No matter how hard the jurors try to ignore the current environment of Samantha, Smart, Jon Benet and Casey - I don't believe they can do it.
IMHO, the jury is liable to convict him because they couldn't individually live with the thought of a guilty child molester/murderer being set free by their own hand.
If like Avila, he were set free and indicted again for another instance - they would crush under their own guilt. I suspect the jurors are thinking this way underneath all attempts to be objective.
If he were innocent, the drilling of the prosecutor would be met with tearful pleas "I didn't do it." A lot of times, IMHO, that is what the jurors want to hear.
I agree with you that, in this case, if he were innocent, Westerfield should have taken the stand. No matter how hard the jurors try to ignore the current environment of Samantha, Smart, Jon Benet and Casey - I don't believe they can do it. IMHO, the jury is liable to convict him because they couldn't individually live with the thought of a guilty child molester/murderer being set free by their own hand. If like Avila, he were set free and indicted again for another instance - they would crush under their own guilt. I suspect the jurors are thinking this way underneath all attempts to be objective.
It would seem that you are correct. I don't know how they could completely dismiss the other cases from their minds. This is a case where I'm not going to feel good if he gets off, or if he gets convicetd. Either way I'm going to have some doubts.
If he were innocent, the drilling of the prosecutor would be met with tearful pleas "I didn't do it." A lot of times, IMHO, that is what the jurors want to hear.
I would agree with that. And I discount badgering by prosecuting attornies. I think jurors can see through that, especially if the defendant can act in ways they can identify with. And if they wind up thinking the PA is a jerk, it can swing the verdict.
71 posted on 8/9/02 8:59 AM Pacific by Alamo-Girl