justwannahelp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2,731
- Reaction score
- 3,871
Actually, I am glad to see this. I want justice for Holly, but don't see how any real justice would be possible without full discovery and then full opportunity for the accused to examine and answer whatever has been dug up. I want to see the guilty executed, not the "obvious suspects" being accused because of gossipy suspicions.
And in my experience, quantity of "evidence" does not equal quality, and in fact can hint at a weak case or fuzzy prosecution (because a case built on one smoking gun is much better for a jury, and perhaps more incriminating, than boxes of random facts of varying and disputable value). I'm hoping there's actually a smoking gun or three in this case, but the existence of so much - combined with the difficulties they have had every step of the way - raises lots of questions imo.
Let me be clear - I am not saying these defendants are innocent or only arrested because they seemed like the guys to accuse. From where we sit, we don't have enough to truly know. I'm only saying that I want the guilty (and no one but the guilty) - whether they be these, or others - to pay for this atrocity, and to pay to the max allowed by law.
Question- I'm no law student so don't laugh at me. But let's say hypothetically, there's a video in the possession of the prosecutor of Holly being assaulted by the 3 suspects. Furthermore, HYPOTHETICALLY, there was blood found in the cabin and her clothing found in the bucket near her remains on their property. Hypothetically, Their DNA was found on the bucket and her clothing. I doubt that's what they found on abd in the bucket, but this is hypothetical. So with all of that evidence, it's a slam dunk case for the prosecutor, right?
So if this were actually what the prosecutor had, would they even bother going through ALL 200,000 pages and would even bother deposing the 600 witnesses?
It seems like if you've got the smoking gun, then there's no need to bring the other info into the courtroom. Seems like if you give the jury TOO much they could become cloudy with information overload, so it's best to stick with the most incriminating evidence that speaks volumes rather than present EVERYTHING that they have.
But at the same time, it almost seems negligent to NOT go through every single one of those 200,000 pages and to not depose all 600 witnesses.
So I can't decide if this 2017 thing just means they are being dutiful and doing what they are supposed to do even though they have the smoking gun or if it means they don't have the smoking gun so are having to string all the "small" pieces of evidence together to make something convincing.