Replies

If not the Satanic Cult theory, maybe Geragos will eventually, as evidence piles up, pull the Durst Defense: "Scott killed Laci in self-defense and cut her up because he feared no one would believe her."

I just hope the case won't get another dimwitted and/or corrupt OJ/Durst jury.

I do too... Good morning.. ;o)

Hey, how about a radical idea? Let's empanel a jury, allow them to hear the admissible facts (as opposed to speculation, fervently wishing and supposition). Then we have the trial judge instruct that jury on the applicable law they must apply to the facts they've heard and the evidence admitted. After that, we allow the jury to deliberate and, on the solemn oath they've taken to "well and truly decide the constested issues," have them express the truth as closely as it can be found on those facts and the law supplemented by the common sense that the twelve of them brought into the courthouse.

We disgrace our Republic and reject the very liberties our populace has defended and for which many have sacrifice when we condemn and castigate a jury for its collective decision when we think the verdict is erroneous.

Juries and juors try their collective best to honor the oath they swore to before hearing any testimony. Anyone who protests otherwise and unilaterally announces that some publicly notorious defendant is guilty irrespective of the jury's lengthy deliberations has allowed his ego and fervent ideological wishes to replace our Nation's committment to our 200+ year tradition of justice. The state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty---the reverse is not true. If the state fails in its task, as they did this week out in Texas with the Durst trial, the jury would be disloyal to their oath if they interposed their personal belief - or abdicated their responsibilites based on the screams of the FR crowd or press. If the state doesn't do its job our Constitution demands adherence to the concept of presumption of not guilty.