Many posters in other threads seem to think that this verdict means that the jury "bought" the defense's story of an accidental drowning, but that isn't necessarily so. Jurors might actually believe Casey was responsible for Caylee's death, but felt that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, then they are duty bound to acquit her.
Personally, and I know this won't win me any popularity contests around here, I would have voted not guilty on all but the lying to LE myself. I do feel fairly certain that Casey was responsible in some way for Caylee's death, I do feel fairly sure that it was proven that she was in that trunk after death, and I think (with less certainty) that she was put in the swamp by Casey, but I did not feel like the evidence presented at trial proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to any of the murder, manslaughter, agg child abuse charges.
I also think that Mason's closing argument, regarding reasonable doubt, etc., may have been a strong factor in the jury's decision. I thought his argument and delivery were excellent, and he was definitely at his best during that summation, IMO. It is very important to remember that although this verdict is painful for many, especially so since it feels like no one is being held responsible for the murder of a CHILD, the adversarial system, the presumption of innocence, the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, and the right to a vigorous defense are all invaluable tools in our justice system that help keep the state honest, and at least in theory help to ensure that it is DIFFICULT to take someone's freedom away, or especially to condemn them to death (regarding which, I agree with Baez in his statement - our country really needs to do away with murdering people for their crimes).
JMO. Hurl your tomatoes. :blush: