Wishbone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,940
- Reaction score
- 19,120
My question was about wondering if people do not regard experts in the same way they once did and how that may have impacted the jurors - 8 of them - who wanted to find Karen Read guilty. What any of us think really doesn't matter, since we were not deliberating and had no say. These experts are often the first thing people reference when stating that Karen is not just Not Guilty, but "factually innocent."
I'm wondering why they did not have the same impact on the jury.
I was honestly surprised that it was more than 3 of them voting guilty on any charge. This made me reconsider my own perception of the trial and how, even though I didn't consume that much anti-CW/Alberts/McCabes media, maybe what I did see still subconsciously played a part in how I viewed the evidence presented. The jurors, theoretically, would have a blanker slate than I did coming in and only were going by the evidence presented at trial.
Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone had an opinion or thoughts on the roles that experts play at trial, present day, given all that we know about "experts" in 2024.
Not sure what you mean about experts in2024 but I would have to say that I was impressed and firmly believe the experts that the FBI and DOJ sought out and paid for to give a completely unbiased opinion on this case. I have never seen an outside agency do this before and to me it speaks volumes.