Does it matter? Even the jury said they don't believe she is innocent.
That's not how the presumption of innocence works. The facts must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an act was done and that the act meets a certain level of punishment. This must be done only with the information provided -- media comments, speculation and even cold hard facts that are not admitted are not applicable.
You can know someone did it but not be able to qualify it as past that threshold in which case, as a juror, you can't convict the person... hence why she was found not guilty, the verdict is never "innocent". Furthermore when a decision is made to try a case with limited outcomes [like capital murder only] it places a far higher burden on the jury and gives them less options. For a jury to decide on anything but the facts and the standard is precisely how people end up in jail for things they did not do... listening to your heart/ gut rather than the evidence is not how this system has ever worked, nor should it be.
Most importantly, it's time to stop fixating on one person and one case. When we sensationalize these trials it puts them under such a microscope that the whole process becomes a mess. What makes her murder so special to warrant a thread versus the dozens of other similar cases?
07-27-2011, 02:22 PM
Threaded Mode