I highly wonder if we have yet another CSI affect going on here...a person who does not know what circumstantial evidence is and what the difference between that and direct evidence. Too many lay ppl do not know this and yet we expect them to serve on juries.
you've gotta be kidding. there is clearly a second man involved, and as the cops in Raleigh/Durham always say, "it's gotta be a man close to the victim". even if we ignore the biological evidence on the scene that wasn't linked to the defendant, there's the huge red flag of her carrying on a secret affair with her ex behind raven's back that he didn't know about until last week.
the fact that the prosecution didn't bother to do damage control on that, for me, is enough for reasonable doubt right there.
you ladies might feel okay sending someone to jair for life off that weak evidence, but let's get real -- they had EIGHT YEARS to come up with a case, and all they had was a really flimsy set of circumstances and random forensics thrown in that pointed to NO ONE. AFTER 8 YEARS OF INVESTIGATING!!!
I know I catch a lot of crap here, but these are real lives we are talking about. I have NO problem convicting people when there is evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And, to the people who think I'm some sort of sadist who loves seeing women die and their killers get away with it.... I have experience that not many here have:
I was on DP jury that sent a man to death here in NC back around 2000. I'm certainly not ignorant about court and how the proceedings work. I did learn one thing from that trial,. though. I always thought it would be simple to convict a for sure murderer, and it is.... But, I never realized how hard it is on a lay person like me to put someone to death, no matter how much they beat the hell out of the poor woman, no matter how gruesome the pictures are.
I've done my time on juries before, and I'm certainly not the type to vote not guilty without a video tape of the crime and solid DNA evidence and a confession. However, I refuse to be belittled just because I'd acquit someone just because his wire got killed and he happened to be broke at the time and a parade of her friends said he was a *advertiser censored*.
Anyways, I take cases like this personally cause it's guys my age living in my area. It is very important to note, however, that if during the retrial, they produce good evidence and show that this other bf had an alibi, i'd feel much better with a conviction.
If they prove it, and he gets convicted, i'll be the first to cheer at his life behind bars. Something just feels really odd about this, and I hate to see everyone acting like the holdout is some kind of monster. He's probably the most human of all. He/she couldn't put the man away for life because the state left doubts. Now the state gets to try again, minus the element of surprise from the evidence they kid about the ex
Either way, it will be a good retrial... and if he is convicted, I will be right there with the rest of you. accepting the verdict that the jury handed down and wishing Raven the best in NC's finest penal institutions for the rest of his life