The problem is you’re looking at a difference set of information. The jury didn’t get all the stuff the judge kept out, it didn’t get all the guessing by legal “experts”. 90% of the stuff you’ve read about the trial they didn’t hear. But what they DID get to hear was a prosecuting attorney admit they didn’t now how she died, when she died, and imply they were really sure who killed her other than it being somebody in the house.
You may be right. But I’ve heard other legal experts (who aren’t defense attorneys —and sorry, I discount them because for some odd reason they always seem to be on the defense side, go figure!) say otherwise. Look I’m not a lawyer. And obviously I am tainted by what I have heard for the last 3 years, especially since I do live in FL and recall this case from the moment we all knew this child went missing. It’s difficult to recall what they knew and what we all have heard over the last 3 years.
However, this does not seem to be as cut and dried as you just set it out. So, you and I can agree to disagree. And I firmly believe the system is set up to make it easier to confound the issue, especially in this day and age of CSI. And when I hear jurors say things like “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” etc, I’m sorry but I can’t help but believe they were overly swayed by Baez and for some reason either didn’t like the Prosecutor or found the men in Casey’s life less compelling. And how is that any better than convicting her because she is a party girl who isn’t very likable? These are the things about this trial that leave me troubled.
I know a system devised by man will be imperfect. But I expect us to look at it with thoughtfulness and always wonder if some things need improvement. I don’t mean the entire system, don’s go there. But, is the jury selection system a problem? Are juries orders clear? Is it really essential that we televise these trials as they happen or does it change the outcome?
Sorry this is so long. I’ll stop. :)