Even if they didn't have enough evidence to convict her of murder, she should have been convicted of child abuse, because she said that the child drowned in the pool and if that was true, the responsible thing would have been to call an ambulance. And she should have been watching the baby close enough to prevent her from going near the pool. Obviously she didn't care about her daughter anyway, since she didn't seem at all concerned about her child's disappearance after the fact. Unfortunately we'll probably never know what really happened, unless Casey goes insane and admits to the truth. But she is a pathological liar and how could anyone ever know if she was finally telling the truth?
From this article, it sounds like the prosecutors made a pretty good case, but I guess it just wasn't enough to convince the jury.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/05/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.htmlSome situations are very tough for the jury to decide. Unfortunately, in this case, I think they were not completely unbiased. From their quick decision, I don't think they deliberated it and really considered what little evidence there was. If they had, they would have at least found her guilty of child abuse. Also, the fact that hers and her father's stories didn't match should have thrown doubt on the defense. Even if she didn't murder the kid herself, if she is covering up for someone else she is still guilty of conspiracy in a murder.
Oh well, I guess we just have to rely on God's punishment for real justice. Our justice system is great, but sometimes mistakes are made and the guilty parties go free, just like sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted. We're only human, and people make mistakes sometimes. I hope the jurors don't find it difficult to live with there decision to let Casey "get away with murder."