After only 11 hours of deliberating (the jury), arrived at a decision of not guilty (yet, found her guilty of lying- how ironic): how short is that. I, for one, think that Casey Anthony is guilty. Regardless of all the technical babble and alternate explanations of evidence, Casey Anthony took over a month to report that her daughter was missing, she then didn't even report it (her mom did), She then had incriminating evidence on her computer about ways to kill someone, she then was partying and got a tattoo that said: the good life, all of this during the time that her daughter was missing, she then gave the police false information (that she knew was false), She then gives a story about being raped by her Father/or brother in court for sympathy (I suspect) for an explanation as to the delay, she then comes up with an obviously fabricated story (in my view) about her Father finding her daughter's body in the pool (where she supposedly drowned). If this doesn't give someone reasonable doubt that they killed their daughter (who was found within miles of her home, when she was suppose to be on vacation somewhere far away) I don't know what will. It sure gives me reasonable doubt.
There was also a problem with the way that the jury was chosen, for me at least. Since this case was such a public one, they had to find impartial jurors (sounds reasonable); but, they didn't do just that, they purposely choose people that followed the very perfection of what a juror should be. It was far too regulated and coerced for my liking. When you treat someone like they are impartial to begin with, when you regulate them to the very, paper book, ideals of what a jury is (and far beyond that), separate them from the world for prolonged periods of time, when you tell them to go with nothing but the evidence (when reasonable doubt can be based on more than technicality) then you are left with a jury that is far more unlikely to render a guilty verdict (which is exactly what I think happened).
Therefore I propose this: if you did this special treatment for every case there is, would you reach the same outcomes? Would the outcomes be more just? Or, would the perceptions and impartiality of the case be skewed by doubt and pressure placed upon them?
This is just my opinion, if you have yours, then you are entitled to it.