Whiteorchids, what an excellent point. Let's put this in perspective.
Could the mailman hypothetically speaking be her patsy also? What would the difference be for he verdict?
Let's say RB's story is she walked in on the mailman who just hit her child so hard that the child was grey and swollen and bounced off the bed. The mailman and her are "friends" so its not unusual for him to stop in the house during his route for a snack and even stayed the night occasionally. The bag the child is found in is a mail bag. A phone that has some sort or connection to him is traced to the area on the day the child's body was found.
Just RB's word. Just her word that the mailman killed her child. Same plea deal. What's the verdict?
What if she blamed the neighbor? Neighbors DNA would certainly be all over. Guilty because RB says yep, that's what happened.
What about the biological father? Put his name in there. He shows up, he's doped out and angry about whatever and with his rap sheet who wouldn't believe that? He punches Bella and kills her. I mean he had to do it right, he was there.
I just don't understand what evidence this jury went off of... other than they believed RB's story. I do think Shapiro did a great job of showing her lies.
I just don't get it.