In defense of the system (I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, I personally believe she killed the kid) isn't this how it is supposed to happen?
I mean, the jury obviously doubted whether or not the evidence presented was enough to convict and possibly kill someone over... What if you were a mother being accused of murdering your own child? If you were innocent, and the prosecution could only come up with shaky circumstancial evidence to "prove" you guilty - how would you feel if a jury of your peers refused to give that benefit of the doubt? If you were a juror, could you bear the guilt of knowing you condemned a potentially innocent person(assuming they go on to serve a death penalty)?
Honestly, watching the spectacle outside the court on CNN earlier really made me think of witchhunts. Who are we to judge? Is that our(the general populations) place? I was under the impression it is on the judge and jury to decide the fate of our accused criminals, not the lynch mob waiting outside...
Remember kids, it's not what one does that they should be punished for - it is what can be proven in the eyes of the law.