“so what are the chances that all 12 are complete morally bankrupt idiots”
You misunderstood my post. My point was that they could be EITHER an idiot OR morally bankrupt (voting not guilty to punish the prosecution). Having “OR” as an option instead of “AND” makes an outcome MORE LIKELY, not LESS LIKELY.
“why would THEY come up with this verdict if they didn’t believe it?”
I think they did believe it. Therefore, I conclude they are “innumerate”, and have a poor understanding that a chain of unlikely events creates an impossibility. Lack of understanding this is a VERY COMMON fallacy that even otherwise intelligent people succumb to.
It was not my opinion that they were voting guilty to punish the prosecution. That was the opinion of another poster based on an interview with an alternate juror, which I did not see. In my post, I was simply pointing out that both of us could be right. While I believe most of the jurors just couldn’t do the math, maybe she’s right that one or two were just punishing the prosecution. (For what, I’m not sure. Making them miss their family’s 4th of July celebration?) I’m with you I don’t like to believe that, but I was being gracious and conceding the possibility, since I didn’t see the interview that opinion was based on.
There are murderers sitting in jail today that were convicted with less evidence, and they be must wondering at Casey’s good luck.
Some even convicted without the presence of a dead body.
My thoughts are that - some juries confuse “no doubt” with “reasonable doubt”.
There is a bit over on hotair that highlights another possibility - that with many americans hooked on shows like CSI, there is probably a misunderstanding now that there should always be a forensic smoking gun.
More and more you hear people talk about circumstantial evidence as if it is “no” evidence at all.
Circumstantial can be just as important - and helps connect the dots.