Artis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 25,331
Problem is there is so often at least one juror who will think this way. That's all it takes. They may hear so much of her involvement it's not such a big stretch to say she was the actual murderer. Every time we get a horrific murder being discussed here you can guarantee there will be at least one devil's advocate. They basically want the killer to get away with it.
Wouldn't it be ironic if he were found not guilty because of this perverse thinking ? Then he and she both walk...
I believe the prosecution has been very methodical in corroborating KK's version of events (as they should, that's their job) and the evidence has backed it up. Without being able to see the trial, it's difficult to tell if, while trying to present KK as a credible witness, they're also presenting her as a quasi sympathetic victim of PF. I hope not. I hope they convey that she was an enthusiastic participant and is a complete dirt bag but that PF is the bigger dirt bag because HE KILLED KELSEY. The jury has to know it's right to despise KK (and this maximum leniency plea deal, if they feel that way) while keeping their eye on the fact PF is the killer. I'm not in the Dan May fan club and I hate this deal but it doesn't cloud my judgment on the monster that PF is. I hope this damn deal doesn't screw things up because, I agree, it only takes one juror to have a bug up their


