I respectfully disagree.
Yes, this was all circumstantial evidence. Yes, it was impossible to determine the cause of the death. But it was NOT impossible to determine the MANNER of death. Dr. G. was right, an accident victim is not duct taped and dump in the swamp.
Plus, the car reeked! And saying that the jurors bought the defense expert who said there was miniscule amount of chloroform was comparing apples and oranges. THAT guy was talking about air samples. The prosecution witness was talking about the amount of chloroform in the rug.
These people said they acquitted because the cause of death was not proven. Of COURSE it wasn't, it lay in a swamp for six months! That's why they were supposed to pay attention to all the OTHER evidence.
Reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt! These people did a piss poor job of deliberating, not even taking enough time to read the jury instructions or refer to their notes, and not asking one single question.
They heard JB accuse George of molestation, and even tho JB couldn't argue that at closing, they weren't advised of WHY and that's the main reason they didn't like or believe George. If you've ever met a man who has been falsely accused of molesting his daughter, you will find a humiliated, devastated man who, even tho he's innocent, finds it impossible to face his family, let alone the freakin' world on TV! I totally understood George's demeanor.
These people all looked at the wrong things. It's that simple.
Scott Peterson was convicted on less evidence, IMO.
