I don't remember the details as clearly, but the Jay element, the cell stuff, and oddities with Adnan's original attorney completely derailed this case for me.

I think one facet of the law that colors people's perceptions in most cases, but cases like this in particular, is that the options are "guilty" or "not guilty", not "guilty" and "innocent".

Finding someone not guilty is not the same as saying that person is innocent, but that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think people tend to default to guilt or innocence, rather than guilty or not guilty.

I never thought this case came anywhere close to proving Adnan's alleged guilt. And while I do remember certain pieces of it felt damning, there was just too much doubt in the details.