Obviously they didn't. They were a cross section of regular Joe Schmo's and Jane Doe's. So what made the jurors in the Casey Anthony trial come back with a decision that was so violently at odds with the rest of the Twitter and Facebook population? What made those 12 people come out of that trial with beliefs that no one else "out here" did?
It's simple. They didn't hear Nancy Grace hounding them 24/7. They didn't hear an endless stream of experts putting their spin on every little inflection and facial expression in the courtroom. They didn't hear late night comedians cracking jokes about Casey. They heard the facts in a vacuum.
Their decision is untainted by public opinion. Whether right or wrong, and with this case's lack of evidence you can't say whether the verdict was "right" or "wrong", at the very least the jury's decision is closer to pure because it is untainted by the media frenzy.
They heard and saw everything in that courtroom. Even if you sat in front of your television for 24 hours a day, you didn't see or hear everything. And what you DID hear or see, Nancy Grace made sure you saw or heard her way, or the way of one of her many experts.
Juror #3 said it best:
"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."Thank you Juror #3.
If you think you know better than the jurors in this case because you had more information from your hours of Court TV watching, you're wrong. You had less information, and the information you did have was tainted. So while no one knows what happened to Caylee Anthony, I'm going to lean more towards the opinion of those 12 people (plus the alternates) who heard the facts in a vacuum.
No comments:
Post a Comment