath used to make sense, but in practice it's pretty much pointless, because so many people lie or exaggerate in court, and most of the time spent in courtrooms is devoted to trying to figure out who's actually being honest. There needs to be a more-reliable, more-efficient method of establishing who is telling the truth and who isn't. At some point, far in the future, technology will play a role in this, because it has to.
People can go on and on all they want about reasonable doubt and the US constitution and the rights of Americans and Blackstone's formulation that says "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". The court system badly needs to be improved. It's too inefficient and it's just plain outdated.