Ignorant jurors aside, I do not believe the prosecution proved their case. Too much junk science along with a failure to adapt to the tactics used by Baez. Also, so much of what could have clinched the deal never made it into court because it was hearsay. The big family blowup the night before is a perfect example.
The so-called “junk science” was never used by the prosecution. It was brought in by the greasy defense attorney and his hillbilly partner during the summation.
And as someone who watched the case from the first time Cindy Anthony appeared on The Today Show, her hair beautifully styled as she preened for the cameras, I knew something was rotten in the state of Denmark - if you get my drift.
Tactics? I thought this case was about evidence. The amount of the physical evidence was enormous and should have been enough. The circumstantial evidence should have clenched it.
It almost seems as though you followed this case via the commentators, many of whom did not like the fact that the prosecution did not pull rabbits out of a hat or come up with any CSI actors to “prove” the case.
It was a simple and mostly uncomplicated murder case that did not need special effects—the evidence spoke loudly. However, the jurors still didn’t hear it, or see it either for that matter.
That the jurors were enamored of the greasy defense lawyer is proof that few of any of them should have ever been selected in the first place.
Justice was not done.