Yesterday, in a shocking end to a tragic trial, a jury found Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.
Following the verdict, people have been posing the question as to whether Casey was found not guilty due to a good defense, or because of a lack of evidence.
- Casey's DNA couldn't be found on duct tape placed on Caylee's mouth
- Uncertainty as to whether the "putrid smell" inside Casey's car was trash or a decomposing body
- Uncertainty as to the importance of chloroform
- Prosecutors had no concrete evidence that put Casey at the scene where Caylee's remains were found
As far as the defense is concerned, here's what Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney Richard Rosenbaum had to say about it:
"I don't think it was Baez' great lawyering that won the case. I think it goes back to the prosecution and the weaknesses in their case."
And here's what defense attorney Kendall Coffey had to say about the "not guilty" verdict:
"The biggest questions were the 'how' and the 'why.' Even the state acknowledged they weren't exactly sure of how Caylee was killed. That was a candid acknowledgment, but Baez seized on that."
And here's what Miami attorney Yale Galanter had to say about the verdict:
"The issue is there was absolutely no evidence linking her to the death. None. So what the defense did was brilliant, they brought up the drowning, they brought up the sexual molestation, and it really got the jury to focus away from the bad behavior of the mom."
What do U think about all of this? Was Casey Anthony's "not guilty" verdict due to a good defense? A lack of evidence? A bit of both?
[Image via AP Images.]