That's all fine and dandy, but Nancy Grace isn't on trial here. I don't have cable and live in the PNW, so I never saw any of the media frenzy people are talking about. I watched the trial footage online. . .one of the local Orlando channels (WFTV. . just looked ON THE FIRST POST, Mare!) and only saw a little commentary. . . and I still thought the jury didn't do their job!!!
I would have happily accepted a not guilty verdict if I thought, through my own reasoning, that it was justified in the eyes of the jury. . .but so far what we have heard from those that have spoken out. . .uh. . .
weren't sure if ICA was Caylee's "caretaker". . . .really!!!???

The definition was right there in the darn jury instructions! GRRRRRRR.
They didn't feel like their was enough evidence to give her the death penalty. But, as I'm sure you know, they are not to consider sentencing during the deliberation of a verdict. And. . .big AND. . .in sentencing the burden of proof is only preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt!
We didn't know how she died. . .so. You don't have to know that to convict. They bought the drowning story, without any evidence. . .without it making any logical sense. The DT could have said she died from complications of Alzheimer's and they would have went with that. . .cause they didn't have any concrete proof of how she died. But is that reasonable? No. . .we all know that toddler's don't die from complications of Alzheimer's. .. just like we know that toddlers that accidentally drown in the family pool don't end up in the woods wrapped in garbage bags and duct tape. . .after spending a few hot days in their Mom's car. Knowing how or why a victim died has NOTHING to do with the burden of proof. It certainly helps, but it's not required.
The public has just as much right to be outraged and vocal about how they feel as much as ICA had a right to a trial by jury. The 6th Amendment doesn't outweigh the 1st. The verdict stands. . .and people can voice how much they don't like it and think the jury didn't meet their responsibilities. Riddle me this Joker. . .if the jury really did have any "reasonable" doubt why did they know the public was going to find fault with their verdict? What was it inside of them that knew they were going against what most people following along felt?