I addressed your post according to my perception of it. My perception of your writing.

Your perception was wrong. Now that I've corrected your perception, perhaps you could try again.

Who, other than you, expects jurors to be well-versed in law?

I don't, which is why I'm against juries.

I offer:

The jury is the fact-finder, but it is left to "find" facts only from the evidence which is legally admissible.

And they found the facts wrong, in a lot of cases. Regardless, they can still find a guilty person "not guilty" or vice-versa based upon their personal biases. Re-read the part of my post about Nanavati; no one disagreed about the facts, they just didn't think he should be punished because the jurors were the same ethnicity as him and the victim was another ethnicity.

You don’t take disagreement with your writing well, it seems. I foolishly bought into the good faith discussion/pyramid of debate rhetoric of Saidit. Silly me. Good faith is multiple “straw man” accusations from you. Ok. I’m out.

LOL you can't even disprove my "accusations" even though I backed them up pretty well. I even explained what I really meant, yet you refuse to address those points, because you don't have an argument and know you're wrong. Is the Israeli government or CIA paying you per comment? Because it seems like your only goal is to waste my time and de-rail discussions.