Not really. It continues to make the same mistakes that others defending this jury make. One, that cricizing this jury and this decision is an attack on the system.
...and I suspect that you will be getting attacked by those who became emotionally invested in this young womans’ guilt."
And two, that critics must be emotionally biased and poorly informed.
News flash. You can be dispassionate and have well founded views based on the evidence, and think the jury was wrong. And you can think they were wrong in this case and still believe in the jury system.
"Knowing that someone is guilty and proving it are two vastly different things."
Defenders also routinely make the intellectually lazy step of assuming that because the jury acquited that it's somehow given the crime wasn't proven. Again, false assumption. The jury could have, and did in this case, ignored the evidence to reach its decision.
Exactly. The circumstantial and forensic evidence provided the proof, but the jury chose not to accept that 'proof' in the face of glaring absurdity in the theory of defense. As I said in another thread:
With circumstantial evidence, one must consider ‘circumstances’. These sets of circumstances determine the probability or improbability of an event or ‘chain’ of events. In other words, the circumstances ARE the proof. This silly notion that the state did not ‘prove’ it’s case is merely the jury choosing to accept the highly improbable over the highly probable. If someone shows me an object that appears to be an apple, I would find it very probable that it is indeed an apple. While I may not be able to bite into it for absolute ‘proof’, I would find it highly improbable that is, in fact, an orange.
“You can be dispassionate and have well founded views based on the evidence”
Was there any evidence that said;
A) This little girl was murdered.
B) How she was murdered.
C) Why she was murdered.
or
D) That her mother murdered her.
“Defenders also routinely make the intellectually lazy step of assuming that because the jury acquited that it’s somehow given the crime wasn’t proven. Again, false assumption. The jury could have, and did in this case, ignored the evidence to reach its decision. “
The jury couldn’t get out of that courtroom fast enough. They obviously believed what Baez threw against the wall saying it was an accident with NO EVIDENCE.