All the defense had to do was plant a nanosecond of doubt in the jury’s mind to get an innocent verdict-—which they did successfully.
I’m pretty sure, in the jury room, that seed of doubt was magnified over and over again.
Certainly, to unpracticed laymen asked to decide life or death issues——”reasonable doubt” is one of the most ambiguous terms in the legal system.
Reasonable doubt is not a nanosecond of doubt. Caylee drowning accidently with ductape over her mouth and then the father placing the body in a swamp to make it look like murder is not reasonable doubt. Then the the family went on national news blaming the missing child on a kidnapping nanny. That is ridiculous and perposterous doubt.
The real problem that I see with this case is that Caylee had know one related to her that wanted to see justice. Not her mother, not her uncle and not the grandparents. None of them helped police or the prosecutor. A prosecutor needs more than just physical evidence.
The jury was blindly wrong-——ignoring all of the physical evidence in favor of setting free “the happy single mom.”
The defense videos of Caylee and Casey having fun together seem to have resonated. That made it very hard to conceive that a happy mother would kill her playful child.