After reviewing more information about what the jurors went through, I think it was just as hard for them to acquit her as it was for us to hear it. I believe that they gave the right verdict, due to the rule of law that they also have to abide by certain restrictions. The definitions were made clear, and they had to decide within those limitations. It sucks, it blows, it's horrible, and it's the only thing they could do legally. Most cases are circumstantial. Jury pools have been influenced by shows like CSI, Law & Order, Castle, Da Vinci's Inquest and other crime drama shows. Prosecutors are expected to provide more proof to the table. DNA, forensics, tons of experts giving them information in a scientific way that is convincing. But these jurors seem to understand the evidence very well. They took everything into consideration and came to a conclusion that they all disliked, but there just wasn't the proof there.
Honestly, if they police would have come and checked the for the body when it was first reported, it would have not have yet been submerged and had any dna been present, it would have likely have been found. Since the primary part of the body was in a bag, it would mean a lot of evidence would likely have been present. With the site going underwater for a while after Kronk had reported it twice, the police screwed the case up because the forensics teams didn't have enough to work with. Also, the prosecution trying to use unestablished science in the case may have been to their detriment. With these thoughts in place I have to switch my answer from wrong to no, they did the right thing because of the way the laws had been established regarding this particular case. So I'm going to redo the whole poll to vote two types of no, to see how many people understand why the jury voted to acquit, even if you don't like the result.