Ok I'll bite

So apparently everyone in the world except for me was glued to HLN for the past whatever amount of time following the Casey Anthony trial. Likewise everyone seems universally flabbergasted and filled with righteous indignation at the verdict.

I understand the following to be roughly the evidence introduced in the case (and given how little I followed it, I admit I could easily be way off, although I have followed recent print news reports):

1) Caylee was missing for a month before this fact was reported to the police by Casey or her parents;
2) Caylee's dead body was at some point in the trunk of Casey's car;
3) No physical evidence establishes the manner or cause of death;
4) the defense was essentially that an accidental death occurred, and Casey's parents pressured her into a coverup of the incident.

I understand if you don't buy this defense. I understand if you find the failure to report the death reprehensible; so do I. I understand if you connect the dots and assume she killed the girl, and therefore think Casey is evil.

Where you lose me is taking it from that to blaming the jury. Given the evidence above, it is plausible for the jury to buy the defense and decide the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. Would I have voted that way? Maybe not, I can't really say without having sat through the entire trial as a juror. But just because this jury found that way doesn't mean they like Casey or find her behavior honorable even. It just means they don't think the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's it. Don't put anything more than that on their shoulders.

If anyone who is outraged can show me in detail the evidence in the trial that should have sufficiently proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury ignored, I am willing to listen. But if you don't really know what the evidence is, don't take the easy way out and let Nancy Grace tell you how horrible it is. Only give me righteous indignation based on evidence please.