It's going to be interested to see how the evidence is laid out in court now that the podcast and thousands of people have weighed in on the subject. The legal teams can gauge which evidence and tactics has worked on the public at large and design their case accordingly.
There is also a difference between thinking he's guilty and Being beyond reasonable doubt. I think he did it, but not with enough conviction (barring additional information) to levy a guilty verdict.
Any smart person would agree with you. However, they dont like smart people on any jurys. They like dumb, sheepish, emotional people that are willing to overlook laws.
