I'm not a legal expert, but I'd think that the difference between "not guilty" and "not enough evidence to convict" is mostly semantic.

U.S. juries are not supposed to convict if there is "reasonable doubt." That, of course, is a subjective standard, but the idea is that if anyone on the jury seriously doubts the defendant's guilt there will be a hung jury. That means either a new trial or, if the prosecution reconsiders (as sometimes happens), it means the defendant's release.

"Insufficient evidence to convict," I suppose, could be the equivalent of a hung jury. Both can encourage lingering suspicion regardless of how many jurors had what they considered "reasonable doubt." In some cases, one juror's "reasonable doubt" may be total obtuseness. The same factors can be involved in a verdict of "insufficient evidence."

As we all know, justice is imperfect and the innocent are sometimes convicted and the guilty sometimes go free. But in this case, there really appears to be no compelling evidence that A & R committed murder.

As for the level of coverage, there was a heinous crime involving attractive young women, drugs, sex, and allegations of satan worship. Then there was the possibility that the defendants had been railroaded.

Media executives would have had to be superhuman to resist.

As for the rain forests, public opinion might really be galvanized if pretty girls were being put in jeopardy by the clearing operations.