Hmm... so I’m saying the jury was completely lacking in intelligence, you’re saying they were completely lacking in ethical standards of morality/behavior (ignoring the truth in favor of punishing prosecution behavior they didn’t like.)
There’s another option: Maybe it was six of one, and half a dozen of the other.
******************************
I am judging here and assuming, from listening to the 14th juror as my control.
Judging from him, I say yes, they were punishing, not judging facts.
I could be just as wrong as I feel they were—but that’s my opinion. I SEE the evidence and can’t find any other reason to ignore the evidence, other than what I believe at this point.
I can’t wrap my mind around such stupidity but vengeance—yeah, sure thang...
I’m curious. What do you think the jury was punishing the prosecution FOR? The sequestering? Condescending tone?
You write: “I can’t wrap my mind around such stupidity but vengeance—”.
I mean, it’s harder for me to wrap my mind around the concept that a jury would choose to punish sequestering or tone, as opposed to punishing a mother for murdering her own child.
And here’s why it’s easy for me to believe the stupidity:
The defense successfully cast a small amount of doubt on several elements of the prosecution case.
The mistake that I believe the jurors made, while it shows ignorance, is actually a very common mistake that otherwise intelligent people OFTEN make.
It is the mistake of not recognizing that a chain of unlikely events rapidly becomes not simply unlikely, but realistically impossible, i.e. only possible in imagination and theory.