Maybe no one — there isn’t even evidence that someone killed her (no cause of death known).
The jury cannot base their verdict on your question, “if Casey didn’t kill Caylee, who did?” They can only base it on the question, “is there enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee?”
They apparently decided there was not, and I agree.
If I recall, my IQ tested at ~150 when I was a child, and I have a pair of Master’s degrees. Does that count?
I’ll answer that for you — a juror shouldn’t require exceptional intelligence or education, and I would argue that an accurate cross section of society would work best. Unfortunately, precious few in our society possess either, which I suppose is why we describe those factors as exceptional (and why they tend to be rare on a jury).
Brilliant little Cayley. Wrapped that duct tape all around her mouth and nose, zipped herself in a bag and hopped right on out to the middle of the swamp and waited to die.
The question before a jury isn’t, “what was the cause of death?”
There was enough evidence that somebody killed Caylee. There was enough evidence that that somebody had to be Casey. A scientific determination of the exact means of death is not a required component.