The jury did right the prosecution messed up.

I think Cindy is as nutty as her daughter and they should have thrown her in jail for lying too.

Music keeps me sane...
http://www.last.fm/user/SomebodyWicked

I didn't say a normal person would do this. People handle things in different ways some cry,some get angry and violent, some just shut down, and some completely lose their mind and push things to the back of their head and act as if nothing ever happened. I said this is NOT typical but it does happen.

Not every case needs a blinking sign saying "i did it".. Scott Peterson had way less evidence and he was convicted. Cause the jury actually took the time to piece the case together. Not every case is going to have the hand print or the dna.. it's sometimes just good old common sense needed...

And I could find a psychiatrist (or several) who would say that such behavior isn't at all unusual. People--mothers and fathers included--grieve differently.

Some (perhaps the majority) may take to their beds as they sludge through the horrifically slow stages of grief. Others will do *whatever* it takes to avoid the process as along as possible. They may drink, immerse themselves in the distractions of work or projects, or take a trip. Most people just do whatever they can to get through it.

When my sister died at 37, I spent the next two months with friends at clubs and bars as often as I could. She was everything to me and I knew I was going to have to deal with her death, eventually, but I wasn't quite ready.

Granted, this was my sister, not my daughter, but grief is grief, as profoundly overwhelming and all-enveloping for me as it was to my parents.

We all have our own ways of coping with things. There is no "normal" or "expected" when it comes to dealing with death. No, there is no psychiatrist worth their training who would make such a blanket assessment; the fact that HLN found one tells me that doctor is one to avoid.

There's a special with Dr. G on too. If her testimony didn't convince the jury, what would?

Also to the poster who says people act in different ways, who else do you know who didn't report their child missing for 30 days? I actually have seen people on crime shows who don't report their children missing - BECAUSE THEY KILLED THEM!

SHe was found guilty of lying to the police. That was her only conviction.

If you find your child in the pool, you have no idea how long the child has been there, maybe the child could be brought back to life, if you then dont try to get help for your child but instead take your child's body and throw it in garbage bag and let bugs and animals eat it, is that not abuse?

Music keeps me sane...
http://www.last.fm/user/SomebodyWicked

Yeah, you have a point there. There was no proof of murder besides the fact that the baby's body was duct taped, put in a plastic bag, and thrown in the woods. I don't know many other reasons other than murder why a child's body would be treated this way after their death, but without an actual cause of death everything is so difficult. The downfall of this case was that the body was so damn deteriorated by the time they found it (due to the fact that no one was even looking for Caylee for 30 whole days) that any traces of what most likely were the causes of her death (drugs or strangulation) were completely gone. Tragic.

“DO I think she was guilty? Certainly,”

Is it your guess she intended to kill her daughter or did she accidentally kill her?

Of course, you know the prosecutor deliberately lied about the chloroform searches – right? (They were notified it was only 1 time before the trial started, yet they constantly said it was 84 times. That’s a fact – not a guess.)

(I would have voted for a manslaughter conviction, but I don’t think the jurors were idiots voting the way they did – based on the prosecutor’s conduct throughout the trial. Also the fact I wasn’t in the courtroom during the trial.)

[deleted]

I think the problem in the OJ case was that the prosecutor bored the jury into a stupor with the lengthy explanation of the DNA evidence. I didn't sit glued to the tv during his trial, but I saw bits and pieces. It looked as though the jury's collective eyes glazed over because of the scientific jargon that went way over their heads. Granted, some explanation was necessary as DNA evidence was still fairly new, but I think the prosecutor went overboard and gave the jury too much.

The biggest problem (in my opinion) with this case is that the prosecutors engaged in supposition as to the cause of death. It really couldn't be determined, only speculated. As a result, the jury may have wondered what else the prosecution got wrong. I can see that resulting in a not guilty verdict in a capital case. Even though it is supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," as opposed to beyond a shadow of a doubt, I can see jurors wanting to be positive in a capital case. But that doesn't explain why they didn't find her guilty of one of the lesser offenses where they wouldn't feel the need to be so positive, because by Casey's own admission (at one point) she WAS responsible for Kaley's death.

Something else to consider is that WE got more of the evidence than did the jury. Remember how often the jury was removed from the courtroom while the judge decided what would and would not be admissible? We were privy to everything. The jury was not.

The difference between this and the Scott Peterson case is that some day we're going to wake up one morning to the news announcing that new evidence exonerating Peterson had been discovered or that the prosecution had kept it from the defense. Then we'll be treated to the prosecution sheepishly trying to explain themselves.

The Peterson case is no different from the Wast Memphis 3 case and the Martin Tankleff case. In these spectacular cases which garner national media coverage you frequently get jury comprised of people wanting to 'do something' so badly that they overemphasis marginal evidence and convict.

That's the problem with most juries, they fail to view the police and the prosecution with an appropriate level of skepticism.

The cops and the prosecution are lazy, they generally focus on one suspect or theory and ignore everything else. They should be required to demonstrate that they followed all leads and evidence with equal vigor before they can present any case to a jury.