Her lying constantly about everything is about as much evidence of murder as the fact that OJ led that famous highway chase before turning himself in. It's really strange behavior, some might say brought on by guilt, but it is not evidence of murder.
They probably couldn't convict her of the manslaughter, because there was no actual proof the child had drowned. 
She said, "The child drowned in the pool"
That was their defense. She didn't kill it, it just drowned....
In court the defense argued that the child died in an accidental drowning. "Casey did not murder Caylee. It's that simple," defense attorney Jose Baez told reporters after the verdict was announced
In court the defense argued that the child died in an accidental drowning. "Casey did not murder Caylee. It's that simple," defense attorney Jose Baez told reporters after the verdict was announced
They admitted that they drowned in the pool. Now its up to the court to decide just one simple thing. Is it manslaughter or murder?
Manslaughter is determined as killing someone without the intent to kill that person. For this case, the deffination that we would use would be "Criminally negligent manslaughter"
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death.
Given that a 2 year old child was in the pool, and not being watched. This would apply in 90% of circumstances, given that she should be watching the child, as it is her duty as the mother.
But, on the same hand, we have a clause in the murder law that states that if you have a reckless disregard for life in a high risk situation, you are liable for murder.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
So it could be argued that she knew the child was at high risk for dieing, and choose to ignore that risk, with intent to kill the child.
This is what the jury should be deciding. They can't declare her innocent, when she admits guilt.
EDIT:
I looked at the florida statue.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
So. They should have been convicted of Aggravated Manslaughter of a child, 100% for sure, given the admission of guilt
Funny how that is!
