Which is my point: the people trying to argue that the jury acquitted because they weren't comfortable sending her to her death miss the point that the jury could have found her guilty, but still sentenced her to life in prison.In Florida the jury recommends. But it doesn't mean anything in this trial, because the jury felt the state didn't prove it's case for murder.
I'm going based on what one of the jurors reportedly said, which is that the jurors did think Casey had a hand in Caylee's death, they just didn't feel that a motive for first degree murder was proven. So what did they think she was guilty of, and why do they think she lied to the police? As cmmdee eloquently outlined, the other lesser charges included pretty much cover every other option in Casey having a hand in Caylee's death - ranging from Casey actively killing her, to Casey accidentally killing her, to the kid dying accidentally while on Casey's watch. Yet the jury didn't convict on any of those lesser charges which were there precisely in the event the juror described - if the jury didn't think Casey committed first degree murder, but still thought she was guilty in Caylee's death. That's what makes no sense.They didn't even feel manslaughter was proven. The simple fact is that these 12 people didn't feel she had been proven responsible for the child's death.
And none of the jurors have said they felt the state didn't prove manslaughter or any of the other charges, to my knowledge. They're only talked about how they felt the state didn't prove first degree but haven't said why they didn't feel like any of the other charges were appropriate, or even if they deliberated on them.
No shit. But that doesn't mean people can't criticize the jury's decision. Just like everyone has the right to free speech without government censure, but that doesn't translate to being free from criticism from other citizens.No one here, or on any other web board was on the jury. No one knows what they thought, felt, discussed in deliberation, etc.