>>>>>And it's a death penalty case and you consistantly whine about death penalty and how maybe there will be some chance of a doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is your fault.
>>>>>
>>>>>I will say the case did not appear to have been proven absolutely, but it's close enough for me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And that is why I hope you're never on a jury. Don't get me wrong, I think she's guilty as hell, but the prosecution didn't have a damn thing. The jury did their job.
>>>
>>>What? We are in agreement? The jury sat through the entier trial and heard everything both sides had to say. Apparently, the evidence wasn't strong enough to cause them to believe she committed the murder. Now, had they charged her with being a low life, trailer trash, piece of crap....
>>
>>That's the PC version of what her attorney called her - "a lying slut" IIRC..
>
>I didn't see that quote. I saw a quote of him saying she lied from day one.
>
>The lead defense attorney is the one person who came through this smelling like a rose. He is suddenly a celebrity lawyer who will have business rolling his way for a long time. If he really called his own client a slut, that is beyond stupid.

Hi Mike,

He did not say that. What he did was, in the closing, say that the prosecution had tried to convince the jury that she was a slut in the hopes that the jury would hate her and convict on that rather than the facts. IOW, being a lying slut did not make her a murderer.

Turns out the defense strategy worked. Pundits are saying it worked because juries now a days expect a CSI type investigation that leaves absolutely no doubt rather than teh legal "beyond REASONABLE doubt"

Ken