The fire story is excellent. Several years back, a molestation case was in our local circuit court. The jury acquited the man. When the jury was asked about the little girls testimony, they said that they believed her. But, they would have preferred more evidence.
There you go, primo example...They believe the girl yet they let him go. Well if they believed her why did they let him go? Because they got confused with the reasonable doubt stuff. Jurors equate circumstantial evidence with direct evidence, they will not convict unless they see something akin to a HD video of the crime in progress which is insane. It’s an insane loophole defense lawyers exploit to the max which lets a-holes like OJ, Robert Blake and this Anthony psycho get away with murder.