If the only "guilty" verdicts resulted from smoking guns, we'd have a lot more dangerous people wreaking havoc in society than we do.
The jury failed to regard this giant pool of circumstantial evidence from the Law's point of view. That it is ALSO evidence, not just a bunch of smoke, but actual evidence. Evidence that must be handled differently, knitted together with other bits of circumstantial evidence, and re-connected with the direct evidence of the case.
Cumulatively, the circumstantial evidence as the state knitted together for us WAS a smoking gun, like, a smoking Uzi.
I sense the jury regarded circumstantial evidence as being equivalent to the defense team's hole-poking. Otherwise, how could they disregard it the way they did?
Here is some circumstantial evidence from real life. The jury foreman tells of his experience and thought processes on Greta. We get a picture of him as a very confident person, perhaps a little TOO confident, willing to regard his special abilities to "read people" because of his job as a PE teacher as somehow distinguished. He drops many other little "indications" of how important he believes himself and abilities to be.
Having some other jurist do his LAUNDRY illuminates and highlights this guy's self importance.
No where in this does the foreman come right out and say "I am a bonafide narcissist". But the accumulation of his own words and behaviors, along with being WILLING to allow another person to do his LAUNDRY has me drawing some conclusions about his character.
