I don't agree with Wendy101 that the story made perfect sense, I felt it didn't make any sense. But it appears the jury bought it enough to raise reasonable doubt. The only reason I said the defense did a great job is because they turned the trial into a circus. First, with their disgusting lie of accidental drowning, sexual abuse, and a loving grandfather tossing his granddaughter's body in a swamp. Then, their nasty attacks on George, their ridiculous, time-wasting witnesses, Baez's ranting and yelling, and their constant motions that caused endless delays (don't think that wasn't deliberate, they knew there was a juror who had a pre-paid cruise), and then their rousing emotional closing statement about reasonable doubt. I think their main goal was to keep FCA off of death row, and get a lesser verdict, by dazing and confusing at least one of the jury members. Imagine their surprise when it worked on all twelve! So, just to clarify-I don't think the defense did a great job in terms of presenting good evidence, or refuting the prosecution's evidence, they just threw the everything but the kitchen sink at the jury and hoped some of it would stick-and it worked. I think they were all sleazy, dishonorable, and immoral. But legally, they did a good job because they won an unwinnable case.