Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s guilty as sin of something even if this was an accident gone bad or premeditated murder, but the state didn’t get over the hump of reasonable doubt. They didn’t have the evidence and they knew it and gave it their best shot with lots of emotion and character attack. That’s the way it rolls sometimes.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the problem is that "reasonable doubt" has come to mean "the slightest fantasy of a doubt." Add to that what William F. Buckley said a couple decades ago: The most serious problem in America today is that people lack confidence in their own common sense. The Anthony jury verdict and the sickening attorneyspeak (from lawyers who love the legal chess game more than justice) I'm hearing in the wake of the verdict is proof of that.
We have a SERIOUS problem with dumbed down jurist not understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. Here is what Marcia Clark said about this today:
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.