By now most people on the planet know that Casey Anthony has been found not guilty of 1st degree murder for the death of her 2 year old daughter Caylee Anthony. This trial has been in the media front and center for roughly 2 months so it's hard not to know anything about it. The shocking verdict still stings for those of us who watched the trial and for those of us who lived it.

I was living in Florida (Tampa) about the time that this crime took place and then moved to the Orlando area shortly around the time that Casey was incarcerated. I lived this daily for 2 years. I heard the nightly reports on the news of the "missing" child and the search that was ongoing. Day after day after day. Where's Caylee we all wondered?

This type of thing had become somwhat routine (as much as I hate to say that) in Florida in the early part of the miliennium. In Tampa alone there had been 10 abductions and murders of little girls and some of adult women as well. Remember Jessica Lunsford? That tragedy took place VERY near where we were living at the time and it sent chills down my spine. As the father of two pre-teen girls I was on high alert.

There has been much talk about the jury system and its failure in this case and the forensic evidence or lack thereof and many people have come to the conclusion that the jury made the right choice in letting Casey off the hook. I am not one of those people.

I think this was a fantastic failure of the jury and I think they did a horrible job in rendering this verdict. There were so many inconsistencies in the Defense's strategy that it became apparent that Casey's lawyer, Jose Baez was employing the "Kitched Sink" Defense. In other words, throw as much at the jury as possible so as to confuse them and it will create enough doubt to get his client off.

Well guess what? It worked. Baez made the following allegations that I think were the main cause that his client walked: Casey was molested as a child by her father and possibly her brother and  Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and the family covered it up.  Both compelling arguments and with the passion that Mr Baez brought to his delivery of these arguments they resonated with the jury. Here's the problem with both: there is NO evidence that any other that happened AND they did not provide any evidence that any of that happened.

This is where I get frustrated if I'm sitting in the jury box. This is where the jury, in my opinion, dropped the ball. How did they just let this slide? How did they just NOT want to know more about this? HOW did this become and afterthought in this trial?

In his opening remarks Jose Baez said the following (I'm going to paraphrase): On June 16th, 2008 a terrible accident occurred and Caylee Anthony drowned in the family swimming pool. HE MADE THAT STATEMENT. However, in his closing remarks he said the following (again I'm paraphrasing): You probably have more questions than answers at this point and I don't blame you. And there is one question that we don't know the answer to..none of us...and we may NEVER know and that is HOW DID CAYLEE ANTHONY DIE? Wait a minute? Did I catch that right? I though he said that Caylee drowned. He didn't say she MIGHT have drowned he said SHE DROWNED. So how now can he come back and say honestly we DON'T KNOW.

That would have been enough for me to still be in that jury room arguing as we speak. I have a problem with that. A BIG problem. If the Defense is saying on the one hand that Caylee drowned and then that they don't know how she died then how can a REASONABLE person conclude that they KNOW that their client is innocent of her murder?

Now I know that the burden is on the State to show proof and to show evidence  of the murder taking place. However, if you reason that this whole argument about the pool and the drowning is just a strategy and they don't know for sure then you MUST go with the evidence, circumstantial as it may be. 

There is enough circumstantial evidence to convict Casey. Anyone who has ever lost a child that they were watching over for just a minute or so knows the absolute TERROR that grips your heart until you find them again. Casey showed absolutely NO REMORSE, NO CONCERN, NOTHING. In fact, you could argue that she did everything in her power to elude, obfuscate and mislead investigators so that they would NOT find Caylee. Who does that?

We have a criminal justice system in this country and I believe that despite its imperfectness it is still the best in the world. However, it depends upon the ability of THINKING people to weigh the facts in order for it to work. Clearly, this did not happen in this instance.

I saw an interview on TV with Juror #3 who kept saying that I wish we could have found someone responsible for this. If we were allowed to we could have found "them" guilty of culpable negligence since they were all standing around and nobody did anything to help Caylee once she drowned. WHAT?  On what evidence does she base this upon? Are there other jurors that think the same thing? Did they ALL buy into this fantasy?

This is a true travesty of justice and one that I think will go down in history as one of the worst all-time jury verdicts in history. Many of the jurors have refused to speak with the media and I think that speak volumes. When you are unsure of yourself and you feel guilty about making a bad decision you do everything you can to cover it up. Just as Casey.