fizzy,
The baby's mouth and nose were duct taped over. Do you REALLY think it's reasonable to conclude that she wasn't murdered? Or even might not have been?
Defense tried to say the death was an accident. Oh? Could any decent person permit such treatment of her deceased daughter's body? I can't imagine it.
The prosecuter doesn't actually have to connect every single dot and answer every single question. And the jury *does* have a responsibility to engage its brain.
The facts:
o This baby's mouth and nose were sealed off
o The mother was the last person seen with her
o The police weren't notified for 31 days
o The mother made up stories so no one (even the grandparents, clo) would look for her
o The mother did everything she could to hinder the investigation
That's enough. She should have been convicted.
If, through a huge stretch of the imagination, the baby died before the tape was applied or at the hands of another person, the mother still severely hindered the investigation. For that alone, because she is the little girl's MOTHER, I *still* think she deserves the death penalty. It wouldn't be for murder, but for some other heinous crime.
But I'm straying. The jury, of course, can't convict if it isn't murder. I'll get back on topic.
You ask if I want "lots of cases where innocent people are hung." Of course not, but that's not relevant. There is no scenario in which Casey Anthony is innocent. She's guilty, all right. We might be able to debate of WHAT she's guilty (although "murder" is the only thing that fits), but in every conceivable scenario, she's guilty of something pretty disgusting.
| 
