I watched that interview with this woman juror trying to understand the logic/reasoning. I’m open to the fact that they might not have been presented all the evidence that had been made public when depositions, etc. were released some time ago.
But, I kept trying to figure out what it would take for her to determine that a murder or manslaughter had occurred....I never understood what it would take.
I thought the prosecution had painted a scenario of what had happened. She indicated she had no idea what any scenario might be. Wasn’t one presented?
She said some jurors said no way Casey was guilty from the beginning of the deliberations.......that’s quite surprising.
Maybe the prosecution should have acted it out on a doll or something for a jury to be able to visualize what the prosecution was trying to prove.
She didn’t seem to have any idea of a possible motive. Just because someone’s out partying after their daughter is dead doens’t mean they killed their daughter. She conceded it looked bad, but......
These were my impressions after watching this interview.....may have misunderstood some of it, but it had me scratching my head.....
“But, I kept trying to figure out what it would take for her to determine that a murder or manslaughter had occurred....I never understood what it would take.”
There are murderers sitting in jail even without the presence of dead body.
There have been people convicted by blood evidence alone - and by circumstantial evidence alone.
The difference being - other juries have taken the time to sit with the evidence and put the puzzle pieces together using basic logic and process of elimination.