Well, for starters, "reasonable doubt" /= for sure. For sure = "no doubt", which is not the legal standard. Secondly, there is simply NO evidence that this was an accident. None. No testimony, no circumstantial evidence, no forensic evidence, zero. ALL of the evidence (admissible and otherwise) points to murder. The forensics, the behavior of the principals, the circumstances under which the body was found...all of it. The notion that a former homicide detective thought it would be a better idea to stage a murder than to call 911 to report an accident is ludicrous (and completely unsupported by ANY evidence). It's also completely inconsistent with her parents' behavior before and after they reported Caylee missing. (FWIW, it's completely inconsistent with Casey's behavior too.) It doesn't fit at all with what we know in too many ways. Thirdly, if dad killed Caylee and threw Casey under the bus, why was no evidence presented on this at trial? Casey is on trial for her life, and instead of saying, "Hey, my dad killed her," says instead, "Hey, it was an accident and I found her but didn't tell anyone because my dad sexually abused me when I was young, so I threw her body in my car and put duct tape over her mouth and dumped her out in the woods." She chooses to paint him as an incestuous pedaphile, but not as a murderer? What sense does that make? Again, it doesn't fit with what we know. I agree with you that on its face it's bizarre that the grandparents didn't report Caylee missing earlier. I think that once you delve into the family dynamics here, it's less bizarre. Casey is a pathological liar, and has lied to her parents from day one. She was a fairly accomplished liar and wove an astonishing web of lies for years that was incredibly detailed. Her parents accepted these lies, because the only other alternative was to admit that they had raised a psychopath, something that they were apparently unwilling to do. So when Casey told them that Caylee was with a nanny (and whatever else she told them), they either believed that or would have been forced to admit to themselves that something was very, very wrong and their daughter likely had something to do with it. I also think that Casey used Caylee as a weapon against them. They knew if they crossed Casey that she would take Caylee and they might never see her again. The irony, of course is that by enabling Casey, she "took" Caylee, and they will never see her again. I do agree that her parents probably know more than they're letting on, but I think that all came after the fact. I've seen no evidence to suggest that they were involved in the actual crime. I do think it's painfully obvious that Cindy Anthony perjured herself for Casey, but I can't find it in my heart to blame her for that.