From what I understand... the main reason that a not guilty verdict was delivered was because there was no direct evidence. No fingerprints, no DNA, nothing. I feel really nervous convicting people on circumstantial evidence. And she partied and whored around while her daughter was missing? People deal with trauma in all kinds of ways, some sit around and wring their hands, some party and get drunk and try to forget it, some intentionally harm themselves.... i'm the hand wringing basket case type myself, but I can see how the other type would appear callous to many. I also think they overcharged her. If they had went for involuntary manslaughter, I'm sure there would have been a guilty verdict. And seeing how this trial turned out and how ridiculous and broken the justice system is... one can understand why she'd cover an accidental death up. 30 years ago, the family is the LAST people that were suspected in crimes like these, and today... with all these prosecuters who ahve watched too damn many episodes of CSI, the family is the FIRST place they look for suspects, and everyone knows it. It's ridiculous, IMO.

Edited July 6, 201114 yr by alphanguy74

Look, I know this isn't going to win me a lot of fans, but: You can't prove someone is a murder if you can't prove that the victim was murdered. I don't believe for a second that any of those jurors think Casey is innocent, but at the end of the day, no one can prove anything in this case, other than that Caylee is dead. That jury had no choice, based on the evidence, to find her not guilty.

I agree Kylie. There just wasn't enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.