Photo by ASSOCIATED PRESS / The Nest

If you're like most Americans (okay, if you're like me), you've been glued to all the drama, dysfunction and mystery surrounding the Casey Anthony trial. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know it's the one where this 25-year-old Florida mom was accused of murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony. After six weeks of sometimes baffling testimony, it seemed clear to the majority of us that party-girl mom Casey Anthony was GUILTY. No, I didn't just accidentally hit my caps lock. I meant to emphasize the word, because her guilt seemed so, well, blatant.

Fast-forward to yesterday afternoon, when the verdict was returned as...not guilty? I'll admit, my heart dropped in my chest. My first thought was, Then who really killed little Caylee? Then I wondered what could possibly be the reasonable doubt that led the jury to make such an unexpected decision in such a short time (they deliberated for less than 11 hours over two days).

Could it have been the testimony of Casey's own mom, Cindy Anthony, that swayed the jurors? It wasn't just that Cindy's testimony was laden with raw, gut-wrenching emotion. That might have convinced them to spare Casey the death penalty if convicted. But could Cindy have raised reasonable doubt by possibly lying on the witness stand to protect her daughter, Casey?

The situation brings up a deep-seated issue about family and the lengths we'll go to protect it.

Several legal analysts and spectators across the nation felt, in their guts, that Cindy lied about searching for "chlorophyll" and "acetone" on the family's computer -- which then led her to search for "chloroform," according to her testimony. (The prosecution alleged that Casey searched for "chloroform" because she was planning on using it to kill her child.) Some think Cindy was also lying when she testified that she was home when the suspicious searches were performed (Cindy's employment records show she was in the office, leaving Casey as the only person who could've conducted those searches).

I certainly don't mean to accuse anyone of committing perjury on the stand, but something just doesn't add up here. As I write this, I don't yet know what the reasonable doubt was in this case. But I can't help wondering: Did Cindy's wishy-washy testimony plant seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds? Imagine Cindy's plight -- having lost a granddaughter and on the brink of losing a daughter. Did she do what any devoted mother would do in her tragic situation?

I'm interested to know what you think. If your husband, child or anyone you loved was on trial for their life, would you risk it all and lie to protect them -- even if you thought they were guilty? Let me know in the comments.

-- Kristine Solomon

See More: Quizzes , So Random