A final example was Scott Peterson. The prosecution simply showed the jury graphic photos of Laci Peterson's dismembered body and said "He did it!" and Mr. Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death based on nothing but inflamed emotion. There was, again, no evidence to tie the defendant to the murder. Now the prosecution alleged that because Laci's hair was in a rowboat they allege was used to dump the bodies, that proves he was the killer. You and I both know that there are a million plausible explanations for how a hair or two from the victim could end up in a boat stored in the victim's own home. If I'd been in that jury room, the vote would have been 11-1 forever.
Eh, Scott Peterson was also discovered to have been having multiple affairs in which he described himself as a "widower" weeks before Laci had disappeared, had searches on his computer for tidal patterns in the San Francisco Bay (where Laci's body was discovered), and was arrested carrying $15,000 in cash, four cell phones, a fake driver's license, and having recently cut/died his hair.
So yeah he killed her beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jurors do not suspend their faculty of reason. Failing Occam's razor in a sufficiently spectacular fashion is good grounds for dismissing a doubt as unreasonable. In Scott Peterson's case, his behavior around the time of Laci Peterson's death was quite damning.
