There was evidence pointing to his guilt -
There was evidence "pointing" to Casie's guilt. The defense brought in chaos, nothing more, to confuse the jury. For example, the professionals smelt the dead body that was in the car. Some others around the car did not, but they weren't smelling it and looking for evidence, either.
Tell me, the last time you were at a relatives house - did you notice their garage smelling at all, or was it so irrelevant at the time you didn't bother to make a note of it? What exactly did you relatives garbage smell like? Can you remember? Did you bother to make a mental note of it? What if today you were asked to testify, under oath, about that garbage.
This is the type of "proof" the defense used to debunk the experts, to make the experts "probably" wrong, so the jury must declare the mother innocent because of doubt. The uninformed jury, not taking any circumstances into account or using common sense (probably because the defenses jury coach told them they couldn't), took this as some kind of "proof" the car may not have smelled bad.
I don't believe the jury knew common sense was valid, necessary, and very, very important.
That's right. "Pointing" to his guilt. There was plenty of evidence "pointing" to Anthony's guilt, too.
No one actually "proved" he killed and tossed his wife into the water. It's the missing link, but they convicted him anyway, because everything "pointed" to his guilt.
I rest my case.