Why were Lay and Skilling convicted?

I’ve been writing on this blog (and in this article ) about the enormous problems a jury faces in a super-complex criminal trial like Enron. Malcolm Gladwell argued that we still don't know what, if anything, Skilling did wrong, as I noted. Did they lie, or were they misled by subordinates? Regarding various points of view on the defendants' guilt I observed:

Two quotes, three versions: crook, fool, or neither. You're on the jury, you decide. Your decision will determine whether two guys spend a good chunk of the rest of their lives in jail (not whether Skilling should be running Enron). Only the witless will think this is an easy question for the jury. I noted, regarding

Well, now we have some information about how the jury went about making up its mind:  Russell Powell, The Enron Trial Drama: A New Case for Stakeholder Theory.  The article analyzes comments the jury made to the media after the trial. Here are some excerpts (footnotes omitted):

* * *The most common type of statement notes the bad character of Lay, Skilling, or both." This includes references to their greed, controlling nature, and "disgraceful" conduct. The second most common type of statement indicates concern for the tremendous harm to innocents: employees, 401(k) holders, investors, and family members. Four statements indicate that attitudes in the jury shifted throughout the trial and that there was no resolution until the deliberations?'* * *

Two of the most intriguing reactions from the jurors involved concern for employees and other innocent parties and admission of the complexity of the issues. Although three jurors repeatedly indicated that their deliberation was based "only on the facts," at least one of this group (Delgado) also indicated that he had difficulty understanding the accounting testimony.In total, six jurors specifically referred either to the complexity of the facts or to the nature and magnitude of harm.Several of these statements seem to represent the views of the jury in general.* * *

We cannot know for certain whether the scope of harm influenced the outcome of the trial, but the fact that it is mentioned by jurors at all indicates that it played some role in their deliberation process even though they never specifically addressed it in the group. Their statements regarding duties owed to employees are perhaps more telling. One juror mentioned that, as a manager, she believes that Lay and Skilling had the same kind of duty to employees that she does: "[Managers] are always accountable for [the] treatment of subordinates and . . . employees at Enron were entitled to 'the same thing' from Lay. They didn't get it, which is why he is going to jail."* * * "

They were accountants," juror] Delgado [said], "They mumbled, and I didn't know anything about what they talked about. Math never was my best subject. Fortunately, we got to take notes." If these issues were so complex that jurors did not fully understand them, how did they come to a verdict? If their statements are any indicator, the number and consistency of prosecution witnesses, the sheer volume of documentary evidence, the estimation of the defendants' moral character, and the magnitude of the harm all played a role. So, although corporate managers may attempt to skirt the edges of legality, juries may ultimately hold them accountable using different criteria than the black letter law.

The author thinks these statements support stakeholder theory in action. The huge problem with this is that the managers were not on trial for mistreating stakeholders -- they were on trial for lying.  Moreover, the jurors likely had no idea exactly what Lay's and Skilling's contribution was to the stakeholders' injuries. Of course the jurors were helped along mightily by the excoriations of the defendants they read in the press. 

So while the article applauds the jury statements, it's most useful for illustrating the dangers of corporate criminal liability.