I can tell you this is wrong. As court staff, I have done quite a number of serious felony cases involving up to and including death penalty cases, where members of the jury were crying when the verdict was read – even when there was *zero *doubt about the defendant’s guilt (overwhelming physical evidence, confession, specific knowledge of crime scene, etc.). Trials are much more emotionally fraught for jurors than most people realize unless they’ve actually been on a tough case like the one described by the OP.
Eve, I also am sorry for your frustration and anger over the verdict. I’ve seen jury trials go all kinds of haywire, though usually in the opposite direction. For that reason, I, too, would be very curious to learn what the jury’s reasoning was – especially with the DNA evidence and the bite mark. That said, you may never know, unless someone questioned the jurors after the trial (usually the trial attorneys) and the jurors were willing to share their reasoning. Usually they do, but not always.
I will tell you this: For sure, they had their reasons, and they were sufficiently persuaded (even if not correct) to make this call. Cold comfort, I know.
Why? There was a perfectly good explanation for his DNA to be found, if he had sex with her, so there’s no need for some powerful evidence that he was not guilty. A lack of evidence that he was would be enough.
This thread is 14 years old. Eve no longer participates on this message board. Many of the original thread participants are also likely no longer around to view or comment on your post.
This isn’t new information–it’s old information that he finally decided to share. There’s not one thing posted that wouldn’t have been available at the time of the trial (most, if not all, likely would’ve been disclosed as part of the trial).
Bumping a thread that old because you only just decided to comment on it is generally worthy of scorn in these parts–and for good reason.
Not to mention that there are a lot of things that aren’t against the rules but still aren’t the most intelligent things to do. Bumping a 14 year old thread and then telling commenters to stay out of it if they don’t know anyone involved is one of those things.
Every single thing mentioned would’ve been part of the defense with a competent attorney–and it likely was, hence the verdict.
There’s absolutely no reason to keep it under wraps just because there’s a related civil suit (which would’ve likely had the transcripts containing those facts introduced as evidence).
The reason people are advised against discussing on going cases is so they don’t accidentally let something slip that could be used against them. When everything that’s being shared has already been established in open court, that advice goes out the window.
Maybe he just found this thread today with a google search and wanted to add to it. That is the case with a huge number of zombie threads and sometimes, not always, we get some really good information that way.
“I open this because after 15 years …after his lawsuit was settled with the city it was time for the truth to come out”
And its never too late for the truth.
I don’t know if its the truth but we got one side of the story 15 years ago and several times since (I’ve seen that story recounted at least one other time in a thread), this might be the other side of the story.
Yes, and you won’t see me commenting on those threads unless, like this one, the poster tells people to stay out of it because they don’t know anyone involved.
There’s a difference between bumping a 14 year old thread and bumping a 14 year old thread & getting pissy when people call you on it.
If they had just said “I’m sorry, I just wanted to correct this record”, I would’ve had nothing to say to them. But when you come out swinging, hostility begets hostility.
As is said repeatedly, how one presents themselves has a great deal to do with how one is perceived.
It’s the same attitude that brought on the brouhaha over in this thread.
In which case, the answer to the posed question would be “He just found the thread”–the lawsuit & the reason he found the thread are irrelevant.
Saying that it took this long because of the lawsuit is, as I said, a load of bull.
The question that was asked is a valid one. The answer that hajario assumed was provided wasn’t.
I see your point, but at the same time when someone does stumble on a thread that way and decide to post in it, they are totally unaware of board etiquette here, or maybe anywhere, and often present their case in a ham-fisted way.
Sometimes it’s still accurate though. The only way we might know that is to ask him to tell us more.
Agreed. The original question – why did the jury find the defendant not guilty – was never really answered, and while we may never know if the accused “did it,” this new poster does seem to have some facts to answer the original question. Let’s hope he provides more detail, in a coherent and not-too-biased style.