okay any of you people calling the prosecution's case "bad" obviously didn't follow the case or know shit about forensics and think criminal investigations are like the shit you see on csi
i'm no professional (well, i have a degree with a forensics minor lol and i'll be a MS in criminology in a couple months but meh) but the facts STRONGLY suggest that casey anthony is guilty, though it's questionable whether you could rule for "beyond reasonable doubt" because the physical evidence wasn't great (as opposed to non-existent for the peterson case).
evidence in criminal cases is almost never clear-cut. smoking guns DO NOT appear in 95% of cases. cases need to be looked at in context, based on the collection of facts. there are rarely definites in criminal cases, just "strongly likelies". there were plenty of "very likely" pieces of evidence.
- it is very likely that casey was searching for how to make chloroform (somebody in her house was)
- it is very likely that casey did not care that much about her daughter (how much do you care about your child if you don't report her missing for 31 days)
- it is very likely that there was a dead body of SOME sort in her car (or you can just be a (BAN ME PLEASE) and plug up your ears and scream JUNK SCIENCE like baez did)
- it is very likely that there was chloroform in the car
- it is very likely that caylee anthony was in the trunk of that car, whether dead or alive (one of her hairs were there, but again you can shut your ears and go JUNK JUNK JUNK IM NOT LISTENING)
- it is very likely that it was a homicide (why would accidental death have duct tape wrapped tightly around the skull)
- it is very likely that the items at the crime scene originated from anthony's house
- it is very likely that casey anthony has zero credibility (based on the number of times she changed her story)
- it is very likely that casey anthony is a bad person in general who is willing to say anything or hurt anyone for her own benefit (accusing her father of molestation who was literally going to the mat for her, what the fuck)
Does this equate to "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe not. But it is MUCH, much stronger than the Peterson case, and probably stronger than the OJ case (well, not really, if not for how the LAPD botched it).
don't like it? tough shit. this is the stuff REAL cases are decided on. not fucking smoking guns that don't exist in the vast majority of cases. beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean they have to prove the case 100%, they have to prove that the most plausible possible explanation is that she did do it.