I listened to the comments of Ms. Ford (Juror #3) and it seems as though this jury took the phrase "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" to mean that the state HAD to prove with absolute certainty that Casey was guilty. Another mistake was that the jury believed that motive was a requirement for a conviction, (it was not.) Than, when they could come up with no agreement as to Caylee's death, they thought "The prosecution has no case" so they had to believe almost everything the defense told them.
Do you not understand why juries look for motive? That is one of the most important factors in deliberations. Without knowing the motive of the defendant, the reason WHY the defendant supposedly committed the crime, a jury cannot properly convict him/her. One of the major reasons Casey Anthony wasn't convicted is because the prosecution did not show motive. The best argument they could come up with was this shaky "beautiful life" BS theory that Casey felt held back and unable to enjoy life with Caylee alive. That she wanted to get rid of Caylee so she could continue living the hard partying life she had been living thus far.
It seems as if the ONLY people that believed this motive was true was Nancy Grace and the majority of the "Caylee Crusaders for Justice" supporters who blindly bought into any murder plot that Casey could have been planning.
The rest understood that she was living her life in this carefree manner while Caylee was alive, that she had no real purpose or motive to kill Caylee since she was partying it up and shirking her responsibilities for pretty much the entirety of Caylee's life. She had absolutely nothing to gain from Caylee's death, Cindy and George took care of Caylee and basically raised her as their own daughter.
If the prosecution hadn't pressed so hard at this "Bella Vita" theory and actually focused on presenting a PLAUSIBLE motive as to why Casey would kill Caylee, I guarantee the jury would have had a tougher decision to make.
This jury seemed to be more concerned with Casey's troubled past, rather than justice for Caylee. So I would have to ask the board, what does "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" mean to you? I think if "Preponderance of Evidence in a Civil Case puts liability at 51% or better." I think "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt should be at 75% or better. This jury wanted "Beyond ALL doubt" for the prosecution to prove their case, and that's just not fair. You cannot walk such a tightrope and fine line.
No properly instructed and intelligent jury would convict someone of murder if the prosecution could not provide:
a) a plausible motive
b) an accurate manner of death
c) concrete physical evidence
If they even had ONE of the above, combined with the circumstantial evidence at hand, the jury would have found her guilty for at least agg manslaughter and possibly even murder. But when you present your case and provide none of the above key elements, you cannot convince a jury of murder, much less any wrongdoing.
