@afitzy
Hussey is in the “reasonable doubt” camp in terms of whether the State has met its burden of proof. He thinks there is reasonable doubt with respect to:
1) MT’s role in the
5/24 driving madness because it’s consistent with the selling of 80 MS - the cleaning is reasonably innocent and because the house is over 11,000 sq ft - why should we assume she saw FD cleaning up a murder in another part of the house.
My thought is the jury will look at all the evidence. It gets harder to buy the innocent cleaning for an open house story when you look at all the evidence. The State doesn’t have to disprove MT’s cleaning story with video evidence of what she was really doing - they can prove it by impeaching MT’s credibility. She is the only source of the cleaning story, and she is a liar. Why should we the jury accept her story?
2) he thinks the “where there is smoke there is fire” logic isn’t strong enough to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt; he says often jurors believe the defendant committed the crime- but it’s not the same as the State proving it.
He is stirring the circumstantial evidence pot here - many murderers are convicted via circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not weak evidence.
Do not even get me started on this topic. But the smoke/fire not enough example falls very, very flat after the actual smoke we saw today. It is a reasonable inference that where there is smoke there is fire. In fact - can you have smoke without fire? It’s the exact analogy they use in some circumstantial jury instructions - you don’t need proof of the fact that it rained over night if you wake up to puddles. The rain is an inferred fact from the actual fact of the puddles. There is NO innocent explanation for 3 fires over Memorial Day Weekend on the same day Jennifer goes missing, and MT is put at the house during the fires, when she said she was eating lunch with FD. It’s just not rational. When that golden retriever or lab walked across the 1JC driveway during the THIRD fire - I thought “Oh thanks Bubba for activating the motion sensor to make sure the defendant was caught setting a fire and lying about it.”
3) He threw out the Plan B theory - PG is the real co-conspirator. MT was “just sitting in a red truck randomly/innocently. She didn’t pull the seats out. He wasn’t charged. She didn’t get an immunity deal.”
Weak IMO!
3) he did agree with the judge that there is enough evidence of a murder such that the ME testimony wouldn’t add much - but is happy to throw that bone in the mix because it only relates to FD.
Other
Weak Comments:
He hinted the State was motivated to go after MT because they were so invested with the case and FD’s suicide made it necessary for them to go after MT.
If she really knew anything, or something, so would have provided the information. She wouldn’t risk jail because she is a mom.
Said if he were D Counsel he’d be feeling great going into the weekend.
Okay…
