I apologize for bringing this topic up again. I have been doing pretty well about detaching from this (LOL) but I have some questions now. For one, who the HE!! is going to pay for her plane ticket, new clothes, food, housing, etc? I hear plastic surgery has been offered and I assume that's a donation. And while I think it's a brilliant legal strategy for Zanny's attny (can't spell her real name, no offense meant), to request a video taped deposition be given to Casey on Friday before she's released (it's the video tape that is brilliant, in my humble opinion), WTH are they planning on doing after Casey flees? How can they re-coup anything or even get Casey in jail if they win the case or someone proves she lied in depositions? And while I would NEVER support harrassment or anything of a juror, these people must have been clueless about circumstancial (sp) cases and I can't help but wonder how many of them were even old enough to be parents. Something is just not adding up right about that jury. One commentator said she's not bashing the jury and is really trying to listen to what is said by the few who have spoken, but she can't find any rational logic in what they're saying- something like "if you ask a person if it's raining and they respond that the flowers are pretty" (not exactly her analogy), and I can't agree more. They seem to be side-stepping logical answers, in my humble opinion. Is this a result of youthful jurors who might not have an adequate background and education about our court proceedings? For instance, one juror said that when the prosecution rested, they were all shocked because they assumed that the prosecution was just getting to the big evidence. Commentators are taking this to mean that as supporting the determination that there wasn't enough evidence. Personally, I took it as evidence that the jury had no clue how the process works if they didn't get that the prosecution presents a case, the defense presents the defense, then the prosecution can present a rebuttal. The rebuttal isn't half way thru the trial or half way thru the prosecution's presentation. If they didn't understand that, how could they understand a circumstancial case and what is required to prove guilt?