I realize from a technical standpoint, you are correct, but that’s not how my mind works. I can’t avoid thinking to myself whether she’s guilty or not rather than whether or not the state is proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you in good conscience vote to acquit somebody you think has committed murder? I’ve always felt that if the Constitution has a weakness, this is it. The Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreknown that trials would simply become about who has the slicker lawyers rather than absolute truth. They also couldn’t have known that lawyers would only care about victory rather than justice.
Obviously Casey Anthony has serious common sense behavioral problems evolving from a dysfunctional family environment. I can’t begin to comprehend the family’s actions in her child’s death. That in and of itself leaves all options on the table. That they would act completely irrational by staging a homicide over a possible accident or accidental murder is totally plausible in context - but being mentally ill is not a crime and you can’t convict based on a bizarre, sociopathic thought pattern.
It is better that many guilty go free than that one innocent person be found guilty. Always. No matter who the defendent is. No matter what the crime is. Even the death of a precious little girl.