Replies

But then again- I’m one of “the idiots watching on cable” as you say.

lol, SE Mom, I don't think you're an idiot watching on cable. Here's what I've synopsized so far from the one alternate juror who spoke out.

1. The juror thought it was an accident covered up by the family.

2. The juror didn't even think there was a decomposing body in the trunk.

3. The juror thought if there was a "smell", George would have called 911. (Now How points 1 and 3 make any logic - you got me! If the family was covering up for Casey, they wouldn't have called 911, DUH!)

4. The juror made sense out the duct tape because, well, that was the way the Anthony's buried their pets. (not sure what 3 overlapping pieces of duct tape about 8-10 inches long are going to do to seal the bags, but, heh.....you got duct tape/garbage bags - made sense to him.)

5.The jurors thought George was too combative, and that he was not truthful.

6.One juror I believe said they didn't know what the motive was. (HUH?)

My take is the prosecution must not have used the KISS strategy, focussed too much on details vs. the big picture, didn't make a personal connection with the jurors as a whole. Maybe a lot of "stuff" could have been left out and hammer on a few key factors. I think if law professors think they can study this case for future prosections/defense strategies.....frankly, I'm not sure it would do much good. I have a feeling this was a unique outcome given the defense' and the prosecution's approach.