Peteygirl, it just doesn't seem to matter how many ways or times you try to explain what you saw or heard, the jury in this case will get the free pass even though they were dead wrong in our opinion.
It's like being a medical examiner . . . the person is dead (the verdict is out), but the cause of death is the issue now. I can see the "autopsy" being valuable to individuals or groups seeking change to improve the functions of juries in the future. It's not just that the verdict (NG on all counts) was "wrong", it's how the jurists got there that led to the wrong verdict. Even if the verdict were Guilty, if they got there via misunderstanding/misapplication of the jury instructions, it would still be wrong.
This was a total miscarriage of justice no matter which way you cut it. I've heard a thousand times already, "if there were more charges against her, we would have found her guilty of something". That's BS in my book.
It's BS because what other charges
were there? It sounded to me like a deflection of responsibility. Again, it was the prosecution's fault they were unable to reach a decent verdict. Pffffft.
Sure prosecutions can present bad cases. But THIS one did not.
They didn't know what they were doing, how to do it or what was fact from fiction. It's obvious to me that many that believe the verdict was correct don't actually argue it with fact, but rather offer another angle with a lot of "if's, and's or but's" to defend it. That's what the defense did and obviously it worked. Then, to boot, it was that same logic used by the jury. Personally, I don't buy it.
In all fairness to the jury, they had a JOB ahead of them, to separate fact from fiction in this case. Not to absolve them at all, they still had the responsibility to determine the difference. It troubles me that they did not, or could not. I wonder what lack causes this inability?
BBM: That is what I've seen, too. The pro-verdict folks merely continue the "if's" of the defense team, which were not backed up by any verified facts, ever. The jury should have known better, period.
The pro-verdict people are entitled to their opinion as we all are of course but when you argue the points with nothing to back it up with other than "if's, and's or but's", IMO, those are just cobwebs that need to be cleared out to see the logic that there just aren't that many questions in reality as to who did what in this case.
The last BBM bit is, to me, so important that it should be in giant font
In reality, every day reality that we all live in, there just aren't that many POSSIBILITIES that could have reasonably happened on Planet Earth.
It's not really true that "possibilities are limitless". All possibilities do not have the same weight. I've seen too much overly relative thinking here, as if all the possibilities have the same importance, and they just don't. We're talking about things that actually happened. Not a hypothetical.
A person can choose to think what they prefer to think, but to expect respect (for the thought, the person behind it should always be respected) is unrealistic.
Until a pro-verdict person is able to put forth an alternative accounting, that takes into account a reasonable amount of evidence or discovery from the available pool, my views are set. I've been wrong about lots of stuff, and gone back on conclusions aplenty. I respect any attempt to do so, as long as it isn't more quasi-defense team kerflunkling :fence:
