Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: truth_seeker
Probably a hung jury. There might be some who saw the bloodstains or the porn and decided guilty. People of that mindset are not easily swayed. There may be some like me who saw reasonable doubt and now see not guilty. The evidence has been presented (well, as much as Mudd would allow) and nothing convinced me of his guilt. If the evidence and testimony didn't convince me, I don't think another juror's opinion would.

Personally, I think it would be very difficult to change the mind of a person who has already seen reasonable doubt.

45 posted on 08/10/2002 10:17:02 AM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Krodg
Feldman should have but didn't:

Tested a jacket to see if DNA could make it through the drycleaning process.

Made a big deal of the dog hair everywhere.

Called Brooke L. Rowland to the stand.

Pointed out that the BLOOD was never conclusively tested.

46 posted on 08/10/2002 10:23:58 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson