Yes, I am aware the burden of proof is the same. Caylee was in the custody of her mother until the time of her disappearance, and Caylee was found dead. Those two facts alone, point to Casey as being responsible for her child's death. Murder One is premeditated murder, meaning she planned and intended to kill her child. I don't think the evidence was ever there to convict her of that. There was a reasonable doubt (in my mind) that she planned or intended to kill Caylee. There was not a reasonable doubt that she was somehow responsible for her death... Manslaughter.
I think the prosecution did a poor job on the forensics, we live in an age where forensics are an exacting science, and a jury is going to expect the evidence from forensics to be conclusive and clear, and in this case, from what was presented, it was not. Nevertheless... the child was dead, that is a fact... the child was in the custodial care of her mother, that is a fact. It's hard to have any reasonable doubt that Casey had nothing to do with the death of the child, particularly when you factor in her behavior and actions following the disappearance. And let's clarify something... a jury is supposed to make a finding based on the preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any possible shadow of a doubt. I think this jury confused "reasonable" with "shadow" in this case. There can be a "shadow" of doubt, even if you had a video tape of the murder...maybe it's someone wearing a disguise? Anything can have a "shadow" of a doubt, if you take it to the extreme.
