<modsnip>
I do understand the feeling that if we can't actually PROVE who did it, then we'd better convict the best suspect we have. "Somebody did it, so lets hang these guys for lack of a better idea" is certainly not how justice works, and that's not what the jury swore to do, but it sure would be hard not to go there. I would not be any different, if it was me in that jury.
If you think you see a diff between women and men on how they have responded to this case, maybe it's women responding to the emotional side of the case - the need for someone to pay even if evidence is insufficient because it's just so sad, and ZA not being a likeable guy anyhow so who cares. Men and women are different, and respond differently sometimes. But I haven't noticed any particular pattern myself, just people seeing things as they see it..
But ultimately, there is a huge difference between suspicion and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I simply don't think actual PROOF was ever provided. Lots of good suspicion, though.
The state's whole case revolves around the honesty of JA speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I just don't see his story as meeting that standard. There were lots of issues with the content that make me doubtful, such as
- the side jabs he inserted, for example, that aren't really believable yet used to try to paint the others in a light the jury might not like,
- the way he excused himself from partaking in any of the actual acts, which if he is to be believed in general simply isn't believable,
- some contradictions with proven facts,
- lack of physical evidence in places where it made no sense to be lacking (if he's telling the truth), and
- the fact he was a bought-and-paid-for witness, there with the admitted goal of saying whatever it would take to try to make the state happy.
I end up with the conclusion that his testimony was a collage of convenience, ie a mixture of fiction and fact (which could be explained by him knowing the other testimony to come) tailored to fit the case. And to me, given his motivation and his claims, it's either all or nothing, since the most deceptive lies are built on half truths.
I also go back to the basic core piece of the case, when looking for who did it, and man I end up with huge question marks lit up like a neon sign there as well. From actual eyewitness testimony, someone besides one of the 4 physically must have taken HB away that day, because not a single one fit. The state didn't even try to explain that, when accusing the 4. So how do we go from there to saying these 4 did it? Even JA had no explanation, but instead his story simply has HB magically in the possession of the others when he innocently wandered by, supposedly. Goodness.
and because he did the Bobo family had to endure years of injustice when these suspects should have been honed in on right away, and their whereabouts and alibis picked over as closely as vultures do over a road kill.
