When Casey Anthony was found not guilty by the jury Tuesday afternoon, the vast majority of those following the case (and even those who weren't, but knew of the horrific crimes against Caylee Anthony) were shocked, and rightfully so. Ask those same people, and they'll tell you without a shadow of a doubt that they wholeheartedly believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she was guilty of murdering her two-year-old daughter, and yet she still was acquitted. What gives?
According to legal experts, though there was plenty of evidence against her, the amount of hard evidence that undoubtedly tied Casey Anthony to the murder was lacking, at least to the point where it could convince the jury to not ask more questions.
According to defense attorney Richard Hornsby, "The bottom line is that the jurors did not completely believe the prosecution's theory and they chose to acquit. They were able to raise reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds."
Rather, the jury chose to believe that Casey Anthony had just been a victim of "an accident that snowballed out of control." Pfft. As if anyone could possibly feel an ounce of sympathy for her aside from, apparently, the jury.
But why, when the general public (albeit largely without legal training) felt so strongly that there was no doubt that she was guilty, did the twelve jurors feel the opposite? The trial was televised in its entirety, with viewers and jurors given the same information and both with no official legal background to speak of. So how is it possible that Casey Anthony will walk free, while her two-year-old baby girl lies in a grave? Where was the "justice" in our justice system?