Like I said earlier, the "chloroform" issue was one where I didn't feel convinced that it was used as a murder or negligent homicide weapon. In just the way you describe, it looks muddy, because proving how it got there involved speculation that was not so thoroughly backed up as the rest of it.
I see now that "how the chloroform" was a diversion tactic, and I probably bought into it at the time. Now, I'm thinking, how many T crosses and I dots does a person need when you are confronted with a very large amount of chloroform where there should be none? HOW it got there pales in importance to that it was there in the first place. Does that make sense? :waitasec:
OK, I think I understand your points
You probably hit the nail on the head with the possible jury responses. What it sounds like to me, is you are describing how people's personal quirks, insecurities about how "smart" they are or are perceived to be, and how this can effect one's confidence in an expert. Or, effect one's willingness to even listen to them.
There is a nurse at work who drives everyone nuts with her dramarama, but now and then, she makes an excellent point. I know I've glossed over her because I am tired of listening to her "poor meeee." There is another nurse who seems to know everything there is to know, and she gets on nerves and unfortunately, we end up ignoring her, too.
If this jury's verdict was influenced, even in part, by their own personal agendas and pet peeves about "smart experts thinkin' I'm dumb" or feeling sorry for poor teensy little Casey barely peeking over the defense table or for Baez getting spanked by JP and picked on (poor thing) by Ashton . . . .
That illustrates my point that folks aren't going to reach correct conclusions when their thought processes are contaminated by opinions or agendas.
What you describe above could be a great explanation of how the jury went so far down the wrong road. A collective (of 12) folie a' deux. Sequestered, controlled, isolated for six weeks, a person can't expect the highest function out of these folks. If I was sequestered like that, away from my little farm and my daughters and grandson, I'd be typing drivel and having LOTS of hostile thoughts
.
Sometimes, well, most of the time, I think that the only way a person could conclude Casey Anthony was not guilty, with the evidence provided, that they must have some kind of unexamined personal "thing" preventing them from seeing the obvious. Now THAT is my personal opinion
and no offense meant to anyone in particular.
Don't we all have personal "things" that get in our way of seeing clearly?