borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 19,433
- Reaction score
- 51,488
I've been contemplating this case since the hung jury announcement came down. What can one say when they completely disagree with the jury verdict, whether yea or nay? It's our system and it's the best we can do.
I can't fault the jury if they honestly feel the pros didn't prove JY's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because we've watched the case since the get-go, this is how they feel after not knowing anything of Michelles murder except what the def/pros told them. To be honest, I'm glad that they showed the pros they did NOT prove guilt. Now the question is, "Where from here?"
I believe this pros and LE officers involved in the investigation believe that JY is guilty, no question. They MAY feel he had help, but they don't know who it could possibly be. That would be up to JY IF and when he's found guilty, to turn them in, IF it applies.
I think where the pros went wrong is they weren't ready for JY to testify and it's obvious by the timing of his testimony, it was strategicly planned by the def to NOT let the pros have time to cross JY on some important points,because they were unprepared for him to have a different version of the 'circumstances.' Like the lock, the twig, the gas, and I may have left out a few. But, if they retry him, this pros has the rare opportunity of a 'do/over!' They need to use it to their advantage!
Photo's, ie Justthefax did here, lock maintenance and testimony about other locks in the hotel, demonstration how someone could have tampered with the video camera undetected, questioning Gracie about the difference in the height, the contents of his suitcase, he may have miscalculated IF he put gas in the car from the garage BEFORE he left town AFTER the murder, and wasn't there originally a different hotel reservation? I could be mistaken, (I've just seen that since the end of the trial and never before brought up).....even an expert or two on how people react when told their loved one is dead and most specifically murdered. (it's never been stated, IMO I could be wrong, he even KNEW how Michelle died.)
In other words, there are so many ways they can improve their game and maybe even a different prosecutor. But the thought of this guy getting away with this is unthinkable to me. Maybe because I've already decided he's guilty and they just didn't present the evidence properly or thoroughly to show it HAD to be him and there's NO OTHER possibility except he's guilty! (ALLEGEDLY)
I haven't felt this strongly about any other guy I've seen getting away with their crime since the Natalee Holloway case. Just like that one, I said if 'he gets away with this, he'll be back in the news again!' I think we know how that one turned out! Another poor girl lost her life too!
Bet JY's on top of the world right now. Thinking he's going to be set free! :behindbar:
JMHO
fran
PS...oh, and I agree about the 911 call! They need to work on that, for sure. I know when this case first began, that's why so many of us here at Websleuths KNEW JY did it! C was just barely a toddler yet she spoke those words. Babies and toddlers do NOT know how to lie. It was an 'excited utterance,' that provided a window to solving this crime. imo, fran
BBM
All this CE -- and we all know how hard it is to get a jury to understand that you shouldn't (IMO) look at one piece and think, "This isn't enuff." And then look at another piece,and say, "Big deal, not enuff." Repeat, repeat, repeat. "Where's the guy who saw it?" and "Where's the guy to whom he bragged about it?" "This circumstantial stuff ain't diddly," and so forth. The pros needs to construct a better chain of evidence, complete with "the story." But there is indeed on more powerful piece of evidence, as you say, Fran -- and CY does indeed say it twice. Arrrrgggh.
Well, all-righty, then, we've got an eyewitness, and her name is CY."
She was the only survivor besides JY, and he ain't talkin'. Give 'em CY.