Of all the widely reported trials in recent history, it seems as if the trial of Brandon Craig elicits outrage against everyone except the defendant.

Why? Why was Scott Peterson vilified before, during, and after his trial by everyone in the press and public? Isn’t an alleged murderous drug dealer more hideous even than Peterson, who had no prior arrest record? Why was Raynella Dossett-Leath labeled a “Black Widow” when the deaths of her two husbands could very well be accident and suicide and when an episode of gun threats could easily be explained as a sort of temporary insanity following the death of her son? (I believe I heard that she wanted custody of a son supposedly fathered by her deceased husband.)

My biggest question is why the Craig-trial eye-witnesses and their families seem to be the subject of far more outrage than the defendant and his family.

I can’t help but wonder if CNN’s favorable coverage of the defense isn’t partly to blame. Most of us who are following the trial know nothing about it except what we learn from CNN. I wonder if the local media is covering this case in quite the same way as CNN is, though. I wonder if local anger is being directed at the same groups of people as national anger is.

Over and over again I hear legal commentators claim that this is clearly an instance when a defendant should be found not guilty because of reasonable doubt. I’ve written about this phrase and researched it. In my opinion, this is not a case of reasonable doubt.

The “doubt” in reasonable doubt refers to doubt of guilt, not doubt of innocence. In this case, there may be doubt of guilt if you completely dismiss all the eye-witness and corroborating evidence. In other words, you have to fall for the specious argument that a witness “who is false in one, is false in all.”

The “reasonable” in reasonable doubt demands that jurors sort through all the evidence and decide whether there is substantial evidence of guilt. It is not reasonable to insist that every statement of every witness be accurate (whether accurately remembered or truthfully stated).

The only way in which I would vote “not guilty” in this case would be if I could be shown that the eye-witnesses could have colluded to concoct the story. As I understand the prosecution’s closing argument, evidence was admitted to show that the witnesses could not have colluded, and, furthermore, that a sister of one of the witnesses knew for a very long time that her brother was involved in the crime in some way.

Aha! The first jury question for the judge relates to the issue of collusion.