People are really upset, but I still say a basic question hasn’t been answered. How did Casey die? A cause of death was never determined. So if that was the case, how can prosecutors prove Anthony did it?
This the ballgame!
You can’t convict based on a theory. Proof needs to be shown, and these lawyers for the state failed to do it.
Daily Mail
Casey Anthony, a woman demonised by the prosecution during a six-week murder trial over the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee, now stands to make millions from her story after sensationally being found not guilty.
A jury of seven woman and five men took ten hours to clear the 25-year-old on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. No firm deals have been struck to tell Casey's incredible story, although talk shows, book publishers and film makers will be lining up to secure interviews and rights to a story that has gripped and fascinated a nation.
The verdict was immediately slammed by those who believed Casey was guilty of her daughter's murder, with a former state prosecutor claiming the jury 'failed' to reach the right decision - comparing the trial's outcome to that of the infamous OJ Simpson case in 1995.
Former Michigan Prosecutor Carl Marlinga said the verdict was: 'Like the OJ Simpson case - a clear failure of the jury system.'
'Just because we say the jury system we have is the best, that doesn’t make it perfect.'
Casey smiled with delight as she was cleared of the murder of Caylee, after one of the most controversial verdicts in recent history.
Hundreds of people outside the Orange County Courtroom in Orlando, Florida, gasped yesterday as the verdict was made public.
Casey had been accused of drugging her young daughter, suffocating her and dumping her body in overgrown woodland.
The verdict, which came as a surprise to many following the case, drew a dramatic line under a compelling trial, which has seen a family torn apart by accusations of rape and incest.
Speaking to the Detroit Free Press, Mr Marlinga said he was 'shocked.....stunned and a little bit sickened' by the jury's decision'.
He said: 'I’ve probably never seen a better circumstantial case.
'Juries have to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.That doesn’t mean beyond all doubt.'
More here
How wrong were the experts? This wrong here
