I read this online and i agree with it for the most part. it is well written so it is better than writing something else as my own:
To paraphrase Shakespeare: When you strip away the subjective interpretations, the prejudicial insinuations, and discount the circumstantial evidence, you'll discover, as apparently did the jury, that the state's case was "full of sound and fury but signified nothing".
So many people are willing to convict citizens who are accused of crimes without evidence of guilt; as if the state would never accuse somebody of a crime unless they were guilty.
Whether Casey Anthony is guilty of more than hiding the accidental death of her daughter - and lying to investigators, we may never know. But convictions for crimes should never be done without compelling objective evidence. Nobody should have their freedom limited based on intuition or inductive reasoning.
Having followed this case as closely as possible in the media, my conclusion was that the state was unable to provide any objective compelling evidence to support a murder charge. There was a lot of hype, innuendo, circumstantial evidence, and the typically loud gnashing of teeth by police and prosecutors when their prey lawyers-up and stops cooperating with attempts to hang them; but there was really no objective evidence to support the state's charges.
One must always remember that the police and prosecutors control the pre-trial public statements and design them to make their suspect look as bad as is possible.
