With all the outrage over the failure of a jury to convict Casey Anthony of murder, it’s important to note that there have been more than a few people who were convicted of murder on far less evidence.

Indeed, people have been convicted of murder when no body has been recovered. In those cases, the prosecutor first has to prove that the victim is in fact dead before proceeding with proving the defendant killed the victim.

What this case seems to show is that the jury substituted an even higher burden of proof on the prosecution than the already high beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps this is the CSI/NCIS/Law and Order’ing of the American jury pool. People have come to expect every last shred of material from a crime scene will shed light on the defendant and link the victim to the defendant and show how the victim died.

So, while it’s understandable that the jury wanted to know how Caylee died, it shouldn’t have been a bar to finding Casey guilty of the crimes alleged.

None of this should have caused the kind of media frenzy or attention that this case got. The media frenzy is just insane as this kind of case is sadly all too common (where parents are alleged to have murdered their children for any number of reasons). It just wasn’t all that interesting.

The reaction to the case is.