Some thoughts as I'm coming around to the opinion that JB might be found guilty of murder 1 on both counts:
If this jury finds that TH did not shoot AH in the trailer as claimed by JB, it is a certainty that they will find that JB is the one who shot AH.
If this jury finds that JB is the one who shot AH, its a certainty that they will find JB guilty of the first degree murder of both AH (2 shots) and TH. I don't think anyone believes that AH - who was suppossed to be back for a 10:00 call was killed AFTER TH, who was dropped off at the trailer at 10:00...and there is absolutely no reasonable scenario where AH was deliberately shot by JB and TH was then shot twice by JB in self-defense.
Following this train of logic, for the jury to return murder 1 on both counts, the only question they really need to answer is "Did TH shoot AH?"
What evidence is there that TH handled the shotgun that morning? prints? DNA? none.
***yet JB's DNA was on the shotgun - the only DNA on the shotgun
What evidence is there that AH was shot in the trailer? blood? DNA? none.
***yet TH and JB DNA/blood found in the trailer
What evidence is there that TH 'surprised' JB and AH? none.
***in fact, JB expected 2 people (not incl AH) to be at his trailer at or around 10:00...TH and Buddy.
The above questions are only in regard to the issue of whther TH surprised JB and AH in the trailer and then shot AH (twice).
Aside from everything else the jury will sort out - and there isn't too much more, if they find beyond a reasonable doubt that TH was not the one who shot AH, the rest of their findings kind of fall into place do they not?
If this jury finds that TH did not shoot AH in the trailer as claimed by JB, it is a certainty that they will find that JB is the one who shot AH.
If this jury finds that JB is the one who shot AH, its a certainty that they will find JB guilty of the first degree murder of both AH (2 shots) and TH. I don't think anyone believes that AH - who was suppossed to be back for a 10:00 call was killed AFTER TH, who was dropped off at the trailer at 10:00...and there is absolutely no reasonable scenario where AH was deliberately shot by JB and TH was then shot twice by JB in self-defense.
Following this train of logic, for the jury to return murder 1 on both counts, the only question they really need to answer is "Did TH shoot AH?"
What evidence is there that TH handled the shotgun that morning? prints? DNA? none.
***yet JB's DNA was on the shotgun - the only DNA on the shotgun
What evidence is there that AH was shot in the trailer? blood? DNA? none.
***yet TH and JB DNA/blood found in the trailer
What evidence is there that TH 'surprised' JB and AH? none.
***in fact, JB expected 2 people (not incl AH) to be at his trailer at or around 10:00...TH and Buddy.
The above questions are only in regard to the issue of whther TH surprised JB and AH in the trailer and then shot AH (twice).
Aside from everything else the jury will sort out - and there isn't too much more, if they find beyond a reasonable doubt that TH was not the one who shot AH, the rest of their findings kind of fall into place do they not?