In an article on TheDailyBeast.com, Clark says:

"Sick, shaken, in disbelief. As I listened to the verdicts in the Casey Anthony case, acquitting her of the homicide of her baby girl, I relived what I felt back when court clerk Deirdre Robertson read the verdicts in the Simpson case.

But this case is different. The verdict is far more shocking. Why?

Because Casey Anthony was no celebrity. She never wowed the nation with her athletic prowess, shilled in countless car commercials, or entertained in film comedies. There were no racial issues, no violent Rodney King citywide riot just two years earlier.

Because of those factors, many predicted from the very start in the Simpson case—in fact, long before we even began to pick a jury—that it would be impossible to secure a conviction.

There was no such foreshadowing here, and few who predicted that a jury might completely acquit Casey Anthony of the killing of her daughter."

I mentioned this morning that the jurors probably thought that Anthony was "probably guilty". The problem is that probably isn't enough.

As Clark herself said in this article:

After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Clark has a very interesting and insightful take on this case. Read the article in its entirety HERE.
What do you think?