Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,295
So if I understand it right, they reached a verdict without him. Him not wanting to face trial, probably was one of the factors that swayed the jury's opinion. If he really is innocent, he should have fought his case.
I can't say whether I think he's guilty or innocent but what gets me is, people always seem to say, "the jury arrived at that decision, so there MUST be more that we don't know"... I used to think that way until I did jury duty myself a few years back, it changed my perception of the process and even how much actual evidence is needed for things to go to trial sometimes. It's sometimes all personal accounts of events for example, basically asking the jury "which story do you believe?". It sometimes really does come down to gut feeling, when evidence is thin on the ground.
Also, isn't it true that in cases like this, after a verdict is given, there's no longer a need to hold back the details of a case? Unless it was requested but the press would usually say for instance, if her farther had asked for certain details not to be released. I can't think of a logical reason, that they would need to hold back the key pieces for this case.
I'm not to sure what I think of his innocence or guilt and I can't see how anyone else is claiming they are, unless I've missed something but he has kind of fucked himself before it even went to trial either way, so maybe there's a lesson to be learned for all in there.
I can't say whether I think he's guilty or innocent but what gets me is, people always seem to say, "the jury arrived at that decision, so there MUST be more that we don't know"... I used to think that way until I did jury duty myself a few years back, it changed my perception of the process and even how much actual evidence is needed for things to go to trial sometimes. It's sometimes all personal accounts of events for example, basically asking the jury "which story do you believe?". It sometimes really does come down to gut feeling, when evidence is thin on the ground.
Also, isn't it true that in cases like this, after a verdict is given, there's no longer a need to hold back the details of a case? Unless it was requested but the press would usually say for instance, if her farther had asked for certain details not to be released. I can't think of a logical reason, that they would need to hold back the key pieces for this case.
I'm not to sure what I think of his innocence or guilt and I can't see how anyone else is claiming they are, unless I've missed something but he has kind of fucked himself before it even went to trial either way, so maybe there's a lesson to be learned for all in there.
Last edited: