I don't see evidence that Casey wanted her child dead, she didn't love her child, and that the A's were the main caretakers of the child. Seriously, if I were to believe they were Caylee's main caretakers, then I would have to believe they could have been legally responsible for her. But, we know that wasn't the case. They were the main providers, but not the main caretakers. IMO, the jury didn't get confused on this. But, by GA's own testimony, he would be Caylee's caretaker in the mornings while Casey was getting ready for work. If Caylee died at that time, then GA would've been responsible. It's like if your child is injured in Daycare, they're responsible not you. But, I don't believe GA took care of Caylee in the morning, his testimony sounded scripted on what a "normal grandfather" would do with his grandchild. But that's just MOO.
Respectfully, if the hurricane destroyed any and all evidence related to this crime, how can you possibly believe the duct tape was originally over the nose/mouth? You can't have both IMO. Either the hurricane didn't destroy everything and would've left behind some evidence, or the hurricane did destroy everything and mangled the crime scene so what it was when discovered is certainly different then what it originally was.
Casey did not bury her pets there. Kiomarie (and another girl from the block) buried their pets there with the heart stickers and the works. Casey was present for 1, maybe 2 childhood burials. Read the Kiomarie story, it's very informative. Casey did not apply heart stickers to dead animals, did not wrap them in bags, did not do any of it. For one pet they made cards (I believe) with hearts on them to show their love and honor for this pet that passed.
The DT has no obligation to prove their case, none whatsoever. That is the way our justice system works, and that's been teh way the justice system has operated for many many years. I don't understand why our country was fine with our justice system in the past, but now that the system didn't do what they wanted it to do, it's faulty, etc. IMO, the jury didn't have to believe a single word JB said, all they needed was enough evidence in their mind to convict, and they just didn't have that. They believed she was innocent in the beginning on the trial and the prosecution didn't show them enough for them to "tip the scale". It is what it is. And, just because the DT threw out another story that could've happened doesn't necessarily mean the jury bought that story (although I did.).