I also am trying to think like a juror. Reasonable doubt. That is all they need to not convict of murder but accidental homicide. He already plead guilty for improper disposal of a corpse. This asphyxiation sex is a thing. The bound sex is a thing. So if you are a juror with instructions that tell you reasonable doubt, could you conclude guilt. We all have been following for well over a year. I feel we are emotionally vested no matter how unbiased we may think we are. Imagine being a juror with only facts presented in court. The pictures are gruesome but i can see them outting that aside saying demented sex games. Maybe she did get paid for a video. On the other hand no drugs besides prescribed meds. Do you think we have enough based on the purchases before or could those be argued away for other household or business chores. The talk of killing could be role play games in their little witch club. For god sakes he said he was a vampire. Could they say all role play there. These types of questions are what concern me. Other trials where i thought for sure skam dunk, then you hear from a juror later make me a bit more concerned what jurors are thinking. And when there is a not natural death in a stragulation manner, it could be accidental because it does happen in the asphyxiation sex play.
