Look, I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to the Casey Anthony trial.  I listened in when they found the body, and some of the story and whatever else was on the news, but I wasn't some rabid person glued to the television set while the trial was going on.  Nor did I read up extensive amounts of information on the case, mostly because I didn't really care.  But the last couple of days I watched the closing argument (and the debacle of the prosecuting attorney "laughing") and felt compelled to read up on some information about it because it completely blew my mind what a disaster everything was.  Remove the emotional aspect out of it and the fact that a two year old was involved, and just look at the case itself.  The evidence was complete and utter crap.  Sorry, that's what it was.  You can't convict someone on a murder case when the premise of your entire argument is that she partied, danced and got a tattoo sometime after her daughter went missing or was killed.  There's no way in anyone's right mind that you could judge someone's mental state or their coping mechanisms.  Sure, it's a little bit out there that if someone did lose their baby that they'd be out there partying and drinking and getting tattoos... but everyone has different ways of coping with stuff.

I'm not saying she's innocent, but I'm also not saying she's guilty.  There is no way if I sat on that jury and was presented the information that was presented in the case (at least what I saw and heard) that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty.  That's what the court system is based on, and that's what it needs to abide by.  The system got it right this time.  The jury acquitted someone based on the factual evidence that was presented in the case and to find someone guilty of murder based on that would be absurd.  Sorry, I'll be that guy that just comes out and says it - you can find her guilty because the evidence makes you emotionally think she's guilty; or you can believe everything she did was because of a guilty conscience, but there's no way of defining or explaining that legitimately unless you're her.

And seriously media, don't blame television shows like CSi affecting the outcome of the verdict.  We are human beings and we know what's realistic and what not.  There was no concrete evidence that pointed to Casey Anthony being guilty - everything was circumstantial.  I love hearing how people are saying that CSi and what not has made it so jurors demand DNA evidence or video recording of the murder taking place before convicting someone.  Well holy hell, if I'm going to be putting someone towards a death penalty, you better be damn sure I want to know that I'm making the right decision.  I'm pretty sure the jurors did too.  You don't condemn someone to death because it "seems" like she committed the murder.

Unfortunately at the end of the day, cases like this happen all the damn time and this one gets the spotlight way more than those other ones.  You don't even hear this much press about all the people that were wrongly convicted and sentenced to a life term.  Yes our system is flawed, but you have to play by the rules.  The jurors played by the rules and got this one right.  All those people out there saying a murderer is walking free ... how in the world are you thoroughly convinced that she murdered her child?  Seriously?