None of the A's wanted Caylee dead for any reason. They loved her. Casey did not. Casey wanted to party and be irresponsible, which is WHY her parents were the main caretakers of Caylee when Casey should have been. Legally, Casey was the one responsible for Caylee's health and welfare, and yet the jury couldn't understand that and threw it out. There are no grandparent's rights to a child when the mother is still alive and capable of taking care of a child. Her brother had no responsibility to Caylee legally. The only one legally responsible was Casey, and yet the jury got confused about this somehow. I don't get it.
And the huge thing a lot of naysayers are missing is that a HURRICANE passed through that area not long after the crime. I don't think that happened in the Scott Peterson case. If you don't understand what hurricanes do to an area after they pass through, let me tell you. All DNA gone. All evidence that could possibly tie Casey dead to rights GONE. This expectation that DNA should have been there or something directly tying her to that scene should have survived a hurricane blowing through that area is preposterous. No hair, No DNA, no nothing that was degradable through time, the hurricane, and the swamp conditions would have survived. So you tell me how the jury could have possibly had better evidence when those conditions of the weather and the area prevented it? So Casey gets away thanks to a hurricane and swamp degrading and taking away evidence? What a justice system we have when weather conditions and environment are repeatedly ignored by the jury and then they whine that there just wasn't enough evidence. That makes no sense to me. Where the heck could have better evidence have come from? And this jury LIVES in Florida. They should, of all people, understand what the environment and hurricane does to a crime scene!!!!
And Casey buried dead pets in that area (and yes, her family buried pets in the backyard that way, but never in that area) in much the same way Caylee was disposed of. The state has made that clear, and yet it has been totally ignored. I would say that ties her to the scene a lot more than the rest of her family.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the jury said the state didn't prove their case, well, but the defense never proved one iota of their case either. So they chose what sounded better but wasn't proven? That's justice? They didn't even go with what was proven in that courtroom, only a story made up by the defense. Pictures of Caylee at the door doesn't put her dead of drowning in a pool. It doesn't prove one iota that a drowning ever occurred. Yet that's what the jury went with. I think they refused to believe that a mother would do horrible things to her own child, especially a pretty young mother like Casey. It was easier to believe that she looked away one moment and Caylee drowned. I get that part. But putting aside all logic and common sense to do that is something I will never understand. The evidence was there and the jury chose to ignore it for the better sounding story that was never ever proven.
