This case has exploded throughout the country and people's emotions are high and raw. The jury did the best with the evidence they had. Which there wasn't much of at all - and nothing linking Casey to the crime and where the child's body lay. That's the crux - we all believe she had a hand in it .. but there is no PROOF .. that's the law - and the jury cannot convict on emotion or supposition. Otherwise, there would be a lot of innocent people in prison. The evidence speaks - and if that evidence isn't there - there is no other way to come to a conclusion than to find her not guilty. There was a poster that wondered about charging for 'indignity to a human body' or something to that effect - but still - no one knows who placed that child there - there is no proof as to how she got to where she was. The police didn't initially charge her with that anyway. This case has sickened a nation - but there just isn't the proof to convict. I hope everyone can just move beyond the high emotion and anger. There's not much anyone can do about this any longer. It's over. Her '4 years' giving time-served - getting out in about a month - is likely to allow time to pass as her life would be in danger (understanding how angry people are). Everyone needs to accept this verdict as the Prosecution did not have the evidence to advance a conviction - pure and simple. Let's all move on and pray that in some way via Karma - that Caylee receives her justice.
I respectfully disagree.
Yes, this was all circumstantial evidence. Yes, it was impossible to determine the cause of the death. But it was NOT impossible to determine the MANNER of death. Dr. G. was right, an accident victim is not duct taped and dump in the swamp.
Plus, the car reeked! And saying that the jurors bought the defense expert who said there was miniscule amount of chloroform was comparing apples and oranges. THAT guy was talking about air samples. The prosecution witness was talking about the amount of chloroform in the rug.
These people said they acquitted because the cause of death was not proven. Of COURSE it wasn't, it lay in a swamp for six months! That's why they were supposed to pay attention to all the OTHER evidence.
Reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt! These people did a piss poor job of deliberating, not even taking enough time to read the jury instructions or refer to their notes, and not asking one single question.
They heard JB accuse George of molestation, and even tho JB couldn't argue that at closing, they weren't advised of WHY and that's the main reason they didn't like or believe George. If you've ever met a man who has been falsely accused of molesting his daughter, you will find a humiliated, devastated man who, even tho he's innocent, finds it impossible to face his family, let alone the freakin' world on TV! I totally understood George's demeanor.
These people all looked at the wrong things. It's that simple.
Scott Peterson was convicted on less evidence, IMO.