Your belief is based on what the media fed you as well, no? Anyway, you certainly don't have to be a jury member to analyze the facts. Part of why a trial is public is to allow the community to know what took place. Just because it's on TV does not skew the facts. Of course the talking heads will tell some people what to think about the facts. Even your retarded female friend was right when she said most intelligent people believe she's guilty based on the known facts.

The evidence is pretty damning. We could go over it, but whatever.

One thing I will say is that if the defense version of events were true, there wouldn't have been duct tape on the child's mouth. And there wouldn't have been internet searches for how to kill someone. And the mother wouldn't have been getting a tattoo which reads "bella vita" (the good life) in the month proceeding the child's death. Of course the burden is not on the defense to prove the case, but when they provide an alternative explanation for the child's death, it better be consistent with the facts or else it will look like another lie.