There comes a time, that you have to use common sense, to be objective. 12 people can sit on a jury and have 12 opinions on the guilt or innocence of the person being tried.
Each person on that jury has a responsibility to look at the evidence submitted during the trial. The opening statements, closing remarks and the grandstanding that happens is NOT the evidence.
When picked for a jury and when the trial starts, the jury is told that the case must be proven. That if there is REASONABLE doubt, they must acquit.
What constitutes reasonable doubt? This is where the 12 jurists may have 12 opinions and constitutes the true need for jury deliberation. Is it reasonable doubt if the accused accuses another person? No, that may, however be grounds to bring that other person up on charges also.
The Anthony jurists seemed remiss in their deliberations. They appeared to not use common sense in as much as hiding the fact that your daughter is missing for 30 days, partying and not letting LE know she is missing, must surely constitute child endangerment, child abandonment and a slew of other possible charges.
The outcome has already been determined, but I really feel that there was NO common sense shown by this panel of jurists. When you look at the EVIDENCE, it proved Casey guilty.
And I would like to see George and Cindy face the music for lying on the witness stand! Taped Cayleighs mouth with duct tape, because they used it when their pets died, yea right. How old is Casey? 4??