It's very hard, but I made a promise to myself years ago, after sitting on a big civil case jury, to never second guess the verdict of any jury. For one thing, I remember we kept getting booted out of the room while the lawyers argued. Who knows what scraps of info we were not privy to that everyone else who cared to sit in the courtroom heard? Second, the jury MUST abide by the law and put the law above its own collective wants, needs, etc.
Do I personally think the mother is guilty? As sin. Probably major involvement by the parents as well. But, it's just my opinion. Going by the law, the prosecutors did not prove their case, at least not in the eyes of the jury. I would not want to sit on a case where an innocent person, or a person guilty of less than coldblooded murder, could be sent to death row if I had only circumstantial evidence to rely on.
It bears repeating that the accused does NOT have to prove their innocence. Quite to the contrary. The burden is on the prosecution.
There are three, or four, entities, who know the truth. The poor baby, her mother and God. If Casey is really innocent, the fourth entity to know the truth is the actual murderer. Whoever killed precious Caylee will have their day in a higher court, and then I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, we do still have the best justice system in the world, imperfect and humanly flawed as it may be, and often is. THIS, I firmly believe.
