I would say the more uneducated and lower the IQ, the more 'OK' the person is likely to be with the verdict.
Several points.... the jury would have had 15 minutes if the verdict was guilty. They would have been thanked for their sacrifices and moved on. A not guilty verdict will give them a lot more options, especially since they have decided to stay sequestered....until the offers start pouring in.
They need to be asked one question, who was responsible for Caylee at the time of her death and just where was her mother when she died?
And I would surmise that’s what you say about most anyone who disagrees with you.
It isn’t necessarily so that agreement with the jury is agreement that Casey is innocent. It’s obvious that given there were 12 individuals who very quickly came to unanimous agreement the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.
Having owned a chemical analysis lab I know that chloroform sensors will sense chloroform in the presence of some laundry detergents. The prosecution didn’t even prove that the Anthony’s ever had any chloroform in their house or owned any chloroform. Still the prosecution wanted the jury to assume that as a cause of death. Presume? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
All twelve of the jurors without much debate at all unanimously agreed that the prosecution did NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was guilty. If they can’t even convince one of those twelve, which would have at least caused longer debate or a hung jury, it’s obvious to any person with a higher IQ that the prosecution failed.