[rbmillerjr]

If you are objective, you can see their (jury) point.

No. If you are as stupid as they are you can see their point. The one juror and alternate juror, who have talked so far, have proven they can’t even comprehend their duties as to assigning guilt or innocence (they considered sentencing which is a no no)....

...and one of the nitwits felt that Casey was a good mother.

OMG, they shouldn’t be defended, they should be shunned for their idiocy.

[Cheryllynn]

“OMG, they shouldn’t be defended, they should be shunned for their idiocy.”

Agreed.

[Vermont Lt]

My God, even Whorlaldo said that Casey was a good mother.

My definition of good mother would be closer to yours I imagine: Good mothers do not let their kids go missing for 31 days for one thing.

Take a look around at the mall next week. Those people are the jury of your peers.

But, give me a better system and I will go along with it.

[ken5050]

Well said. It's telling that the jurors have pretty much shunned the limelight..this..in an age where everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, and they could easily get big $$$ for doing an interview.

I wonder if the jury suffered something akin to Stockholm syndrome..you take all these complete strangers..lock them away together for weeks..no real outside contact..they were pretty much cut off from most news..and weird stuff can happen. I can give the jury a pass for not being able to agree on first degree murder...but what I can never understand is why not ONE held out for the lesser count of manslaughter. That makes no sense....especially when they convicted her on the lesser counts of lyign to police, and that she didn't take the stand..