Charlot123
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 9,442
- Reaction score
- 63,773
RSBM
I suppose personally i would say "she did not kill JO in the way the State says"
Don't get my wrong. I am 100% in agreement that the State deservedly failed in this case and it is important they did. It should have been an NG verdict to punish them fully.
I also agree the State did not counter or challenge the D witnesses. A huge fail.
But I think because the crime/accident scene investigation was so poor, we never got any coherent explanation of what 'must have happened' - it was all very 'trust me bro' that the victim went sailing through the air - propelled via his elbow - bounced off the curb to his final resting place ...
We lost the chance to understand how this might actually have happened
MOO
If my friend would tell me, “I don’t understand what’s happening with my health. I’ve ruled out this and that, consulted such-and-such specialist, and nothing can explain it,” I’d say, “why don’t you see a medical geneticist.”
I have a faint feeling that something similar is needed here, specifically with these traumas. Perhaps all the case needs is a specialist who’d look at it from another angle. Another approach would be to send JO’s medical history to a thousand specialists in blunt force traumas and ask, what scenario seems to be the most rational to you? I am sure it is all explainable, only we are standing too close to the case and hence, are missing something.