Some of us with a legal background found the prosecutor's case against Kerry Kennedy weak. For example, there was the assumption that she should have anticipated the effects Ambien, which she took in error, would have on her. The jurors made the right decision in acquitting her.
However, the media coverage at the time, ranging from The Wall Street Journal to the New York Post, tended to be negative on the Kennedy dynasty. Admittedly those two particular media outlets are conservative. However in its coverage of news per se, especially legal activity, The Wall Street Journal tends to be objective. It has to be. Business decisions, based on legal developments, factor in what it says and how it says it.
For example, it mentioned and should have the cartoonish mistake on the part of the defense attorney. In his opening arguments he described Kennedy's pedigree, including father Robert and Uncle Jack. It also noted the judge cut him off. Almost all media featured photos of the Kennedys attending the trial, ranging from brother Robert to mother Ethel. I had a hunch the jurors might perceive this as a power play and hold it against the defendant. They didn't, which reinforces the credibility of the U.S. jury system.
The Kennedy clan should lay low after this victory. After all, not long ago there was the suicide of Robert's second wife. They had their time in the limelight. If they want to do good works they should do them in a low profile way. I dread reading in the media that Kerry Kennedy is starting a foundation for justice. Some of us just want them to go away, the way we want the Farrows to get off the radar screen.