I watched the Casey Anthony trial play out live, which was a very different experience to seeing unfolding cases reported in the media. It's possible to follow every single piece of evidence put before the jury and every argument offered by the defence. I had it streaming from Orlando constantly as I was working from home at the time, so was able to witness all except the very end of the defence case.
It was a rare and fascinating experience for a British person - possibly the only chance I'll ever have to witness a major trial unfolding in real time - and truly showed up some of the huge differences between the Florida legal system and ours. Some of the evidence permitted in that case would have been thrown straight out of a British court.
I recall the outcry at the not guilty verdict under the Murder 1, Manslaughter and aggravated child abuse indictments. The jurors were threatened and some couldn't return home. The Judge in a later interview agreed with the furious anger of the American public and the likes of Nancy Grace. He believed there was enough evidence to convict Anthony (and I got the sense from his general attitude that he'd have had no qualms at all about imposing the maximum possible penalty). He also polled every individual member of that jury - another practice we're unaccustomed to here - presumably to make them own their decision and allowing them a last chance to change their minds.
I watched the entirety of the prosecution evidence and heard the closing statements from both sides. It's very difficult being dispassionate when it's about the death of a beautiful, innocent two-year-old but 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a heavy burden of proof and it's a juror's job to be dispassionate. 'If the mum didn't kill her, then who did?' is a logical deduction, but it isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt.
If I'd been on that jury I'd have come to the same conclusion they did.