[When do we get liberated?]

That makes sense, assuming you are more aware of the facts than all the jurors. 12 people sat through the entire case and agreed this woman, convicted in the media, was not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Repeal 16-17]

12 people sat through the entire case and agreed this woman, convicted in the media, was not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Not to be a nitpick, but the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Sam Clements]

You don’t have to be guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, only beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a difference. In this case, reason and logic, as given to us by God, easily leads to a sensible conclusion that this woman, Casey, murdered her kid. The case presented includes reasonable answers about means, opportunity, and motive.

[ChildOfThe60s]

not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Reasonable" doubt. Not the same thing.

[cynwoody]

12 people sat through the entire case and agreed this woman, convicted in the media, was not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The verdicts are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and not guilty. There is no not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. A verdict of not guilty simply means not proven. It does not mean innocent.

In Scotland, they have three verdicts: guilty, not proven, and not guilty. The latter two amount to acquittal. However, not guilty asserts that the jury believes the defendant is truly innocent (or that the law is unjust, and they do not deign to apply it). If this trial had been in Scotland, the verdict would presumably have been not proven.