I think it's easier to just hear a few facts and make up one's mind the person is innocent and then stick to that opinion. Then every bit of additional circumstances learned as the case progresses, to keep looking at it and STILL think the suspect is innocent. When you delve deeper into the cases and even watch the trial as close as is possible, meaning televised in real time or reading transcripts, one can change their mind to guilty. It's when someone depends on the media for interpretation of facts being presented and haven't really heard ALL the evidence, many still maintain the def's innocense. But then again, like others have said, many people just don't consider circumstantial evidence proof enough for them to come to a conclusion of guilt. This is where dna and such, has become a boost to crime fighting, but when there's no dna {proof}, people take that as a sign the def wasn't there. This fact is even more difficult when the perp lives at the crime scene and one CAN infer all dna proof is bogus. Some even go so far as to deny that even {proof} of the def's dna mingled with the victim's blood is still not proof, because you'd expect the def's dna to be at the scene anyway.
I believe part of the problem is, some people just don't understand the laws completely on how a juror is to consider 'circumstantial' evidence. Almost everything that is presented is actually 'circumstantial.' All except eye witness and, I believe, confessions of guilt. Everything else is just that a series of 'circumstances,' when added up together, bring one to the conclusion that they complete a puzzle that points towards the only reason the circumstances are there, they point to the guilt of the def.
I admit the other recent trial held in this very courtroom, the 'evidence' was very thin. But then there were those darn 'hooks.' Meaning, the only explanation that item of circumstances is there, the def is guilty. IF one has their 'hook,' then every other 'circumstance' that was previously, possibly dismissed in one's mind, all falls into the category of 'guilty.' But to change one's mind that had already been made up, takes a lot of thought and concentration. Maybe some people haven't really put that much thought into it, and stubbornly stick to their original opinion and just avoid the facts.
As long as there's a possibility of opposing opinions, people will differ. I don't always understand or agree with those who think a def is still innocent after a jury of their peers had reached a guilty verdict, but that's their perogative. I don't argue with them because they don't agree with me. I don't mind debating the facts as I see it and listening to their's, but it gets to a point that I just leave it at that.
I will say though, it is very frustrating when you do think the def is innocent and is either found guilty or worked out a plea deal for whatever reason, and the case is closed and the def goes to jail. I've followed a few cases here on Websleuths that either the person who I suspected was never charged or a plea deal was made and the person I thought was competely INNOCENT is held responsible for the crime. One case in particular kept me up at night because to this day, I feel a terrible injustice has been done and there is still a killer on the loose in a small town. I still feel a lot of emotion about that particular case just typing these words about it.
I believe JY is guilty as charged and I've never wavered on that. Within a day of MY's murder, everything I learned about this case points towards JY and NO ONE else! When he showed up at the crimes scene and had already lawyered up and refused to even go through the house with LE, I knew he did it. But because you, as a juror cannot hold that against him, that would have to be discarded in a court of law. But it just went downhill from there, IMHO. Refusing to even talk to friends and family about it, not asking 'what happened' and not contacting LE to find out the status of his wife's murder investigation, is completely unnatural and IMHO. I feel it's because he was scared to death that he was going to get caught and hadn't completely perfected his story. Like the DA said yesterday, it took him 1693 days to tell his side, as he waited until all the 'evidence' was presented to THINK UP and come up with AN EXCUSE for each circumstance that could and was used against him.
Like the pros said yesterday, ......... too little too late....... and I am not buyin' it!
JMHO
fran
