In the evidence and document threads here on WS, there were many spirited, sometimes heated debates over what certain evidence would prove or disprove during the trial. Most of these debates were triggered by research done by WS'ers, not by what the media had reported. As a participant in many of these spirited debates, there was a lot of evidence in the docs that could have been interpreted as exculpatory, but could also have been interpreted on not being exculpatory. That is why the debates became circular. The majority usually interpreted the evidence to either be inculpatory, or basically irrelevant.
One piece of evidence in the docs was the adipocere like substance found on the tissues/napkins in the white trash bag from the trunk of the Pontiac. The media usually called it adipocere, stating it as fact, although occasionally some reported it was an adipocere like substance. Basically, the media was saying, because adipocere was found on these napkins/tissues, and adipocere comes from a decomposing body, Caylee was in the trunk, and KC was therefore guilty. The general public heard and read this for 3 years. In court however, things were different. In court the jurors heard that this was an adipocere like substance, and were told what this adipocere like substance consisted of. The defense then showed that cheese consisted of the same substances that this adipocere like substance consisted of. The arguments in court were much more technical, but basically, the prosecution could have had done further testing on the adipocere like substance to remove any doubt as to whether it was indeed adipocere, or if it was just a substance that was like adipocere. The prosecution did not have the further testing done, and so, in the courtroom, the defense was able to raise reasonable doubt to that part of the prosecutions case. In the eyes of the jurors, maybe it was adipocere, and maybe it wasn't, and in case of a tie, they are instructed lean towards the defendant, which they did.
The smell of death, the chloroform levels, the hair with apparent decomp, the heart shaped sticker, etc. etc. were all in the docs released via the Sunshine Law. The way an individual interpreted whether this evidence was inculpatory or exculpatory was basically a matter of opinion. The way the media interpreted nearly all of the evidence, in their opinions, was presented as inculpatory.
The jurors heard the defense experts rebutt the prosecutions experts. The media reported that the defense experts were turned into prosecution witnesses by JA. That was the opinion of the media, but that obviously was not the opinion of the jurors. The jurors, by finding a not guilty verdict on the first three counts, showed their opinion was the prosecution did not prove KC's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
These jurors looked only at what was presented, and the media watched these jurors, and reported on what the media thought the jury was thinking. The media thought wrong in their assessment of what the jurors were thinking. Now the jurors have had their names released, so if they chose to speak, I hope it is live, so the media doesn't have the chance to edit and shape what the jurors have to say.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
