I do think the prosecution could have presented a better case, and I do know that both sides suppressed evidence (which is common actually), however I also believe that she is guilty based upon what was presented and think the jury did a lousy job and the verdict is a miscarriage of justice.
Watch and Learn.
All I heard of the trial was the defense closing, and a few minutes of the prosecution closing.
One thing I noticed was the defense persistently mistated the reasonable doubt standard, and nobody objected. He kept saying it had to be proven beyond “any and all reasonable doubt” and such similar construtions. That’s not right. It sounded like he was saying they couldn’t have doubt about any bit of evidence, which I’m sure is exactly what he wanted them to think. But in reality they only need to believe beyond a reasonable doubt in their conclusion. Not about every single bit of evidence.
I couldn’t understand why they let him keep doing it. Didn’t they understand the potential consequence?