Wow! Numbskullery on display in this post. The jury says and therefore.....<quoted text>
According to the jury, Casey Anthony did NOT "murder her own child." She was "not guilty" and therefore is not to be subjected to the penalties of a convicted muderer. Sara Apple, by the way, is merely ALLEGED to have stolen the $4000 from the credit union. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is basic American civics, people.
Nonsense! Have you EVER served on a jury? Doubtful. If you had you would know that there are a lot of subtle nuances that make or break a conviction. Like a prosecutor going for a home run murder one conviction in a trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial and/or flimsy. Or choosing to take a certain tack on evidence where another tack would have worked better (as happened in a trial where I served as a jury foreman). At least one juror in the Anthony trial said that the jury would readily convicted of a lesser offence had they been given the opportunity.
Yes, Sara Apple is to be presumed innocent. Are you implying that the presumption of innocence and the lack of conviction means that both are actually innocent? If so you are a complete chowder-head.