brownbread
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 418
I was really struggling myself to decide what my verdict would have been had I been on the jury, I was erring towards manslaughter, but on the morning the jury reached their verdict I had sudden clarity about it - I just didn't see how anyone could hold another person's throat like that and not be aware of the consequences of what they were doing.
Like others I perhaps felt I wasn't aware that you could strangle someone in as little as 15-20 seconds. Maybe VT wasn't aware either - but the fact was he was there, holding her throat, he could SEE what was happening, SEE her distress and he didn't stop.
Looking back at the judge's directions to the jury, his meaning now is as clear as day. Perhaps it was a risk not allowing the evidence about VT's interests in violent *advertiser censored*, and choking, but at the end of the day it wasn't really relevant: it didn't matter WHY he was holding her neck - the fact was he did it, and continued to do it when the consequences of doing so should have been clear.
Like others I perhaps felt I wasn't aware that you could strangle someone in as little as 15-20 seconds. Maybe VT wasn't aware either - but the fact was he was there, holding her throat, he could SEE what was happening, SEE her distress and he didn't stop.
Looking back at the judge's directions to the jury, his meaning now is as clear as day. Perhaps it was a risk not allowing the evidence about VT's interests in violent *advertiser censored*, and choking, but at the end of the day it wasn't really relevant: it didn't matter WHY he was holding her neck - the fact was he did it, and continued to do it when the consequences of doing so should have been clear.