Well. I don’t think “many people” believed in CW’s innocence. You’ll have to point them out because on here, everyone is quick to say “I know CW was guilty from the jump”. They’ve said it in this thread (well, the one that just closed).
Back to Mary Winkler - you say “Deep South border state” like it explains that sentence. It doesn’t. Alabama is very male-dominated. You had a man - a pastor - who was shot in the back. And the wife left him where he lay - alive - and took her kids on a beach trip. If the gun accidentally went off, you call 911. You don’t go on a trip. The defense said that he made her wear high heels and a wig sometimes; when they displayed those items, the jury actually GASPED. Really? I’ll never understand that verdict or why voluntary manslaughter was even an option.
Voluntary manslaughter is a viable lesser included charge of homicide. The law allows the jury to find a defendant guilty of a lesser included charge of first degree murder when they find that the elements of the lesser included crime have been proven but not all the additional elements of first degree murder. Like premeditation.
The jury apparently felt the state didn't prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. So voluntary manslaughter was an alternative they felt they could go with.
It carried a sentencing range of 3-15 years. Your statement that the jury gasped when presented with a wig and high heels proves my point. Like I essentially said, they were horrified by the thought of anything other than Puritan sex and found her actions mitigated as a result and gave her the least time possible. Pretty shocking.
(It was Tennessee by the way. Not Alabama).
Regardless, it's not comparable to this case. As I have detailed previously.
As to the CW case, no. I'm not going to have to point out what posters. Believe what you want. The threads are still there. It was a significant minority and the threads are full of almost nothing but our debates. IMO some people hated the victim, thus they bent over backward to ignore logic in order to find a way CW could be innocent.
But we are getting far afield. The original issue was your post criticizing people for having the opinion that this guy is likely guilty.
I think some who are critical of that opinion simply have a grave distrust of the authorities for various reasons.
Regardless, it's early on. It's reasonable to be unconvinced of his guilt at this stage.
But it's also quite reasonable to be of the opinion that the CBI and FBI and the DA got it right.
And it is unreasonable, IMO, under the circumstances, to chastise people for arriving at that opinion, as wanting to railroad an innocent man and declare him guilty until proven innocent.
That's just not what any of this is about. Most of us respect our constitutional protections and the safeguards against tyranny that those protections afford.