If several of these jurors felt she did it from the evidence, but met for less than 10 hours. If the Murder 1 bar was too high, they should have spent a hell of a lot more time sorting through the evidence (which was compelling) to see if they should find her guilty of manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. The speed with which they came to these not guilty verdicts is alarming considering that we keep hearing feedback about how they believed she was involved.
This jury was a failure. There were six weeks of testimony and evidence, and it is pretty clear they spent almost no time reviewing it. In the 10 hours, they had to select a foreman on the front end, and work through the paperwork on the back-end, with meals in between. There is no way they properly considered these lesser charges with any significance. In my opinion, they fell for the defenses false claims to muddy the water...and wanted to go home.
For those claiming this was a brilliant example of the system working, I say the opposite. It shows we need reform of how juries are selected and the ability of defense attorneys to rewrite the rules from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to ‘beyond any doubt.’ The jury selection process is broken as anyone with critical thinking skills gets weeded out in exchange for ignoramuses.
Your entire post is excellent and I agree with every word.
In these cases the Media should make the call and get to televise the execution. The state could have a lottery for who gets to light the fire. At the least we should change reasonable doubt. The Defense should have the Burden of proof. Those tricky Defense Lawyers get away with too much. If the Defendant had to prove his innocence it would be a lot easier to convict them. Why should the State have to prove it?