|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Feb 25, 2020 2:46:31 GMT
If it was an unfair trial, the jury would had let every accusation stick and clearly not all of them did. His luck just ran out. Good riddance. you make a good point and i see the validity of this argument BUT I think that people might not even realize how much they are influanced. And I am not saying it was unfair in a way that they planted evidence or proceeded without respecting the law, but that the highly publicized details got to their heads and shaped or at least Helped shape their opinion before they were even in the court room. so then when the jurors are asked if they Believe something how likely are you to believe a testimony if u alrradu believe the accused did it (is a major creep), walking into the court room? and as defense u can only take out so many jurors and u usually want to take out the extreme ones/crazies first. so by the time u want to take out the biased ones u have no more taking out left.. Excuse my frankness, but you clearly neither saw nor read any of the coverage. It's really an insulting assertion you've made throughout this thread, especially considering the jury's actions once deliberations began. If what they did doesn't prove to you how fair they were, then you're the one with an irrational and unfair bias in favor of a fairly convicted predator.
|
|