Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 41,304
- Reaction score
- 428,999
I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”
What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.
The message is another reason why I think the split was likely for the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter. Especially if you were in the camp believing that the defendant had already arrived at the victims home (and connected to his wifi) at the time JOK was allegedly killed.
I dunno. Did some think KR acted with negligence when she left JOK at 34 Fairmont Rd, Canton, MA? I think there could be a difference of opinion on whether KR should have waited for JOK to waive her off, rescue him from a rowdy crowd, or go to the door to learn he took a tumble before he ever reached the Albert's front door.
IMO, if I found myself on this panel, I think I'd be more inclined to believe that JOK's encounter heading from the street to the Albert's entrance was with Chloe who had been let outside versus with KR's SUV! As a large dog owner with many Alaskan winters behind me, I think I could feel very strongly about this. JMO