IMO, they comprehended the charges and instructions just fine - which is why they were (according to #3) sick to their stomachs - personally, at the verdict they had to render given the charges, instructions and evidence.
They did not allow anger or sympathy to come into the deliberations, but as human beings this was obviously torturous.
Re-read the jury instructions: where evidence conflicts = reasonable doubt, where evidence lacks = reasonable doubt.
I think the biggest sticking point was overcoming these points based on the evidence/testimony: manner of death was a homicide...(and if you get past that)...defendent was the one who commited it.
It's obvious to me and many who view the evidence and testimony in an objective manner that those points were difficult to overcome.
Dr. G did not give a medical opinion that it was a homicide. This was made clear. Dr. WS gave a medical opinion that the manner of death could not be determined. Conflicting testimony/lack of evidence = reasonable doubt.
Presence of chloroform was contested at the scientific level. Conflicting testimony = reasonable doubt (as to chloroform as a weapon).
Duct tape had DNA markers which excluded casey and caylee, and there is no evidence it covered her mouth and nose, and if if so that it was pre-motem. The was testimony to the contrary, and the animated presentation was admitted as a "possible" scenario.
A body in the trunk is not evidence of a homicide.
I am bringing all of this up, not because I believe the defense case and not the State's case...but to remind everyone that evidence was contested/missing and testimony conflicted. Jury instructions address this.
