Yep, apparently most of them could. From what I’m reading, there weren’t many college grads on the jury, which means the average IQ was in the 90s. Translated, these people weren’t capable of forming logical conclusions. The bottom line is this, if Casey didn’t kill Caylee, who did?
Maybe no one — there isn’t even evidence that someone killed her (no cause of death known).
The jury cannot base their verdict on your question, “if Casey didn’t kill Caylee, who did?” They can only base it on the question, “is there enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee?”
They apparently decided there was not, and I agree.
If I recall, my IQ tested at ~150 when I was a child, and I have a pair of Master’s degrees. Does that count?
I’ll answer that for you — a juror shouldn’t require exceptional intelligence or education, and I would argue that an accurate cross section of society would work best. Unfortunately, precious few in our society possess either, which I suppose is why we describe those factors as exceptional (and why they tend to be rare on a jury).