In regard to the alleged eyewitness to Brothers’s presence, I did not even hear him mentioned on the program. However, I read elsewhere that he lacked credibility both because of the drinking and the length of time he had waited to come forward.
In regard to the insect evidence on the car’s grill, the defense countered by asking the insect expert if it were possible for such bugs to be found in the East by having been inadvertently transported by vehicles such as trucks. She acknowledged that possibility.
In regard to the accident, I was most confused on this point. The (very minor) accident Brothers referred to by way of an alibi did occur, which the prosecution did not deny. Brothers said that a boy on a bike suddenly approached his car. Brothers said he had been able to come to a full stop but the boy continued on and hit him, not visa versa.
The program stated that it was thought that the final nail in Brothers’s coffin had been when the prosecution produced a man who said it was he and not Brothers who had been involved in that accident. I didn’t hear what the explanation was as to how Brothers had even known about the accident to use as a bogus alibi. As I said, I was very confused by this aspect of the testimony. Perhaps I hadn’t been paying attention closely enough.
The greatest area of doubt in my mind was the defense’s assertion that in order for Brothers to have driven back and forth across country in the time span necessary for him to have committed the crimes he would have had to have averaged seventy miles per hour. When one factors in the need for stops, at least to get gas, and possible traffic jams at spots, it seems incredible, exactly as the defense claimed. The television presentation didn’t, or at least that I heard, say what the prosecution’s rebuttal was to this. That is, did they argue it was possible to average seventy miles per hour? Or did they argue that the seventy miles per hour average requirement alleged by the defense’s experts was exaggerated?
These unanswered questions in my mind is why I posted my note. I admit that Brothers seems the only likely suspect.
I’ve never been picked for a jury, but I imagine it can be a tough position at certain times. According to our law, a juror is bound to acquit if there is reasonable doubt even if he or she feels that the defendant is indeed guilty but that the prosecution has simply failed to prove its case. Who wants to let a murderer, let alone a mass murder as in this case, walk?
But there is a reason why we have this standard for conviction. It just might save an innocent man or woman from being convicted. As it has been said: “Better ten guilty people go free than one innocent person be condemned.”
This case was admittedly tough.
