As I have said, I was not questioning the integrity or motives of the jurors. You also left out part of my sentence you quoted, which is here in its entirety, "I am confident that if DW is innocent, the evidence proving it will eventually be discovered." DW was declared to be guilty by a jury. I was simply allowing for the possibility that the jury may have been wrong, not that it was wrong. Juries have been wrong before.
As a matter of the way things work in our democracy, DW is guilty. He has the right to appeal. But there's no need to speak in the subjunctive regarding his innocence.
A jury did find DW to be guilty, and there will certainly be an appeal. My use of the word 'if' was required in order for the remainder of the statement to make any sense. Certainly there is no need for the cops to look for further evidence to prove DW is guilty. The prosecution already convinced a jury of his guilt.
I respect jury verdicts. They get it right more often, I'd bet, then judges or even us Freepers. I bit my tongue even at the OJ verdict.
I agree completely. I would put my faith in a jury rather than a judge; but I am allowing for the possibility that this jury simply got it wrong. I am the last person that needs convincing. I do have stories about corrupt judges I've dealt with, some of whom will be going to federal prison in the not too distant future. Don't even get me started on the OJ case.
I figure: this is America, this is my system, I can work to improve it or I guess if I didn't like it change it by constitutional amendment, but I'm not going to set myself outside it as some ultimate judge of guilty or innocence. That would be presumptuous and indeed seditious of me. The jury decides.
Again, I agree completely. DW was found to be guilty in a jury trial, so the people have done their duty. If the jury got it wrong, it is now the burden of the guilty person to prove his innocense; and not the burden of the people to reproce the charges. DW, if he is innocent, has serveral means available. Obtain a reversal or new trial on appeal, find some new evidence that defense could not have reasonably known about prior to or during the previous trial and thus be granted a new trial. If evidence is discovered later that absolutely eliminates the possibility that DW committed the crimes, the prosecutor could bring a motion to the judge for a dismissal with prejudice (not likely even if the exonerating evidence is absolute. Most prosecutors are not so honorable that they would admit to having convicted an innonect person), or clemency from the governor.
As I have said, DW was found guilty by a jury and the state met its burden of proof. The burden to prove the jury got it wrong shifts completely to the defense, and it is a very difficult burden at that. At least DW has a means to eventually be exonerated. If he and his supporters fail to meet the heavy burden of actually proving he was wrongly convicted, any doubt as to the correctness of the jury verdict must be entirely dismissed by any reasonable man. If he was mistakenly convicted, I just hope the exonerating facts come to light sooner rather than later.