JudyBolton
In memory: My dear friend Martha Mickel, kidnapped
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 966
- Reaction score
- 1,043
The jury heard both sides, they certainly heard the defense allegations of something strange going on with evidence. Ultimately they are charged with determining what is the truth based on what's been presented to them. They're not required to believe either side, but they are required to listen to everything presented, both sides, and make their determination in deliberation with the other jurors. It's not a perfect system, but so far no one has come up with a better one.
Originally only 3 jurors voted guilty - remember? Then (according to the juror who is speaking out) they refused to deliberate. If you add that two were related to officials - they wouldn't deliberate - the other jurors felt intimidated - they had that very odd verdict - (which the one juror stated was a compromise and they thought it would allow him to appeal). When you consider ALL of these factors the jurors' verdict is not as iron clad as some want to believe.
Then when you begin to add in the other bizarre things that went on..... I think they need a new trial - a new judge and ***a new jurisdiction***