No, charging her with child negligence based on the fact she never reported the kid missing. They state instead tried to charge her with crimes that involve an element of premeditation. Since they couldn't even prove how she died it's hard to prove intent. If this was a rape case it doesn't make it to trial without DNA evidence or an admission of guilt, or even proof of sex. So yeah. So yeah. Direct evidence is pretty important in any case. She was rewarded because the defense created reasonable doubt on premeditated murder charges. The state proved she is a lair, an unfit, horrible mother and terrible human being. But not that she actually killed her daughter. They didn't have everything. They couldn't even prove how she died. And just because she was found not guilty doesn't mean that the jury believe she's not guilty of playing a role in the kid's death. It just means they didn't believe the prosecution's theory. Agree. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad with the justice system. Better to let a guilty person go free than send an innocent one go to jail. I think a guilty one went free here. But I don't blame the jury.