I have said that according to what the prosecution presented, the jury made the right call. That said, one could certainly make the case that the prosecution tanked this on purpose. Given the level of ineptitude, I would not question that line of thought in the least.
I didn't say it wasn't there... I think it might have been in terms of how the prosecution went in this case. But I do not think the jury had any choice given the facts AS they were presented. The prosecution left way too many holes there for reasonable doubt. Almost everyone of their witnesses were turned against them. If I was on the jury, I don't see how another verdict would have been possible within in the law. That doesn't make it right... just legal. As you have said, and I agreed, the application of the law lies many times in the hands of the attorneys involved. Sometimes you simply have a brilliant attorney (OJ) that creates reasonable doubt where none should have existed. Sometimes the prosecution sucks (intentionally or not) to the point that it is created (Zimmerman).
Like I said, I know how I can get at times when I am passionate about a topic. I will try my best to remain civil... though I think the board knows I can go off from time to time.