There seems to be a misconception that many in the media are operating under. The premise is, you have had to listen to the talking heads and consider evident not presented to the jury to come to a conclusion the jury was wrong.
That really angers me. The implication is that outside the jury, everyone is a simpleton, unable to think or reason for themselves.
Okay media players, just where do the members of the jury come from? Oh yes from that pool of simpletons you keep denigrating.
What a bunch of collective dumb f--ks we have in our media these days.
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.
The jury foreman is suppose to be on Greta tomorrow night, that should be interesting.