less0305
The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m
If the prosecution were presenting the evidence that the victim went into the house was beaten up by other law enforcement officers, attacked by a dog, drug outside and left to die in the cold, all in the space of just a matter of minutes and then there was this huge cover up by other people in the home, other agencies responding to the scene in the form of EMS, fire department, other law enforcement agencies, I would have a hard time believing that story. It means I'd believe the defense in that case that here you have a vehicle with a broken tail light, a woman who was clearly obsessed with a man that was obviously not into her, was intoxicated and shouldn't have been driving to begin with. And if the defense posited this theory of an angry, inebriated girlfriend who drops him off and then does a 24 mph reverse, obsessively calls and texts him, and makes statements that she did hit him or may have hit him or thought she possibly hit him, but that girlfriend wasn't charged - and you had two sets of experts - one saying the exact opposite the other, then yes, I would have reasonable doubt and not find the group of friends, law enforcement officers, beat him and threw him out in a blizzard. So I would agree with the defense in that case.I really like to try and understand people’s thought processes and how different people listening to the same witnesses reach different conclusions. This is why thousands of dollars are spent on studying potential jurors. It could be upbringing, background, life experiences and a slew of other factors that work together to influence how a juror forms an opinion on a case.
Can I pick your mind?
You said you would be the holdout because you believe KR hit JOK with her vehicle and killed him. You also say the other possibilities do not ring true. Interestingly, you said that if the prosecution presented the alternative, it would give you reasonable doubt.
Does this mean you would always believe a prosecutor over a defense attorney?
Besides thinking the alternative defense did not ring true, what evidence leads you to conclude KR is guilty?
If neither the vehicle nor JOK’s body showed any signs that he was killed in this manner, what prompts you to disregard that evidence?
Do you disregard an eminently qualified witness because he testified for the defense instead of the prosecution?
Please do not think I am trying to pounce on your opinion. I am genuinely interested in your thought process.
I don't think KR is guilty of second degree murder. I don't believe she had the intention to kill him. I do believe she was too drunk to be driving, was not thinking or being responsible and accidentally hit him and drove off. He died. Accident, yes, but still negligent.
Experts - I don't ALWAYS trust the experts, no matter who they are. I mean, you know, there's the whole money thing about that. And you can call me skeptical. But one thing I do know... with enough money you can buy anything.
Anyway, I won't change anyone else's mind, just like my mind is made up and that's where we stand.