Letters to the Editor
-
To Amerigo
3) If you have heard everything and you still honestly don't know who is telling the truth, you vote 'not guilty'.
And that's the point. Regardless of whether she actually did it or not, if I was put into those shoes, from what I know now, I don't have enough evidence to state flat out she's guilty. Even if she did do it, the duty of a juror at that point is to say 'not guilty'.
Now did she or did she not do it? Who knows, and that's the problem. Now could there have been a real reason that the whole '65 miles away, 45 minutes before' thing could have been explained? Maybe. But it raises doubts, in my mind enough that I wouldn't say she was guilty.
Like someone pointed out, there's a problem if there is a real lingering doubt overhead, but jurors are pressured into a guilty verdict because 'it's what's wanted of them'.