Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If all the jurors are at least fairly bright people with no big hangups, I think they will have a guilty verdict by noon on Tuesday. Since most of the evidence was driven home strongly by the Prosecutors, and argued very weakly by the defense, the jurors will not likely need to review very much of the evidence. Especially if at least a few of them had taken detailed notes during all of the key points throughout the trial. Worst case scenario, in my opinion: 1 or 2 jurors need to be patiently walked through the key points, or shown why certain claims by the defense don't hold any weight at all. In this case, I suppose it could drag on through Wednesday or even Thursday. I really can't imagine how it could go any longer than that.
Bad news??"Bad news! Bad news!"
Starting 17:30:
Dang you beat me to it. I was going to say let me guess, talking heads who watched little, if any of the trial, are voicing their opinions based on watching a clip that lasted a few seconds? Too funny.Bad news??
These attorneys have no idea what they're talking about. 3 DNA samples found in the graves "the defense needs to jump on that". Umm, the attorneys are done bozo.
<modsnip - rude>
Dang you beat me to it. I was going to say let me guess, talking heads who watched little, if any of the trial, are voicing their opinions based on watching a clip that lasted a few seconds? Too funny.
Bad news??
These attorneys have no idea what they're talking about. 3 DNA samples found in the graves "the defense needs to jump on that". Umm, the attorneys are done bozo.
<modsnip - rude>
Dang you beat me to it. I was going to say let me guess, talking heads who watched little, if any of the trial, are voicing their opinions based on watching a clip that lasted a few seconds? Too funny.
Defense attorney talking heads, voicing opinions after watching a tiny clip of the defense’s closing. What could be more unbiased?
Shall we discuss the DT's opening statement? Let's start with DK's ex girlfriend, Riccobone...Prosecution does backtracking...
Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"
^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14
When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
Prosecution does backtracking...
Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"
^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14
When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
There's no back peddling. He also said "We don't have the answers" to how it happened.Prosecution does backtracking...
Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"
^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14
When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
I’m having a hard time finding the correct way to express my concern about complicated expert testimony .I'm guessing a couple jurors will not comprehend circumstantial evidence as I've found in past deliberations. Hopefully they can be shown the way to logically and engage in rational discussions.
I think she’s great .I just watched the rest of the closing arguments and *I* think that she did an absolutely powerful job. Very impressive.
I’m having a hard time finding the correct way to express my concern about complicated expert testimony .
The results aren’t the complicated part , it’s the college course(s) given to the jurors with the expection they will be able to comprehend everything & use it in a way that adds to the “whole” of the evidence , rather than bogging them down on certain points they may, or may not , have truly understood.
I think the fact that the experts , themselves , understand the science behind the results , should be all that’s necessary for much (not all) of what is brought into current trials .
Jurors are suppossed to be made up of our “peers” , not would be experts. Keep it simple & straight foward as much as possible. JMHO
The poll suggested would be a complete guess as to how 12 people no one here knows will be thinking.Sigh.... There should be two polls... One to vote on guilt or innocence, and one to vote how you think the jury will find... guilt, acquit or hang.
They are different and not necessarily linked. I have seen some great cases in which the juries acquitted because they didn't understand evidence and interpreted testimony differently. It only takes one to not understand the charges, the evidence, the testimony or to misinterpret any of those things.
I think most people here have an incredible grasp of the case, and may even know it better than the prosecution and/or defense. Because of that, you have the context necessary to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I am not suggesting the jury doesn't understand this case, I'm merely saying I have seen cases proven beyond the standard, that resulted in acquital and hung jury's.
I hope that doesn't happen here. A retrial would be emotionally devastating for the family.
ETA when I say there should be, I mean I would like to see how the results from the two polls would differ, not that I actually think someone should have created two.
Prosecution does backtracking...
Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"
^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14
When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
I’m having a hard time finding the correct way to express my concern about complicated expert testimony .
The results aren’t the complicated part , it’s the college course(s) given to the jurors with the expection they will be able to comprehend everything & use it in a way that adds to the “whole” of the evidence , rather than bogging them down on certain points they may, or may not , have truly understood.
I think the fact that the experts , themselves , understand the science behind the results , should be all that’s necessary for much (not all) of what is brought into current trials .
Jurors are suppossed to be made up of our “peers” , not would be experts. Keep it simple & straight foward as much as possible. JMHO
I agree, and MR did an excellent closing arguments for the state, laying out precisely what the jurors need to focus on when they deliberate. I really can't see the jury should have too many problems in coming to a unanimous verdict because the evidence was presented in a very understandable and no nonsense way. IMO.I think she’s great .