There are people who specialise in "juries" on both ends..... Just so happens that when selecting a jury the defense pays a little more....
I have heard that. I think the OJ case the defense was paying good $$$ to help load the 12 seats with sympathizers. I never thought about that in this case. Good point.
You're confusing a legal right (to be presumed innocent until proven guilty) with what actually happened. If she did murder her daughter then she's NOT innocent, regardless of what was presumed and regardless of what the jury found. A declaration can't change what actually happened any more than a declaration can change a turd into chocolate pudding.
You are ignoring the fact that the standard for convicting a person is "guilty beyond reasonable doubt." That is a far higher standard than what applies in civil cases, ie preponderance of the evidence. In a civil case, yes, if you think she "probably" did it, based on the evidence presented in court and not just on the fact that you don't like her, thne yes that is all that is necessary. By contrast, in a criminal prosecution, merely thinking something is likely or even probably true is not sufficient. You have to be certain.
I really haven't followed the details closely enough to say. From the little I have heard, the prosecution couldn't connect her to the death of the baby in any way, except that the baby was dead and she was the mother. You have to understand, it is not her responsibility to prove she is innocent or to provide a compelling alternative explanation for what happened. The government has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. Let's go back to your original question about betting on the outcome. Would you really risk your entire net worth on her being guilty of murder? Or let's put it another way. Imagine that you were in her shoes, your baby disappeared, suddenly the police and Nancy Grace are accusing you. Would you think it was fair to convict you without any evidence?
You know very well why. Under our legal system, the judge decides which evidence the jury can hear. There are elaborate rules governing what is admissible and what isn't. There are further rules concering what kinds of arguments the attorneys can make, and even what questions they vcan ask. Nancy Grace is not subject to any of them and is free to speculate and try to whip up a cable lynch mob. Sometimes the application of these rules results in a jury of uninformed dolts, like th OJ trial. It is largely up to the judge though, and they have a lot of discretion in deciding. Often they will ask a prospective juror if they can set aside what they know and render a verdict based solely on the evidence. If you want to avoid jury service, that is your chance to say, no, not really.
There is a lot of anger and disbelief out there over this result, but I don't share it. Here's why. The prosecution appears to have both overcharged her and put on a very weak case. They charged her with first degree homicide, ie murder with premeditated intent. They had zero evidence to support this theory. Clearly, it was included to try to coerce a plea bargain. Inexplicably, they didn't drop this charge before trial. The utter lack of evidence supporting it and the sheer improbability of it tainted the entire prosecution case, in my view. Yes, there were lesser included charges, eg manslughter, but once the jury realized there was no evidence to support the main charge, they probably looked more critically at the other charges as well. Secondly, even if this case was a miscarriage of justice, I think the opposite happens far more often. I have followed a couple of domestic homicide cases in North Carolina recently where husbands were convicted on very little evidence. In one, the wife went out for a morning jog and never returned. Husband was charged and convicted, even though there was no evidence he had done it and a plausible alternative, eg someone grabbed her while she was jogging. Most jury members are predisposed to believe that the police and prosecutors only bring cases where they are sure the defendant is guilty. In fact, many prosecutors are only interested in getting a conviction, particularly if it is a case with political overtones. They pick the person who they think they can get a jury to convict and build a case against them, rather than trying to determine what actually happened. Case in poiint, the Duke lacross case.