I don’t think it’s saying that people outside the jury are simpletons, I think it’s saying they have a different pool of information. It’s like the old parable of the blind men and the elephant, everybody has their information and nobody has the other people’s information so everybody draws their own conclusions which are RIGHT with their information, but not necessarily right with the big picture.
People watching it on TV got the constant drumbeat that she was guilty and her lawyers idiots. People in the jury box didn’t get any of that, but they were in a position to have nothing better to pay attention to when the prosecutors closing arguments admitted they didn’t know how or when the kid died, and went with the broad “somebody in that house killed her” which kind of admits he’s not really sure it was Casey. Is somebody on one side of the equation smarter than the other? No, they have different sets of information, and drew conclusions that were right with THEIR information. Who’s right in the big picture we don’t know, but it is very logical for the TV audience and the jury to draw vastly different conclusions.
We also don’t know what the discussions inside the jury room went like. I recall hearing that initially 2 people did not vote for acquittal. If that is correct, they changed their mind. We won’t ever know what was said that changed it, but clearly, it wasn’t completely cut and dried.
Did you listen to the talking head shows?
Are you considering evidence the jury wasn’t presented?
Are you unable to take in information and recognize it wasn’t part of the jury presentation and discount it?
Aren’t you able to come to a reasonable conclusion?
I didn’t watch those shows at all.
Look, there are simpletons out there, but there are also reasoned people out there that have come to the conclusion this woman is guilty.
Those folks are not simpletons because they see through he Casey defense. I’m tired of seeing them dismissed as simpletons.