Here's an interesting perspective that some talking head on the tube spoke. And BTW, this has nothing to do with how I feel about the case, so don't jump on my butt...I just thought it was interesting when I heard it.
The commentator said that we have to remember that none of us was in the courtroom as a juror, and the verdict rests on that prosecution team convincing those 12 people of guilt in that courtroom at that time. They did not do that. They failed.
What America got was a case presented by MSNBC/FOX/CNN/whomever, and the media did present a compelling case to America of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They succeeded without being constrained to a courtroom, or following evidentiary rules, or allowing cross examination, or equal presentation of the defense. We heard stories of sexual abuse, and duct tape, and partying, and tattoos, and an incredibly well constructed case of guilt presented over, and over, and over again, day after day, moth after month, year after year.
But we did not hear the courtroom case, and for the most part, we did not hear the defense. And it was the defense case that caused "reasonable doubt". It is not the job of the defense to prove it's its case, it is the job of the defense to interject "reasonable doubt" into the courtroom. And they did. And they succeeded. The defense need not prove anything, they need to get 12 jurors to say "hmmmm, maybe not." And, regardless of the case being presented to the rest of us, the case presented to those 12 people at that time in that courtroom had reasonable doubt.
I would have liked to have heard the defense case, it must have been very well constructed.
