“IS it reasonable to have a defense in opening statement claim they will show that George molested her, stuck his ..... in her mouth in the morning and then sent her off to school. NOT one shred of evidence was presented that George ever laid a hand or touch her in any of the criminal acts he was accused of doing. This little lying stealing itch attempted to destroy her father and apparently the jury found the accusations without any evidence as ‘reasonable’.”
You’re misreading the decision reached by the jury. Just because they vote to acquit doesn’t mean they gave credence to the defense’s claims. It merely means they rejected the prosecution for inadequate proof. They could all think the defense was full of irrelevant $h1+ but it wouldn’t matter. It’s only what the prosecution does and does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that matters. The doubt need not be caused by the defense’s claim; there need merely be a reasonable hole in the theory or evidence presented by the prosecution. The jury found one.
A bit of REALITY here. The state presented the evidence, WHO had the custody of that child WHEN she went missing by Casey's own words. THAT was never challenged or given any 'reasonable' doubt. From that point forward who knows what is considered 'reasonable' doubt.