No credible motivational psychology that I know of would support that a single mother who seemed to love her child and who had lots of back-up parenting, in the grandparents and perhaps even from a brother, would go through the careful planning and complex, unpredictable, scary process of killing and disposing of her child in order to get a bit more free time.  This could not be true, unless she was seriously mentally ill, and no available evidence showed that. To go against that deep human instinct to take care of a child, and instead kill that child, demands a very significant reward in the opposite direction, and partying doesn't rise to that level.  What sane human being could wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, I could have a fun time if I killed my daughter." There was also no evidence that Caylee was a difficult child whose behavior could lead her mother into a homicidal rage. This whole scheme goes against our deepest instincts rooted in thousands of years of evolution.  One of the closing images of the trial, shown at the end of the prosecution's rebuttal, was Casey Anthony's tattoo, "Bella Vita," or beautiful life. The tattoo was supposed to drive home the hedonistic urges that drove Anthony to kill her child. But just about everyone of her age today has, or wants, to get a tattoo. And tens of millions of young Americans Casey's age are setting out with the dream of a "beautiful life."  Infanticide versus no partying: No serious psychology supported this option during the trial.
The trial is over. Casey Anthony is not guilty, and I believe we will learn that the jury saw through the most unreasonable and bizarre piece of the prosecution's case -- the motive. Jurors followed