When someone gets arrested for a crime like this, I think the natural tendency is to believe LE must have absolute proof the accused did it...........so most people have absolute certainty of guilt at that point in time.
Exhibit 1............the public outrage and condemnation of MR as soon as he was arrested.
Lots of rumors etc start swirling and that affects my opinion, but we have to presume the jury heard none of it..........so we can still enter the trial from a position of absolute guilt.
The trial starts.........and TLM takes the stand. I listen to her background, and Derstine shedding light on issues of credibility.
I listen to the Crown experts.........lots of evidence presented.........but Derstine manages to get them to admit they have no conclusive proof of a sexual assault........
By now, my belief in absolute guiilt is starting to erode. It now sits at the point where I am "sure" MR is guilty.
I listen to the cellphone records.........and understand MR was there and it corroborates that part of TLM's testimony. I remain "sure" of his guilt..........since the defense doesn't argue the evidence to any great extent.
I watch the video.....but all they show of MR is going to use ATMs. The rest is about TLM during the abduction and the HD store.
Still...........I am "sure" of his guilt.
When I start to consider the evidence, I realize that much of the Crown scientific evidence was non conclusive. The pea coat, the sexual assault, the phone records,..............all non conclusive. There are reasons there is no evidence and why no evidence would be expected..........but that doesn't mean the evidence was ever there to start with.
No proof is no proof.
Then there is the blood spot..........I am now solidly "sure" MR is guilty, but then I learn there is MR sperm all over the back of the front seats.........back to only "sure" he is guilty on the meter.
Then the defense puts a witness up who says she saw TLM entering the school................Huh?............that is a direct contradiction on two different things that TLM stated on the witness stand.
She said she was outside beside a tree....waiting for the first child to come by, and she said she wasn't walking in a hurry with obedient VS following behind.
The witness testimony says that TLM isn't telling the truth on either of those things. If TLM lied about who committed the murder, and where she met VS, and how she walked away with VS down the sidewalk.........what else is she lying about?
Now my guilt meter has fallen below "sure" and is somewhere around "most likely" guilty.
At this point............that would fall below the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold.
The defense and Crown still have their key summaries to give.
If either falters.........it would move the guilt meter either way.
JMO.........