Thanks for completely missing my point.
Murder does not equal hiding a body.
Scenario 1:
1. Casey kills her daughter.
2. Casey hides the body.
Scenario 2:
1. Cayley drowns in the pool.
2. Casey was away/drunk/partying/passed out/watching TV/whatever and is afraid of a charge of criminal child neglect (not abuse, for which there was no evidence, but neglect). She hides the body.
Which happened? The evidence isn’t sufficient to determine which. and Casey wasn’t charged with criminal child neglect or with concealing the body. If she had, you might have something, but she wasn’t.
Your Scenario 2 is eliminated by the computer search, the evidence of chloroform, the duct tape and the fact that Casey had motive to kill her daughter.
None of these, by themselves, proves Casey killed her daughter. Any one of these things can be explained with an unlikely, but possible explanation, as the defense did.
But for Casey not to be guilty, ALL OF THOSE UNLIKELY EXPLANATIONS would have to be true.
For Casey to be innocent you have to believe the following is true:
Casey had motive to kill her child, and her child was found dead, but Casey didn’t kill her, her child died some other way.
Obviously she wasn’t murdered by one of her grandparents who had absolutely no motive to kill her. So that leaves that she died accidentally as the only non-murdered-by-Casey explanation.
To believe in the accidental death scenario you have to believe a whole bunch of things, such as:
1) It wasn’t Casey who searched for chloroform on the computer.
2) The chloroform in the car trunk was from cleaning supplies or something.
3) Someone would cover up an accident instead of coming forward.
4) Someone took the trouble to put duct tape, from the Anthony’s home, around the skull of an accidentally dead child.
5) Casey was acting guilty and lying to police because she was willing to risk murder charges in order to avoid child neglect charges.
etc., etc., etc.
Each one of those five points ON IT’S OWN is remotely possible.
But for all five of those remote things to have happened, and all the rest of the circumstantial evidence I haven’t mentioned to also be misleading, all coincidentally happening in the same case is completely IMPOSSIBLE.
I’m reminded of what happens on baseball message boards at the start of each season. Inevitably some team wins their first 4 or 5 games, then finally loses. Someone jokes, “Darn, I was hoping we would go 162-0.”
Then some ignoramus remarks, “Well, 162-0 is theoretically possible!”
No, it isn’t. (And for anyone out there who thinks it is, go take a statistics course and learn about why it isn’t. I’m really, really tired of explaining things like this to dumb people.)
Anybody with any doubt about whether or not Casey did this is not just unreasonable, but also reason-challenged, in my opinion.