Letters to the Editor
-
Sorry, bud
You see, people are quick to judge, quick to convict, and quick to condemn. The letter-writers above see themselves as "concerned citizens," and ape that the sentence was perhaps harsh. They miss the one simple fact: there is no credible evidence which places Waters at the scene of the crime. There is considerable reasonable doubt as to her complicity and involvement.
You just don't understand do you?
I tried to explain in earlier letters from my own experiences as a juror. The main thing that a juror has to do is determine who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Two witnesses placed Waters at the scene. She testified in her own defence.
The jury believed the two witnesses and decided that Waters was lying. They had no doubt she was there, but were not all convinced on the more serious charges.
That is what juries do.
I was not in court to hear all the evidence and listen to the witnesses, the cross examnation, the recross, the final arguments, the rebuttals etc. Nor were you. The jurors were there, and they heard all the evidence and they decided she was lying.
You apparently can determine by remote operation that she was telling the truth. Good for you.