BetsyB
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 849
- Reaction score
- 0
(Bold mine) I do get what you're saying. But I'm hoping that there are huge differences in the execution (no pun intended) of this trial than, say, the OJ Simpson trial, when the phrase "rush to judgment" took on a life of its own--with good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that OJ Simpson is as guilty as the day is long. But if I had been on that jury, I would not have convicted. The case was terribly sloppily handled and left reasonable doubt. I would have HATED being on that jury, because the law would require me to find him differently than what I knew to be true.I hope you are right. But please remember, you only need 1 juror who thinks the SA MAY be motivated by spite and not the evidence, to get a hung jury. One or two of those hung juries, and she probably walks.
I thought the OJ case was also sad, and the evidence quite compelling, but the jury acquitted. Spector got a hung jury, even though many women testified he'd used a gun with them before. And I could go on and on. I don't
think a conviction for Murder 1 is an open and shut case here, not even close, but that's jmo. That's not to say I don't think Casey is dangerous and most likely a child killer, as I think that is probably the case. But convincing 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt may not be as easy as many here assume, though I hope you are all right and I am wrong.
I am hoping beyond hope that things are sewn up more carefully in this case. I didn't miss your earlier point--I just disagree that the SA is appearing overzealous. I think they appear cautious---the better to create (a) a conviction, and (b) a conviction that sticks.
(I agree that open-and-shut is a dangerous assumption. Nothing is black and white in life, let alone in a courtroom!)