Reply #13: There was NO direct evidence...

[CoffeeCat]

...linking Casey Anthony to the death of her daughter. The prosecution could not even say for
certain, how Kaylee died. That, in itself, leaves room for reasonable doubt.

In my opinion, the prosecution should have never gone for Murder I. The bar is so high for
Murder I and she would have rec'd the death penalty, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm sure the jury instructions required the jury to determine if the state had met the legal
criteria for proving Murder I--and those criteria just weren't there. When you can't even
determine a cause of death, you've lost a lot.

Do I think Casey Anthony murdered her child? Probably. However, I also think the prosecution
didn't have more than circumstantial evidence--and there are plenty of people who have been
accused of crimes only on circumstantial evidence--and they've been innocent.

A clusterf*#@ and a sad situation all the way around.