I think In session's point was that typically there is a little more variety in terms of educational background on most juries. They really seemed to make a point of it. Hopefully education though does broaden your horizons, gives way to the practice of critical thinking and I think helps with the scientific part. But I agree with you that it is not the end all. I have know many people, as I'm sure you have, that do not have as education, who are smart and some, in reverse, that I can't figure out how they got that degree. Well, I think the purpose of"picking a part the jury" is becuase those of us who beleived the state proved its case, can't follow thier logic. And if the jury had found her guilty, I assume you would have thought the decision was also absurd.
Honestly, if they had come back with a guilty verdict, I would have been disappointed because I did not think that the state proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I would have accepted it and not try to demean them because they didn't see what I saw. But again, I am not emotionally attached to the case which I think makes a huge difference between me and most of the people here on WS.
In fact, the reason that I came to WS in the first place is due to a recent case where I live in which a husband was convicted of killing his wife. I did not think that the state proved it's case there either (an opinion shared my many even some here on WS) but the jury found him guilty regardless. I didn't gnash my teeth and blame the jury....it is what it is.