There are none so blind as those who will not see
At least a couple of jurors have publicly spoken, explaining their "reasoning" in the acquittals, from which it's clear that they don't understand the
meaning of
reasonable doubt, the same ignorance which you have displayed here in supporting their decision. When those chosen as jurors seem incapable of understanding their responsibility
as jurors, yes, that indicates a flaw in the system.
In fact, the jury was presented strong evidence that this was a murder,
not an accident,
nothing was presented in evidence to indicate otherwise, and yet, according to the actual words of at least one of the jurors, she believed it was "more likely an accident." Based on what? Certainly not the evidence presented to them, which they apparently ignored. When a juror arrives at a conclusion which clearly
ignores the evidence, it's clear that her decision wasn't based
on the evidence at all. Instead, the jurors apparently chose to believe a mere
theory -- or perhaps a hypothesis -- with
no evidence to support it whatsoever -- as you apparently have as well. Nor, in fact, is an "accident" even
consistent with the sum of all the evidence presented, let alone the preposterous "theory" merely suggested (but never substantiated by anything) by the defense during opening arguments. Yet the jury (and apparently you) naively bought into the defense's obvious BS.
Would you actually try to argue that jurors
always arrive at the correct decision? If so, I hope you have something much more substantial to offer in support of this rather extravagant claim than the wholly unfounded statements you have made here thus far. Simply making blunt statements with nothing of substance offered to support them hardly constitutes a compelling argument. As such, in fact, it is
you who haven't offered any evidence or meaningful facts to support any of your charges here.
Otherwise, would you like to propose a theory more compelling than that offered by the defense -- that is, one which actually offers a plausible alternative explanation of the evidence presented in this case as anything
other than a murder committed by the defendant (or in which she was at least complicit, which makes her legally culpable either way, although the involvement of anyone else would seem highly doubtful)? In fact, no other even remotely plausible (or
reasonable) alternative explanation has as yet been offered by anyone which explains
all the available evidence. None. But perhaps you can succeed where others have failed. Abduction by extraterrestrials, perhaps? (And you aren't by chance the same person I got into
that debate with awhile back?)
