Community Chat

[TeezNu]

---

@The Bri21 wrote:

I don't know how the jury lives with themselves.  They set a murderer free 

---

Because the defense made it about race, even by implication, and the jury was looking for a reason to find him innocent.

[Bri21]

---

@KingstonsMom wrote:

---

@Bri21 wrote:

I don't know how the jury lives with themselves.  They set a murderer free 

---

@Bri21

I agree and feel the same about the jurors in Casey Anthony's trial.

I hope they see little Caylee's face, every time they close their eyes.

---

I do agree @KingstonsMom 

Caylee looked like my oldest daughter when she was little.   I had a very hard time seeing her sweet face on TV.  It made me so mad that someone could harm that beautiful child.   

[Jordan2]

Well, a jury of his "peers" found him innocent, I never bought it. After watching just about every show on the JonBenet Ramsey murder and not coming to any concrete resolution, I'm not wasting my time on this. Oh yeah, karma is a you know what, he's not doing time for murder but is still sitting in prison! I wonder if he watched The People v. O.J. Simpson!?

[GSPgirl]

Spoiler

When he was not convicted I told my husband he will go to jail for something else because he feels he is above the law.  I hope he never gets out.  Evil man. 

[GSPgirl]

---

@Jordan2 wrote:

Well, a jury of his "peers" found him innocent, I never bought it. After watching just about every show on the JonBenet Ramsey murder and not coming to any concrete resolution, I'm not wasting my time on this. Oh yeah, karma is a you know what, he's not doing time for murder but is still sitting in prison! I wonder if he watched The People v. O.J. Simpson!?

---

Funny, because they were never his peers.  They got rid of everyone on that jury that had a brain. 

[Noel7]

Reviews over the years say the determining mistake was presenting the gloves and the fateful show of "If it fits you must convict"... they did not fit.

Every defense lawyer knows not to ask a question or present evidence you don't know about.

[nomless]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

Reviews over the years say the determining mistake was presenting the gloves and the fateful show of "If it fits you must convict"... they did not fit.

Every defense lawyer knows not to ask a question or present evidence you don't know about.

---

Close, but the line actually was "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit-279038019711

[pattypeep]

He isn't serving jail time for Nicole's murder. He's in there on other charges, so what does it matter if he is found innocent of the murders? Just wonderin'.

[VanSleepy]

---

@nomless wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

Reviews over the years say the determining mistake was presenting the gloves and the fateful show of "If it fits you must convict"... they did not fit.

Every defense lawyer knows not to ask a question or present evidence you don't know about.

---

Close, but the line actually was "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit-279038019711

---

Yes, and it was the prosecutor who had him try them on.

[Noel7]

---

@nomless wrote:

---

@Noel7 wrote:

Reviews over the years say the determining mistake was presenting the gloves and the fateful show of "If it fits you must convict"... they did not fit.

Every defense lawyer knows not to ask a question or present evidence you don't know about.

---

Close, but the line actually was "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit-279038019711

***************************

You are correct @nomless and thank you for the correct phrase.  I do know that, my mind was elsewhere.

I've read several reviews which said the reason the case was lost was because of the incompetency of the prosecution, not the jury.

---