But you do have to consider that you are getting to judge this case from evidence collected solely from those bastions of factual integrity - the news media.
The jury, on the other hand, has studied the evidence and that may be a completely different set of facts to those paraded by a salacious media, prone to inflated claims and distortions in order to make their stories more exciting.
I've watched many a true crimes case documentary on TV - mostly US cases - and have often sat slack-jawed and open-mouthed that this woman or that was found guilty of murder on what seems to be the most ridiculous and flimsy of evidence. And then I go research the case on the net and find that the facts are very different from those presented by a show that sets out from the start with a bias to present the case a certain way and chooses the facts and puts a slant on them to suit that bias while ignoring the rest.
So we do have to consider that the jury is the best placed to hear ALL of the story, ALL of the facts and that the story we get is distorted by media bias and media agendas.
Having said that, there's no accounting for the occasional dumb stupid jury now and then. Or even a biased or lazy one. Juries aren't perfect.
LabRat
