>I could have found DAW guilty, but for the bug-guys and timeline.
The problem with the evidence against Westerfield is that most of it lends itself more towards pointing to innocence than guilt. ... I think you're preaching to the choir.
The state's evidence is pretty strong, taken whole, without looking left or right.
Only by ignoring the defense testimony could the jury come up with this verdict of guilty.
They did and they did.
I disagree with the verdict, and as I've said before "it'll still be a hung jury, if I were serving."
"Only by ignoring the defense testimony could the jury come up with this verdict of guilty."
I thought the prosecution had shot themselves in the foot enough times (family life style, crazy dogguy, and hours of proof that DW did exactly what he said he did that weekend) to create "reasonable doubt" without the defense. The jury had to ignore lots of prosecution testimony, like the two bug guys paid for by the state.