At the beginning of the JY murder trial, I asked anyone who wanted to participate, to make a 'list' of why or not, they felt JY was guilty. I also talked about a well known attorney who was posting on a forum when I first came to Websleuths and he talked about the 'hook' for each jurist. That would be the one thing in ALL of the evidence, that convinced them, 'Yes! The defendant is guilty.' Meaning, that's the ONE item of evidence that convinced them there was no other explanation except they're guilty, that's it and everything else fell into place, or the puzzle was complete. Let me just state here and now, I haven't always thought the husband was guilty. I came into this like everyone else, not knowing. Of course there was the usual suspect, but you can't have tunnel vision in these things. IMHO, that's why there are things in the pros case presented, that did not point towards Jason. But that's just it, they looked at all roads available to them, and everything kept leading them back to the husband. Anyway, this case has progressed so long, that I can't pinpoint the moment that I felt Jason was guilty. At first, I thought there COULD be someone else and he was out of town. But it may have been when they released the surveillance video and the information about the rock. But I have to tell you, I have such a long list of 'guilty' items, to me it's not JUST one thing, it's the totality of the evidence. So because my list is so long, I couldn't have one thing so I'll list them all. I may have missed something, or to me it didn't mean anything or I just didn't feel it was that important and is just subertfuge to the real issue, is this guy guilty of murdering his dear wife Michelle and unborn son Rylan? My answer is a resounding yes! In a few minutes I'll list the items on my list, but it'll take me a few minutes, because it's so many. Oh, and I have some things not even listed, that I KNOW, , but also know because of stuff that hasn't been presented to the jury, or it required research and we know that's a :nono: for the jury to do, research. I believe it was the Peterson case a jurist was released during deliberations because she looked an aspect up on the internet during weekend recess and she was promptly replaced. Boy, this jury has a HUGE job. Hope one way or the other, they get it right! JMHO fran PS....oh, and it's ok if you want to post your 'hook' on why you believe he's innocent. I'm not a lawyer and don't know if in their world they consider a 'hook' for innocent, but it would make sense. All opinions are welcome, but this is more for those who feel he's guilty, so if you feel uncomfortable on this thread, it's not mandatory you participate here. There is an innocent thread and I'm sure many members of Websleuths and the guest observers, there COULD be more who feel he's innocent than not. It's just our opinion is just for the pages here and we have no input into the jury's minds so they're on their own.