I fundamentally believe that the jurors followed their sworn duties, despite the difficulties in doing so. It is human nature to assume that the prosecution would only bring a case to trial if they believed that the person was guilty, and it is extraordinarily difficult for jurors to overcome this bias, yet they do it. It is the prosecution (and LE) that should be more focused on determining the actual killers versus ensuring that someone gets blamed for the crime. The MO for LE seems to be to create a hypothesis for the crime and then see if they can make the evidence fit the hypothesis. What they should be doing is following the evidence and letting that lead them to the killer. In both the Young and Cooper cases, LE basically discounted (and thus did not investigate) evidence that did not fit with their hypothesis that the husband did it.
When solving a murder by putting an innocent person in jail is superior to an unsolved murder, then our justice system has some problems.
bbm. I can't speak to Cooper, and have no opinion about that case, as I did not follow it. I did follow Michelle Young's murder from the day it happened.
Please back up your statement that LE 'discounted and thus did not investigate evidence.' Like what? Do you have insight and were you privy to what LE investigated and what they did not? Please share facts.
Regarding justicefever's "character assassination" comments, e.g., about JY and BC both 'being jerks at times' etc., thus being the default suspects, do you really believe the husband's behavior is irrelevant? Do you not understand or agree that circumstances make up pieces of an entire situation? Are you suggesting that circumstances be omitted from consideration, and only direct evidence be considered?
I had no preconceived notions about a suspect when Michelle was murdered. For the longest time, there was absolutely no information released. Supposedly, "the husband was out of town" although that was never substantiated or solidly confirmed by official sources prior to the trial as far as I knew.
Then, the pieces came out: JY (conveniently) was out of town, but
not very far away; his "hey Meredith, go pick up that expired auction printout from a Coach purse eBay sale at the house in the middle of the day" request; JY's refuseal to ever inquire about his wife's death or speak with any member of law enforcement; JY's first and only priority was to immediately hire attorney Roger Smith to CHA rather than to assist investigators; affairs with Michele Money et al; etc., etc., etc. (watch the trial for the hundreds of etc's), I could not come to any other conclusion.
I have no doubts that he did this. Whether someone conducted some tasks related to the murder afterward, I don't know and my mind is open. It's possible LE suspects another's involvement but cannot prove it (or gave someone else 'consideration' for testifying). I personally do not think anyone except JY committed the murder itself. But I do wonder where 2 specific individuals were that night and the next day (and I'm NOT referring to any members of MY's family).
I am grateful for NC's jury instructions about circumstantial evidence. Not all states use it, e.g., FL in some recent trials. Circumstantial evidence requires more "hard thinking," IMO, because you gave to assemble the totality of the situation piece by piece. It's not as easy as being handed a smoking gun. I wish more definition could be elaborated upon in regard to "reasonable doubt" to help jurors understand the concept. Any old "Joe" can let himself off the hook from making an unpleasant decision by hanging his hat on a red herring.