[GenuineRisk]

I confess, I didn't know anything about the trial until about two weeks ago, and then didn't follow it because the subject matter upset me too much, but the verdict doesn't mean she didn't do it; it means the prosecution didn't make their case. Cases built on circumstantial evidence, which this was, from what I gather, are very, very hard to prove, and it sounds like the prosecution, in their rush to bring this to trial, did a sh*tty job of it.

The onus of guilt must always be on the state to prove, not on the defendant to disprove. We give that up, in our rush to have a perpetrator to blame, then we might as well give up any notion that we believe in a free society.

And we can never underestimate the power of the media to shape the narrative we see, and clearly the media wanted the narrative to be that this woman did it. Again, I'm not saying she didn't; I didn't follow the case. But, and be honest with yourself, how many of us were absolutely sure that Gary Condit was involved in Chandra Levy's disappearance? Because that was the narrative the media wanted, and that's what they put forth, to the exclusion of any other possibilities.