I sincerely believe if the death penalty had not been on the table the jury would have found her guilty of at least manslaughter.
I think that might have been the case also. But, if that was true, the jurors erred in considering the possible penalties rather than the charges. Casey Anthony could have been found guilty of first degree murder, for instance, but the jury could have voted against the death sentence in the later penalty phase.
On some program, I heard Marsha Clark (one of the prosecutors in the O.J. case) say this jury just didn't want to convict, but they didn't give Clark time to offer a guess about why that might have been the case. According to Clark, the first vote the jury took on the top charge was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. Well, what about those 2 jurors who did feel she was guilty of first degree murder? Were they listened to, or were they pressured to go along with the majority? And, according to Clark, the first vote on the aggravated child abuse charge was a complete split of 6-6--which signals significant disagreement among jurors that shouldn't have been so quickly resolved. Why did 6 jurors then change their minds about guilt on that charge? Did the other 6 just steamroller them? The jury didn't ask for copies or tapes of any testimony or evidence to be reviewed, so what on earth were they talking about or considering? Did they simply disregard, or fail to understand, all of the scientific forensic evidence the state presented that indicated homicide, and, instead, just latch onto the defense's totally unsubstantiated claim of an accidental drowning? Was that the entire argument against guilt--that it could have been an accident? Well, Caylee could also have been hit by lightening, or choked on food while in the care of the imaginary "Zanny the nanny", or any one of a limitless number of fantasies--but that sort of speculation is not evidence, it is not "reasonable doubt", and it does not counter or punch holes in the state's case that all available evidence directly pointed to Casey Anthony, and only Casey Anthony, as being directly responsible for her child's death by a homicide.
I don't know how accurate Marsha Clark's info was regarding those initial votes by the jurors, but I'd like to know much more about what went on after those votes were taken, and how some jurors were able to convince/pressure others to change their minds, without reviewing transcripts of actual testimony, and without taking a significant amount of time to accomplish that unanimity of agreement. If we can believe Juror #3, a lot of jurors were in emotional turmoil after they reached a verdict of not guilty? Why? Were those the jurors who had initially felt Anthony was guilty? Were they still uncomfortable because they felt they were letting a murderer walk free? If that was the case, these jurors really hadn't finished deliberating, they just caved-in to the others to get it over with. This jury had been sequestered for a long time, they even had to sit in that courtroom on weekends, they may have just wanted to get out of there ASAP, and "not guilty" was the faster, and easier choice to make.
It's too facile for this jury to claim "not enough direct evidence" for all of the charges, because I think that's a cop-out when it comes to either the aggravated manslaughter or the aggravated child abuse charges--the child was in her mother's care at the time of her death, and she did not die as a result of natural causes. Did the jury really totally reject the compelling evidence that the child died as a result of homicide? Did they put aside all of the prosecution evidence presented at trial, and instead decide this case on totally unfounded statements made by Jose Baez in his opening argument--that the child accidentally drowned? If that's what happened, then judges have to spend considerably more time explaining "reasonable doubt" to juries in circumstantial cases like this one, exactly what "reasonable doubt" means, what it doesn't mean, and what it should be based on.
Eventually these jurors will tell, or sell, their stories, and maybe we'll get a better idea of what happened in that jury room. I actually think the public is going to be even more upset when they learn more about that because I think it's going to involve a disregarding of the evidence, and particularly a disregarding of the evidence that the child's death was a homicide.