ktgirl
Verified College Instructor
- Joined
- May 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 297
I don't see how any jury could convict from the "evidence" put forth.
We are in the minority here, but I agree.
I don't see how any jury could convict from the "evidence" put forth.
All J Autry's testimony was corroborated. That's very significant.
I have never seen a weaker case than this put on by the state and I am shocked this even made it to trial. NOT GUILTY would be my verdict if I was a juror. The only way I see guilty coming in is if all 12 jurors are basing their judgement on pure emotion with no logic or reasoning behind it. I watched every single second of this trial, took notes, and even transcribed at times. Rewatched various testimonies. There are a ton of holes and contradictions. The timelines don't match up or correlate in driving times that the state is trying to allege. They didn't outline this for they jury because it wouldn't work. Just as their cell data was vanilla in it's presentation, as it doesn't work. Their theory continued to evolve through the trial. I have much to share in my observations but I have literally let my house go to wreck to watch the trial.
I will comment more later with
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.
All J Autry's testimony was corroborated. That's very significant.
UndiscoveredTruth from tweet said:Juror will work until 6pm tonight then judge will ask if they have a verdict. If not they'll be sent home for the night #hollybobo
How do I find where I can change the java script settings. Thanks xx.Another reason for not being able to see embedded tweets is due to having java script turned off.
How do I find where I can change the java script settings. Thanks xx.
How do I find where I can change the java script settings. Thanks xx.
Does some of the problem with this case revolve around the fact that these drug-addicted criminals just
do not think nor do they act like us normal people? They have very different attitudes and values to us.
Also many people are finding it difficult to treat the four criminals (who acted in concert or as a team), as all being criminally responsible for all the crimes committed. It simply does not matter which of the four did the abduction, the rape, or the murder. If one of them did, then all four are guilty. But some of you are still discussing that.
I was very impressed with the Prosecution's dramatic delivery of their closing arguments whereas I thought the Defence just raved on and I tuned out. She seemed to be trying too hard to convince the jury of reasonable doubt. The Judge looked bored too.
IMO too many people are getting bogged down with peripheral issues and are not looking at the big picture.
I don't know how anyone could still think that Britt was guilty.
They must not have been listening. HE WAS CLEARED.
if you still believe that Britt did it, then again you have not been listening.
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.