Ontario Mom
stay safe ♥ be kind
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,702
- Reaction score
- 136,737
I am of the mind that many on WS have actually over-thought the whole thing.....the jurors have the advantage of not having a head full of non-essentials. To think that they are at a disadvantage is to believe that the Crown's case is inadequate....and they might have something to say about that along with a whole lot more information to back their story up.
Occam's Razor came up in conversation recently and in applying it, it seems to me that the mass of information WSers have put together is overly complex---furthermore, I don't believe WSers have come to or even could come to agreement on a single, believable and probable scenario. [That is not to diminish the thought and effort that everyone has poured into this site since 2013---the sleuthing, the debating etc have been compelling since the beginning]
The jurors on the other hand have been listening to a single cohesive and sequential presentation that is rich with expert testimony in many areas, in addition to some powerful visuals......They are not listening to a mass of conflicting opinions and suppositions. There are some days following here online when I longed to be a juror and have only one well supported story in my head...it would have been a whole lot easier. And yes, I am trusting the Crown's case to this point and trust furthermore that the investigative branch has spent over 2+ years making sure they got this as right as is humanly possible IMO....
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my post. I don't think the jury is at a disadvantage at all, nor do I think the Crown has (so far) been inadequate at presenting it's case. Simply, the jurors and WS's see the case and the evidence from two different vantage points. I didn't mean to imply that was a bad thing, as far as the Crown's case is concerned.