At the end of the day, IMO the jurors were likely truthful when they said they only followed the case "somewhat" in the news.
Jose planted reasonable doubt about George in the jury's mind. Likely, the jury's George was a different George than I observed. The jury and I do not know George in the same context. The George the jury knew, was the OS George. They studied on the stand through Jose's OS prism.
Had they watched this story daily while George searched for Caylee, had they seen George sit with LE and be interviewed early on, had they understood the depth of Cindy's denial and her capacity to mislead and misdirect, ... they could not have reached the verdict they did.
Based on the time I spent watching this case unfold, I would have been disqualified from the jury. Because of that entire family, the only one I've ever wanted to (could stomach) listen to was ...
George.
Did the PT do everything possible to make the "George did it" an unreasonable doubt? Could they have done more? (Those are just rhetorical questions...obviously.)
JMHO