I firmly believe that one of the things (one amongst several) that allows this misogynistic crap to be perpetuated in trials is the bar on jurors discussing their experience and concerns.
For instance, if I’d been on a rape jury, and seen misogynistic attitudes in the jury deliberations that shocked me, that reflected contempt for sexually active women, I couldn’t say anything. I also couldn’t say if I’d seen that some of my fellow jurors were so catatonically thick that they couldn’t follow any line of argument at all (either defence or prosecution, or summing up) and just resorted to saying platitudinously ‘how can we know anything about anyone for certain, after all? We’d better just acquit.’
The way men get away with brutally murdering their wives and partners is a disgrace to our society. In order to fight it we need whistleblowers to be able to come forward & speak about their jury experiences. About the stupidity and sexism they’ve seen.
If I’d been in a jury like that theoretical one I described, I might have noticed that the judge was clearly appalled and disgusted by the not guilty verdict. Maybe the same was true in this case. Have to wait to see how the judge treats sentencing I suppose.
Poor woman, what an appalling way to go.