Well. If there had been a video of the murder, their job would have been done for them. In this U-Tube world..... some unrealistic ideas seem to be coming forth.
the FACT remains. No one KNOWS for a FACT what really happened to Caylee. All we have is a lot of suppositin and hot emotion. and neither is part of a proper legal system.
It WAS circumstantial. The prosecution presented what it had and it was not enough. So that juror is technically correct.
I think you're making an assumption that everyone arrived at the opinion that Casey murdered her daughter because someone told them that's what to believe. I've actually followed a number of murder cases - out of curiosity - and I don't need anyone else to help me form an opinion. I follow the facts and, in this particular case, I thought it was quite logical to conclude that Casey murdered her daughter. I don't use supposition and hot emotion to form opinions. What the juror wanted was to know how and when the child died and barring that, she was willing to exclude all else. The circumstantial evidence provides an answer to the question of how and when, but apparently circumstantial evidence was not good enough for the juror.