BeanE,
Thank you so much for providing this link to the Joe Navarro article. In my opinion it is a must read by anyone seeking some understanding of the outcome of this case.
There is also a wonderful article referenced there : Incompetence of Gullibility and Foolishness, by Stephen Greenspan, PH.D. In it he states the following:
"The jurors absence of experience in thinking abstractly, understanding probability or evidence rather than emotion, made them susceptible to specious arguments like"if the glove does not fit, you must acquit." (of the infamous OJ case.
With ref to the Casey Anthony case:
" The defense got the jury they wanted because the (unusually forceful) judge resisted several attempts by the State to remove certain jurors and because seating jurors ( from a different county) unfamiliar with this high profile case meant seating jurors remarkably lacking in intellectual curiosity. Various media talking heads argued the outcome of this trial showed the "legal system worked." In my opinion it showed "collective gullibility is still alive and well"
So there you have it folks. Perfectly stated and unfortunately true. In general it seems the state want intelligent ,educated jurors. The defense will usually seek out.....ehh--the direct opposite. Guess it was gonna be "Not Guilty", from jury selection. I can live with that after reading these articles. So, again thank you, BeanE, for suggesting this link.
uke:
